Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-an

November 28, 2007 - August 28, 2008



      quality, and simplicity is just icing on the cake. We 
      all owe you a debt of gratitude.
      						Bruce M
      
      Can't go a single day without reading my lists.  Even 
      when I am overseas.
      						Terry W
      
      Best list ever. No comparison.
      						Johann J
      
      I get the digest for the two lists I subscribe to each 
      morning -- they go great with my coffee!  I can't tell 
      you how much I've learned from this great service... 
      
      						Mark S
      
      ..great lists, best on the Net!
      						Robert S
      
      It is very nice to enjoy a SPAM free list.
      						Ken L
      
      You run a great list. Makes a builder feel like there's 
      lots of help out there for the asking, and it's 
      appreciated.
      						Steve T
      
      The list is a very valuable resource.
      						Thomas S
      
      You run a good list.
      						James G
      
      Thanks for a great forum.
      						Jimmy Y
      
      Thanks for a well-maintained list(s).
      						Michael M
      
      Great job!  Worth every penny!
      						Stephen T
      
      Helps me learn and think about issues I didn't know I
      didn't know.
      						Martin H
      
      I find the list very useful...
      						Robert F
      
      What you do provides me with daily contact with a passion 
      of my life, aviation.
      						Wendell M
      
      ..the list it is very valuable information.
      						Dwayne H
      
      ..a great service to homebuilders.
      						Andrew H
      
      I have learned quite a lot from reading the Forums.  I 
      have been reading at the forum pages and I like the way 
      it works.
      						Ron L
      
      [The List] makes a builder feel like there's lots of 
      help out there for the asking, and it's appreciated.
      	
      						Steve T
      
      The list service many purposes, not the least of which is 
      motivation to join my fellow RVer in completing my project 
      and getting in the air.
      						John S
      
      Thanks for running a great site.  Its simplicity is its
      greatness.  Don't know how I would have been successful
      without it.
      						Timothy F
      
      ..terrific service to experimental and general aviation.
      
      						James F
      
      You have a well run operation.  I am happy to support what
      you do.		
      						Mark S
      
      A wonderful service to the GA community.
      						David M
      
      Great list - let's keep it ad-free!
      						Ben C
      
      They have been of great help, learning and friendship 
      for all the members Worldwide.  Great job of yours, a 
      little idea that grew really big and wonderful.
      
      						Gary G
      
      ..a thoroughly enjoyable and informative List.
      
      						John W
      
      A GREAT LEARNING TOOL!!
      						Dwayne Y
      
      This is a very well-run list and it is a valuable resource
      for the Pietenpol enthusiast.
      						Graham H
      
      Thanks for running this great site - helps those of
      us on the east of the pond keep in touch.
      						Malcolm H
      
      Thanks for the major contribution to my continuing
      education program.
      						Oldbob S
      
      I'm just getting started in the building process & find
      Matronics to be the most valuable site.
      						Scott D
      
      Without the information and encouragement from the listers 
      my project would have been sitting in the corner of my shop 
      collecting dust long ago.  Now it's almost ready for final 
      assemble and covering.
      						Edward G
      
      Great List.  No Ads, just RV-10 builders.  Keep it
      going.
      						Rick E
      
      Wonderful source of info for building & flying...
      
      						Graham H
      
      The Yak-list is a superb single source to get answers to
      questions on the operation of these aircraft.
      						Craig W
      
      This list is valuable to everyone and your hard work is 
      very much appreciated.
      						Jim S
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard T. Schaefer" <schaefer@rts-services.com>
Subject: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
I do not have the Install manual for the 430W or 530W. I do have the manual for Garnin 900 or the WAAS GPS conponent which is the GIA63W. The manual part number is 190-00719-00. The Install manuals are NOT on the Garmin Web site so you need to talk to a certified Garmin Installer to get the info. The manual states: Section 1.5 Wiring Considerations . RG400 or RG142 coaxial cable with 50 ohm nominal impedance and meeting applicable aviation regulations should be used for the installation. A typical maximum cable length for the GPS antenna is 40 feet. The installer should insure that the attenuation does not exceed 10 dB and falls between 3 dB and 7 dB inclusive at 1.5 GHz for the GIA63W. . I was told by a person who is certified for the 430W and 530W upgrades and installations that the above is also part of their manuals. As I mentioned earlier the spec is NOT a cable length spec but a loss requirement. You need to count the typical loss of two connectors and the coax cable loss itself. A 15 ft length of RG400 and good quality, properly terminated, connectors will place you near the 3DB minimum loss. They are REQUIRED to measure this! _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Sweet Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:50 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
From: "Paul Smith" <paulsmith(at)torreengineering.com>
Date: Nov 28, 2007
My GNS480 Installation manual states: "The cable loss from the GPS antenna shall not be greater than 7 dB. If SatCom is installed on the aircraft, the cable loss shall be 3 dB minimum to ensure proper interference rejection from SatCom." I understand this to mean that since I don't have SatCom I can make the cable as short as I want. It is preesently about 6 ft. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=149115#149115 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
Exactly. Those are the older GPS's that the Garmin rep and NAVCOM referenced as needing the specific length. That GPS is no longer supported by Garmin and THAT is the reason the manuals are not on Garmin web site. The newer GPS's as I posted and as Garmin stated do not have those limitations. The statements from the "person who is certified" is NOT in accord with Eric at NAVCOM ( has installed WAAS's in certified aircraft) or the Garmin tech rep. Seems there is some disconnect here; I'm betting on Garmin and Eric at NAVCOM. For those interested, call Garmin; 913-397-8200. The "person who is certified" (by the way, that is any certified avionics technician, AND........YIIPPEEE any builder of an experimental aircraft) perhaps should call Garmin to get updated. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard T. Schaefer To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:03 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length I do not have the Install manual for the 430W or 530W. I do have the manual for Garnin 900 or the WAAS GPS conponent which is the GIA63W. The manual part number is 190-00719-00. The Install manuals are NOT on the Garmin Web site so you need to talk to a certified Garmin Installer to get the info. The manual states: Section 1.5 Wiring Considerations . RG400 or RG142 coaxial cable with 50 ohm nominal impedance and meeting applicable aviation regulations should be used for the installation. A typical maximum cable length for the GPS antenna is 40 feet. The installer should insure that the attenuation does not exceed 10 dB and falls between 3 dB and 7 dB inclusive at 1.5 GHz for the GIA63W. . I was told by a person who is certified for the 430W and 530W upgrades and installations that the above is also part of their manuals. As I mentioned earlier the spec is NOT a cable length spec but a loss requirement. You need to count the typical loss of two connectors and the coax cable loss itself. A 15 ft length of RG400 and good quality, properly terminated, connectors will place you near the 3DB minimum loss. They are REQUIRED to measure this! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Sweet Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:50 AM To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne http://www.matronics.com/contributionhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?A vionics-Listhttp://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
I have the Garmin GNS-430W installation manual, dated 11/2006, and this is what is says... "...Once the antenna mounting position has been prepared, route the coax cable from the antenna to the 400W Series unit. Proper selection of coax cable and assembly of connectors is critical to GPS signal performance. The cable loss from the GPS antenna shall be between 3 dB and 7 dB in order to maintain proper rejection to interference signals. The coaxial connectors and adapters, such as TNC to BNC, add additional loss to the cable and should be considered when computing the cable loss. A typical loss of 0.2 dB can be used for each connection. The typical cable loss for 20 feet of RG-142B or RG-400 coax with a connector on each end is 4 dB. For very short runs, where the loss is less than 3dB, additional cable should be used to increase the loss to within 3 dB to 7 dB. This additional cable may be coiled, taking into account the minimum bend radius of the cable..." I also have the Garmin STC Upgrade manual for upgrading existing 400/500 series to a 400W/500W series and it says the following... "...The 400W Series Installation Manual and 500W Series Installation Manual require that the coaxial cable have a loss of 3 dB to 7 dB. If RG400 is used, 3 dB equates to a length of approximately 13 feet of RG400 cable with a connector on each end..." ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
OK, that is correct apparently as of the date of the publication of that manual. According to the Garmin rep (a different guy this time) I spoke with today, a minimum of 6.5 feet is required for proper attenuation; "it was 13 feet" , again according to this rep. Did not ask when that change was made. He also did not mention any required maximum length; I should have asked. I was a bit shocked in his response in view of the first tech guy's response. So the point is, most installations will meet this new requirement unless the antenna is mounted on the glare shield directly above the GPS panel mount. I could have misunderstood the first rep in that my question was about a 13 to 15 foot required coax length; his answer was not complete apparently. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length > <mike@ferrer-aviation.com> > > I have the Garmin GNS-430W installation manual, dated 11/2006, and this is > what is says... > > "...Once the antenna mounting position has been prepared, route the coax > cable from the antenna to the > 400W Series unit. Proper selection of coax cable and assembly of > connectors > is critical to GPS signal > performance. The cable loss from the GPS antenna shall be between 3 dB and > 7 > dB in order to maintain > proper rejection to interference signals. The coaxial connectors and > adapters, such as TNC to BNC, add > additional loss to the cable and should be considered when computing the > cable loss. A typical loss of 0.2 > dB can be used for each connection. The typical cable loss for 20 feet of > RG-142B or RG-400 coax with a > connector on each end is 4 dB. For very short runs, where the loss is less > than 3dB, additional cable > should be used to increase the loss to within 3 dB to 7 dB. This > additional > cable may be coiled, taking > into account the minimum bend radius of the cable..." > > I also have the Garmin STC Upgrade manual for upgrading existing 400/500 > series to a 400W/500W series and it says the following... > > "...The 400W Series Installation Manual and 500W Series Installation > Manual > require that > the coaxial cable have a loss of 3 dB to 7 dB. If RG400 is used, 3 dB > equates to a length > of approximately 13 feet of RG400 cable with a connector on each end..." > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
Just received this email from Garmin: Dear Wayne Sweet, Thank you for contacting Garmin International, The WAAS install manual requires a loss of 1.5 to 6.5 DB. 1.5 DB equates to about 6.5 feet of RG142B or RG400 with 2 connectors. With Best Regards, Walt Williams Field Service Engineer Garmin Aviation Product Support 913-397-8200 voice 913-397-8282 fax ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Sweet To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:50 AM Subject: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vincent Palermo <vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
STC upgrade Installation Manual-400w/500/ Series Manual Number 190-00357-06 Page 9 Rev. B In paragraph 2.5.4 the following notes are inserted the 400W series installation manual and 500W series installation series manual require that the coaxial cable have a loss of 3 db th 7 db. If RG400 cable is used, 3 db equates to a length of approximately 13 feet of RG400 cable with a connector on each end. To maintain integrity of the WAAS signal, the GPS antenna coaxial cable must have a minimum of two shields(E.G. RG400 OR RG142B). IF THE EXISTING COAXIAL CABLE IS SINGLE SHIELDED(E.G. RG58 OR RG59), THE ENTIRE CABLE MUST BE REPLACED EVEN IF IT MEETS THE OVERALL CABLE ATTENUATION REQUIREMENT. If the existing coaxial cable is terminated with a BNC connector and the GPS WAAS antenna being installed has a TNC connector, a TNC-to BNC adapter such as P?N 1-1478013-0 from AMP (Tyco) may be used. The adapter will add 0.5 db to the overall GPS antenna cable loss. THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT THE MANUAL STATES, BUT MY TYPING IS SORT OF LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY AND MY INDEX FINGERS ARE GETTING TIRED. The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all. Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: > For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, > please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech > rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did > require such attenuation in the coax; not now. > Wayne > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
So, I guess we can all agree, there IS a requirement for coax loss (i.e., coax length) although it sounds like they reduced the minimum from 13' to 6.5'. ----- Original Message ----- From: Wayne Sweet To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:12 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard T. Schaefer" <schaefer@rts-services.com>
Subject: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 28, 2007
You will be able to get away with just about anything for enroute GPS nav and VFR approaches. If you expect to use the GPS for the new precision approaches, and you do not want them flagged while you are still in the soup, you would be best served to follow all of the little details in the installation manual. Including those that talk about required DB loss in the GPS antenna path (needed for WAAS integrity), location of COM cabling and antennas in relation to GPS antennas, (Limit cross interference when communication while on approach), and potential low angle shadowing of airframe components between the GPS antenna from GPS satellites. _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vincent Palermo Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length STC upgrade Installation Manual-400w/500/ Series Manual Number 190-00357-06 Page 9 Rev. B In paragraph 2.5.4 the following notes are inserted the 400W series installation manual and 500W series installation series manual require that the coaxial cable have a loss of 3 db th 7 db. If RG400 cable is used, 3 db equates to a length of approximately 13 feet of RG400 cable with a connector on each end. To maintain integrity of the WAAS signal, the GPS antenna coaxial cable must have a minimum of two shields(E.G. RG400 OR RG142B). IF THE EXISTING COAXIAL CABLE IS SINGLE SHIELDED(E.G. RG58 OR RG59), THE ENTIRE CABLE MUST BE REPLACED EVEN IF IT MEETS THE OVERALL CABLE ATTENUATION REQUIREMENT. If the existing coaxial cable is terminated with a BNC connector and the GPS WAAS antenna being installed has a TNC connector, a TNC-to BNC adapter such as P?N 1-1478013-0 from AMP (Tyco) may be used. The adapter will add 0.5 db to the overall GPS antenna cable loss. THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT THE MANUAL STATES, BUT MY TYPING IS SORT OF LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY AND MY INDEX FINGERS ARE GETTING TIRED. The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all. Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna
Date: Nov 29, 2007
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
I talked to a tech/engineer at Garmin. =C2-The spec has been changed to a minimum of 1 1/2 db loss=C2-(there is that much loss in a 90 degree adapte r.), maximum of 6 db. -----Original Message----- From: Vincent Palermo <vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com> Sent: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 4:18 am Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna I believe that Garmin is=C2-referring=C2-to the waas upgrades for the 43 0/530 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 cab le. 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. =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> 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.=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 in stallation instructions.=C2- Loop the excess wire in as large a loop as pr acticably possible.=C2- Try to avoid bundling with Xmtr. Coax. =C2- Noel =C2- =C2- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-s erver(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 =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- 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! href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cont ribution href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matroni cs.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________________________________________________ .com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0005000000 0003 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 29, 2007
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Quote "THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT THE MANUAL STATES, BUT MY TYPING IS SORT OF LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY AND MY INDEX FINGERS ARE GETTING TIRED. The bottom l ine is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmi n came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all." Question: =C2-When you say, "The bottom line is that this is how I have in stalled dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all." ------ so, to what method do you refer? Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please li st references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CU RRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/Navig ator?Avionics-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href=" http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com ================== ________________________________________________________________________ .com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0005000000 0003 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Just Two Days Left...
Dear Listers, There are just a couple days left for this year's List Fund Raiser. Over all, participation has been good, but things have been pretty slow this week for some reason. If you've been putting off making your Contribution until the last minute, this is it! The last minute, that is... :-) Please remember that there isn't any sort of commercial advertising on the Lists and the *only* means of keeping these Lists running is through your Contributions during this Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Vincent Palermo <vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 29, 2007
Not sure what the question is........ Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 29, 2007, at 1:37 AM, teamgrumman(at)aol.com wrote: > Quote "THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT THE MANUAL STATES, BUT MY TYPING IS > SORT OF LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY AND MY INDEX FINGERS ARE GETTING > TIRED. The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens > of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is > how we have done them all." > > Question: When you say, "The bottom line is that this is how I have > installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the > upgrades and this is how we have done them all." > > ------ so, to what method do you refer? > > > Vincent Palermo > vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com > > > On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: > >> For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, >> please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech >> rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did >> require such attenuation in the coax; not now. >> Wayne >> http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List >> "http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com >> "http://forums.matronics.com >> > > ">http://forums.matronics============= > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 29, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
When Mr. FAA man comes and signs my paperwork, I am certifying that I have installed the device PER THE MANUAL; and the manual says I need to install a certain length of coax with a certain value of attenuation between point A and point B, I legally have to follow what it says in the manual... Becuase when some moron crashes flying beyond his capabilities below minimums, and his wife comes to sue our shop, I need to assure that I have done my job 100%.... The only time I ever deviate from what the installation manual says is when I have information from Walt Williams or George Koelch or one of the other garmin tech guys, AND when I install it PER THE MANUAL and for some reason it doesnt work right for a certain application in a certain airplane, then and only then do I modify what the install manual says and I attach info that I recieve to my work order and It lives on forever in my files at our repair station. I dont understand the mentality of "how cheap can I be" by using the wrong coax or coax is too short... Is it reall that hard to install it per what the manufacturer says in their publications? 99.99% of the time it works... so why are we questioning what they are saying? ----- Original Message ----- From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length Quote "THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT THE MANUAL STATES, BUT MY TYPING IS SORT OF LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY AND MY INDEX FINGERS ARE GETTING TIRED. The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all." Question: When you say, "The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all." ------ so, to what method do you refer? Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne http://www.matronics.com/contribution 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 http://wrget="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics===== ========= ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: [Please Read] - Last Official Day of List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Its November 30th and that means a couple of things. Its my 44th birthday for one, but I'm trying to forget about that... But, it also means that its that last official day of the Matronics Email List Fund Raiser! If you been drooling over one of the really sweet free gifts that are available this year with a qualifying Contribution, then now is the time to jump on one!! If you've been meaning to make a Contribution, but just keep putting it off, then now is the time! I will be posting the List of Contributors in a few days, so you'll probably want to be known as a person that supported the Lists! Rather than the guy that, er, ah, forgot (or whatever)... :-) I want to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution so far this year in support of our Lists. It is your generosity that keeps this operation a float and I don't ever forget it. Hopefully everyone will feel the same. The List Contribution page is fast and easy. Please support our habit by making your Contribution right now: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you all in advance! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Antenna Length
Date: Nov 30, 2007
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
What you say has some merit. =C2-And, in the ideal world, the engineers id ea of a generic installation fits all applications. =C2-In the ideal world , the best place to mount the GPS antenna is always on the top of the plane. =C2-In the real world, my experience with the FAA and certifying STCs has taught me that the only way to get something certified is to write installa tion instructions so that any idiot can install the STC and the installation will work. =C2-In most cases, that is sufficient. However. =C2-This is not always the case. =C2-For example: =C2-Install ation on Grumman-American aircraft (1) The turtle-deck on a Lynx/Traveler/Cheetah/Tiger isn't horizontal in fli ght. =C2- (2) If mounted on the turtle-deck, about 180 degrees of forward horizon is b locked (3) The GPS antenna cannot be mounted on the canopy. =C2- (4) The location of the comm antenna on the=C2-turtle-deck=C2- =C2-=C2- =C2- and mounting the GPS antenna 2 feet away from the antenn a,=C2- =C2-=C2- =C2- puts the GPS antenna either right under the canopy when it's open or =C2-=C2- =C2- alongside the dorsal fin near the vertical stabilizer wh ere it is blocked. =C2- So, the solution: mount the GPS antennal on the glareshield. =C2-This resu lts in (1) The GPS antenna being horizontal in flight (2) The GPS antenna being visible to the horizon about 300 degrees horizonta lly (3) The GPS antenna being visible to the sky about 160 degrees vertically True, the GPS antenna doesn't see all of the horizon or all of the sky, but. =C2-I've had really good performance with my GPS antennas mounted on the glareshield. Most people are happy to blindly follow any instruction given them and care nothing about why (or how) the instructions came to be. =C2-After doing ba sic research in combustion instabilities for=C2-22 years, I've become accu stomed to not accepting 'that's-how-we've-always-done-it' as an answer. I asked the question, and called Garmin, because I wanted to know the answer . =C2-I wanted to know if the GPS unit would really fail / burn-up / explo de / decapitate / melt / make the wings fall off / =C2-or whatever, if the antenna were mounted anywhere but where the instructions say. =C2- I was told by Tim, at Garmin, that he'd rather see the antenna mounted on the glar eshield (so that it could see more of the horizon) than on the turtle-deck a t 7 to 10 degrees from the horizontal. =C2-He suggested coiling up 6 feet of cable to get 1 1/2 db loss. =C2-The next step is to investigate what th e total loss in the cable actually is (at various lengths) with BNC/TNC conn ectors. =C2-1 1/2 db is easy. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Reiche <reichec(at)verizon.net> Sent: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 4:03 am Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length When Mr. FAA man comes and signs my paperwork, I am certifying that I have installed the device PER THE MANUAL; and the manual says=C2-I need to install a certain length of coax with a certain value of attenuation between point A and point B, I legally have to follow what it sa ys in the manual...=C2- Becuase when some moron crashes flying beyond his capabilities below minimums, and his wife comes to sue our shop, I need to assure that I have done my job 100%....=C2-=C2- The only time I ever dev iate from what the installation manual says is when I have information from Walt Williams or George Koelch or one of the other garmin tech guys,=C2- AND wh en I install it PER THE MANUAL and for some reason it doesnt work right for a cer tain application in a certain airplane, then and only then do I modify what the install manual says and I attach info that I recieve to my work order and It lives on forever in my files at our repair station.=C2-=C2- I dont understand the mentality of "how cheap can I be" by using the wrong coax or coax is too short... Is it reall that hard to install it per what the manufacture r says in their publications?=C2- 99.99% of the time it works... so why are we questioning what they are saying? =C2- ----- Original Message ----- From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 1:37 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GPS Antenna Length Quote "THERE IS A LOT MORE THAT THE MANUAL STATES, BUT MY TYPING IS SORT OF LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY AND MY INDEX FINGERS ARE GETTING TIRED. The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have d one them all." Question: =C2-When you say, "The bottom line is that this is how I have installed dozens of WAAS upgrades since Garmin came out with the upgrades and this is how we have done them all." ------ so, to what method do you refer? Vincent Palermo vpalermo(at)tampabay.rr.com On Nov 28, 2007, at 5:50 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: For those who assert that there is a minimum WAAS GPS coax length, please list references. Both NAVCOM is Visalia, Ca and Garmin tech rep say no such CURRENT requirement exists. Older Garmin GPS 's did require such attenuation in the coax; not now. Wayne http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/Navig ator?Avionics-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List href=" http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com http://wrget="_blank" href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums .matronics============== 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 ________________________________________________________________________ .com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0005000000 0003 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Transponder King KX76a
From: "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Dec 02, 2007
I have a separate wire (pin 2) for my transponder dimmer light. I do not want to hook it up to a dimmer but would like it to light up when I turn the unit on. I do not have a pin out for my transponder and wounder if someone could tell me how to correct this problem. Thanks Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150008#150008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 02, 2007
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
If you hook it up to your power source (bus, with a 1A fuse holder just to protect it) make sure that the kt76 is wired for 14v lighting. I know that these units run off 14V and work through a dropping resistor when I install them in 28v airplanes, but I beleive that the lighting circuit can run on either depending where you put grounds. Or you could configure it for 28V lights and it would them be half bright all the time. Im not sure. Maybe some fiddling with a multi-pole switch that could be configured to brighten or dim the backlighting inside the unit. Having it light up when you turn on the unit cant really be done(if you mean the OFF/STBY/ON/ALT switch)...... well just have the lighting power come after the avionics master or whatever.... just some ideas. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com> Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:01 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder King KX76a > > > I have a separate wire (pin 2) for my transponder dimmer light. I do not > want to hook it up to a dimmer but would like it to light up when I turn > the unit on. I do not have a pin out for my transponder and wounder if > someone could tell me how to correct this problem. > > Thanks > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150008#150008 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
From: "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Dec 03, 2007
Thanks Charles, Not quite what I'm looking for. I don't care if it doesn't have a dimmer feature. I just want it to light up when I turn it on. On my Icom A200 I was able to connect the panel light dimmer wire to a powered terminal (out of the back of the terminal plug and looped back in to a + terminal) and get the lights to turn on when I powered the radio up. I'm quite sure I can do the same with my transponder but need assistance with the pin out. Thank you for your reply. Mike Hoffman Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150139#150139 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Dewhirst" <idewhirst(at)indtechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
Date: Dec 03, 2007
You can find a pinout diagram here http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KT76A-76C-78A.pdf Not sure that will help however, as there is no switched output on a KT series transponder, the encoder is always on. -- Ian -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Hoffman Sent: December 3, 2007 4:30 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a --> Thanks Charles, Not quite what I'm looking for. I don't care if it doesn't have a dimmer feature. I just want it to light up when I turn it on. On my Icom A200 I was able to connect the panel light dimmer wire to a powered terminal (out of the back of the terminal plug and looped back in to a + terminal) and get the lights to turn on when I powered the radio up. I'm quite sure I can do the same with my transponder but need assistance with the pin out. Thank you for your reply. Mike Hoffman Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150139#150139 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
Date: Dec 03, 2007
He didn't say anything about the encoder, just the lighting. From the pinout, for 14 volts put power to pin 2 and ground to pin 3 to get full bright. Use a dimmer on the power if desired. Regards, Greg Young > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Ian Dewhirst > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:41 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a > > --> > > You can find a pinout diagram here > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KT76A-76C-78A.pdf > > Not sure that will help however, as there is no switched > output on a KT series transponder, the encoder is always on. > > -- Ian > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Mike Hoffman > Sent: December 3, 2007 4:30 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a > > --> > > Thanks Charles, > > Not quite what I'm looking for. I don't care if it doesn't > have a dimmer feature. I just want it to light up when I turn it on. > > On my Icom A200 I was able to connect the panel light dimmer > wire to a powered terminal (out of the back of the terminal > plug and looped back in to a + terminal) and get the lights > to turn on when I powered the radio up. I'm quite sure I can > do the same with my transponder but need assistance with the pin out. > > Thank you for your reply. > > Mike Hoffman > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Dewhirst" <idewhirst(at)indtechnology.com>
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
Date: Dec 03, 2007
I believe the gentleman wants the transponder to light up when he turns on the transponder, not the master switch. The reference to the encoder is that some transponders switch the encoder power, unfortunately not the King. Earlier Mike Hoffman wrote: "On my Icom A200 I was able to connect the panel light dimmer wire to a powered terminal (out of the back of the terminal plug and looped back in to a + terminal) and get the lights to turn on when I powered the radio up. I'm quite sure I can do the same with my transponder but need assistance with the pin out." Cheers -- Ian -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young Sent: December 3, 2007 2:13 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a He didn't say anything about the encoder, just the lighting. From the pinout, for 14 volts put power to pin 2 and ground to pin 3 to get full bright. Use a dimmer on the power if desired. Regards, Greg Young ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel R. C. Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
Date: Dec 03, 2007
How about putting power in to pin 2 and looping pin 3 to pin 12?? You may have to put a resistor across 2-3 to allow enough current to operate the XPNDR. Just thinking... You could also wire the lights in parallel with the transponder (or form pin 12) and just pull the breaker to turn off the transponder. That way when you turn on the breaker, the lights will also come on. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list- > server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg Young > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:43 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a > > > He didn't say anything about the encoder, just the lighting. From the > pinout, for 14 volts put power to pin 2 and ground to pin 3 to get full > bright. Use a dimmer on the power if desired. > > Regards, > Greg Young > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > > Of Ian Dewhirst > > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:41 AM > > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a > > > > --> > > > > You can find a pinout diagram here > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KT76A-76C-78A.pdf > > > > Not sure that will help however, as there is no switched > > output on a KT series transponder, the encoder is always on. > > > > -- Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > > Of Mike Hoffman > > Sent: December 3, 2007 4:30 AM > > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Transponder King KX76a > > > > --> > > > > Thanks Charles, > > > > Not quite what I'm looking for. I don't care if it doesn't > > have a dimmer feature. I just want it to light up when I turn it on. > > > > On my Icom A200 I was able to connect the panel light dimmer > > wire to a powered terminal (out of the back of the terminal > > plug and looped back in to a + terminal) and get the lights > > to turn on when I powered the radio up. I'm quite sure I can > > do the same with my transponder but need assistance with the pin out. > > > > Thank you for your reply. > > > > Mike Hoffman > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder King KX76a
From: "Mike Hoffman" <mhoffman9(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Date: Dec 04, 2007
Thanks to every one that replied. You are correct in what I am looking to do. I would like the panel lights for the transponder to turn on when I turn on the switch that turns on the transponder. I guess I was looking for a switched output that may not exist (that would be to easy wouldn't it). I will get busy with my meter and a probe and see if I any of the suggestions Will work. Thank you Mike Hoffman Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150318#150318 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 06, 2007
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Matronics List Fund Raiser - 2007 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, I would like to thank everyone that made a Contribution in support of the Lists this year! It was really nice to hear all great comments people had regarding the Lists! As I have said many times before, running these Lists is a labor of love. Your generosity during the List Fund Raiser underscores the great sentiments people have made regarding the Lists. If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser please feel free to do so. The great List Fund Raiser gifts will be available on the Contribution site for just a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution and get your great gift! Once again, the URL for the Contribution web site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of discounted merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated! And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2007 List of Contributors current as of 12/6/07! Have a look at this list of names as these are the people that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you enough for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser! THANK YOU! http://www.matronics.com/loc/2007.html I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and hope to have everything out by the end of the month. In most cases, gifts will be shipped via US Postal Service. Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VHF pinout Badin-Crouzet
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Dec 06, 2007
Anybody from europe? know the pinouts for VHF Com Badin-Crouzet BCR720E please? I have one which works fine in receive but I lack the pinouts for using it to transmit. There is a label says "interphone" on the radio so it may not interface directly with aircraft mic / ptt. being a nice radio I hate to just use it as a hangar monitor. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=150938#150938 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: BMA engine pod for sale
From: "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Date: Dec 21, 2007
Mounted in plane but never hooked up or used. $750 Costs $995 new from Blue Mountain. PM or E mail me or call 601-810-7401 -------- Milt 2003 F1 Rocket 2006 Radial Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153544#153544 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DENNCO2(at)aol.com
Date: Dec 22, 2007
Subject: Re: BMA engine pod for sale
In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:22:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com writes: Mounted in plane but never hooked up or used. $750 Costs $995 new from Blue Mountain. PM or E mail me or call 601-810-7401 Is this similar to the RMI engine monitoring system? That is what I have now but not installed. I also have the BM efis light plus unit ......... not installed. I wonder what the benefits to the BMA engine pod? ~Den~ Bothell, WA **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: BMA engine pod for sale
From: "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Date: Dec 23, 2007
[quote="DENNCO2(at)aol.com"]In a message dated 12/21/2007 10:22:38 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com writes: > Mounted in plane but never hooked up or used. > > $750 Costs $995 new from Blue Mountain. > PM or E mail me or call 601-810-7401 Is this similar to the RMI engine monitoring system? That is what I have now but not installed. I also have the BM efis light plus unit ......... not installed. I wonder what the benefits to the BMA engine pod? ~Den~ Bothell, WA See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) and easy ways to stay in shape (http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aoltop00030000000003) for winter. > [b] -------- Milt 2003 F1 Rocket 2006 Radial Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=153796#153796 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Merlin" <phil.merlin(at)skynet.be>
Subject: EI capacitive fuel gauge
Date: Dec 30, 2007
Hello Community, Due to an upgrade to a D120, I'm selling an EI capacitive fuel gauge - never used, price 50% of a new one. More interesting for European builders (customs $$$ :-( Season's Greetings, Philippe RV9A - Brussels ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 02, 2008
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: GPS antenna tripping breaker
I run into a possible antenna related problem when testing my Northstar M3 GPS. First, let me describe my set up. My M3 is wired to MD40 CDI, Narco AR850, and an USB RS-485 converter to a PC. During my test, I connected a Trimble GPS antenna (P/N 16248-20) via an SMA-to-BNC adapter. I used the Trimble antenna because that was what I have on hand although I knew it is not an approved antenna for M3. My M3 did acquire GPS signals OK, and outputed GPS position to my PC. However, after few minutes, my ship power 3A breaker tripped. I felt the power wire and the breaker, and they are HOT. I re-wired my setup to a seprate 12V battery via a 5A fuse, and it again tripped the fuse. And the M3 felt very hot like a light bulb. I then tried a 10A fuse & it managed to run for 15 min without tripping the fuse. I know I should have measue the amp but did not because I don't have a amp meter that will handle the current. I let the M3 cooled then use new 3A fuses for the rest of my test. I found the M3 would run for more than 30 min without tripping the 3A fuse and not getting hot when the antenna was disconnected. I intend to buy an M3 compatible antenna for my install, but I want to confirm that the Trimble antenna, and not the M3, was the cause of hight current draw. Any idea of how can I confirm that short of sending my M3 to an avionice shop for a yellow tag? Thanks in advance. Robin Hou --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 03, 2008
From: "D Wysong" <hdwysong(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GPS antenna tripping breaker
> I intend to buy an M3 compatible antenna for my install, but I want to confirm > that the Trimble antenna, and not the M3, was the cause of hight current draw. > Any idea of how can I confirm that short of sending my M3 to an avionice shop > for a yellow tag? Warm wires/fuses come before smoke/fire. Stop while your M3 is still alive, Robin. :-) The problem is likely w/ the antenna since you can run the unit on the bench with the antenna disconnected without blowing fuses and popping breakers. The installation manual is rather adamant about using one of the approved antennas (AN120, AN135, AN155) for reasons you've discovered. 1. Put the Trimble antenna away. 2. Measure the voltage on the antenna cable coming from the M3 between the center conductor and the outer connector and make sure you see 5V. 3. Order a COMANT CI 405-200 (AN120 equivalent) and be done with it. NOTE --- If you see 12V on the antenna cable your M3 is configured for use with an AN155. You can change an internal M3 jumper for 5V or buy an AN155. Regardless, don't do any more testing with the Trimble antenna. D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Hill" <hill36447(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Mic noise
Date: Jan 05, 2008
After following several discussions on poor transmission quality due to cockpit noise, I believe I have the same problem; clear reception, but my transmissions are somewhat unclear when at high throttle. I have a Garmin 300XL, and have gone into the setup menu where there is a page called dB, which I think could be gain for the mic? Lowering the value did not seem to help, however, and I cannot find any reference to this page in the installation manual. Anyone have a similar problem with this radio, and have they found a fix? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 05, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Mic noise
How is your mic audio in the sidetone? Is It scratchy? Could be a dirty mic jack or plug on the headset cable. ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Hill To: rv-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 10:40 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Mic noise After following several discussions on poor transmission quality due to cockpit noise, I believe I have the same problem; clear reception, but my transmissions are somewhat unclear when at high throttle. I have a Garmin 300XL, and have gone into the setup menu where there is a page called dB, which I think could be gain for the mic? Lowering the value did not seem to help, however, and I cannot find any reference to this page in the installation manual. Anyone have a similar problem with this radio, and have they found a fix? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Manual for S-Tec Remote Gyro/Fluxgate
Date: Jan 06, 2008
Does anybody have an install manual to sell or share for the S-Tec Remote Gyro P/N 6444 and Fluxgate P/N 6446? Essco doesn't have it and I can't get an answer from S-Tec. Thanks, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 06, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Manual for S-Tec Remote Gyro/Fluxgate
S-Tec sold that compass system to PSI http://www.pacificsouthwestinstruments.com/ >From an avionics guy point of view, It is a horrible system and requires overhauls more frequently than say a kcs55 or NSD system. You might consider the solid state SG102 replacement for the KG102 that has just come from Sandel. If you have this unit and it hasnt run in a few years or been overhauled recently what you will find is that the gyro will hunt around alot back and forth upon startup not able to find a stablized heading becuase the grease on the gymbals in the remote gyro has turned to sludge. The operating of the bearings in the unit actually makes heat that will "melt" the sludge and allow the unit to make it into a normal operating mode.... but obviously this is no good. S-Tec started using a different grease in the gyro right before they sold the line to PSI. The gyro should be ready to go from a cold start within 30 seconds really and if it is hunting wildly and takes longer than that, your remote gyro really needs a repair or overhaul. If you still need the drawings I can see what I can dig up at work. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Curry To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:43 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Manual for S-Tec Remote Gyro/Fluxgate Does anybody have an install manual to sell or share for the S-Tec Remote Gyro P/N 6444 and Fluxgate P/N 6446? Essco doesn't have it and I can't get an answer from S-Tec. Thanks, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve" <sham(at)indy.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mic noise
Date: Jan 06, 2008
I am in need of two mics for a DRE 6000 and a David Clark headset. I have a mic hungry puppy. Does anyone know a source for headset mics?? Thanks Steve Ham ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Mic noise
Date: Jan 07, 2008
1/7/2008 Hello Steve, These folks would be happy to sell you one: http://www.headsetsinc.com/options_and_access.htm Also the Aircraft Spruce catalog has many listed: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/ 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ----------------------------------------------- From: "Steve" <sham(at)indy.rr.com> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Mic noise I am in need of two mics for a DRE 6000 and a David Clark headset. I have a mic hungry puppy. Does anyone know a source for headset mics?? Thanks Steve Ham ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve" <sham(at)indy.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Mic noise
Date: Jan 07, 2008
Thanks..... Steve Ham ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 8:36 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Mic noise > > 1/7/2008 > > Hello Steve, These folks would be happy to sell you one: > > http://www.headsetsinc.com/options_and_access.htm > > Also the Aircraft Spruce catalog has many listed: > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/ > > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > ----------------------------------------------- > > From: "Steve" <sham(at)indy.rr.com> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Mic noise > > > I am in need of two mics for a DRE 6000 and a David Clark headset. I > have a mic hungry puppy. Does anyone know a source for headset mics?? > Thanks Steve Ham > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Manual for S-Tec Remote Gyro/Fluxgate
Date: Jan 07, 2008
After receiving Charlie's email, I looked into the Sandel SG102 and I agree that any AHRS system would probably be better than a conventional, motor-driven gyro. Any thoughts out there on what AHRS are currently available for certified aircraft and which unit would provide the best bang for the buck? Don -----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, January 06, 2008 10:06 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Manual for S-Tec Remote Gyro/Fluxgate S-Tec sold that compass system to PSI http://www.pacificsouthwestinstruments.com/ >From an avionics guy point of view, It is a horrible system and requires overhauls more frequently than say a kcs55 or NSD system. You might consider the solid state SG102 replacement for the KG102 that has just come from Sandel. If you have this unit and it hasnt run in a few years or been overhauled recently what you will find is that the gyro will hunt around alot back and forth upon startup not able to find a stablized heading becuase the grease on the gymbals in the remote gyro has turned to sludge. The operating of the bearings in the unit actually makes heat that will "melt" the sludge and allow the unit to make it into a normal operating mode.... but obviously this is no good. S-Tec started using a different grease in the gyro right before they sold the line to PSI. The gyro should be ready to go from a cold start within 30 seconds really and if it is hunting wildly and takes longer than that, your remote gyro really needs a repair or overhaul. If you still need the drawings I can see what I can dig up at work. Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Curry <mailto:currydon(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 6:43 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Manual for S-Tec Remote Gyro/Fluxgate Does anybody have an install manual to sell or share for the S-Tec Remote Gyro P/N 6444 and Fluxgate P/N 6446? Essco doesn't have it and I can't get an answer from S-Tec. Thanks, 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 href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources
Folks, I have three inputs that should be 'unswitched': AOA warning Traffic Alert AF3400EM Engine monitor My audio panel (PS Engineering PMA7000MS) has two unswitched inputs. Can I tie two of the sources to one input? I think there would only be an issue if they both went off at teh same time. Alternatively, I can put the third to a switched input and leave the switch on. Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Strobe discharge pop-pop-pop
I'm doing some system testing and I can hear a very slight pop each time my strobes discharge through my headset. It doesn't break the squelch or prevent me from hearing the radios - or stereo for that matter. No whining on the charge cycles and I gotta listen carefully to catch the pop - but it's there. Is this strictly due to the high-voltage discharge in a 12V system? Is there something I can due to get rid of this? Or should I take gladness that it's faint, doesn't interfere, it's as good as it gets, have a coke and a smile and.......? Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources
Put a 510 ohm resistor inline with each input before it gets to the back of the audio panel on the ones you will be paralelling together. device 1 - 510 ohm- \ -------unswitched input device 2 - 510 ohm- / the resistors protect the other device's audio amp. Good luck Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:16 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources > > > Folks, > > I have three inputs that should be 'unswitched': > AOA warning > Traffic Alert > AF3400EM Engine monitor > > My audio panel (PS Engineering PMA7000MS) has two unswitched inputs. > Can I tie two of the sources to one input? I think there would only be an > issue if they both went off at teh same time. > Alternatively, I can put the third to a switched input and leave the > switch on. > > Thanks, > Ralph > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS
From: "Sully" <mr.sully(at)tx.rr.com>
Date: Jan 13, 2008
I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy an EFIS/One from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts I've seen seem to be several months old. Any current info will appreciated. Sully -------- Sully RV-7 In-work Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157916#157916 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS
Date: Jan 14, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
I've never owned one, but I've never read anything but negative commentary. My suspicion is elevated by the fact that they haven't had a product release in years and their website never seems to receive updates. That may indicate a lack of funding for development, laziness or cutbacks depending on the situation. Personally I stick with the mainstream candidates which have a chance of being around tomorrow. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sully Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 11:17 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy an EFIS/One from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts I've seen seem to be several months old. Any current info will appreciated. Sully -------- Sully RV-7 In-work Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157916#157916 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS
Date: Jan 14, 2008
Sully, I work with Grand Rapids, Advanced Flight Systems, Chelton, Dynon, EI, Honeywell, Performance Aircraft Engines, MT propeller, ECI, Light Speed, JPI, Trutrak, NAT, and Blue Mountain. I deal with all these companies directly not through third parties. Blue Mountain out of the list above is a 0 out of 10. Out of the list they are the worst by far, both in product and customer support. Mike Larkin Email me for details: mikelarkinairshows(at)cox.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sully Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 9:17 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS I wanted to find out if anyone has recent experience with performance and support from Blue Mountain. I have an opportunity to buy an EFIS/One from someone who hasn't been satisfied, but most of the negative posts I've seen seem to be several months old. Any current info will appreciated. Sully -------- Sully RV-7 In-work Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=157916#157916 10/2/2007 11:10 AM 10/2/2007 11:10 AM ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2008
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Removing D-Sub sockets
Fellow tronners.... Is there a trick to removing D-Sub sockets from the connector? I have the tool from radio shack (I have actually destroyed three of them) for the standard sockets. My trouble is that I can't get the tool to go past the base of the pin to where it would release the 'holding' fingers in the connector assembly. It has to be either the tool or my gorilla fisted technique..... every once in a while, I can wiggle while holding my tongue right, and it'll go in to allow me to extract the socket. I have two sockets remaining - I need to get a new tool - is there a better one? Thanks, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2008
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources
Will 1/4 watt be sufficient? -----Original Message----- >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net> >Sent: Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Audio panel #inputs vs #sources > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" >> >> >>Bob, >> >>I have heard 100ohm, 470ohm, and 510ohm. I'm guessing that either will >>function properly and that the 470 and 510's will decrease the volume more >>in addition to preventing the backfeed. >> >>Ralph > > Astute supposition sir. > > Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) > > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS
Date: Jan 14, 2008
It sounds like you need to hit the refresh button on your browser. Blue Mountain has developed several new products and new versions of the old products in recent years. Terry RV-8A wiring, BMA EFIS/one -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS < My suspicion is elevated by the fact that they haven't had a product release in years and their website never seems to receive updates. That may indicate a lack of funding for development, laziness or cutbacks depending on the situation.> ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS
Date: Jan 14, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
No thanks, I have no interest in using their proprietary AP with that setup regardless of what screen size they slap on it. As I said, I've yet to hear anything good coming out of that camp. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:45 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS It sounds like you need to hit the refresh button on your browser. Blue Mountain has developed several new products and new versions of the old products in recent years. Terry RV-8A wiring, BMA EFIS/one -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS < My suspicion is elevated by the fact that they haven't had a product release in years and their website never seems to receive updates. That may indicate a lack of funding for development, laziness or cutbacks depending on the situation.> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS
Date: Jan 14, 2008
Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what you were talking about. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:05 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS No thanks, I have no interest in using their proprietary AP with that setup regardless of what screen size they slap on it. As I said, I've yet to hear anything good coming out of that camp. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Watson Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:45 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS It sounds like you need to hit the refresh button on your browser. Blue Mountain has developed several new products and new versions of the old products in recent years. Terry RV-8A wiring, BMA EFIS/one -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:30 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS < My suspicion is elevated by the fact that they haven't had a product release in years and their website never seems to receive updates. That may indicate a lack of funding for development, laziness or cutbacks depending on the situation.> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 14, 2008
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
C'mon Terry, stop muddying the water with facts... Dick Terry Watson wrote: > > Sorry. I thought you wanted to know what you were talking about. > > Terry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg(at)pjm.com > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 9:05 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS > > > No thanks, I have no interest in using their proprietary AP with that > setup regardless of what screen size they slap on it. As I said, I've > yet to hear anything good coming out of that camp. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Watson > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:45 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS > > > It sounds like you need to hit the refresh button on your browser. Blue > Mountain has developed several new products and new versions of the old > products in recent years. > > Terry > RV-8A wiring, BMA EFIS/one > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > longg(at)pjm.com > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:30 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Blue Mountain EFIS > > > < My suspicion is elevated by the fact that they haven't had a product > release in years and their website never seems to receive updates. That > may indicate a lack of funding for development, laziness or cutbacks > depending on the situation.> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug20310" <N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Removing D-Sub sockets
Date: Jan 14, 2008
Not sure what the RS tool looks like - I have used those from B&C in Wichita. They are pretty fragile, so ordered two. I have found that removing the tool and moving it 180 degrees to the other side of the wire sometimes helps, as does some wiggling as you found out. Sometimes, one is simply able to rotate the tool 180 degrees alongside the wire while it remains in the socket. Doug ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 7:34 Subject: Avionics-List: Removing D-Sub sockets > > > Fellow tronners.... > > Is there a trick to removing D-Sub sockets from the connector? > > I have the tool from radio shack (I have actually destroyed three of them) > for the standard sockets. My trouble is that I can't get the tool to go > past the base of the pin to where it would release the 'holding' fingers > in the connector assembly. > > It has to be either the tool or my gorilla fisted technique..... every > once in a while, I can wiggle while holding my tongue right, and it'll go > in to allow me to extract the socket. > > I have two sockets remaining - I need to get a new tool - is there a > better one? > > Thanks, > Ralph > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 15, 2008
From: "Garlick, Bill (W.D.)" <bgarlick(at)ford.com>
Hi I'd appreciate some comments or advice from avionics installers who half-understand what they're doing? (My limits are that I need to follow manufacturers' installation instructions and wiring diagrams to the letter; and if something doesn't quite work I'm at a complete loss!...Although if any advice was something like connecting a xxx ohm resistor in parallel in a particular circuit, I could manage to cope with that). I have just installed an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver coupled with a PS Engineering PM501 Intercom in a newly built Vans RV7, and when I press the PTT switch I get a lot of noise feeding-back into the earphones as I'm talking... The Air Traffic Controllers say they're reading me "fives", and the noise doesn't occur when Receiving or when using the voice-activated intercom. The noise isn't in time with the engine, but is constant whilst transmitting and sounds like wind blowing across the microphone. Any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks BillG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 15, 2008
What you have described sounds a lot like alternator whine coming into your audio panel. If it is, you should be able to remove it by installing a choke in the power line to your PN501. A choke is simply a coil and a capacitor, in parallel, tuned to remove alternator frequency sound. It is wired in series in the B+ line of your audio panel and it stops the noise which is coming in on that wire. Where to get the choke depends on the registration of your plane GA will have to get it from an avionics shop, others, from an electronics or amateur radio outlet. A lot of AB owners can get a lot of free help from local amateur radio ops. They really know what they are doing form a practical point. Also check the wires between your transceiver and audio panel have the shield grounded only at one end. The last piece of advice is the one that is a pain... When you get your system working draw up a little block interconnect diagram of exactly what you have there so if you have future problems you will have an idea where to look. You can start on that interconnect diagram ASAP even before installing a choke. Better avionics shops won't put a finger on an installation until they have finished their interconnect diagram. Doing that makes for less mistakes in installation and much less problems. Things to include in the interconnect diagram are wire connecters and fuse locations. Hope this helps Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garlick, Bill (W.D.) Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:10 AM Subject: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Hi I'd appreciate some comments or advice from avionics installers who half-understand what they're doing? (My limits are that I need to follow manufacturers' installation instructions and wiring diagrams to the letter; and if something doesn't quite work I'm at a complete loss!...Although if any advice was something like connecting a xxx ohm resistor in parallel in a particular circuit, I could manage to cope with that). I have just installed an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver coupled with a PS Engineering PM501 Intercom in a newly built Vans RV7, and when I press the PTT switch I get a lot of noise feeding-back into the earphones as I'm talking. The Air Traffic Controllers say they're reading me "fives", and the noise doesn't occur when Receiving or when using the voice-activated intercom. The noise isn't in time with the engine, but is constant whilst transmitting and sounds like wind blowing across the microphone. Any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks BillG ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 16, 2008
1/16/2008 Hello Bill, Avoid that poor soul -- he has not been around long enough or cared enough to learn that type certificated aircraft and amateur built experimental aircraft are treated very differently in the FAA's paperwork system. What he has described in the way of paperwork approval just simply does not apply to your airplane. Here is a quote from the signature section of the FAA Form 337: "I certify that the repair and/or alteration made to the unit(s) identified in item 5 above and described on the reverse or attachments hereto have been made in accordance with the requirements of Part 43 of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations and that the information furnished herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." And here is a quote from FAR Part 43.1: "(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft." Since part 43 does not apply to amateur built aircraft issued a Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category for the purpose of operating amateur-built aircraft (FAR 21.191 (g)) how can one properly comply with the signature certification requirement on the FAA Form 337? Several years ago a poster described his mistaken attempt to comply with all FAA type certificated regulatory and advisory circular requirements for the IFR GPS installation in his amateur built experimental airplane. He even flew a test flight with a terrified FAA inspector who spent the entire flight frantically looking out the window in fear of a mid air collision. The entire effort was wasted because no FAA agency or procedure for the approval existed -- just initial erroneous assumptions by uninformed FAA employees. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ----------------------------------------- From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>Subject: IFR GPS requirements Date: Jan 15, 2008 Hello All, I have a Bendix-King KLN 94 GPS (IFR certified unit) in an RV-7. During discussions with an FAA inspector, I was told that I was not allowed to use this unit for IFR use until I completed a 337 form with a field approval, and completed the required test flight. I was not aware that the experimental ships had to jump through the same hoops as the Type Certificated aircraft. Can this possibly be true? I welcome all input on this subject. Bill RV-7 Lee's Summit, MO ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 16, 2008
Hi Bill, you may want to look into this product: http://miracleantenna.com/ smoothie.htm I have no personal experience with it, but it was mentioned on the yahoo ja biru engine list in regard to engine noise. It does have the capacitor Noe l mentions. If you do use it I would be curious to know your results. Don...www.donsbushcaddy.comDon Morrisey's Skunkworks Subject: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting NoiseDate: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:40: Hi I'd appreciate some comments or advice from avionics installers who half-un derstand what they're doing? (My limits are that I need to follow manufactu rers' installation instructions and wiring diagrams to the letter; and if s omething doesn't quite work I'm at a complete loss!...Although if any advic e was something like connecting a xxx ohm resistor in parallel in a particu lar circuit, I could manage to cope with that). I have just installed an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver coupled with a PS Enginee ring PM501 Intercom in a newly built Vans RV7, and when I press the PTT swi tch I get a lot of noise feeding-back into the earphones as I'm talking=85 The Air Traffic Controllers say they're reading me "fives", and the noise d oesn't occur when Receiving or when using the voice-activated intercom. Th e noise isn't in time with the engine, but is constant whilst transmitting and sounds like wind blowing across the microphone. Any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks BillG _________________________________________________________________ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 16, 2008
From: "Garlick, Bill (W.D.)" <bgarlick(at)ford.com>
Thanks Don, I was able access the website (after inserting www) and immediately spotted the choke that Noel suggested sitting in the middle of the circuit board picture. I might give it a try and will let you know how it works...it's worth the relatively high cost if it gets rid of that damn noise! (...I've found out already I can get a Toroid choke from a local electronics store for GBP2.26 = USD4.63) BillG - RV7 ________________________________ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrisey Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:04 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Hi Bill, you may want to look into this product: http://miracleantenna.com/smoothie.htm I have no personal experience with it, but it was mentioned on the yahoo jabiru engine list in regard to engine noise. It does have the capacitor Noel mentions. If you do use it I would be curious to know your results. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> Don Morrisey's Skunkworks ________________________________ Subject: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:40:04 +0000 From: bgarlick(at)ford.com Hi I'd appreciate some comments or advice from avionics installers who half-understand what they're doing? (My limits are that I need to follow manufacturers' installation instructions and wiring diagrams to the letter; and if something doesn't quite work I'm at a complete loss!...Although if any advice was something like connecting a xxx ohm resistor in parallel in a particular circuit, I could manage to cope with that). I have just installed an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver coupled with a PS Engineering PM501 Intercom in a newly built Vans RV7, and when I press the PTT switch I get a lot of noise feeding-back into the earphones as I'm talking... The Air Traffic Controllers say they're reading me "fives", and the noise doesn't occur when Receiving or when using the voice-activated intercom. The noise isn't in time with the engine, but is constant whilst transmitting and sounds like wind blowing across the microphone. Any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks BillG target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List p://forums.matronics.com blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now! <http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 16, 2008
I went to check the site but got a 404 error then I tried to get to the root directory and got a password block. The unit, a choke, is a coil with a capacitor usually in the centre of the coil. It is wired in series with the power line. A capacitor can be used to filter a different kind of noise if it is just connected between the power line and the ground.... Capacitors don't conduct DC current. A capacitor set up the second way is generally used to smooth out DC voltage in power supplies. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrisey Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:34 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Hi Bill, you may want to look into this product: http://miracleantenna.com/smoothie.htm I have no personal experience with it, but it was mentioned on the yahoo jabiru engine list in regard to engine noise. It does have the capacitor Noel mentions. If you do use it I would be curious to know your results. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> Don Morrisey's Skunkworks _____ Subject: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:40:04 +0000 From: bgarlick(at)ford.com Hi I'd appreciate some comments or advice from avionics installers who half-understand what they're doing? (My limits are that I need to follow manufacturers' installation instructions and wiring diagrams to the letter; and if something doesn't quite work I'm at a complete loss!...Although if any advice was something like connecting a xxx ohm resistor in parallel in a particular circuit, I could manage to cope with that). I have just installed an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver coupled with a PS Engineering PM501 Intercom in a newly built Vans RV7, and when I press the PTT switch I get a lot of noise feeding-back into the earphones as I'm talking. The Air Traffic Controllers say they're reading me "fives", and the noise doesn't occur when Receiving or when using the voice-activated intercom. The noise isn't in time with the engine, but is constant whilst transmitting and sounds like wind blowing across the microphone. Any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks BillG target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List p://forums.matronics.com blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution _____ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now! <http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 16, 2008
Thanks for the key to get into the site. That unit appears to be an excellent choice. It will choke out a number of different frequencies, I'm sure, and it will help with voltage fluctuations. A good choice It looks heavy enough to install across the feed to your avionics buss if your plane is wired that way. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Garlick, Bill (W.D.) Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Thanks Don, I was able access the website (after inserting www) and immediately spotted the choke that Noel suggested sitting in the middle of the circuit board picture. I might give it a try and will let you know how it works.it's worth the relatively high cost if it gets rid of that damn noise! (.I've found out already I can get a Toroid choke from a local electronics store for GBP2.26 = USD4.63) BillG - RV7 _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrisey Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:04 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Hi Bill, you may want to look into this product: http://miracleantenna.com/smoothie.htm I have no personal experience with it, but it was mentioned on the yahoo jabiru engine list in regard to engine noise. It does have the capacitor Noel mentions. If you do use it I would be curious to know your results. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> Don Morrisey's Skunkworks _____ Subject: Avionics-List: VHF Transmitting Noise Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 08:40:04 +0000 From: bgarlick(at)ford.com Hi I'd appreciate some comments or advice from avionics installers who half-understand what they're doing? (My limits are that I need to follow manufacturers' installation instructions and wiring diagrams to the letter; and if something doesn't quite work I'm at a complete loss!...Although if any advice was something like connecting a xxx ohm resistor in parallel in a particular circuit, I could manage to cope with that). I have just installed an ICOM IC-A200 transceiver coupled with a PS Engineering PM501 Intercom in a newly built Vans RV7, and when I press the PTT switch I get a lot of noise feeding-back into the earphones as I'm talking. The Air Traffic Controllers say they're reading me "fives", and the noise doesn't occur when Receiving or when using the voice-activated intercom. The noise isn't in time with the engine, but is constant whilst transmitting and sounds like wind blowing across the microphone. Any ideas about what could be wrong? Thanks BillG target=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List p://forums.matronics.com blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution _____ Get the power of Windows + Web with the new Windows Live. Get it now! <http://www.windowslive.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_powerofwindows_012008> http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 16, 2008
Hi Noel, I had the link wrong. Here is the correct link: http://www.miracleantenna.com/smoothie/htm Donwww.donsbushcaddy.comDon Morrisey's Skunkworks From: noelloveys(at)yahoo.caTo: avionics-list(at)matronics.comSubject: RE: Avioni cs-List: VHF Transmitting NoiseDate: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:56:35 -0330 I went to check the site but got a 404 error then I tried to get to the roo t directory and got a password block. The unit, a choke, is a coil with a capacitor usually in the centre of the coil. It is wired in series with the power line. A capacitor can be used t o filter a different kind of noise if it is just connected between the powe r line and the ground.... Capacitors don=92t conduct DC current. A capaci tor set up the second way is generally used to smooth out DC voltage in pow er supplies. Noel _________________________________________________________________ Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_0120 08 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 17, 2008
1/17/2008 Hello Rick, Thanks for your input and interest in this subject. You wrote: 1) "It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits." The FAA Inspector or DAR is directed by FAA Order 8130.2_ (edition F, with change 3 incorporated is the current version) what to write into the Operating Limitations when issuing the Special Airworthiness Certificate for an amateur built experimental aircraft. His prerogative to ad lib in this specific area (IFR GPS requirements) is extremely limited to non existent. 2) "If he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must get the system tested by an FAA certified shop." and "If not you can proceed as you wish." These two statements are misleading / incorrect. 2A) First off, There is no "if" about it. He most certainly will reference 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight. He will do this by incorporating this statement into the Operating Limitations: "After completion of phase 1 testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated VFR day only." See paragraph 1 above. 2B) Second, Other than the normal regulatory requirements for periodic inspections of the altitude encoder, the altimeter, and the transponder (these inspection requirements also apply to type certificated aircraft) there is no requirement to "get the system tested by an FAA certified shop." 2C) Third, It is not clear what you mean when you write the word "system". I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements Peter, et al, It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits. If he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must get the system tested by an FAA certified shop. If not you can proceed as you wish. In the Ops Limits I received yesterday, Item 11: "After completion of phase 1 testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated VFR day only." Rick Girard ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 17, 2008
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: IFR GPS requirements
I'd like a copy please. John Grosse > > > I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 17, 2008
OC, I did a quick Google and came up with http://www.rainierultralightengines.com/forms/Minimum_Inst_Requirements.pdf By Owen C. Baker, that,s the one, aint it ? Might save you a lot of time sending out individually. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Grosse" <grosseair(at)comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements > > I'd like a copy please. > > John Grosse > >> >> >> I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: >> >> MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT >> EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. >> >> I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. >> >> > > > -- > 269.19.5/1228 - Release Date: 1/16/2008 9:01 AM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "FLAGSTONE" <flagstone(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 18, 2008
Ditto Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Grosse" <grosseair(at)comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements > > I'd like a copy please. > > John Grosse > > > > > > > I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 17, 2008
From: "Peck Gaillard R Ctr USAFWS/CBD Training" <gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil>
I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. Me too! Gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil Thanks, Gail Peck RV-8 (tail almost complete) -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLAGSTONE Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:19 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements Ditto Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Grosse" <grosseair(at)comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements > > I'd like a copy please. > > John Grosse > > > > > > > I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 17, 2008
I'd like a copy please. Thanks. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Peck Gaillard R Ctr USAFWS/CBD Training Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:55 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements Training" I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. Me too! Gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil Thanks, Gail Peck RV-8 (tail almost complete) -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLAGSTONE Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 12:19 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements Ditto Mark ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Grosse" <grosseair(at)comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements > > I'd like a copy please. > > John Grosse > > > > > > > I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: NYTerminat(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 17, 2008
Subject: Re: IFR GPS requirements
I would like one too please. Bob Spudis In a message dated 1/17/2008 3:02:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, grosseair(at)comcast.net writes: --> Avionics-List message posted by: John Grosse I'd like a copy please. John Grosse > > > I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR > BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. **************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jay Rowe" <jfrjr(at)roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 17, 2008
Please send me a copy. Jay Rowe jfrjr(at)roadrunner.com ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> To: ; ; Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:01 PM Subject: Avionics-List: IFR GPS requirements > > 1/17/2008 > > Hello Rick, Thanks for your input and interest in this subject. You wrote: > > 1) "It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits." > > The FAA Inspector or DAR is directed by FAA Order 8130.2_ (edition F, with > change 3 incorporated is the current version) what to write into the > Operating Limitations when issuing the Special Airworthiness Certificate for > an amateur built experimental aircraft. His prerogative to ad lib in this > specific area (IFR GPS requirements) is extremely limited to non existent. > > 2) "If he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must > get the > system tested by an FAA certified shop." and "If not you can proceed as you > wish." > > These two statements are misleading / incorrect. > > 2A) First off, There is no "if" about it. He most certainly will reference > 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight. He will do this by incorporating > this statement into the Operating Limitations: "After completion of phase 1 > testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in > accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated VFR day only." See > paragraph 1 above. > > 2B) Second, Other than the normal regulatory requirements for periodic > inspections of the altitude encoder, the altimeter, and the transponder > (these inspection requirements also apply to type certificated aircraft) > there is no requirement to "get the system tested by an FAA certified shop." > > 2C) Third, It is not clear what you mean when you write the word "system". > > I have prepared a table that serves as a quick reference on this subject: > > MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT > EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT. > > I will email a copy of this table to any reader requesting it. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS requirements > > Peter, et al, It depends on what the inspector wrote into you ops limits. If > he referenced 91.205 as a requirement for IFR flight, then you must get the > system tested by an FAA certified shop. If not you can proceed as you wish. > In the Ops Limits I received yesterday, Item 11: > "After completion of phase 1 testing, unless appropriately equipped for > night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is > to be operated VFR day only." > > Rick Girard > > > > > > > > -- 1/17/2008 11:12 AM > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VHF Transmitting Noise
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Jan 17, 2008
Bill, Another thing to check is that the sidetone produced by the IC 200 is not adding to any sidetone provided by the PS intercom. There might be instructions about this on the PS engineering site. The IC 200 can be withdrawn from its tray, on the top cover there will be an adjustment hole marked "S-tone" which you can reset all the way back or fwd as the case may be, to prevent the radio putting a sample of your voice into the earphones during transmission. I expect the intercom already does this for you, so you dont require it twice. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158970#158970 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VHF Transmitting Noise
Date: Jan 18, 2008
From: "Garlick, Bill (W.D.)" <bgarlick(at)ford.com>
Ralph, Thanks for your suggestion, I'll certainly try that...it's worth investigating as the noise seems to be in time with my transmissions rather than a regular mechanical interference. I remember seeing the S-tone adjustment hole during installation but I didn't pay too much attention to it at the time. (My biggest concern then was would the radio and intercom actually work after my wiring efforts) Regards Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jetboy Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:38 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: VHF Transmitting Noise Bill, Another thing to check is that the sidetone produced by the IC 200 is not adding to any sidetone provided by the PS intercom. There might be instructions about this on the PS engineering site. The IC 200 can be withdrawn from its tray, on the top cover there will be an adjustment hole marked "S-tone" which you can reset all the way back or fwd as the case may be, to prevent the radio putting a sample of your voice into the earphones during transmission. I expect the intercom already does this for you, so you dont require it twice. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=158970#158970 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: IFR GPS requirements
Date: Jan 18, 2008
1/18/2008 Hello Glen, You are absolutely correct and I apologize for that moment of weakness when I wrote to just avoid the ignorant bureaucrat. If we don't (politely) confront these people who are misusing their position, either out of ignorance or ego, we will suffer further abuses down the line. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." -------------------------------------------------- From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: IFR GPS requirements Hi Bill et al- Re: >Hello Bill, Avoid that poor soul -- he has not been around long enough or >cared enough to learn that type certificated aircraft and amateur built >experimental aircraft are treated very differently in the FAA's paperwork >system. While I greatly appreciate and highly regard and respect the source of that comment, I couldn't disagree more. If this inspector has run 50 unnecessary 337's through the system, he has cost a lot of people a lot of money, spread misinformation across the system, and will no doubt cause other improperly educated or motivated inspectors to take the 'conservative' (ignorant) route at our collective expense. In other words, there has been a gross misuse of governmental power. These kinds of topics have gone to DC and back via OSH, and we have the tools to correct the problem you are facing. My personal experience with an amateur built rule hose-up was to be very (politely) clear with the person involved about the nature and basis for our disconnect, and then call OSH with the details. Within 24 hours they had achieved understanding with the head of the directorate involved, and within another 24 the fed involved had been re-educated. That ended the problem for me, and, presumably, everyone who came along after. Also, the feds now have a program to handle customer service issues in house. As I understand it, it's the equivalent of 'let me speak to your supervisor', although I don't recall the precise terminology. Mike, can you fill us in? While I don't advocate getting into hostile conflicts with The Man, I strongly urge you (and anyone else having bogus reg interpretation issues) to fight the good fight with the resources we have developed and paid for through our EAA dues and those gate fees at OSH we are all unhappy about. Heck, Brian got a law in Jacksonville repealed with a little help from his friends. What's one confused inspector? glen matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Changing Prop & FSDO
Date: Jan 18, 2008
1/18/2008 Hello Ron, You wrote: 1) "Another thing that the FSDO told me, even when an experimental aircraft is sold and there is a new owner, along with the FAA registration records update, the new owner needs to get a new Airworthiness Certificate with the himself as the owner (the original builder info stays the same). He mentioned that very few owners of experimental aircraft that they bought from pervious owners know this,......" I would venture that very few subsequent owners of amateur built experimental aircraft do not know of this requirement because it is not true. 2) ",,,,,,,,,, plus the FAA has this requirement too deeply hidden in the regulations." No matter how deeply hidden in the regulations this requirement may be it has to be written down. I would dearly love for you to contact this gent and find out just exactly where it is written so that we can read it for ourselves. The FAA is not in the business of having secret regulations. Many thanks. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." -------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronko" <ronko1(at)peoplepc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Changing Prop & FSDO Thanks for your response. I called the local FSDO in West Chicago, Illinois, and they gave me the same instructions that you outlined. Interesting set of responses from the group. Another thing that the FSDO told me, even when an experimental aircraft is sold and there is a new owner, along with the FAA registration records update, the new owner needs to get a new Airworthiness Certificate with the himself as the owner (the original builder info stays the same). He mentioned that very few owners of experimental aircraft that they bought from pervious owners know this, plus the FAA has this requirement too deeply hidden in the regulations. The guy that I talked to at the FSDO told me my situation was not a problem. With the new prop process, I will get both requirements met. Thanks again for your feedback. Best regards, Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Changing Prop & FSDO
Date: Jan 18, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
I'd call Okla City before I'd make any such move - oh yes, and get that in writing. Deeply hidden doesn't cut the cheese. -----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, January 18, 2008 11:35 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Changing Prop & FSDO 1/18/2008 Hello Ron, You wrote: 1) "Another thing that the FSDO told me, even when an experimental aircraft is sold and there is a new owner, along with the FAA registration records update, the new owner needs to get a new Airworthiness Certificate with the himself as the owner (the original builder info stays the same). He mentioned that very few owners of experimental aircraft that they bought from pervious owners know this,......" I would venture that very few subsequent owners of amateur built experimental aircraft do not know of this requirement because it is not true. 2) ",,,,,,,,,, plus the FAA has this requirement too deeply hidden in the regulations." No matter how deeply hidden in the regulations this requirement may be it has to be written down. I would dearly love for you to contact this gent and find out just exactly where it is written so that we can read it for ourselves. The FAA is not in the business of having secret regulations. Many thanks. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." -------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronko" <ronko1(at)peoplepc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:52 AM Subject: Re: Changing Prop & FSDO Thanks for your response. I called the local FSDO in West Chicago, Illinois, and they gave me the same instructions that you outlined. Interesting set of responses from the group. Another thing that the FSDO told me, even when an experimental aircraft is sold and there is a new owner, along with the FAA registration records update, the new owner needs to get a new Airworthiness Certificate with the himself as the owner (the original builder info stays the same). He mentioned that very few owners of experimental aircraft that they bought from pervious owners know this, plus the FAA has this requirement too deeply hidden in the regulations. The guy that I talked to at the FSDO told me my situation was not a problem. With the new prop process, I will get both requirements met. Thanks again for your feedback. Best regards, Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Back to the scrap bins
Date: Jan 20, 2008
Does anyone have some single conductor shielded wire (S906-1-22 or equiv) in their scrap bins? I need a one foot piece and a three foot piece. Thanks in advance, Ralph ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2008
Sully, If you care to, take a look at the Aeroelectric forum on the Matronics site. What you have are people with disinformation, either intentional or ignorance, and people with old grudges. I just upgraded from a Gen 2 BMA to a Gen 4. It works fine in all respects to my limit to test it. I have not heard anyone who has tried one complaining about it. The discussion group on the BMA site is active and uncensored. Take a look for yourself. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160647#160647 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS
From: "CharlieTango" <ed.cesnalis(at)mammothlakesinsulation.com>
Date: Jan 27, 2008
longg(at)pjm.com wrote: > I've never owned one, but I've never read anything but negative > commentary. My suspicion is elevated by the fact that they haven't had a > product release in years and their website never seems to receive > updates. That may indicate a lack of funding for development, laziness > or cutbacks depending on the situation. Personally I stick with the > mainstream candidates which have a chance of being around tomorrow. > -- you seem to have everything backwards. there website is recently changed in a major way, offering new products and features. there development continues, there are no cutbacks. i have recently upgraded to a new product and find it to be the best efis for a mountain pilot. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=160650#160650 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/panel_106_180.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Date: Feb 06, 2008
2/6/2008 Hello Raymond, You wrote "....prepare for the worst." Not a bad slogan for someone living in Minnesota, particularly this time of year. I spent the first 17 years of my life as a Minnesota farm boy before I enlisted in the US Navy in 1950 and vowed to never return to Minnesota in the winter time again. Of course going through boot camp in the winter time at Great Lakes Naval Recruit Training Center in Illinois did not endear me to that state either. Now to your question -- You wrote: "After skimming 91.205 and 8130.2F I was not able to find anything that confirms or conflicts with the equipment requirements listed in your table for experimental airworthiness certified aircraft operating in VFR day conditions. Could (you) cite your supporting information?" The FAR's are written in a denial or forbidden format (lawyerese). The sections state "No person may ........." and then go on to say what no person is permitted to do at all or unless some specific criteria is met. Essentially if one cannot find something in the FAR's that forbid one to do something then that something is permitted to be done. So the permission, if one is inclined to use that concept, to fly an amateur built experimental aircraft in day VFR conditions with absolutely none of the FAR 91.205** listed equipment or instruments installed is found here in this statement in that aircraft's Operating Limitations portion of its Special Airworthiness Certificate: "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." This is a very backward and awkward way, to normal people, for the bureaucrats and lawyers to say it is OK to fly day VFR with nothing required, but if you fly night or instruments you must look to 91.205 for what is required. If one thinks back to the early days of the amateur built experimental aircraft movement you can realize that this freedom to fly with essentially nothing in the way of equipment was not unreasonable. Look at the Breezy http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/kitspages/breezy.php for example -- pretty hard to put much in the way of instrumentation or equipment in that airplane. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: FAR Sec. 91.205 is not the whole story regarding equipping amateur built experimental aircraft. Here is a quote from the latest version of my table" "However, depending upon other portions of the FAR's, certain items in certain circumstances must not only be installed in amateur built experimental aircraft, but must interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control) equipment, other aircraft, or other entities external to the aircraft. Altitude encoders, Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting, some IFR navigation equipment, and ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment. Usually TSO performance criteria are cited to ensure this compatibility compliance. The FAR's must be consulted for proper compliance in these arenas. Therefore, the builder could expect that evidence that this type of equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA could be required at some point. The burden for complying with the provisions of the aircraft's Special Airworthiness Certificate (which includes the Operating Limitations), and the relevant FAR's, rests with the builder / pilot. " ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 8:33 AM Subject: Re: MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS > Greetings, > > Thanks for sending me the instrument and equipment requirement list. > > After skimming 91.205 and 8130.2F I was not able to find anything that > confirms or conflicts with the equipment requirements listed in your table > for experimental airworthiness certified aircraft operating in VFR day > conditions. Could cite your supporting information? > > Thanks, > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Loran Antenna
Date: Feb 15, 2008
Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old, yes; stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is "ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I don't currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of shielding that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference? Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2008
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: Loran Antenna
I don't know for certain, but given that it operates down in the frequency spectrum with/below ADF, I suspect ground plane is useful. I know my Northstar M1 has a setup question for whether the antenna is on top or bottom of fuselage, so orientation apparently matters. As I recall, Whelan has a spec for how far power supply and strobes should be from loran and other antennas. Don Curry wrote: > > > Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old, yes; > stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel > project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my > wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is > "ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location > provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT > consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I don't > currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the > option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe > lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of shielding > that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference? > Don > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Herb Heaton" <Heatonhe36(at)msn.com>
Subject: Navaid devices
Date: Feb 15, 2008
I have been trying to contact Navaid Devices for the past week with no success. Their phone keeps ringing but there is no answer. Does anyone know how to contact them? Herb ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Loran Antenna
Date: Feb 15, 2008
I had to look it up (must be getting old) one of the North Atlantic chain stations is about three gunshots down the road form this location and i have had the full tour of the site. However I digress... This is the dope on Loran C. It operates on a band between 90kHz and 110kHz MW same as your ADF. This means you can use the sense antenna for your ADF when run through a splitter to operate your Loran C properly. This is a receive antenna and is not so particular about the presence of a ground plane as an MW broadcast antenna would be. Be careful it will not work with the gogniometer (loop antenna) for your ADF so make sure you hook it up through a splitter or directly (if you are pulling the ADF) to the long wire sense antenna. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 11:00 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Loran Antenna I don't know for certain, but given that it operates down in the frequency spectrum with/below ADF, I suspect ground plane is useful. I know my Northstar M1 has a setup question for whether the antenna is on top or bottom of fuselage, so orientation apparently matters. As I recall, Whelan has a spec for how far power supply and strobes should be from loran and other antennas. Don Curry wrote: > > > Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old, yes; > stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel > project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my > wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is > "ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location > provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT > consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I don't > currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the > option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe > lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of shielding > that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference? > Don > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Autopliot & GPS Dilemma
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Feb 25, 2008
This is what I ended up with. TruTrak installed within the unit a GPS (has external antenna). Everything works great with the exception that I cant drive it from my GPS navigation system...with heading/waypoint info. It's really not a problem. I nav system tells me what heading I should be on to the next waypoint and I turn the dial on the autopilot to that heading. Only requires an occasional 1 or 2 degree adjustment for wind drift. Thanks for all the input. Travis :D -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop IFR with Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166110#166110 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Need to Increase Comm Radio Volume
From: "FlyboyTR" <flyboytr(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Feb 25, 2008
I am running a dual stack King KY-96 comm radios and a PM-1000 II intercom with Bose Series I headsets. I have always had to run the comm radios at full volume...seldom having to turn them down because someone is a "loud-talker!" As my hearing as declined...I am having difficulty hearing some of the "soft-talkers"...and we have several of those in our local ATC. My wife has always said the comm volume should be higher...and I agree. The intercom has a pot that will adjust total "passenger" output. I will try this...but I don't think the comm radio is routed through the intercom. Does the King system have an adjustable pot to control audio output? I would appreciate any info or guidance as to what to do to or what to check. Thanks Travis :? -------- Travis Rayner Mobile, AL Skystar Vixen, N-789DF Continental IO-240, Prince P-Tip Prop IFR with Autopilot AnyWhereMap Navigation with weather Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166114#166114 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chris East <lik_2_fly(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Inflight cameras
Date: Feb 27, 2008
Hi, Wondering if anyone has any experiance with in flight video camera's. H aving trouble finding reasonably high quality camera's as well as recorders that can take mutliple camera's without the quality degrading. Or do peopl e just run individual video camera's for each remote head? Does anyone know what type of camera's are used in redbull air races? cheersChris _________________________________________________________________ Your Future Starts Here. Dream it? Then be it! Find it at www.seek.com.au %2F%3Ftracking%3Dsk%3Ahet%3Ask%3Anine%3A0%3Ahot%3Atext&_t=764565661&_r= OCT07_endtext_Future&_m=EXT ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BUCSDDS(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 26, 2008
Subject: Re: Inflight cameras
If you should receive any response would you mind sharing? Marwin Goff DSM Varieze O-200 515-360-0778 bucsdds(at)aol.com In a message dated 2/26/2008 6:24:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, lik_2_fly(at)hotmail.com writes: Hi, Wondering if anyone has any experiance with in flight video camera's. Having trouble finding reasonably high quality camera's as well as recorders that can take mutliple camera's without the quality degrading. Or do people just run individual video camera's for each remote head? Does anyone know what type of camera's are used in redbull air races? cheers Chris **************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/ 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Inflight cameras
Date: Feb 27, 2008
I am also interested in what you find Carlos Trigo RV-9A Portugal _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BUCSDDS(at)aol.com Sent: quarta-feira, 27 de Fevereiro de 2008 1:26 Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Inflight cameras If you should receive any response would you mind sharing? Marwin Goff DSM Varieze O-200 515-360-0778 bucsdds(at)aol.com In a message dated 2/26/2008 6:24:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, lik_2_fly(at)hotmail.com writes: Hi, Wondering if anyone has any experiance with in flight video camera's. Having trouble finding reasonably high quality camera's as well as recorders that can take mutliple camera's without the quality degrading. Or do people just run individual video camera's for each remote head? Does anyone know what type of camera's are used in redbull air races? cheers Chris _____ Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch <http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du ffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598> the video on AOL Living. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Inflight cameras
From: "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com>
Date: Feb 27, 2008
Good discussion about them here. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=25181&highlight=camera+easy Several other threads on VAF if you search cameras or videos, -------- Milt 2003 F1 Rocket 2006 Radial Rocket Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166538#166538 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Inflight cameras
Date: Feb 27, 2008
I think most of the guys just use one small video camera in the plane or mounted outside. With multiple cameras you can edit the pieces together on you r computer. Bringing a whole switching suite aloft in a two seat plane isn't really an option. I would recommend using a 1A skylight filter for video aloft to kill some of the excess blue you usually get. It will also make the ground look a lot sharper.. White light balancing can do a lot to correct colour but to do the job right you still have to go back to either a 1A or a UV lens filter. When placed on a sheet of white paper the 1A will appear to have a very slight yellow tint.. The UV will look slightly salmon colour. Neither filter will affect your exposure. I also advise you to go to a camera specialty shop to buy your equipment. They probably won't look at you as if you had two heads when you ask about filters to fit the camera you are about to purchase. They will also be able to advise you on the care and operation of your camera and generally if warranty is required they will help there too. BTW most camera stores are very competitive with big box outfits like Wallyco. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:43 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Inflight cameras I am also interested in what you find Carlos Trigo RV-9A Portugal _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BUCSDDS(at)aol.com Sent: quarta-feira, 27 de Fevereiro de 2008 1:26 Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Inflight cameras If you should receive any response would you mind sharing? Marwin Goff DSM Varieze O-200 515-360-0778 bucsdds(at)aol.com In a message dated 2/26/2008 6:24:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, lik_2_fly(at)hotmail.com writes: Hi, Wondering if anyone has any experiance with in flight video camera's. Having trouble finding reasonably high quality camera's as well as recorders that can take mutliple camera's without the quality degrading. Or do people just run individual video camera's for each remote head? Does anyone know what type of camera's are used in redbull air races? cheers Chris _____ Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. Watch <http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du ffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598> the video on AOL Living. http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2008
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Re: Inflight cameras
I have four permanent mounts on my airplane - a camera looking straight aft (which comes in handy as a "rear view mirror") and makes very dramatic departure footage in the STOL plane, and one on each wing on a ground adjustable swivel. I usually have the right wingcam pointed straight ahead (or sometimes, straight down) and the other one I have pointed at the cabin. I also have a rear cabin camera pointed at the panel, also looking out the windshield, and another one (lower res) that is wireless that can be duct taped anywhere outside on the airframe for recording tufts, etc. All of the these go into a shielded 5 position switch box that has two outputs, one to a monitor built into the door of my mapbox, and the other to jacks to the video camera. The audio portion of the video camera is fed by the intercom's output of the pilot's headphones, so anything I hear in my headphones is recorded. All devices are 12 volts. The cameras are 480 line Sony super HAD 1/3 inch sensor cams that allow for different focal length lenses. They look pretty good for standard res tv, and make for some clear images. Anything less looks pretty bad - I am waiting for some 720 or even 1080 cams to be cheaply available - then I might upgrade the cameras. I usually just hook up the camera to the system and turn it on as part of preflight - select which camera I want to record, and then forget about it until landing. One exception is if I want to see who is behind me on the taxi way if its a busy day. I have learned to always have the recorder on, though, because you simply don't know what might come up - the one time you don't use it is the time you wish you had. If the flight is unremarkable, I just rewind the DV for the next flight. Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Hutt" <steve(at)huttmail.com>
Subject: Inflight Cameras
Date: Feb 27, 2008
I've no experience of using these, but they are built specifically for this sort of task... See here: http://www.sport-cam.co.uk/activities.asp These folks are in the UK but I'd be very surprised if there's no equivalent available in the US. Take a look at the Quad Splitter and the 30GB Digital Recorder in the Recording Devices section. Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2008
From: "D Wysong" <hdwysong(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Inflight cameras
> Hi, Wondering if anyone has any experiance with in flight video camera's. H > aving trouble finding reasonably high quality camera's as well as recorders > that can take mutliple camera's without the quality degrading. See info on cameras, recorder selection, and some great flying videos here: http://www.thedukes.org/rv/tailcam.html As you noted, pulling multiple feeds into one recorder will degrade the quality since you're "sharing" a fixed amount of recorder resolution between the cameras. We dedicate one recorder per camera or use a video switcher between multiple cameras and a single recorder. D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: TVS Failures
Date: Feb 27, 2008
2/27/2008 Hello Fellow Builders, The certificated airplane community has been hit with a series of TVS failures. Several different manufacturer's airplanes have been affected. Copied below is just one of the SAIB's that the FAA has issued on this subject. If your project includes TVS' you may want to further investigate -- the same TVS manufacturer seems to be involved in all failures. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ----------------------------------------------------- FAA Aircraft Certification Service SPECIAL AIRWORTHINESS INFORMATION BULLETIN SUBJ: Electrical Power SAIB: CE-08-12 Date: February 27, 2008 This is information only. Recommendations aren't mandatory. Introduction This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) advises you of an airworthiness concern on Cirrus Design Corporation (CDC) Models SR20 and SR22 airplanes where possible failure of a transient voltage suppressor (TVS) may result in an increase in workload for the pilot. This airworthiness action has been taken after consideration of the responses from CDC as well as airplane owners/ operators through relevant associations and type clubs, using the procedures found in the Small Airplane Directorate Airworthiness Directives Manual Supplement (Airworthiness Concern Process Guide). At this time, this airworthiness concern is not considered an unsafe condition that would warrant an airworthiness directive (AD) action under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR part 39). Background CDC notified the Federal Aviation Administration of the failure of a TVS on a CDC Model SR22 airplane, which resulted in loss of NAV/COM1 functionality and some smoke and fumes within the cockpit. Since that time, 14 other TVS's have failed on CDC airplanes in the field. Other airplanes equipped with TVSs from the same manufacturer have recently experienced failures. Our findings thus far, show that the electronic component itself is the primary suspect for a cause of the failures. To date, no specific reason has been positively identified for the failures although several companies are working on the problem. As previously mentioned, no other functionality other than the NAV/COMM 1 has been lost on a CDC airplane. All CDC airplanes have redundancy with a NAV/COMM 2 available. Also, in all known occurrences of TVS failures, the smoke and fumes have been noted to be of short duration and not sufficient to impede the pilots visibility, or toxic such that the pilot's ability to operate the airplane is impaired. Recommendations We recommend that all CDC airplane owner/operators thoroughly read Cirrus service advisory SA 07-17, dated September 11, 2007. The service advisory provides good information on what to expect should a TVS failure occur and what actions should be taken by the pilot. For Further Information Contact Wesley Rouse, Aerospace Engineer, FAA Chicago Aircraft Certification, 2300 E. Devon, Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone: (847) 294-8113; email: wess.rouse(at)faa.gov ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 27, 2008
From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: TVS Failures
Bob, Without calling the FAA, you wouldn't happen to know how to get the failed TVS vendor's name, would you? The CDC website of course has no bad news in it. I'm sure the vendor isn't advertising it, either. Thanks, Henador Titzof ----- Original Message ---- From: "bakerocb(at)cox.net" <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 1:49:42 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: TVS Failures --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 2/27/2008 Hello Fellow Builders, The certificated airplane community has been hit with a series of TVS failures. Several different manufacturer's airplanes have been affected. Copied below is just one of the SAIB's that the FAA has issued on this subject. If your project includes TVS' you may want to further investigate -- the same TVS manufacturer seems to be involved in all failures. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Inflight cameras
Date: Feb 27, 2008
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
Would it be possible to provide a list of the parts, where they can be purch ased, and how much. =C2-I am about to do some flight testing and was wonde ring about cameras. -----Original Message----- From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 9:09 am Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Inflight cameras =C2- I have four permanent mounts on my airplane - a camera looking straight aft (which comes in handy as a "rear view mirror") and makes very dramatic departure footage in the STOL plane, and one on each wing on a ground adjustable swivel. I usually have the right wingcam pointed straight ahead (or sometimes, straight down) and the other one I have pointed at the cabin. I also have a rear cabin camera pointed at the panel, also looking out the windshield, and another one (lower res) that is wireless that can be duct taped anywhere outside on the airframe for recording tufts, etc. All of the these go into a shielded 5 position switch box that has two outputs, one to a monitor built into the door of my mapbox, and the other to jacks to the video camera. The audio portion of the video camera is fed by the intercom's output of the pilot's headphones, so anything I hear in my headphones is recorded. All devices are 12 volts.=C2- =C2- The cameras are 480 line Sony super HAD 1/3 inch sensor cams that allow for different focal length lenses. They look pretty good for standard res tv, and make for some clear images. Anything less looks pretty bad - I am waiting for some 720 or even 1080 cams to be cheaply available - then I might upgrade the cameras.=C2- =C2- I usually just hook up the camera to the system and turn it on as part of preflight - select which camera I want to record, and then forget about it until landing. One exception is if I want to see who is behind me on the taxi way if its a busy day. I have learned to always have the recorder on, though, because you simply don't know what might come up - the one time you don't use it is the time you wish you had. If the flight is unremarkable, I just rewind the DV for the next flight.=C2- =C2- Gary Liming=C2- =C2- =C2- ============C2- ============C2- ============C2- ============C2- =C2- =C2- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Inflight Cameras
Date: Feb 27, 2008
From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com
The setup page says I need a camcorder. =C2-Doesn't the DVR do the same th ing? -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hutt <steve(at)huttmail.com> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 9:07 am Subject: Avionics-List: Inflight Cameras I=99ve no experience of using these, but they are built specifically for this sort of task.. =C2- See here:=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2-=C2- http://www.s port-cam.co.uk/activities.asp =C2- These folks are in the UK but I=99d be very surprised if there=99s no equivalent available in the US. =C2- Take a look at the Quad Splitter and the 30GB Digital Recorder in the Recording Devices section. =C2- Steve =C2- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Hutt" <steve(at)huttmail.com>
Subject: Re: Inflight Cameras
Date: Feb 28, 2008
Yes, that's my understanding too. Just use one camera (with mount) plus cable and DVR. Add Splitter and extra cameras/cables if required. Steve Subject: Re: Inflight Cameras From: teamgrumman(at)aol.com 47DA38E31AF0-13C-2FC3@webmail-nf16.sim.aol.com> Date: Wed Feb 27 - 8:36 PM The setup page says I need a camcorder. Doesn't the DVR do the same thing? -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hutt <steve(at)huttmail.com 7DA38E31AF0-13C-2FC3@webmail-nf16.sim.aol.com> > lyto=8CA47DA38E31AF0-13C-2FC3@webmail-nf16.sim.aol.com> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 9:07 am Subject: Inflight Cameras I've no experience of using these, but they are built specifically for this sort of task... See here: http://www.sport-cam.co.uk/activities.asp These folks are in the UK but I'd be very surprised if there's no equivalent available in the US. Take a look at the Quad Splitter and the 30GB Digital Recorder in the Recording Devices section. Steve ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Inflight Cameras
Date: Feb 28, 2008
Yes it does... but... be careful of DVRs that may be out there with HDDs. Those drives are designed to work on the ground and you may have problems with them at altitude. There is no known problems with either tape, DVD or memory sticks. Same thing goes for I-Pods with the HDD. 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: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:04 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Inflight Cameras The setup page says I need a camcorder. Doesn't the DVR do the same thing? -----Original Message----- From: Steve Hutt <steve(at)huttmail.com> Sent: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 9:07 am Subject: Avionics-List: Inflight Cameras I=99ve no experience of using these, but they are built specifically for this sort of task.. See here: http://www.sport-cam.co.uk/activities.asp These folks are in the UK but I=99d be very surprised if there=99s no equivalent available in the US. Take a look at the Quad Splitter and the 30GB Digital Recorder in the Recording Devices section. Steve or?Avionics-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List p://forums.matronics.com ution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution _____ Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM <http://download.aim.com/client/aimtoolbar?NCID=aolcmp00300000002586> toolbar for your browser. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Inflight cameras
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: Feb 29, 2008
There's good information on ways to do it here http://www.reflight.com/pdrs.html -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=166946#166946 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Electrical Question
Date: Mar 13, 2008
3/12/2008 Hello Tom, You wrote: 1) "For clarification, the NC switch means that I press the button to actually cut the power. Why would this be used on an old military helicopter stick? What is the reason for cutting the power on a switch?" We used to say that having helicopter time in your logbook was like having an STD entry (Sexually Transmitted Disease -- it was called venereal disease back then) in your health record. So I will reluctantly admit that I did fly a helicopter (CH-46) for a year in Viet Nam. The cyclic grip had a button on it that when pressed would disconnect the electronic flight stability / attitude positioning system so that one could manually reposition the stick and the helicopter's attitude then releasing the button would reengage the electronic attitude positioning system. Maybe you have a control stick grip that does something similar. 2) "Again, is there any way I can wire it to work with my remote ident operation?" I am not the right guy to answer that question, but I am sure that by using two of the small "ice cube" type relays that ident operation could be accomplished. It might be a pretty awkward way of doing it though from an electrical viewpoint. I'll forward your question to the Matronic's aeroelectric-list and maybe one of the electrical experts there (even the great guru Bob Nuckolls) would take a shot at it. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: You can subscribe to this list here -- the daily digest is a great deal. One email inbound each day puts you in contact with the living beating heart of the homebuilder's electrical world. http://www.matronics.com/Navigator/?AeroElectric-List -------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Gibbons" <TomisFlyingby(at)comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 12:25 AM Subject: Electrical question On my military surplus control stick I have 4 push buttons, 2 wired normally opened (NO) and 2 wired normally closed (NC). I really do not have access to these switches so I have to make due but can I use the NC switches somehow? I have plans for comm flip/flop, nav flip/flop, and Ident for my transponder. I actually have a "hattie" switch in the middle for trim which is not hooked up. The stick is installed with the ptt and intercom trigger switches working good. All kinds of switches on this guy. Was not going to use it but hey, it felt so comfortable, why not. For clarification, the NC switch means that I press the button to actually cut the power. Why would this be used on an old military helicopter stick? What is the reason for cutting the power on a switch? Again, is there any way I can wire it to work with my remote ident operation? Tom Paint this summer??? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Need two antennas for two radios??
Date: Mar 13, 2008
Hello Listers, I am at the spot in cabin construction that I need to finalize what I'm doi ng for antennas. I have two radios (Garmin & Becker) and a PMA 4000 audio panel all nicely wired up by Stark Avionics. Do I need to install two antennas or one w/ a splitter? Any recommendation on antenna. I have the cheapie homebuilder's special fr om Spruce, but am thinking maybe I should upgrade. Thanks. Don...www.donsbushcaddy.comDon Morrisey's Skunkworks _________________________________________________________________ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get yo ur "fix". http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 13, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Need two antennas for two radios??
Install 1 CI 121 on the upper fuselage, and a CI 122 on the bottom. Feed them with rg142 or rg400. ----- Original Message ----- From: Don Morrisey To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 11:58 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Need two antennas for two radios?? Hello Listers, I am at the spot in cabin construction that I need to finalize what I'm doing for antennas. I have two radios (Garmin & Becker) and a PMA 4000 audio panel all nicely wired up by Stark Avionics. Do I need to install two antennas or one w/ a splitter? Any recommendation on antenna. I have the cheapie homebuilder's special from Spruce, but am thinking maybe I should upgrade. Thanks. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com Don Morrisey's Skunkworks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get your "fix". Check it out. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Need two antennas for two radios??
Date: Mar 13, 2008
The short answer is two antennas... Especially if there are two transmitters. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Morrisey Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:28 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Need two antennas for two radios?? Hello Listers, I am at the spot in cabin construction that I need to finalize what I'm doing for antennas. I have two radios (Garmin & Becker) and a PMA 4000 audio panel all nicely wired up by Stark Avionics. Do I need to install two antennas or one w/ a splitter? Any recommendation on antenna. I have the cheapie homebuilder's special from Spruce, but am thinking maybe I should upgrade. Thanks. Don... www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> Don Morrisey's Skunkworks _____ Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your HotmailR-get your "fix". Check it out. <http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Michael Karatsonyi <mkaratsonyi(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 03/14/08
Date: Mar 15, 2008
i am looking for a terra 350d audio panel. it is an older a.p. does anyone have any ideas? > Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:55:35 -0700> From: avionics-list(at)matronics.com> To: avionics-list-digest(at)matronics.com> Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 M sgs - 03/14/08> > *> > ================= ========> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive> > > Today's complete Avionics-List Digest can also be found in either of th e > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatte d > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the Avionics-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version:> > http://www.mat ronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 08-0 3-14&Archive=Avionics> > Text Version:> > http://www.matronics.com/digest /digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-03-14&Archive=Avi onics> > > ===================== ==> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive> ======= ================> > > --------------------- -------------------------------------> Avionics-List Digest Archive> ---> T otal Messages Posted Fri 03/14/08: 0> ------------------------------------- ---------------------> > > Today's Message Index:> ----------------------> ======> > > > _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Need two antennas for two radios??
From: "rdfel" <rdfel(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Mar 16, 2008
You can use 1 antenna for 2 radios, contact Bob Archer of Archer Sport Antennas, he has a very nice switch box that is tied into the key line of each radio, effectively switching which radio transmits through the antenna. It's also setup to receive on both radios. BTW, it's about the price of an antenna, doesn't save any money, but clean-ups the airframe. Part number SA-010 Check this link : http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/PRODS2.doc Phone number : 310-316-8796 Good luck!!!! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=170294#170294 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Hill" <hill36447(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: New noise in NAV radio
Date: Mar 27, 2008
Last Sunday on a flight from Charleston to Knoxville, my KN-53 Nav radio developed a noise/static whenever I turned up the volume. The noise is in both the pilot and passenger headsets. It is bad enough that I have a difficult time hearing transmissions from NAV sources (weather, FSS, etc.) It also seems to be picking up surrounding EMF that was not an issue previously. I borrowed another KN 53 and got the same result. Also, it is there with the engine not running, but other avionic units powered up. Understand this was not a problem until recently. I checked the connections to the antenna and they seem OK. The antenna does not appear to have any damage. If the antenna leadwire shielding broke at the tray connector, would it result in this kind of problem? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ken Hill RV-9A Kingston, TN ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 29, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Two New Lists Added to the Matronics Lineup!
Dear Listers, I've added two new Email Lists to the Matronics List and Forum lineup today. These include the Rans-List and RV12-List. Please surf over to the Matronics List Subscription page and sign up for these new Lists if they are of interest to you: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Full support on the Forums, List Browse, Archives, etc. is available. Rans-List: http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Rans-List RV12-List http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV12-List Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Transponder for sale
Date: Apr 03, 2008
Hey listers I just listed a transponder for sale on ebay. You can see it (and place bids) here <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=626608286&site=0&ver=LCA0808 05&item=230238620596&lk=URL> http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=626608286&site=0&ver=LCA08080 5&item=230238620596&lk=URL It is a NARCO AT-155 transponder I had purchased for my RV-9A , but decided not to install because mode S became obligatory in Europe. Cheers Carlos Trigo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: King kln rs232 format
From: "squiggles" <squiggles(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 02, 2008
I have a kln 89b and have hooked the output serial( pin 2 ) up to a computer to read what sentences it is putting out and ground pin 4 on the serial cable is attached to pin 14 in the gps. However, I have it set to 9600 n 8 1 and any variations on 9600. However, while I am able to to read some characters, most are unintelligible. Granted the unit and antenna are in the garage and unable to get a satellite lock, however I would not have expected junk characters to be output. Any thoughts on how to set the serial port on the reading computer? Thank You. -Scott Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174454#174454 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Majors" <mmajors(at)ieee.org>
Subject: Re: King kln rs232 format
Date: Apr 02, 2008
Scott, You've got the right pins and the right serial settings at 9600/N/8/1. The KLN-89B doesn't output NMEA sentences or even the modern King/Aviation serial format that would be readable in hyperterminal. Each sentence starts with a STX (ASCII 0x02) and ends with a ETX (ASCII 0x03) so you're going to see some ASCII 'unprintables' along with readable text. There's not any carriage returns or line feeds either so it's probably running off the hyperterminal screen in funny ways too. In summary, you're not going to be able to easily monitor the serial data out of the -89 on a PC dumb terminal, you'll have to write some software to parse the sentences. If you're going to try that, find a King avionics dealer and copy the 5 pages out of the KLN89/89B install manual that define the serial data sentences. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "squiggles" <squiggles(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:48 PM Subject: Avionics-List: King kln rs232 format > > I have a kln 89b and have hooked the output serial( pin 2 ) up to a > computer to read what sentences it is putting out and ground pin 4 on the > serial cable is attached to pin 14 in the gps. However, I have it set to > 9600 n 8 1 and any variations on 9600. However, while I am able to to > read some characters, most are unintelligible. > > Granted the unit and antenna are in the garage and unable to get a > satellite lock, however I would not have expected junk characters to be > output. > > Any thoughts on how to set the serial port on the reading computer? > > Thank You. > -Scott > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174454#174454 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: King kln rs232 format
From: "squiggles" <squiggles(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 02, 2008
I knew the 89b was a particular beast with its rs232 sentence output, I just didn't realize it was that bad...*heavy sigh*...though I had hoped it was just noise on the data or the ground reference was just a bit off... I have what I thought was a complete installation manual( part# 006-00748-0000 ), but it would seem I only have the pinouts and associated installation info. Thanx for the info... -Scott Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174482#174482 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
From: "cdwambolt" <cdwambolt(at)cox.net>
Date: Apr 02, 2008
Well OK, I dropped it a little, and added OBO. BLUE MOUNTAIN EFIS ONE $7,200 OBO FOR SALE Never flown, just back from BMA with memory upgrade and a clean bill of health. This unit provides: Autopilot (servos sold separately), ADI/HSI, compass, Airspeed, Altimeter, Altitude alerter, encoder, VSI, Slip/Skid, Turn and Bank, Clock, OAT, GPS, Moving map, Navigation database, Fuel totalizer, Flight data recorder, Fuel Level, Fuel Flow, Tachometer, Manifold Press, Coolant Temp, Voltmeter, Oil Press, Oil Temp, CHT, EGT, Ammeter, no need for vacuum system Asking less than 1/2 price of new, $7200 OBO Thanks Larry 602-363-2888 Charlie 602-763-7131 -------- C D Wambolt RV-8 Fastback (Showplanes) N8390 CHD (Chandler AZ) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174521#174521 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 03, 2008
From: "Dennis Shoup" <zenith601xl(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
This begs the obvious question. Why are you getting rid of it? On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:15 AM, cdwambolt wrote: > > Well OK, I dropped it a little, and added OBO. > > BLUE MOUNTAIN EFIS ONE - $7,200 OBO - FOR SALE - Never flown, just back > from BMA with memory upgrade and a clean bill of health. This unit provid es: > Autopilot (servos sold separately), ADI/HSI, compass, Airspeed, Altimeter , > Altitude alerter, encoder, VSI, Slip/Skid, Turn and Bank, Clock, OAT, GPS , > Moving map, Navigation database, Fuel totalizer, Flight data recorder, Fu el > Level, Fuel Flow, Tachometer, Manifold Press, Coolant Temp, Voltmeter, Oi l > Press, Oil Temp, CHT, EGT, Ammeter, no need for vacuum system Asking less > than 1/2 price of new, $7200 OBO Thanks Larry 602-363-2888 Charlie > 602-763-7131 > > > -------- > C D Wambolt > RV-8 Fastback (Showplanes) > N8390 > CHD (Chandler AZ) > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174521#174521 > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
From: "cdwambolt" <cdwambolt(at)cox.net>
Date: Apr 03, 2008
Short answer--we got a great deal on a G4, the next generation model, from someone and bought it. Long answer: The G4 doesn't offer anything to us that the G3 didn't do, but it does offer a couple of other options. The G4 will display traffic from the Zaon traffic box (we already went with the Monroy and don't plan to change). Also the G4 will display XM weather if you buy the XM receiver, again not something we plan to do at this time. The biggest reason for me is, if you look at the picture, the colors used are a little different (the smaller efis in the panel is a G4 EFIS lite plus), the bezel is slightly different, and the buttons on the newest one are backlit. We wanted the two units in our panel to look the same. It wasn't worth $15000 to change, but we got a much better deal than that and it was worth it. It's a great unit, and a great deal for somebody. -------- C D Wambolt RV-8 Fastback (Showplanes) N8390 CHD (Chandler AZ) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174615#174615 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
Date: Apr 03, 2008
From: "Peck, Gaillard R CTR USAF ACC USAFWS/CDB TRAINING, INC." <gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil>
Is there any warranty? Gail peck -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of cdwambolt Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 12:00 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!! Short answer--we got a great deal on a G4, the next generation model, from someone and bought it. Long answer: The G4 doesn't offer anything to us that the G3 didn't do, but it does offer a couple of other options. The G4 will display traffic from the Zaon traffic box (we already went with the Monroy and don't plan to change). Also the G4 will display XM weather if you buy the XM receiver, again not something we plan to do at this time. The biggest reason for me is, if you look at the picture, the colors used are a little different (the smaller efis in the panel is a G4 EFIS lite plus), the bezel is slightly different, and the buttons on the newest one are backlit. We wanted the two units in our panel to look the same. It wasn't worth $15000 to change, but we got a much better deal than that and it was worth it. It's a great unit, and a great deal for somebody. -------- C D Wambolt RV-8 Fastback (Showplanes) N8390 CHD (Chandler AZ) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174615#174615 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: King kln rs232 format
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 03, 2008
Scott, It's not Bad, its Binary! -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174638#174638 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Transponder for sale
Date: Apr 03, 2008
Will you ship to Canada? Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:09 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Transponder for sale Hey listers I just listed a transponder for sale on ebay. You can see it (and place bids) here <http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=626608286&site=0&ver=LCA0808 05&item=230238620596&lk=URL> http://cm.ebay.com/cm/ck/1065-29296-2357-0?uid=626608286&site=0&ver=LCA08080 5&item=230238620596&lk=URL It is a NARCO AT-155 transponder I had purchased for my RV-9A , but decided not to install because mode S became obligatory in Europe. Cheers Carlos Trigo ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
From: "cdwambolt" <cdwambolt(at)cox.net>
Date: Apr 03, 2008
No, the factory warranty period is over. I will guarantee that it will power up and work properly the day you receive it, and it will ship with everything needed (cables, clear instructions etc..., it takes about 30 mins to hook it up and power it up) except a power supply. You can pick up a decent little regulated power supply at Radio Shack for less than 50 bucks, or use your battery. I just received it back from Blue Mountain this morning where we sent it for a checkup (because we are selling it), and they pronounced it healthy ready to go. That said, I think we have a buyer, will update once the deal is final. Charlie -------- C D Wambolt RV-8 Fastback (Showplanes) N8390 CHD (Chandler AZ) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174728#174728 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
Date: Apr 04, 2008
From: "Peck, Gaillard R CTR USAF ACC USAFWS/CDB TRAINING, INC." <gaillard.peck.ctr(at)nellis.af.mil>
Thanks for the info. -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of cdwambolt Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 8:09 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!! No, the factory warranty period is over. I will guarantee that it will power up and work properly the day you receive it, and it will ship with everything needed (cables, clear instructions etc..., it takes about 30 mins to hook it up and power it up) except a power supply. You can pick up a decent little regulated power supply at Radio Shack for less than 50 bucks, or use your battery. I just received it back from Blue Mountain this morning where we sent it for a checkup (because we are selling it), and they pronounced it healthy ready to go. That said, I think we have a buyer, will update once the deal is final. Charlie -------- C D Wambolt RV-8 Fastback (Showplanes) N8390 CHD (Chandler AZ) Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=174728#174728 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Blue Mountain Efis One for sale
From: "Expressbldr" <expressbldr(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 08, 2008
BMA EFIS ONE $7,200 AVAILABLE FOR SALE Upgrading my BMA G3 EFIS One to a G4 EFIS One. This G3 EFIS One has a total of 28 hours on it. It will be sent to BMA prior to sale for a 'once-over'. This is the gold box version of the EFIS One and has the the AHRS upgrade to the fast gyros (420 deg)That was a $900 upgrade. It will come with the magnetometer, GPS antenna, and cables. Contact Jim Ward, Owner - located San Jose, CA USA Telephone: 408-623-7927 -------- Jim Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175551#175551 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/jim_wards_expresspanel_326.jpg ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: WANTED - NAVAID AUTOPILOT
From: "rdfel" <rdfel(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 09, 2008
Hi, I am looking to purchase a NAVAID AUTOPILOT. If anyone has one for sale send me an email at rdfel(at)nospam.com replace nospam with yahoo. BTW, must be complete with servo and fully functional. Regards, Ralph Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175750#175750 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Narco AT-150 Transponder problem
From: "tjyak50" <tomjohnson(at)cox.net>
Date: Apr 12, 2008
This very morning I had an IFR pitot static check done. Flew the airplane and ATC said transponder was perfect. Later in the flight I was messing with the left and right generator. Later- Later in the flight I noticed my Narco AT-150 transponder "reply" light on steady all the time. ATC said they couldn't see me at all. When I power up the unit, it comes on for a while, flashes some, then the light comes on steady. Did I blow it up? I have another AT-150 to try, but it won't fit in the tray correctly to verify if it indeedy is the transponder. Cool, huh? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176494#176494 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Questions on avionics
From: "Rv9APlane" <rv9aplane(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 13, 2008
Hi all, I have a couple of basic questions I don't understand well: 1. What does it mean to "cage" an attitude indicator? I've never flown a plane that has had this option but I see it on some I'm considering for my homebuilt. 2. I want a light IFR panel and have read some things about Mode S transponders. Is there any advantage to having one over a Mode C other than the TIS capability? 3. Is purchasing a separate encoder necessary? I was planning on putting a Blue Mountain EFIS One in my plane (please no negative comments as I'm already committed), a Garmin 430W with a GI-106A CDI, and a Garmin 327 transponder (pending the answer to number 2 above) in my plane. I see some avionics vendors packaging in a separate encoder but don't really understand why. Thanks for your help -------- Bruce Peters RV9A, Fuselage Bakersfield, CA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176633#176633 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
From: "Rv9APlane" <rv9aplane(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 13, 2008
Hi OC, I am new to the list and saw this today. I am planning the same equipment , i.e., a 430W, SL30, and 106A. I am not familiar with the items you mentioned about switching back and forth. Can you point me to the catalog locations or suppliers with the correct items numbers? I'm pretty weak on the electrical stuff although I reading up on it now(Bob Nuckolls book). Thanks for your help. -------- Bruce Peters RV9A, Fuselage Bakersfield, CA Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176650#176650 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 13, 2008
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Questions on avionics
>1. What does it mean to "cage" an attitude indicator? I've never flown a plane that has had this option but I see it on some I'm considering for my homebuilt. Gyros come in gimbals that allow the rotor to stay in a plane (That's a term of geometry here.) while the airplane moves around it. When you cage a gyro you clamp the bearings in the gimbals so that the rotating wheel is held so that its axis turns with the airplane. You do it when you set a directional gyro and then release it. Older attitude indicators could be made to lie by exceeding the limits of their gimbals and the two axes would line up with each other and the gyro would lock up and "tumble". Caging it would keep it from tumbling but would also make it unusable for flight. >2. I want a light IFR panel and have read some things about Mode S transponders. Is there any advantage to having one over a Mode C other than the TIS capability? Mode ADS-B is coming. It's a political point but I'd not waste cash on mode -S when ADS-B may be required before you get much out of S. >3. Is purchasing a separate encoder necessary? I was planning on putting a Blue Mountain EFIS One in my plane (please no negative comments as I'm already committed), a Garmin 430W with a GI-106A CDI, and a Garmin 327 transponder (pending the answer to number 2 above) in my plane. I see some avionics vendors packaging in a separate encoder but don't really understand why. You need a barometric input for any of the transponder modes. GPS altitude won't cut it. So external or internal it has to be a pressure measuring device connected with a tube to the static system. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 13, 2008
From: "Bruce Peters" <rv9aplane(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Questions on avionics
Thanks Doug, I appreciate the help. On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: > > > > >1. What does it mean to "cage" an attitude indicator? I've never flown > a plane that has had this option but I see it on some I'm considering for my > homebuilt. > > Gyros come in gimbals that allow the rotor to stay in a plane (That's a > term of geometry here.) while the airplane moves around it. When you cage a > gyro you clamp the bearings in the gimbals so that the rotating wheel is > held so that its axis turns with the airplane. You do it when you set a > directional gyro and then release it. Older attitude indicators could be > made to lie by exceeding the limits of their gimbals and the two axes would > line up with each other and the gyro would lock up and "tumble". Caging it > would keep it from tumbling but would also make it unusable for flight. > > >2. I want a light IFR panel and have read some things about Mode S > transponders. Is there any advantage to having one over a Mode C other than > the TIS capability? > > Mode ADS-B is coming. It's a political point but I'd not waste cash on > mode -S when ADS-B may be required before you get much out of S. > > >3. Is purchasing a separate encoder necessary? I was planning on > putting a Blue Mountain EFIS One in my plane (please no negative comments as > I'm already committed), a Garmin 430W with a GI-106A CDI, and a Garmin 327 > transponder (pending the answer to number 2 above) in my plane. I see some > avionics vendors packaging in a separate encoder but don't really understand > why. > > You need a barometric input for any of the transponder modes. GPS altitude > won't cut it. So external or internal it has to be a pressure measuring > device connected with a tube to the static system. > > > -- > > --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit > it. <-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Questions on avionics
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Apr 14, 2008
The encoder output from a Blue Mountain EFIS is a perfectly adequate barometric encoder derived from its air data system. As long as it passes biannual inspection like any other encoder, it is legal and good to go. My old G3 encoder always passed inspection -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176685#176685 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Broken Glass
Date: Apr 14, 2008
From: "Beckman, Rick" <Rick.Beckman(at)atk.com>
Hi, All, I asked last week and got one response, howbeit unfinalized. I, still, am needing a three inch glass for an instrument. I understand it should be polarized glass to diminish glare in bright light. Might anyone have one for sale (or beg, borrow, give, etc....)? Help! Rick Beckman ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Randy Pinkston" <pinkston(at)carolina.rr.com>
Subject: wtb gnc300xl
Date: Apr 14, 2008
Wtb or trade gnc250xl for a gnc300xl. Randy Pinkston 704-888-2888 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 14, 2008
From: "Bruce Peters" <rv9aplane(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Questions on avionics
Thanks Ira, I appreciate the help! Bruce On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 4:38 AM, rampil wrote: > > The encoder output from a Blue Mountain EFIS is a perfectly adequate > barometric encoder derived from its air data system. > As long as it passes biannual inspection like any other encoder, it is > legal and good to go. My old G3 encoder always passed inspection > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=176685#176685 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Questions on avionics
Date: Apr 15, 2008
4/15/2008 Hello Bruce, You wrote: "1. What does it mean to "cage" an attitude indicator?" Some attitude indicators have a mechanical means to lock the gyro gimbals so that the gyro gimbals are held rigidly to the instrument case. This can serve two functions: A) It can save wear and tear on the gyro if you are going to do some aerobatic manuevering and don't want the gyro to be moving around extensively as it tries to always show the proper aircraft attitude. B) If the gyro has tumbled and one wants to erect it again to a proper attitude one can put the airplane in a level attitude, cage and then uncage the gyro, and it will then start indicating properly a level attitude from that new starting point. "3. Is purchasing a separate encoder necessary?.....I see some avionics vendors packaging in a separate encoder but don't really understand why." They are doing this because the altitude encoder in almost all of the EFIS being sold to the amateur built community are not TSO'd and therefore do not comply with FAR Sec 91.217 copied here: "91.217: Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder- (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." So you can see that an altitude encoder in use must meet either be TSO'd or comply with subparagraph (b) above. Some people think that the encoder, altimeter, and transponder checks required every two years by FAR Sections 91.411 and 91.413 meet the requirements of subparagraph (b) above, but that is not the present position of FAA HQ. They prescribe a more elaborate, almost impossible to accomplish test. So one solution to the problem created by having an EFIS with a non TSO'd altitude encoder installed in your airplane is to install and use a separate TSO'd altitude encoder. If you want to read more on this subject go to the Matronic aeroelectric list archive and search for 91.217. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: Some EFIS manufacturers will claim that their altitude encoder "meets TSO standards". Note that a claim of "meeting TSO standards" and being actually TSO'd are not the same thing. Ironically some of these non TSO'd altitude encoders are actually superior in performance and technology than the standards required by the TSO. The EFIS manufacturers have chosen not to obtain actual TSO approval for their altitude encoders because of the expense and bureaucratic burden involved. ------------------------------------------------ > Subject: Avionics-List: Questions on avionics > From: "Rv9APlane" <rv9aplane(at)gmail.com> > > > Hi all, > I have a couple of basic questions I don't understand well: > > 1. What does it mean to "cage" an attitude indicator? I've never flown a > plane > that has had this option but I see it on some I'm considering for my > homebuilt. > > 2. I want a light IFR panel and have read some things about Mode S > transponders. > Is there any advantage to having one over a Mode C other than the TIS > capability? > > 3. Is purchasing a separate encoder necessary? I was planning on putting > a Blue > Mountain EFIS One in my plane (please no negative comments as I'm already > committed), > a Garmin 430W with a GI-106A CDI, and a Garmin 327 transponder (pending > the answer to number 2 above) in my plane. I see some avionics vendors > packaging > in a separate encoder but don't really understand why. > > Thanks for your help > > -------- > Bruce Peters > RV9A, Fuselage > Bakersfield, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 15, 2008
From: Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: only hearing broken transmissions
I have a problem with receiving on my COMM. It's normal except when I call the local Tower. Then I get a broken transmission and have a hard time decifering what the instructions are. What could be causing this? Thanks Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: only hearing broken transmissions
Date: Apr 15, 2008
How is your squelch set? It may have to be opened a bit. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Patterson Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:45 AM Subject: Avionics-List: only hearing broken transmissions I have a problem with receiving on my COMM. It's normal except when I call the local Tower. Then I get a broken transmission and have a hard time decifering what the instructions are. What could be causing this? Thanks Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: only hearing broken transmissions
Date: Apr 16, 2008
4/16/2008 Hello Ron, You don't give us much to go on here: 1) What kind of radio do you have? 2) Does the broken reception happen only on the local tower frequency? 3) And only after you have transmitted to them? 4) Or does it happen after you have turned on the radio and before you have made any transmissions to the tower. 5) Does it happen on any other frequencies? 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ----------------------------------------- From: Ron Patterson <scc_ron(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Avionics-List: only hearing broken transmissions I have a problem with receiving on my COMM. It's normal except when I call the local Tower. Then I get a broken transmission and have a hard time decifering what the instructions are. What could be causing this? Thanks Ron ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 16, 2008
From: Christopher Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: wtb gnc300xl
Randy... I have for sale a Garmin GNC300 XL new in the box. $2950 Chris Stone rv8iator(at)earthlink.net -----Original Message----- >From: Randy Pinkston <pinkston(at)carolina.rr.com> >Sent: Apr 14, 2008 4:57 PM >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Avionics-List: wtb gnc300xl > >Wtb or trade gnc250xl for a gnc300xl. Randy Pinkston 704-888-2888 > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: AK-350 Encoder Connection
From: "n85ae" <n85ae(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Apr 16, 2008
Hi - I have an AK-350 connected to a Garmin GTX-320, however it was not connected to my GNC-250XL. Since the Garmin can be connected to the encoder, I would like to do it. So the question, can I just tee off the data leads from the encoder to the Garmin, or am I going to need to add diodes, or something else? Regards, Jeff Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177251#177251 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: Apr 17, 2008
Subject: Is it time to sell the mechanical indicators?
With all the new electronic cdi etc. Will the mechanical cdi/gs indicators be museum pieces in the near future? Should I sell my not yet installed indicators before the price falls? Or will there be a market for say a King 206 for a long time? Or will the mechanical cdi's survive the sunspot and emf storms better than the glass displays? Skip **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Questions on avionics
Date: Apr 17, 2008
4/17/2008 Hello Ira, 1) You wrote: "There is no requirement for TSO in owner built aircraft."** 2) FAR SEC 91.217 Says: "Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder- (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." 3) Please explain, with specific valid reference, why the phrase "No person may ..." seen above would not apply to a person flying an amateur built experimental aircraft. 4) You are correct that there are alternatives to using TSO'd equipment, when such equipment is specifically required by a regulation, provided that you can prove to the FAA's satisfaction that your alternative equipment is acceptable to the FAA. Here is how you go about doing that: FAR Sec. 21.609 "Approval for deviation. (a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any performance standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation is requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an equivalent level of safety. (b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data, must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office for the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article is manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil aviation authority in that country to the FAA." Obtaining an approval for deviation is not a trivial task and none of the manufacturers of non TSO'd altitude encoders contained in their EFIS units have done so to my knowledge. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: This statement is also not correct when it comes to the ELT installed, if one is required by FAR Sec 91.207, in an amateur built experimental aircraft. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> Re: TSO and altimetry sources There is no requirement for TSO in owner built aircraft. As I said previously, there is only a performance requirement. Part 23 is a separate issue. -------- Ira N224XS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Questions on avionics
Date: Apr 19, 2008
4/19/2008 Hello Ira, You wrote: "........I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO." If that encoding altimeter is the altitude encoder that is feeding the transponder required by FAR Sec 91.215 then it must comply with either 91.217 (b) or (c). That is what this thread has been about. See my response to Mike, copied below, for more information. 'OC' ------------------------------------------------------------- 4/18/2008 Hello Mike, Thanks for your three emails. You wrote: 1) "....you are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal proof." A) I invite you to look at "Subpart O -- TSO Authorizations" of FAR Part 21. You can access it here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9dad7a792e03c09e14fc110ded0921cb&rgn=div6&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.9.15&idno=14 B) Then I invite you to look at TSO-C10b. You can access it here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/072c91c58fdc6ce686256da4005f4d1b/$FILE/C10b.pdf C) Then I invite you to look at TSO-C88b. You can access it here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/625ebf9767dac15e8625727c006e10df/$FILE/TSO-C88b.pdf D) Now I invite you (and here is the gotcha) to procure and look at all the technical references contained in those TSO's. The TSO's themselves are just sort of shell documents, pointers if you will. All the real technical guts and standards that must be complied with are found in the references. E) Now I ask you to picture the average homebuilder satisfying someone that he is complying with the standards of the relevant TSO's without formal proof. 2) "It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle legal difference." I accept your "subtle legal difference". After you have gone through steps A through D above I ask you to picture the average homebuilder satisfying someone that his non TSO'd altitude encoder is meeting the standards of the relevant TSO's . 3) "So answer me this: If you the builder /manufacturer determines that your testing puts the encoder in compliances with the TSO standards......." Again I ask you to picture the average amateur builder determining that his testing puts the encoder in compliance with the TSO standards -- not some of the standards, not just the performance standards, but the all of the TSO standards. The reason that the EFIS manufacturers have not done this very thing is because of the significant cost and bureacratic burden involved. 4) "...and you test the unit IAW 43.13 and it passes ......" A) (I am not sure why you referenced 43.13. It does not appear to be relevant here. Perhaps you meant FAR Sec 91.413. I will assume so.) First off I, the amateur builder, am not permitted to perform the tests required by 91.413 -- see sub paragraph (c) of 91.413. B) "......what would be the ramifications?" Second, assuming the tests required by 91.413 were properly performed by a willing qualified person / entity, the automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment containing the non TSO'd altitude encoder passed the tests, and the test results were properly documented there probably would be no adverse ramifications. But consider this: B-1) Suppose a willing qualified person / entity is not readily available to perform the 91.413 required tests because the non TSO'd altitude encoder is not in compliance with 91.217? What are the ramifications then? Probably no big deal, go find someone or some place that will perform the tests. B-2) Suppose that there is a mid air collision between an amateur built experimental aircraft and an airline aircraft with major loss of life. And further suppose that the equipment in the amateur built experimental aircraft had absolutely nothing to do with causing the accident, but the media learns that the amateur built experimenal aircraft was not in compliance with some Federal Aviation Regulation (91.217) . What are the ramifications then? 5) "I don't see a violation of the rule as written." I am not sure which rule you are referring to. If you are referring to 91.217 there are two choices: A) Comply with subparagraph (c); ie have equipment that is TSO'd, or B) Comply with the tests described in subparagraph (b). I think that the tests required by 91.411 and 91.413 should be considered to meet the requirements of 91.217 (b). Unfortunately, to date the FAA HQ does not agree with me and they seem to have a little more authority than I do. 6) "Also their is no enforcement mechanism in place to even determine whether your in compliance or not." True enough. I think the FAA is too busy measuring the spacing between lacings on wire bundles in the wheel wells of airliners to make very many ramp checks on the avionics installed in amateur built experimental aircraft, but see the ramifications comments above and make an informed decision. 7) "You as the aircraft certifying authority as the builder......" The Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category for the purpose of Operating Amateur Built Aircraft is signed and issued by an FAA Representative who has been delegated that authority by the FAA Administrator. The FAA Administrator is the certifying authority, not the amateur builder. 8) "You ........ as the builder determine suitability as it pertains to the regulations and no one else" Try telling that to the FAA employee or DAR who comes to inspect your amateur built experimental aircraft for its initial airworthiness inspection. He will set you straight very quickly on who will make the decisions regarding the suitability of your aircraft as it pertains to regulations. 9) "Short of them scouring the wreckage for TSO tags they would have to make an assumption." I hope that it would never come to that, but the tenacity, search for details, and the ill will of lawyers and journalists when they smell blood and money should not be ignored. All I am seeking to do is to have people make informed decisions -- I provide the information, they make the decisions. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ------------------------------------- From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics I would argue that you are not looking for a deviation to the TSO you are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal proof. Mike ----------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics Read the regulation. It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle legal difference. Mike ----------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "MLAS" <MLAS(at)COX.NET> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Questions on avionics > So answer me this: If you the builder /manufacturer determines that your > testing puts the encoder in compliances with the TSO standards and you > test the unit IAW 43.13 and it passes what would be the ramifications. We > do live in a country made up by "Common Law" (short def: If it isn't > prohibited then it's legal). I don't see a violation of the rule as > written. Also their is no enforcement mechanism in place to even > determine whether your in compliance or not. You as the aircraft > certifying authority as the builder determine suitability as it pertains > to the regulations and no one else. Short of them scouring the wreckage > for TSO tags they would have to make an assumption. > > Mike -------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> And of course, I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO. Transponders must be TSO -------- Ira N224XS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Dodson" <douglas.dodson(at)pobox.com>
Subject: Questions on avionics
Date: Apr 19, 2008
This discussion is symptomatic of what is driving light aircraft GA into oblivion. If I get my transponder static check done and it passes, then the system works today. I suppose it could break tomorrow, but so could one that "legally" meets the TSO. At least I can afford to fix mine since the engineers didn't have to pay any lawyers. - Doug -----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: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:12 AM ira.rampil(at)gmail.com Subject: Avionics-List: Questions on avionics 4/19/2008 Hello Ira, You wrote: "........I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO." If that encoding altimeter is the altitude encoder that is feeding the transponder required by FAR Sec 91.215 then it must comply with either 91.217 (b) or (c). That is what this thread has been about. See my response to Mike, copied below, for more information. 'OC' ------------------------------------------------------------- 4/18/2008 Hello Mike, Thanks for your three emails. You wrote: 1) "....you are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal proof." A) I invite you to look at "Subpart O -- TSO Authorizations" of FAR Part 21. You can access it here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9dad7a792e03c09 e14fc110ded0921cb&rgn=div6&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.9.15&idno=14 B) Then I invite you to look at TSO-C10b. You can access it here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/072c91c58 fdc6ce686256da4005f4d1b/$FILE/C10b.pdf C) Then I invite you to look at TSO-C88b. You can access it here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/625ebf976 7dac15e8625727c006e10df/$FILE/TSO-C88b.pdf D) Now I invite you (and here is the gotcha) to procure and look at all the technical references contained in those TSO's. The TSO's themselves are just sort of shell documents, pointers if you will. All the real technical guts and standards that must be complied with are found in the references. E) Now I ask you to picture the average homebuilder satisfying someone that he is complying with the standards of the relevant TSO's without formal proof. 2) "It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle legal difference." I accept your "subtle legal difference". After you have gone through steps A through D above I ask you to picture the average homebuilder satisfying someone that his non TSO'd altitude encoder is meeting the standards of the relevant TSO's . 3) "So answer me this: If you the builder /manufacturer determines that your testing puts the encoder in compliances with the TSO standards......." Again I ask you to picture the average amateur builder determining that his testing puts the encoder in compliance with the TSO standards -- not some of the standards, not just the performance standards, but the all of the TSO standards. The reason that the EFIS manufacturers have not done this very thing is because of the significant cost and bureacratic burden involved. 4) "...and you test the unit IAW 43.13 and it passes ......" A) (I am not sure why you referenced 43.13. It does not appear to be relevant here. Perhaps you meant FAR Sec 91.413. I will assume so.) First off I, the amateur builder, am not permitted to perform the tests required by 91.413 -- see sub paragraph (c) of 91.413. B) "......what would be the ramifications?" Second, assuming the tests required by 91.413 were properly performed by a willing qualified person / entity, the automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment containing the non TSO'd altitude encoder passed the tests, and the test results were properly documented there probably would be no adverse ramifications. But consider this: B-1) Suppose a willing qualified person / entity is not readily available to perform the 91.413 required tests because the non TSO'd altitude encoder is not in compliance with 91.217? What are the ramifications then? Probably no big deal, go find someone or some place that will perform the tests. B-2) Suppose that there is a mid air collision between an amateur built experimental aircraft and an airline aircraft with major loss of life. And further suppose that the equipment in the amateur built experimental aircraft had absolutely nothing to do with causing the accident, but the media learns that the amateur built experimenal aircraft was not in compliance with some Federal Aviation Regulation (91.217) . What are the ramifications then? 5) "I don't see a violation of the rule as written." I am not sure which rule you are referring to. If you are referring to 91.217 there are two choices: A) Comply with subparagraph (c); ie have equipment that is TSO'd, or B) Comply with the tests described in subparagraph (b). I think that the tests required by 91.411 and 91.413 should be considered to meet the requirements of 91.217 (b). Unfortunately, to date the FAA HQ does not agree with me and they seem to have a little more authority than I do. 6) "Also their is no enforcement mechanism in place to even determine whether your in compliance or not." True enough. I think the FAA is too busy measuring the spacing between lacings on wire bundles in the wheel wells of airliners to make very many ramp checks on the avionics installed in amateur built experimental aircraft, but see the ramifications comments above and make an informed decision. 7) "You as the aircraft certifying authority as the builder......" The Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category for the purpose of Operating Amateur Built Aircraft is signed and issued by an FAA Representative who has been delegated that authority by the FAA Administrator. The FAA Administrator is the certifying authority, not the amateur builder. 8) "You ........ as the builder determine suitability as it pertains to the regulations and no one else" Try telling that to the FAA employee or DAR who comes to inspect your amateur built experimental aircraft for its initial airworthiness inspection. He will set you straight very quickly on who will make the decisions regarding the suitability of your aircraft as it pertains to regulations. 9) "Short of them scouring the wreckage for TSO tags they would have to make an assumption." I hope that it would never come to that, but the tenacity, search for details, and the ill will of lawyers and journalists when they smell blood and money should not be ignored. All I am seeking to do is to have people make informed decisions -- I provide the information, they make the decisions. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ------------------------------------- From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics I would argue that you are not looking for a deviation to the TSO you are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal proof. Mike ----------------------------------------------------- From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics Read the regulation. It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle legal difference. Mike ----------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "MLAS" <MLAS(at)COX.NET> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Questions on avionics > So answer me this: If you the builder /manufacturer determines that your > testing puts the encoder in compliances with the TSO standards and you > test the unit IAW 43.13 and it passes what would be the ramifications. We > do live in a country made up by "Common Law" (short def: If it isn't > prohibited then it's legal). I don't see a violation of the rule as > written. Also their is no enforcement mechanism in place to even > determine whether your in compliance or not. You as the aircraft > certifying authority as the builder determine suitability as it pertains > to the regulations and no one else. Short of them scouring the wreckage > for TSO tags they would have to make an assumption. > > Mike -------------------------------------------------------- Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> And of course, I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO. Transponders must be TSO -------- Ira N224XS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Questions on avionics
Date: Apr 20, 2008
4/20/2008 Hello Ira, You wrote: 1) "This is just the performance test." I assume that you mean the testing required every two years by FAR Sec's 91.411 and 91.413 as appropriate. I apologize for not having made the situation clearer to you. I also wanted the testing required by 91.411 / 91.413 to sufficiently meet the requirements of 91.217 (b) so that one could operate with an EFIS that contained the only atitude encoder in the airplane and that altitude encoder would be non TSO'd. So I wrote to FAA HQ asking that question. Here is an exact quote of their response: "Your letter posed the following questions: 1. If an amateur built experimental aircraft has an installed TSO'd ATC transponder as required by Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) section 91.215, but a non-TSO'd altitude encoder and the installation has passed the test and inspection requirements of 14 CFR sections 91.411 and 91.413 within the preceding 24 calendar months, does the installation meet the requirements of 14 CFR section 91.217(b), and therefore make that installation acceptable for IFR operations? 2. If the answer to question one is No, can you please tell me why? The answer to question one is "No." The testing required to show the transmitted altitude data corresponds within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) is more rigorous than the requirements referenced in 14 CFR sections 91.411, 91.413, and 14 CFR, part 43 appendices E and F. The tests required by 14 CFR part 43 appendix E(c) measure the automatic pressure altitude at a sufficient number of test points to ensure the altitude reporting equipment performs its intended function. Title 14 CFR section 91.217 paragraphs (b) and (c), state that pressure altitude reporting equipment must be tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data correspondence within stated specifications; or, the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards in TSO-C10B and TSO-C88, respectively. Should the owner/operator elect to exhibit compliance with tests and calibration provided in 14 CFR section 91.217(b), a test method would need to be developed that ensures the transmitted data corresponds within 125 feet of the indicated altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft on a 95 percent probability basis. This testing also needs to ensure the performance characteristics of the equipment are not impacted when subjected to environmental conditions (voltage fluctuations temperature, vibration, etc.) which may be encountered in airborne operations. Completed tests and calibration results should be maintained in the aircraft records. Thank you for your interest in aviation safety." So you can see that FAA HQ does not agree with our wishes. Further you can see that an amateur builder attempting to comply with the FAA HQ version of the testing requirements of 91.217 (b) in order to avoid having a TSO'd altitude encoder installed in his airplane would have a very difficult / impossible time doing so. 2) "It says nothing about TSO." That is correct. The TSO part is found in 91.217 (c). So the person mentioned in the beginning of 91.217 is given two choices -- he can comply with either 91.217 (b) or (c). 3) "Part 21 and 23 do not apply to owner built aircraft with special airworthiness certificates." Basically true, but not specifically relevant to this discussion unless the builder would try to use a non TSO'd altitude encoder by requesting approval to deviate from TSO C-88b and its references in accordance with the procedures of FAR Sec 21.609 -- not a trivial task. Please let me know if I have not adequately described the situation. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ----------------------------------------------- Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com> Again, back to 91.217 (b): (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or This is just the performance test. It says nothing about TSO. Part 21 and 23 do not apply to owner built aircraft with special airworthiness certificates -------- Ira N224XS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 20, 2008
From: N81JG <n81jg(at)aol.com>
Subject: Avionics cooling
Does anyone know how one can cool the older avionics stacks that have solid aluminum box trays stacked on one another without any cooling ports to connect a fan manifold to? Could you cut side or rear openings and direct cooling air from a ducted fan? Would those modifications require a 337 form or just an A&P sign-off? Is there an STC for this modification? Is it necessary to cool these solid state instruments when the front panels get quite hot to the touch or are they designed to handle these temps? A thermocouple test is underway to determine the case temps under actual flight conditions. John Greaves Redding, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoding Altimeter
Date: Apr 21, 2008
4/20/2008 Hello Anonymous, You wrote: 1) "You seem to be saying that the only practical way to meet the requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude information the transponder is transmitting." That is close. Here is how I would phrase it: "At present the only practical way to be in compliance with FAR Section 91.217, Data Correspondence Between Automatically Reported Pressure Altitude Data and the Pilot's Altitude Reference, is to use a TSO'd equipment source for the altitude information the transponder is transmitting." 2) "That, of course, would eliminate valuable functionality of many non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial output to the transponder." Specifically, the serial altitude data output to the transponder from a non TSO'd altitude encoder within an EFIS would not, at present, be in compliance with either 91.217 (b) or (c). 3) "Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. These are selling well." Correct. 4) "Are you against that?" Not at all. Here are my positions: A) People should make informed decisions. B) If I can provide accurate information to people that will permit them to make informed decisions I should do so. C) The decisions that those people make, after I have given them the best information that I have available, is theirs to make, not mine. The risks that they chose to take, or not take, are theirs, not mine. D) Most of the EFIS available to the amateur built community represent a significant improvement in performance, reliability, and safety over previously available flight instrument technology. E) Most of the EFIS available to the homebuilt community contain a non-TSO'd altitude encoder that is superior in performance, reliability, granularity, and accuracy over altitude encoding equipment that was manufactured to versions of TSO-C88 prior to TSO-C88b. F) Amateur built experimental aircraft have flown thousands of hours using EFIS with non-TSO'd altitude encoders feeding their transponders with no apparent problems. G) Hundreds of amateur built experimental airplanes are under construction using EFIS containing non-TSO'd altitude encoders. H) The FAA should recognize and accept the real world conditions described in D, E, F, and G above. I) The best way for the FAA to accept the real world conditions described in D, E, F, and G above is to interpret the tests required by FAR Secs 91.411 and 91.413 (as appropriate) as fulfilling the requirements of FAR Sec 91.217 (b). J) My initial attempts to accomplish H and I above with FAA HQ were met with resistance and I ceased activity in this regard.** K) If the FAA, and the people / entities who perform the tests required by 91.411 / 91.413, decided that every non-TSO'd altitude encoder in an EFIS was not airworthy because it did not meet the requirements of either 91.217 (b) or (c) this decision would be a serious blow to the amateur built community.** L) I do not proactively broadcast the information in K above, but if someone asks a specific question on this issue or posts a position that I know to be in error I revert to my positions A and B above. M) I am open to improvements or changes in my positions. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: The FAA decision makers who perpetrated the recent fiasco involving hundreds of airline flights being canceled and thousands of people being stranded over the issue of the exact spacing of electrical wire cable ties in the landing gear wheel wells of airline aircraft are capable of such thinking and actions. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: Anonymous Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:20 AM Subject: Encoding Altimeter > OC, > > I don't understand what you are trying to say with your posts > to > the AeroElectric List. You seem to be saying that the only practical way > to > meet the requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude > information > the transponder is transmitting. That, of course, would eliminate > valuable > functionality of many non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial > output > to the transponder. Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. > These > are selling well. Are you against that? Anonymous ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Encoding Altimeter
Date: Apr 21, 2008
One factor to remember is the operation of the encoding altimeter. To send the correct information it needs to be set at 29.92 in. hg.. That for all intents and purposes means you would have to either turn off your Xpndr or have a second altimeter for lower altitudes. The big deal is every one reports altitude to the same reference and the system as a whole operates within parameters. 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: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter 4/20/2008 Hello Anonymous, You wrote: 1) "You seem to be saying that the only practical way to meet the requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude information the transponder is transmitting." That is close. Here is how I would phrase it: "At present the only practical way to be in compliance with FAR Section 91.217, Data Correspondence Between Automatically Reported Pressure Altitude Data and the Pilot's Altitude Reference, is to use a TSO'd equipment source for the altitude information the transponder is transmitting." 2) "That, of course, would eliminate valuable functionality of many non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial output to the transponder." Specifically, the serial altitude data output to the transponder from a non TSO'd altitude encoder within an EFIS would not, at present, be in compliance with either 91.217 (b) or (c). 3) "Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. These are selling well." Correct. 4) "Are you against that?" Not at all. Here are my positions: A) People should make informed decisions. B) If I can provide accurate information to people that will permit them to make informed decisions I should do so. C) The decisions that those people make, after I have given them the best information that I have available, is theirs to make, not mine. The risks that they chose to take, or not take, are theirs, not mine. D) Most of the EFIS available to the amateur built community represent a significant improvement in performance, reliability, and safety over previously available flight instrument technology. E) Most of the EFIS available to the homebuilt community contain a non-TSO'd altitude encoder that is superior in performance, reliability, granularity, and accuracy over altitude encoding equipment that was manufactured to versions of TSO-C88 prior to TSO-C88b. F) Amateur built experimental aircraft have flown thousands of hours using EFIS with non-TSO'd altitude encoders feeding their transponders with no apparent problems. G) Hundreds of amateur built experimental airplanes are under construction using EFIS containing non-TSO'd altitude encoders. H) The FAA should recognize and accept the real world conditions described in D, E, F, and G above. I) The best way for the FAA to accept the real world conditions described in D, E, F, and G above is to interpret the tests required by FAR Secs 91.411 and 91.413 (as appropriate) as fulfilling the requirements of FAR Sec 91.217 (b). J) My initial attempts to accomplish H and I above with FAA HQ were met with resistance and I ceased activity in this regard.** K) If the FAA, and the people / entities who perform the tests required by 91.411 / 91.413, decided that every non-TSO'd altitude encoder in an EFIS was not airworthy because it did not meet the requirements of either 91.217 (b) or (c) this decision would be a serious blow to the amateur built community.** L) I do not proactively broadcast the information in K above, but if someone asks a specific question on this issue or posts a position that I know to be in error I revert to my positions A and B above. M) I am open to improvements or changes in my positions. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." **PS: The FAA decision makers who perpetrated the recent fiasco involving hundreds of airline flights being canceled and thousands of people being stranded over the issue of the exact spacing of electrical wire cable ties in the landing gear wheel wells of airline aircraft are capable of such thinking and actions. ------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: Anonymous Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:20 AM Subject: Encoding Altimeter > OC, > > I don't understand what you are trying to say with your posts > to > the AeroElectric List. You seem to be saying that the only practical way > to > meet the requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude > information > the transponder is transmitting. That, of course, would eliminate > valuable > functionality of many non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial > output > to the transponder. Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. > These > are selling well. Are you against that? Anonymous ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 21, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Encoding Altimeter
What? The code that the encoding altimiter sends out is the altitude when you set the alitimiter to 29.92, thats called pressure altitude. No matter where you set the altimeter, the encoder portion still reports the altitude as if the thing is set to 29.92. That never changes. You twist the knob to set your local atimiter setting so your dial reads zero when you are at sea level or actual field elevation for you locale. The system is calibrated at 29.92 and certified as to scale error +/- 25 feet when the altimiter is certified every 2 years. You dont need 2 altimeters. Setting the dial anywhere you want on an encoding altimeter has no effect on the encoder portion of the device. Some encoding altimeters have what is called a baro pot to send altimeter setting info to certain autopilots. Anyhow. ATC corrects the number that your encoder sends out to the transponder and then out to ATC for local altitude changes in pressure. You dont need to do this for them and I certainly hope none of you have been leaving your encoding altimeters on 29.92 thinking that you are doing them a favor. In fact I would discourage people from owning an encoding altimeter as the are a maintenance nightmare in some cases. They are expensive to overhaul and if it comes up at your 2 year inspection that either the altimeter half or the encoder half is out of spec, it makes the whole thing unairworthy. Its cheaper in the long run to stick with good certified altimeters like United instrument and encoders like the trans-cal SSD120-30A. ACK/narco/Ameri-king encoders are cheaply built and you get what you pay for. Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:57 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > One factor to remember is the operation of the encoding altimeter. To > send > the correct information it needs to be set at 29.92 in. hg.. That for all > intents and purposes means you would have to either turn off your Xpndr or > have a second altimeter for lower altitudes. The big deal is every one > reports altitude to the same reference and the system as a whole operates > within parameters. > > 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: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:40 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > > 4/20/2008 > > Hello Anonymous, You wrote: > > 1) "You seem to be saying that the only practical way to meet the > requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude information the > transponder is transmitting." > > That is close. Here is how I would phrase it: "At present the only > practical > way to be in compliance with FAR Section 91.217, Data Correspondence > Between > Automatically Reported Pressure Altitude Data and the Pilot's Altitude > Reference, is to use a TSO'd equipment source for the altitude information > the transponder is transmitting." > > 2) "That, of course, would eliminate valuable functionality of many > non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial output to the > transponder." > > Specifically, the serial altitude data output to the transponder from a > non > TSO'd altitude encoder within an EFIS would not, at present, be in > compliance > with either 91.217 (b) or (c). > > 3) "Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. These are selling > well." > > Correct. > > 4) "Are you against that?" > > Not at all. Here are my positions: > > A) People should make informed decisions. > > B) If I can provide accurate information to people that will permit them > to > make informed decisions I should do so. > > C) The decisions that those people make, after I have given them the best > information that I have available, is theirs to make, not mine. The risks > that they chose to take, or not take, are theirs, not mine. > > D) Most of the EFIS available to the amateur built community represent a > significant improvement in performance, reliability, and safety over > previously available flight instrument technology. > > E) Most of the EFIS available to the homebuilt community contain a > non-TSO'd > altitude encoder that is superior in performance, reliability, > granularity, > and accuracy over altitude encoding equipment that was manufactured to > versions of TSO-C88 prior to TSO-C88b. > > F) Amateur built experimental aircraft have flown thousands of hours using > EFIS with non-TSO'd altitude encoders feeding their transponders with no > apparent problems. > > G) Hundreds of amateur built experimental airplanes are under construction > using EFIS containing non-TSO'd altitude encoders. > > H) The FAA should recognize and accept the real world conditions described > in D, E, F, and G above. > > I) The best way for the FAA to accept the real world conditions described > in > D, E, F, and G above is to interpret the tests required by FAR Secs 91.411 > and 91.413 (as appropriate) as fulfilling the requirements of FAR Sec > 91.217 > (b). > > J) My initial attempts to accomplish H and I above with FAA HQ were met > with > resistance and I ceased activity in this regard.** > > K) If the FAA, and the people / entities who perform the tests required by > 91.411 / 91.413, decided that every non-TSO'd altitude encoder in an EFIS > was not airworthy because it did not meet the requirements of either > 91.217 > (b) or (c) this decision would be a serious blow to the amateur built > community.** > > L) I do not proactively broadcast the information in K above, but if > someone > asks a specific question on this issue or posts a position that I know to > be > in error I revert to my positions A and B above. > > M) I am open to improvements or changes in my positions. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > **PS: The FAA decision makers who perpetrated the recent fiasco involving > hundreds of airline flights being canceled and thousands of people being > stranded over the issue of the exact spacing of electrical wire cable ties > in the landing gear wheel wells of airline aircraft are capable of such > thinking and actions. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anonymous > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:20 AM > Subject: Encoding Altimeter > > >> OC, >> >> I don't understand what you are trying to say with your posts >> to >> the AeroElectric List. You seem to be saying that the only practical way >> to >> meet the requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude >> information >> the transponder is transmitting. That, of course, would eliminate >> valuable >> functionality of many non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial >> output >> to the transponder. Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. >> These >> are selling well. Are you against that? > > Anonymous > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Encoding Altimeter
Date: Apr 21, 2008
OR...you could buy a Dynon and save even more during the IFR recertification check. In fact, the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity. Bill -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Reiche Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:30 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter What? The code that the encoding altimiter sends out is the altitude when you set the alitimiter to 29.92, thats called pressure altitude. No matter where you set the altimeter, the encoder portion still reports the altitude as if the thing is set to 29.92. That never changes. You twist the knob to set your local atimiter setting so your dial reads zero when you are at sea level or actual field elevation for you locale. The system is calibrated at 29.92 and certified as to scale error +/- 25 feet when the altimiter is certified every 2 years. You dont need 2 altimeters. Setting the dial anywhere you want on an encoding altimeter has no effect on the encoder portion of the device. Some encoding altimeters have what is called a baro pot to send altimeter setting info to certain autopilots. Anyhow. ATC corrects the number that your encoder sends out to the transponder and then out to ATC for local altitude changes in pressure. You dont need to do this for them and I certainly hope none of you have been leaving your encoding altimeters on 29.92 thinking that you are doing them a favor. In fact I would discourage people from owning an encoding altimeter as the are a maintenance nightmare in some cases. They are expensive to overhaul and if it comes up at your 2 year inspection that either the altimeter half or the encoder half is out of spec, it makes the whole thing unairworthy. Its cheaper in the long run to stick with good certified altimeters like United instrument and encoders like the trans-cal SSD120-30A. ACK/narco/Ameri-king encoders are cheaply built and you get what you pay for. Charles Reiche ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 10:57 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > One factor to remember is the operation of the encoding altimeter. To > send > the correct information it needs to be set at 29.92 in. hg.. That for all > intents and purposes means you would have to either turn off your Xpndr or > have a second altimeter for lower altitudes. The big deal is every one > reports altitude to the same reference and the system as a whole operates > within parameters. > > 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: Monday, April 21, 2008 8:40 AM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > > 4/20/2008 > > Hello Anonymous, You wrote: > > 1) "You seem to be saying that the only practical way to meet the > requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude information the > transponder is transmitting." > > That is close. Here is how I would phrase it: "At present the only > practical > way to be in compliance with FAR Section 91.217, Data Correspondence > Between > Automatically Reported Pressure Altitude Data and the Pilot's Altitude > Reference, is to use a TSO'd equipment source for the altitude information > the transponder is transmitting." > > 2) "That, of course, would eliminate valuable functionality of many > non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial output to the > transponder." > > Specifically, the serial altitude data output to the transponder from a > non > TSO'd altitude encoder within an EFIS would not, at present, be in > compliance > with either 91.217 (b) or (c). > > 3) "Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. These are selling > well." > > Correct. > > 4) "Are you against that?" > > Not at all. Here are my positions: > > A) People should make informed decisions. > > B) If I can provide accurate information to people that will permit them > to > make informed decisions I should do so. > > C) The decisions that those people make, after I have given them the best > information that I have available, is theirs to make, not mine. The risks > that they chose to take, or not take, are theirs, not mine. > > D) Most of the EFIS available to the amateur built community represent a > significant improvement in performance, reliability, and safety over > previously available flight instrument technology. > > E) Most of the EFIS available to the homebuilt community contain a > non-TSO'd > altitude encoder that is superior in performance, reliability, > granularity, > and accuracy over altitude encoding equipment that was manufactured to > versions of TSO-C88 prior to TSO-C88b. > > F) Amateur built experimental aircraft have flown thousands of hours using > EFIS with non-TSO'd altitude encoders feeding their transponders with no > apparent problems. > > G) Hundreds of amateur built experimental airplanes are under construction > using EFIS containing non-TSO'd altitude encoders. > > H) The FAA should recognize and accept the real world conditions described > in D, E, F, and G above. > > I) The best way for the FAA to accept the real world conditions described > in > D, E, F, and G above is to interpret the tests required by FAR Secs 91.411 > and 91.413 (as appropriate) as fulfilling the requirements of FAR Sec > 91.217 > (b). > > J) My initial attempts to accomplish H and I above with FAA HQ were met > with > resistance and I ceased activity in this regard.** > > K) If the FAA, and the people / entities who perform the tests required by > 91.411 / 91.413, decided that every non-TSO'd altitude encoder in an EFIS > was not airworthy because it did not meet the requirements of either > 91.217 > (b) or (c) this decision would be a serious blow to the amateur built > community.** > > L) I do not proactively broadcast the information in K above, but if > someone > asks a specific question on this issue or posts a position that I know to > be > in error I revert to my positions A and B above. > > M) I am open to improvements or changes in my positions. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > **PS: The FAA decision makers who perpetrated the recent fiasco involving > hundreds of airline flights being canceled and thousands of people being > stranded over the issue of the exact spacing of electrical wire cable ties > in the landing gear wheel wells of airline aircraft are capable of such > thinking and actions. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anonymous > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2008 9:20 AM > Subject: Encoding Altimeter > > >> OC, >> >> I don't understand what you are trying to say with your posts >> to >> the AeroElectric List. You seem to be saying that the only practical way >> to >> meet the requirements is to use a TSO'd source for the altitude >> information >> the transponder is transmitting. That, of course, would eliminate >> valuable >> functionality of many non-TSO'd electronic EFISs including the serial >> output >> to the transponder. Clearly, that isn't happening in the real world. >> These >> are selling well. Are you against that? > > Anonymous > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Encoding Altimeter
Date: Apr 22, 2008
4/22/2008 Hello Bill, Thanks for your input. You wrote: 1) "OR...you could buy a Dynon ........." Since the Dynon units do not contain a TSO'd altitude encoder operating the Dynon unit alone to feed a transponder in flight would presently leave one in violation of FAR Sec 91.217 (as interpreted by FAA HQ). There are two ways to approach this condition: A) Purchase and install a separate TSO'd altitude encoder and use that encoder to feed the aircraft's transponder. B) Decide that violation of 91.217 is an acceptable risk and feed the transponder from the non TSO'd altitude encoder contained in the Dynon unit. 2) ".....and save even more during the IFR recertification check." My local avionics shop charges a flat fee for the FAR Sections 91.411 and 91.413 required testing. This fee has been the same no matter whether I do the labor of removing and reinstalling the altimeter and TSO'd altitude encoder, for bench testing and any adjustments needed prior to the airplane side testing, or they do that labor. (By the way, four years ago that flat fee was $150, now it is $300.) 3) "........the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity." I hope that the avionics shops continue this practice without any regard for what FAR Sec 91.217 says. 4) ".......the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity." I wonder about the complexity of removing and reinstalling an EFIS from the airplane compared to the complexity of removing and reinstalling an altimeter and separate TSO'd altitude encoder should any bench testing and adjusting be needed. A) Maybe EFIS removal and reinstallation is no big deal, but I envision a bunch of connections, particularly if it is the type of EFIS that also includes displaying engine performance parameters. B) Maybe the EFIS's have no means of local avionics shop adjustment. C) Maybe the EFIS's would never need adjustment. D) What has been the experience of EFIS operators that have actually been through FAR 91.411 and 91.413 checks, as appropriate, after flying for at least two years? Would any EFIS owners and operators care to comment on these points?. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." --------------------------------------------------- From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter OR...you could buy a Dynon and save even more during the IFR recertification check. In fact, the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity. Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 22, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Encoding Altimeter
I have no experience with the dynon other than I want my friend to put one in his rv7. But I can tell you that in installations such as this and like the G1000, its easier to certify devices in the airplane rather than removing them so you can be using whatever its readout is to certify it. I have run across one GDC 74A (Garmin g1000 air data computer) that failed a test point just slightly out of spec but garmin allows us to recalibrate and electrically slide the scale so everything is within spec all the way up. Remember that down low the tolerance is +/- 20 feet for altimeter certification and up over 20k its well over +/- 100 feet. Mechanical altimeters can and do sway their actual reading all over the place up at altitude, and generally the air data computer tpye devices are pretty darn close. YMMV Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:23 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > 4/22/2008 > > Hello Bill, Thanks for your input. You wrote: > > 1) "OR...you could buy a Dynon ........." > > Since the Dynon units do not contain a TSO'd altitude encoder operating > the Dynon unit alone to feed a transponder in flight would presently leave > one in violation of FAR Sec 91.217 (as interpreted by FAA HQ). There are > two ways to approach this condition: > > A) Purchase and install a separate TSO'd altitude encoder and use that > encoder to feed the aircraft's transponder. > > B) Decide that violation of 91.217 is an acceptable risk and feed the > transponder from the non TSO'd altitude encoder contained in the Dynon > unit. > > 2) ".....and save even more during the IFR recertification check." > > My local avionics shop charges a flat fee for the FAR Sections 91.411 and > 91.413 required testing. This fee has been the same no matter whether I do > the labor of removing and reinstalling the altimeter and TSO'd altitude > encoder, for bench testing and any adjustments needed prior to the > airplane side testing, or they do that labor. (By the way, four years ago > that flat fee was $150, now it is $300.) > > 3) "........the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their > accuracy and simplicity." > > I hope that the avionics shops continue this practice without any regard > for what FAR Sec 91.217 says. > > 4) ".......the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their > accuracy and simplicity." > > I wonder about the complexity of removing and reinstalling an EFIS from > the airplane compared to the complexity of removing and reinstalling an > altimeter and separate TSO'd altitude encoder should any bench testing and > adjusting be needed. > > A) Maybe EFIS removal and reinstallation is no big deal, but I envision a > bunch of connections, particularly if it is the type of EFIS that also > includes displaying engine performance parameters. > > B) Maybe the EFIS's have no means of local avionics shop adjustment. > > C) Maybe the EFIS's would never need adjustment. > > D) What has been the experience of EFIS operators that have actually been > through FAR 91.411 and 91.413 checks, as appropriate, after flying for at > least two years? > > Would any EFIS owners and operators care to comment on these points?. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > --------------------------------------------------- > > From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > > OR...you could buy a Dynon and save even more during the IFR > recertification check. In fact, the avionics shops actually prefer the > Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity. > > Bill > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Encoding Altimeter
Date: Apr 22, 2008
I have the Dynon and a mechanical altimeter...both remained in the plane for testing and both altimeters met the requirements. However, the transponder was removed for bench testing. Bill -----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, April 22, 2008 5:02 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter I have no experience with the dynon other than I want my friend to put one in his rv7. But I can tell you that in installations such as this and like the G1000, its easier to certify devices in the airplane rather than removing them so you can be using whatever its readout is to certify it. I have run across one GDC 74A (Garmin g1000 air data computer) that failed a test point just slightly out of spec but garmin allows us to recalibrate and electrically slide the scale so everything is within spec all the way up. Remember that down low the tolerance is +/- 20 feet for altimeter certification and up over 20k its well over +/- 100 feet. Mechanical altimeters can and do sway their actual reading all over the place up at altitude, and generally the air data computer tpye devices are pretty darn close. YMMV Charlie ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:23 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > 4/22/2008 > > Hello Bill, Thanks for your input. You wrote: > > 1) "OR...you could buy a Dynon ........." > > Since the Dynon units do not contain a TSO'd altitude encoder operating > the Dynon unit alone to feed a transponder in flight would presently leave > one in violation of FAR Sec 91.217 (as interpreted by FAA HQ). There are > two ways to approach this condition: > > A) Purchase and install a separate TSO'd altitude encoder and use that > encoder to feed the aircraft's transponder. > > B) Decide that violation of 91.217 is an acceptable risk and feed the > transponder from the non TSO'd altitude encoder contained in the Dynon > unit. > > 2) ".....and save even more during the IFR recertification check." > > My local avionics shop charges a flat fee for the FAR Sections 91.411 and > 91.413 required testing. This fee has been the same no matter whether I do > the labor of removing and reinstalling the altimeter and TSO'd altitude > encoder, for bench testing and any adjustments needed prior to the > airplane side testing, or they do that labor. (By the way, four years ago > that flat fee was $150, now it is $300.) > > 3) "........the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their > accuracy and simplicity." > > I hope that the avionics shops continue this practice without any regard > for what FAR Sec 91.217 says. > > 4) ".......the avionics shops actually prefer the Dynon due to their > accuracy and simplicity." > > I wonder about the complexity of removing and reinstalling an EFIS from > the airplane compared to the complexity of removing and reinstalling an > altimeter and separate TSO'd altitude encoder should any bench testing and > adjusting be needed. > > A) Maybe EFIS removal and reinstallation is no big deal, but I envision a > bunch of connections, particularly if it is the type of EFIS that also > includes displaying engine performance parameters. > > B) Maybe the EFIS's have no means of local avionics shop adjustment. > > C) Maybe the EFIS's would never need adjustment. > > D) What has been the experience of EFIS operators that have actually been > through FAR 91.411 and 91.413 checks, as appropriate, after flying for at > least two years? > > Would any EFIS owners and operators care to comment on these points?. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > --------------------------------------------------- > > From: "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> > Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Encoding Altimeter > > > OR...you could buy a Dynon and save even more during the IFR > recertification check. In fact, the avionics shops actually prefer the > Dynon due to their accuracy and simplicity. > > Bill > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: A36 wiring diagram
Date: Apr 23, 2008
Does anyone have a wiring diagram for an A36 Bonanza? I've got a FWF from a 1997 A36 and am putting it in my Navion (STC for the engine/prop). It comes with the 5 engine instruments which all have unique stamped numbers on their harnesses. They were cut when removed and I need to identify those numbers. Aside from reconnecting them to the sensors I need to add them to my wiring diagram. I only need the page or pages that deal with the engine instruments (MP, RPM, Oil Temp/Press, Fuel Flow & EGT/CHT). Any help is appreciated. Regards, Greg Young ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tony Crowe" <groups(at)bobcroweaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: A36 wiring diagram
Date: Apr 23, 2008
most maintance shops should have access to them on microfiche ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Young To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com ; avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:09 PM Subject: Avionics-List: A36 wiring diagram Does anyone have a wiring diagram for an A36 Bonanza? I've got a FWF from a 1997 A36 and am putting it in my Navion (STC for the engine/prop). It comes with the 5 engine instruments which all have unique stamped numbers on their harnesses. They were cut when removed and I need to identify those numbers. Aside from reconnecting them to the sensors I need to add them to my wiring diagram. I only need the page or pages that deal with the engine instruments (MP, RPM, Oil Temp/Press, Fuel Flow & EGT/CHT). Any help is appreciated. Regards, Greg Young ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Apr 26, 2008
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Four New Email Lists At Matronics!!
Dear Listers, I have added four new Lists to the Matronics line up today. These include the following categories: Citabria-List Citabria, Decathlon, Scout, and Champ Zenith601-List Zenair Zodiac CH 601 Zenith640-List Zenair Zodiac CH 640 Zenith701801-List Zenair STOL CH 701 and CH 801 All services are enabled and now available including Search, Browse, Digest, Archives, Forums, Chat, etc., etc. etc...: Citabria: http://www.matronics.com/navigator?citabria-list Zenith601: http://www.matronics.com/navigator?zenith601-list Zenith640: http://www.matronics.com/navigator?zenith640-list Zenith701801: http://www.matronics.com/navigator?zenith701801-list To subscribe, go to the Matronics Email List Subscription Form: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe To check the new Lists out on the Matronics Forum go here: http://forums.matronics.com Enjoy the new Lists!! Don't forget me during the Fund Raiser! :-) Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andrew McMenamin" <andrew.mcmenamin(at)xtra.co.nz>
Subject: Help with radio intereference
Date: May 04, 2008
I hope someone can help me! I have little technical knowledge and may have some of the technical terms incorrect but would appreciate any advice. I fly a Skyranger with a Simonini engine, at a controlled airfield. The Simonini is an Italian two cylinder, two stroke liquid cooled engine with dual Ducati ignition; two plugs per cylinder. It performs best at over 5000 rpm. I have significant problems with noise on the radio. I have a microair radio and a DRE 4000 headset. The radio is beautifully clear on the ground with the engine not running. After start up, I get an RPM - related interference which makes the radio very hard to hear over 5000 rpm - i.e. at cruise. I am also told the Tower find it hard to hear me. I can overcome it by reducing RPM to 4000 before transmitting but this is not desirable!. The interference reduces noticeably as I cut each magneto in turn at the full power ground run up (when listening to the ATIS). This makes me think it is ignition related. The spark plugs are NGK resistor plugs. The plug caps are standard, no resistor and non-shielded. The HT cables are NGK "racing" - i.e. copper core, no apparent shielding. The radio is positioned beside the two magneto switches on the dash, and shielded by the aluminium firewall from the mags. It is not shielded from the mag switch wires. I suspect the problem is to do with the HT cables, or the plug caps, or possibly the wires to the mag switches. I have read that I should not use resistor caps when already using resistor plugs. Should I use different HT leads?? Andrew ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 04, 2008
From: "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Help with radio intereference
I would start with trying to shield the plug wires first, also you should have shielded p lead wires goign to your switch grounding the shield at both ends. also check that your antenna base is well grounded thru the screws into the airframe and that belly oil or other gunk hasnt gotten underneath the antenna mounting, seal those antennas with a good sealant like pro-seal or fuel sealant for a long life seal, I also throw some whitesilicone over the screw heads if the antenna is the thru hole mounting style. Good luck with what sounds like a non typical flying contraption! safe flying! Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew McMenamin To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:35 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Help with radio intereference I hope someone can help me! I have little technical knowledge and may have some of the technical terms incorrect but would appreciate any advice. I fly a Skyranger with a Simonini engine, at a controlled airfield. The Simonini is an Italian two cylinder, two stroke liquid cooled engine with dual Ducati ignition; two plugs per cylinder. It performs best at over 5000 rpm. I have significant problems with noise on the radio. I have a microair radio and a DRE 4000 headset. The radio is beautifully clear on the ground with the engine not running. After start up, I get an RPM - related interference which makes the radio very hard to hear over 5000 rpm - i.e. at cruise. I am also told the Tower find it hard to hear me. I can overcome it by reducing RPM to 4000 before transmitting but this is not desirable!. The interference reduces noticeably as I cut each magneto in turn at the full power ground run up (when listening to the ATIS). This makes me think it is ignition related. The spark plugs are NGK resistor plugs. The plug caps are standard, no resistor and non-shielded. The HT cables are NGK "racing" - i.e. copper core, no apparent shielding. The radio is positioned beside the two magneto switches on the dash, and shielded by the aluminium firewall from the mags. It is not shielded from the mag switch wires. I suspect the problem is to do with the HT cables, or the plug caps, or possibly the wires to the mag switches. I have read that I should not use resistor caps when already using resistor plugs. Should I use different HT leads?? Andrew ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 04, 2008
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: ANL Current Limiter to protect 10 AWG Wire
I need some guidance. I want to use 10 AWG wire from my SD-20 alternator to feed my endurance bus. I would like to use an ANL current limiter to protect the wire. B&C sells a 40 amp ANL and Bussman makes a 35 amp ANL (does anyone have a source for this 35 amp ANL) The wire table (Fig 8-3) in the connection suggests 30 amp protection for 10 AWG wire. Is 35 or 40 amp protection on this wire acceptable? Would I be better off using a 14 AWG fusible link? In addition in this circuit I want to use a S704-1 relay that is rated at 20 amps, do I need to protect the relay? The maximum loads off the relay are well below the 20 amps, but if it does see excessive currents, how does it fail? Larry Rosen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ron Brown" <romott@mi-connection.com>
Subject: Re: Help with radio intereference
Date: May 04, 2008
I would try replacing the solid wire HT. I have a noise problems with my electronic ignition system - Jeff Rose Electroair on my Velocity. In my research into the problem, the resistance wire used with high energy ignition systems is key to reducing ignition noise. I tried to find the article that I had saved - but can't find it right now. Interestingly enough, I have a Garmin 430 and a Microair 760. Guess what, the cheap radio doesn't pick up the noise - it is the high dollar Garmin 430. Turning off the Electroair makes the noise go away. > From: "Andrew McMenamin" <andrew.mcmenamin(at)xtra.co.nz> > Subject: Avionics-List: Help with radio intereference > > I hope someone can help me! I have little technical knowledge and may > have > some of the technical terms incorrect but would appreciate any advice. > > > I fly a Skyranger with a Simonini engine, at a controlled airfield. The > Simonini is an Italian two cylinder, two stroke liquid cooled engine with > dual Ducati ignition; two plugs per cylinder. It performs best at over > 5000 > rpm. I have significant problems with noise on the radio. I have a > microair radio and a DRE 4000 headset. The radio is beautifully clear on > the ground with the engine not running. After start up, I get an RPM - > related interference which makes the radio very hard to hear over 5000 > rpm - > i.e. at cruise. I am also told the Tower find it hard to hear me. I can > overcome it by reducing RPM to 4000 before transmitting but this is not > desirable!. > > > The interference reduces noticeably as I cut each magneto in turn at the > full power ground run up (when listening to the ATIS). This makes me > think > it is ignition related. > > > The spark plugs are NGK resistor plugs. The plug caps are standard, no > resistor and non-shielded. The HT cables are NGK "racing" - i.e. copper > core, no apparent shielding. > > > The radio is positioned beside the two magneto switches on the dash, and > shielded by the aluminium firewall from the mags. It is not shielded from > the mag switch wires. > > > I suspect the problem is to do with the HT cables, or the plug caps, or > possibly the wires to the mag switches. I have read that I should not > use > resistor caps when already using resistor plugs. Should I use different > HT > leads?? > > > Andrew > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Help with radio intereference
Date: May 04, 2008
Sounds like the same type of ignition they put on the Rotax 582. That engine uses both resistor plugs and resistor plug caps (5k plugs BR8ES and 5K resistor caps.) Btw they recommend you only buy solid core plugs, not the ones with the screw on terminal. The solid core plugs have a stronger heavies top than the aluminium screw on clip. The general rule of thumb is to use either resistor plugs or resistor caps... The Duc ignition seems to be the exception that makes the rule. It that doesn't work. You can then try looking at shielding your spark plugs or installing an antenna a bit more distant from the engine... I'll go out on a limb here and bet one full bubblegum the resistor plugs and resistor caps will do the trick. Any takers J Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew McMenamin Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 4:06 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Help with radio intereference I hope someone can help me! I have little technical knowledge and may have some of the technical terms incorrect but would appreciate any advice. I fly a Skyranger with a Simonini engine, at a controlled airfield. The Simonini is an Italian two cylinder, two stroke liquid cooled engine with dual Ducati ignition; two plugs per cylinder. It performs best at over 5000 rpm. I have significant problems with noise on the radio. I have a microair radio and a DRE 4000 headset. The radio is beautifully clear on the ground with the engine not running. After start up, I get an RPM - related interference which makes the radio very hard to hear over 5000 rpm - i.e. at cruise. I am also told the Tower find it hard to hear me. I can overcome it by reducing RPM to 4000 before transmitting but this is not desirable!. The interference reduces noticeably as I cut each magneto in turn at the full power ground run up (when listening to the ATIS). This makes me think it is ignition related. The spark plugs are NGK resistor plugs. The plug caps are standard, no resistor and non-shielded. The HT cables are NGK "racing" - i.e. copper core, no apparent shielding. The radio is positioned beside the two magneto switches on the dash, and shielded by the aluminium firewall from the mags. It is not shielded from the mag switch wires. I suspect the problem is to do with the HT cables, or the plug caps, or possibly the wires to the mag switches. I have read that I should not use resistor caps when already using resistor plugs. Should I use different HT leads?? Andrew ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Help with radio intereference
Date: May 04, 2008
Shielding the P leads is a good idea. It should be part of the original installation, but... only shield them at one end, where the ground should be strongest. Typically this will be the engine end however some switches have grounded cases at which time the shield should be grounded at the switch end. Shields should NEVER be grounded at both ends because if there is a difference in the strength of the ground from one end to the other (there will be) you have just constructed a capacitive couple to make the interference worse. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charles Reiche Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Help with radio intereference I would start with trying to shield the plug wires first, also you should have shielded p lead wires goign to your switch grounding the shield at both ends. also check that your antenna base is well grounded thru the screws into the airframe and that belly oil or other gunk hasnt gotten underneath the antenna mounting, seal those antennas with a good sealant like pro-seal or fuel sealant for a long life seal, I also throw some whitesilicone over the screw heads if the antenna is the thru hole mounting style. Good luck with what sounds like a non typical flying contraption! safe flying! Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew <mailto:andrew.mcmenamin(at)xtra.co.nz> McMenamin Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 2:35 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Help with radio intereference I hope someone can help me! I have little technical knowledge and may have some of the technical terms incorrect but would appreciate any advice. I fly a Skyranger with a Simonini engine, at a controlled airfield. The Simonini is an Italian two cylinder, two stroke liquid cooled engine with dual Ducati ignition; two plugs per cylinder. It performs best at over 5000 rpm. I have significant problems with noise on the radio. I have a microair radio and a DRE 4000 headset. The radio is beautifully clear on the ground with the engine not running. After start up, I get an RPM - related interference which makes the radio very hard to hear over 5000 rpm - i.e. at cruise. I am also told the Tower find it hard to hear me. I can overcome it by reducing RPM to 4000 before transmitting but this is not desirable!. The interference reduces noticeably as I cut each magneto in turn at the full power ground run up (when listening to the ATIS). This makes me think it is ignition related. The spark plugs are NGK resistor plugs. The plug caps are standard, no resistor and non-shielded. The HT cables are NGK "racing" - i.e. copper core, no apparent shielding. The radio is positioned beside the two magneto switches on the dash, and shielded by the aluminium firewall from the mags. It is not shielded from the mag switch wires. I suspect the problem is to do with the HT cables, or the plug caps, or possibly the wires to the mag switches. I have read that I should not use resistor caps when already using resistor plugs. Should I use different HT leads?? Andrew href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List">http://www.matronics .com/Navigator?Avionics-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: ANL Current Limiter to protect 10 AWG Wire
Date: May 04, 2008
Larry: There are two reasons to use the fuse. One is to protect the wire... The other is to protect the alternator. Putting a 35 or 40A fuse of any kind on a 20A alternator doesn't give the alternator any protection from over draw or short circuit. To protect the wire place the fuse (no more than 20A) as close to the alternator as is feasible. If you want 20 A protection and think you might come across short spikes use a 20A slo-blo fuse. The relay you have chosen is rated at 20 A. I would go with a bigger (higher capacity) relay. If your aircraft is not certified (AB) I would check out a relay used for RV batteries. They are usually around 30 A. However those relays are rated to switch that current. Each time the relay is either opened or closed under load there are little sparks that slowly eat the contactors inside the relay. The relay is more than able to handle 20 amps continuously. If the relay is over driven it will melt. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:29 AM Subject: Avionics-List: ANL Current Limiter to protect 10 AWG Wire I need some guidance. I want to use 10 AWG wire from my SD-20 alternator to feed my endurance bus. I would like to use an ANL current limiter to protect the wire. B&C sells a 40 amp ANL and Bussman makes a 35 amp ANL (does anyone have a source for this 35 amp ANL) The wire table (Fig 8-3) in the connection suggests 30 amp protection for 10 AWG wire. Is 35 or 40 amp protection on this wire acceptable? Would I be better off using a 14 AWG fusible link? In addition in this circuit I want to use a S704-1 relay that is rated at 20 amps, do I need to protect the relay? The maximum loads off the relay are well below the 20 amps, but if it does see excessive currents, how does it fail? Larry Rosen ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Help with radio intereference
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: May 04, 2008
Its going to be difficult to properly shield the wires. NGK used to sell shielded plugs in their range I understand are not available now. I had bad radio noise on a Jabiru installation and did some RFI testing of various types of HT lead, shielding and R plugs. Changing from carbon HT leads to inductive resistive wire yielded the best improvement. The brand I used was Bosch so if not available something from NGK, Denso or Magnecore might be similar. Aircraft shielded harness wire was little better than plain copper. Resistor plugs helped, but using extra resistor caps would be unwise. If your HT leads from the coil packs are not replaceable, slip a small ferrite clip-on supression bead at the coil ends, and another midway. These are obtainable from electronics stores and normally used on audio and computer cabling. I did this on my coil leads as they are copper, and it helped. The other method is to shift the radio antenna as far away as practical from the engine. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181174#181174 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Avionics Upgrade options
From: "n1345p" <n1345p(at)suddenlink.net>
Date: May 05, 2008
Avionics Upgrade options; I have A&P, BSEE, CFI-I and lotsa other letters... I have an instrument student with a 1962 Cessna 172 with the following: RST Audio panel/MB Works good. RST intercom Works fine. Terra TXN720 VOR needs calibrated; about 10 degree off. TRI-NAV-C To and From works, Couldn't get OBS knob to work. LOC worked fine, GS always max up when ILS freq was selected and receiving no GS in TXN720. King KX145 Audio is poor, both TX and RX, VOR head would work, VOR audio (HIWAS and Morse Code) was fine, but little action on the Indicator No TO or FROM, and needle moved by not seem unrelated to Nav inputs. We ordered the Terra manuals today from Essco, and will attempt to calibrate the VOR and repair OBS knob. I don't have any hope for the KX145. It may just needed reseating the radio into the rack. We'll try that. Now this student/owner wants to add a glideslope receiver to do his instrument training and increase the utility of his airplane. I think any radio shop would recommend throwing these radios away and starting new. Options are: 1. Lowest cost add an external GS receiver to the Terra TXN720 such as a TKM-MG-200 or other. Make sure the Terra radio with Channel the GS, and interface with Terra TriNavC, need splitter for VOR/GS antenna. Should be less than $1000 plus labor. 2. Next lowest cost - Replace the KX145 indicator with an Val INS422 - We put one of these in a Cessna 150. It is a good fit. Less than $2000. 3. Best Value Replace KX145 with Garmin 430W and GI106A likely 8 to 10 grand. 4. What other options should we consider? mitch Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181315#181315 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: May 06, 2008
Subject: Glideslope upgrade options
My strategy, not a recommendation or advise: invest low in gs technology, upgrade when I get serious about ifr to 430Waas or to newer gs equipment that the Garmin users are throwing away. I bought a freshly overhauled KNS 80 (vor/loc/gs/dme) with tray and backplate for $600. I've seen others advertised that claimed to be working good for half that. Big, ugly, heavy, but no subscription required. I can only shudder to think what repair costs might be..... Other than the cdi wiring, rest of wiring for KNS80 (or 81 if the external dme is not used) is not complicated: antenna(s), power, ground, lights, nav audio, dme audio. KNS 80/81 and Garmins need a cdi with resolver, KI 206. Collins 350/351, there are some ARC indicators that work but its a big secret to me. I was also interested in the TKM led cdi, but can't get confirmation that it will work with the Garmin/King stuff. I also read that the TERRA cdi will work with King/Garmin, but that the light bar technology goes out of whack (a step motor for lighting the bars instead of direct led lighting like the TKM?). Or use a new MidContinent/Garmin cdi with the internal annunciator lights and all , I don't see them for sale used, 206 I see for $900, collins a little less. TKM new is $600 I think. Query: can you legally install a KNS81 (even cheaper) in a certified aircraft, simply don't hook up anything to the dme input, placard the unit as "DME permanently inop". Are there any electrical reasons not to do so, or do I need to put a jumper in, or what? I have talked to pilots who have used the KNS81 with the dme out for repairs, would there be a long term degradation? So, at upgrade time to 430 I will keep my KI206: re-pin one end of cdi harness for Garmin; add gps antenna; move vor/loc/gs antenna to Garmin; re-pin ends for power, ground, nav audio wires, comm wires; and change mounting can over. Donate KNS80? Good luck, Skip Other than the cdi harness, the electricity part of the install is simpler than the mounting/antenna/ **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Glideslope upgrade options
From: "n1345p" <n1345p(at)suddenlink.net>
Date: May 07, 2008
Skip, Thanks for the information. My student also wants to add a glide slope at a lower cost. Your solution is a KNS80 plus an indicator. - KNS80 = $600 - KI206 = $900 - Total Eq=$1500 plus installation The Val Ins422 is $1751 new from aircraftspruce: - easier to install - one piece instead of two - no interconnecting cables. - Should be more reliable since it is new. maybe maybe not. - We have one in a C150, works fine. The KNS80 plan has some merit. Thanks. mitch Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181715#181715 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2008
From: "Ian Edgar" <iredgar(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Bendix-King KLN-90B
My receiver has a loose control knob and the hex key size is smaller than 1/16". Anyone know what size key is needed for these knobs? Doesn't look like they'll be at my local hardware store though. Also needing a source for 4-40 x 3/32" set screws for my NAV122, they sent the new knobs without the setscrews. Ian Edgar Canberra ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tony Crowe" <groups(at)bobcroweaircraft.com>
Subject: Re: Bendix-King KLN-90B
Date: May 07, 2008
You can get hex keys in .028 .035 .050 inch ----- Original Message ----- From: Ian Edgar To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 9:57 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Bendix-King KLN-90B My receiver has a loose control knob and the hex key size is smaller than 1/16". Anyone know what size key is needed for these knobs? Doesn't look like they'll be at my local hardware store though. Also needing a source for 4-40 x 3/32" set screws for my NAV122, they sent the new knobs without the setscrews. Ian Edgar Canberra ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 07, 2008
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Bendix-King KLN-90B
My receiver has a loose control knob and the hex key size is smaller than 1/16". Anyone know what size key is needed for these knobs? King was big on Bristo (Bristol) screws which had six indents rather than six flat sides as do Allen screws. The proper screwdriver has ridges at the vertices of a hexagon rather than flats. Your hardware store may know about them. Harbor Freight has been offering a collection of tips for 1/4 inch handles for a reasonable price. Doesn't look like they'll be at my local hardware store though. Also needing a source for 4-40 x 3/32" set screws for my NAV122, they sent the new knobs without the setscrews. Those ought to be easy to find. Can't you use the old ones? Stop by if you're anywhere near Colorado Springs. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: May 08, 2008
Subject: VAL glideslope
The VAL is attractive, I almost bought one used. Antenna, power, light, audio out, seems simple. Self contained. And I like the led v. needles. Just seems like the fewer moving parts of the leds would be more reliable..... I like the idea of the Narco NAV122 but so much complaints about Narco have me worried. VAL (I believe) told me it wouldn't work with Garmin. A couple of posters (don't remember where) had issues with VAL equipment. As important to me at the time, the early model does NOT include the vor, so as I understand it is the "close in" glideslope/converter mode only. Probably not a big deal if you already have other vor, other than panel space. The later VAL unit does include the full vor. Not sure of STC or TSO status. My local FSDO told me that as long as the avionics are TSO, they consider it a minor alteration. The real benefit of the King mode would be to be able to use the 206 indicator with a Garmin later, so the equipment loss would be on the sale of the KNS80. I received a pm from a lister who says his TKM cdi/gs indicator worked fine with his Garmin and King KN53 (same as kx155?) and which includes an internal switcher. I might sell my 206 for that. Let us know about the VAL, and if anyone has more info on the TKM please let me know. Thanks Skip **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2008
From: "Ian Edgar" <iredgar(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bendix-King KLN-90B
Thanks Doug, I'll find a source for a couple of the right size Xcellite splined keys here in Oz. As for the NAV122 set screws, Colorado Springs is a bit far for a day trip ;-) (it was an ebay purchase and neither of us thought of them when the seller said "I'll send new knobs") Ian Edgar Canberra (Australia) On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Doug McNutt wrote: > > > > My receiver has a loose control knob and the hex key size is smaller than > 1/16". Anyone know what size key is needed for these knobs? > > King was big on Bristo (Bristol) screws which had six indents rather than > six flat sides as do Allen screws. The proper screwdriver has ridges at the > vertices of a hexagon rather than flats. > > Your hardware store may know about them. Harbor Freight has been offering a > collection of tips for 1/4 inch handles for a reasonable price. > > Doesn't look like they'll be at my local hardware store though. Also > needing a source for 4-40 x 3/32" set screws for my NAV122, they sent the > new knobs without the setscrews. > > Those ought to be easy to find. Can't you use the old ones? Stop by if > you're anywhere near Colorado Springs. > > -- > > --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. > <-- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Holbrook" <dholbrook7(at)cox.net>
Subject: autopilots
Date: May 11, 2008
I've convinced myself that an autopilot is now a 'must have' item. The apparent choices seem to be Trio's EZpilot, or TruTrac's Pictoral Pilot II. Any Pro/Con comments on either. Or alternatives. Dennis RV6 - SE VA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Schoen" <flybill2usa(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: autopilots
Date: May 12, 2008
Dennis Have you considered the Dynon AP which sounds too good to be true especially if you are using the Dynon D100 for your primary instrument package. It won't be out until the fall apparently but they are now accepting orders I believe. I agree the an AP is a must have item, particularly if you plan to do much IFR work with it. These airplanes are such good cross country machines, an AP for about 3 grand ($1,500 for the fancy Dynon AP76 and $750 each for 2 servos) is too good a tool to pass up even on a nice sunny VFR day. If it works as good as the rest of their stuff supposedly does. Bill RV-7 Finish kit South Fork, CO ----- Original Message ----- From: Dennis Holbrook<mailto:dholbrook7(at)cox.net> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 10:01 PM Subject: Avionics-List: autopilots I've convinced myself that an autopilot is now a 'must have' item. The apparent choices seem to be Trio's EZpilot, or TruTrac's Pictoral Pilot II. Any Pro/Con comments on either. Or alternatives. Dennis RV6 - SE VA http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List /Navigator?Avionics-List> http://www.matronics.com/contribution on> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2008
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Connector for P-1000
I have a Horizon Instruments, Inc. P-1000 Digital Engine Tachometer. It has a 6-pin connector labeled "Amphenol 14S-6PF". Does anyone have a source to buy a matching connector to build its hardness? Also, anyone has pin-out for this unit? Thanks in advance. Robin Hou ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "T. Graziano" <tonyplane(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: autopilots
Date: May 12, 2008
I have been using a Trio EZ Pilot II in my Zodiac 601XL for 374 hours. Never a problem. EZ to install. Works as advertised and would do it again. I would highly recommend an AP. I can have the data stream sent to the AP either via my GPS296 or via my BM EFIS via a switch on the panel.Tony GrazianoZodiac 601XL; N493TG----------------------------I've convinced myself that an autopilot is now a 'must have' item. The apparent choices seem to be Trio's EZpilot, or TruTrac's Pictoral Pilot II. Any Pro/Con comments on either. Or alternatives. Dennis RV6 - SE VA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Connector for P-1000
Date: May 13, 2008
Try Aviall or ant avionics shop. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Hou Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:19 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Connector for P-1000 I have a Horizon Instruments, Inc. P-1000 Digital Engine Tachometer. It has a 6-pin connector labeled "Amphenol 14S-6PF". Does anyone have a source to buy a matching connector to build its hardness? Also, anyone has pin-out for this unit? Thanks in advance. Robin Hou ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2008
From: "D Wysong" <hdwysong(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/12/08
> I have a Horizon Instruments, Inc. P-1000 Digital Engine Tachometer. It has a > 6-pin connector labeled "Amphenol 14S-6PF". Does anyone have a source to buy > a matching connector to build its hardness? Hello Robin, Try www.mouser.com and search for "amphenol 14S-6". They will point you to their catalog and Amphenol datasheets that will assist you in finding a mating connector. D ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2008
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/12/08
> >> I have a Horizon Instruments, Inc. P-1000 Digital Engine Tachometer. It has a >> 6-pin connector labeled "Amphenol 14S-6PF". Does anyone have a source to buy >> a matching connector to build its hardness? > >Hello Robin, #! > >Try www.mouser.com and search for "amphenol 14S-6". They will point >you to their catalog and Amphenol datasheets that will assist you in >finding a mating connector. I have in my hands an MS3106A - 14S -6S, A relic of World War II, in my hands. Pins are letters A through F with pin A aligned with the alignment slot. Where are you. Anywhere near Colorado Springs? Digikey lists a mate to your connector but they have a $25 minimum charge. I donno about Mouser. You'll need a cable clamp to go with it. Hit me off line at dmcnutt@ (the from line) Colorado Springs, CO, US of A. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2008
From: Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List Digest: 3 Msgs - 05/12/08
Digikey doesn't actually have a $25 minimum. What they have is a $5 extra handling charge if your order is less than $25. Mouser has no minimum charge or handling charge - but their prices are typically a little higher. Dick Tasker Doug McNutt wrote: > > >> >> >>> I have a Horizon Instruments, Inc. P-1000 Digital Engine Tachometer. It has a >>> 6-pin connector labeled "Amphenol 14S-6PF". Does anyone have a source to buy >>> a matching connector to build its hardness? >>> >> Hello Robin, #! >> >> Try www.mouser.com and search for "amphenol 14S-6". They will point >> you to their catalog and Amphenol datasheets that will assist you in >> finding a mating connector. >> > > I have in my hands an MS3106A - 14S -6S, A relic of World War II, in my hands. Pins are letters A through F with pin A aligned with the alignment slot. > > Where are you. Anywhere near Colorado Springs? > > Digikey lists a mate to your connector but they have a $25 minimum charge. I donno about Mouser. You'll need a cable clamp to go with it. > > Hit me off line at dmcnutt@ (the from line) Colorado Springs, CO, US of A. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Holbrook" <dholbrook7(at)cox.net>
Subject: autopilot
Date: May 13, 2008
To the many folks who responded to my autopilot questions... Thanks! All good info on a variety of equipment. Apparently, there is no bad choice... other than not installing an autopilot at all. Dennis ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 14, 2008
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Connector for P-1000
Thanks for all who replied. Digi-Key emailed me that they don't have it. Mouser was helpful; they gave me Amphenol's tech support to call after trying for 30 min on the phone without answer. Amphenol was helpful too; after 3 calls to different people, I was given "97-3106A-14S-6S" as the part no. for the mating connector. Found it on Mouser's website and just ordered it for $10.55. Doug, I got your reply after I placed my order with Mouser; will contact you if Mouser's unit does not work for me, thanks. Robn Hou P.S. Horizon wanted $65 for the connector. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2008
From: Robin Hou <rmhou(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Antenna installation
My Terra radio installation instruction says "Proper attachment of any antenna to the aircraft surface is of primary importance. Carefully clean all paint and corrosion off the mounting surface and apply an anti-corrosion treatment." Question 1., does "clean all paint" mean strip all paint to bare aluminum? Question 2., what type of "anti-corrosion treatment" should I use? Thanks in advance, Robin Hou ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2008
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna installation
My Terra radio installation instruction says "Proper attachment of any antenna to the aircraft surface is of primary importance. Carefully clean all paint and corrosion off the mounting surface and apply an anti-corrosion treatment." Question 1., does "clean all paint" mean strip all paint to bare aluminum? The idea is to be sure the metal parts of the antenna are well grounded to the skin of the aircraft. Assuming you're talking about a VHF comm antenna the aircraft skin works like a more or less flat mirror making the antenna look twice as long and fed at the center. The screws that hold the antenna down are not very good as conductors of radio frequency current. Metal to metal all around is good. Question 2., what type of "anti-corrosion treatment" should I use? They're probably thinking alodyne but I doubt that it's necessary. Others suggest a ring of bathtub caulk (silicone) around the outside of the installed antenna. What you don't want is an insulator like an anodized surface or a paint primer. -- --> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dustin Paulson" <dustinp(at)hughes.net>
Subject: BK 170B transmit prob.
Date: May 23, 2008
As I was preparing to take off for a BFR check ride last night, my CFI said "don't do what the guy who just took off in front of you did by not announcing your intentions". Later "that guy" stopped by my hangar, and I asked why he didn't use his radio. He said he had, and he heard me fine when I was transmitting, and was able to hear himself over his headphones when he used PTT button to make his announcements. Any ideas out there on where to start diagnosing what may have caused his ability to receive transmissions, but not to send them on his BK 170B. Thanks Dustin Paulson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: BK 170B transmit prob.
Date: May 23, 2008
Rick mentioned a broken mic wire... If that were the case he would not have had side tone. Same thing true for the PTT switch. I'd start checking from the antenna back. Try another transmitter on the antenna feed line. If you can beg, borrow, buy or steal a bird wattmeter you are in business. You should see power as soon as the mic is keyed. If you don't you will have to pull the radio. Good thing is if the problem is in the antenna feed line then you will probably get off with just replacing the feed line. Don't forget to put in the drip loops. If the radio is original I expect it has output tubes and the possibility of a blown tube is pretty good. Once the heater element burns open the tube won't work at all. A good avionics shop should have it fixed in a couple of hours... Those rigs are built to be worked on. Noel From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dustin Paulson Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 9:32 AM Subject: Avionics-List: BK 170B transmit prob. As I was preparing to take off for a BFR check ride last night, my CFI said "don't do what the guy who just took off in front of you did by not announcing your intentions". Later "that guy" stopped by my hangar, and I asked why he didn't use his radio. He said he had, and he heard me fine when I was transmitting, and was able to hear himself over his headphones when he used PTT button to make his announcements. Any ideas out there on where to start diagnosing what may have caused his ability to receive transmissions, but not to send them on his BK 170B. Thanks Dustin Paulson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dustin Paulson" <dustinp(at)hughes.net>
Subject: Re: BK 170B transmit prob.
Date: May 24, 2008
Thanks for all of the replies. I'll pass then on, and if I hear what the problem ended up being I will pass that on too! Dustin Paulson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Maurice" <mo44d(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: BK 170B transmit prob.
Date: May 24, 2008
It happened tome once when a right seat passenger knocked my mike connect to under the panel out. Maurice Fitzgerald ----- Original Message ----- From: Dustin Paulson To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:02 AM Subject: Avionics-List: BK 170B transmit prob. As I was preparing to take off for a BFR check ride last night, my CFI said "don't do what the guy who just took off in front of you did by not announcing your intentions". Later "that guy" stopped by my hangar, and I asked why he didn't use his radio. He said he had, and he heard me fine when I was transmitting, and was able to hear himself over his headphones when he used PTT button to make his announcements. Any ideas out there on where to start diagnosing what may have caused his ability to receive transmissions, but not to send them on his BK 170B. Thanks Dustin Paulson ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: King KY 97a problem
From: "peteohms" <apeterchristensen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 25, 2008
I have a King KY 97a in my Kitfox. We had a heavy sandstorm where it is parked of 50 mph winds. When I went flying a day or two after the windstorm, the radio on receive sounded unsquelched. I can't find a squelch on the radio. I believe it is automatic. I think somehow the electrical buildup on the antenna from the sandstorm did something to the radio. Anyone out there know any solutions? Pete El Paso, TX Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=184774#184774 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: King KY 97a problem
From: "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz>
Date: May 25, 2008
The squelch is opened by pulling out the volume knob. I suspect you've left it clicked out. If not, you can check the internal setting which is a small screwdriver adjustment via a hole on the top cover "SQ" there is another adjustment for signal level squelch too. These holes are normally covered by s sticky label. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=184789#184789 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: King KY 97a problem
From: "peteohms" <apeterchristensen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 25, 2008
jetboy wrote: > The squelch is opened by pulling out the volume knob. I suspect you've left it clicked out. > > If not, you can check the internal setting which is a small screwdriver adjustment via a hole on the top cover "SQ" there is another adjustment for signal level squelch too. These holes are normally covered by s sticky label. > > Ralph Thanks Ralph, The volume knob is probably it. I'll let you know. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=184791#184791 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: KY 97a transponder problem
From: "peteohms" <apeterchristensen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 26, 2008
While flying through class c airspace, a controller reported that my transponder was squaking the wrong code. Is there a simple solution to fixing this? Pete Hell Paso, TX Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=184863#184863 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2008
From: Joe Dubner <jdubner(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: KY 97a transponder problem
Pete, I didn't know there is a KY-97A. But assuming your transponder has the familiar four switches (and not a keypad or pushbuttons): about the only simple thing you can do without opening the unit is to cycle the code select switches through their entire ranges a few times. Switch contacts can oxidize (and fail to make contact) if they're not actuated occasionally and many of us leave our transponders with "1200" set for long periods of time. Best, Joe Lewiston, ID On 05/26/2008 07:41 peteohms wrote: > > While flying through class c airspace, a controller reported that my transponder was squaking the wrong code. Is there a simple solution to fixing this? > > Pete > Hell Paso, TX ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Pete Christensen" <apeterchristensen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: KY 97a transponder problem
Date: May 26, 2008
Sorry Joe it was KT 76a. And thanks allot. I'll try the cycling. That sounds like it could help. Pete ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Dubner" <jdubner(at)yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: KY 97a transponder problem > > Pete, > > I didn't know there is a KY-97A. But assuming your transponder has the > familiar four switches (and not a keypad or pushbuttons): about the only > simple thing you can do without opening the unit is to cycle the code > select switches through their entire ranges a few times. > > Switch contacts can oxidize (and fail to make contact) if they're not > actuated occasionally and many of us leave our transponders with "1200" > set for long periods of time. > > Best, > Joe > Lewiston, ID > > > On 05/26/2008 07:41 peteohms wrote: >> >> >> While flying through class c airspace, a controller reported that my >> transponder was squaking the wrong code. Is there a simple solution to >> fixing this? >> >> Pete >> Hell Paso, TX > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: KT-76a transponder problem
From: "peteohms" <apeterchristensen(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: May 26, 2008
That makes sense. I'll cycle thge switches. This plane sat for a couple years before I bought it Pete Kitfox III Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=184893#184893 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: VHF Transmitting Noise
From: "Lennart" <lennart.oborn(at)telia.com>
Date: Jun 06, 2008
Hi BillG, is the noise gone? I have the same issue and the same radio and is curious about the result. Rgds Lennart RV-7A Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=186485#186485 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: SOLD Blue Mountain EFIS One for sale Price Slashed!!!!
SOLD
From: "jwscholl5629" <jscholl(at)mba1993.hbs.edu>
Date: Jun 09, 2008
I am selling mine, too, for the same price Same reason for selling. I am getting a great deal on a G4 unit and I want some of those features. Mine has flown for 180 hours. I had BMA install the high-rate gyro's about a year ago (400 deg per sec). It's a solid unit and provides fantastic situational awareness. I will gladly send to BMA for a full checkup if you buy it, so you know it's in good shape. Jon -------- Jon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=187016#187016 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chuck Deiterich" <cffd(at)pgrb.com>
Subject: Garmin 250XL internal battery
Date: Jun 22, 2008
I understand there is an internal battery for the memory of the user input stored data. I have had my 250XL for about 5 years and it works great. Has anybody had to replace this battery and if so what and where is the battery? Is it difficult to replace? Chuck D. N701TX ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: WTB - Garmin GNS 430 backplate
From: "jonaburns" <lsapilot(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Jun 29, 2008
Does anyone have an extra backplate for the 430 they would be willing to part with? Thanks, Jon Burns lsapilot(at)hotmail.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=190448#190448 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: KT-70
Date: Jul 18, 2008
Any opinions out there on the KT-70 transponder? First, I heard it was great! Then I heard it is no longer supported by King, so if it fails you can't get parts and it becomes a doorstop. Any truth to any of that? Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: KT-70
Date: Jul 18, 2008
From: <longg(at)pjm.com>
Don, Options? As you probably know the KT-70 is old as the first personal computer. Now, that doesn't make it bad, but there are certainly newer, better solutions out there for the same or less $ than the KT-70. You can pick-up a Garmin 327 fairly cheap on eBay etc. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Recall: KT-70
Date: Jul 19, 2008
The sender would like to recall the message, "KT-70". ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: XCOM Radio and Intercom
From: "Mark Colbeck" <mark(at)masterpieceliving.ca>
Date: Jul 20, 2008
I am using the XCOM 760 Radio and no separate intercom. I have it all hooked up and can receive as I hear the guys flying above but my intercom is not working. I can't hear myself or music input???? Any suggestions? I have gone through the wiring again and it looks fine to me. When I hit the PTT you can hear it transmit (sounds that way) but I still cannot hear myself. I have checked all the levels and tried the sqlch several times. Any suggestions? -------- CH701 70% Complete www.mykitlog.com/mcolbeck Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193919#193919 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Chris East <lik_2_fly(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: XCOM Radio and Intercom
Date: Jul 21, 2008
Hi Mark I know they have a 3 position intercom insolation switch=2C could this be i n the wrong position? 3 Positions normal=2C isolate and off. I have been caught with this one mys elf. *Quote Manual* http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/manuals/manuals.html =B7 2 place voice activated intercom=2C with pilot over-ride and passenger (pax) isolate (pax can listen to cd music while pilot listens to com). Dual mode input line for cd or second com input. Cd music has auto fade=2C turns off if com is receiving and reduces in volume if pilot or pax talk. Check your getting a TX indcation on the screen when you hit PTT=2C if you getting that check your side volume. I heard they have had some trouble with overdriving the input side as well. Chris> Subject: Avionics-List: XCOM Radio and Intercom> From: mark@masterpi eceliving.ca> Date: Sun=2C 20 Jul 2008 07:58:14 -0700> To: avionics-list@ma sterpieceliving.ca>> > I am using the XCOM 760 Radio and no separate interc om. I have it all hooked up and can receive as I hear the guys flying above but my intercom is not working. I can't hear myself or music input???? Any suggestions? I have gone through the wiring again and it looks fine to me. When I hit the PTT you can hear it transmit (sounds that way) but I still cannot hear myself. I have checked all the levels and tried the sqlch sever al times. Any suggestions?> > --------> CH701 > 70% Complete> > www.mykitlo g.com/mcolbeck> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matro > > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live Messenger-treats you to 30 free emoticons --Bees=2C cows =2C tigers and more! http://livelife.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=567534 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: XCOM Radio and Intercom
From: "Mark Colbeck" <mark(at)masterpieceliving.ca>
Date: Jul 20, 2008
Thanks Chris. I do not have that switch put in as I thought I wouldnt need to have it. Looks like it may not work without it. I will pick up the switch and try it. -------- CH701 70% Complete www.mykitlog.com/mcolbeck Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194029#194029 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tommy Walker" <twalker(at)cableone.net>
Subject: Re: XCOM Radio and Intercom
Date: Jul 21, 2008
Hi, I've had the same problem with my XCOM when I didn't have the switch set correctly. Tommy walker Thanks Chris. I do not have that switch put in as I thought I wouldnt need to have it. Looks like it may not work without it. I will pick up the switch and try it. -------- CH701 70% Complete www.mykitlog.com/mcolbeck ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Holbrook" <dholbrook7(at)cox.net>
Subject: xcom radio
Date: Jul 21, 2008
I'm looking at an xcom radio as replacement for my Terra. The install issue discussed last week is noted. Any operational experience/comments about the latest xcom? Thanks, Dennis/RV6 - VA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ivor Phillips" <ivor.phillips(at)ntlworld.com>
Subject: xcom radio
Date: Jul 22, 2008
Dennis I have an Xcom as a second radio and have received ATIS from 60 NM out, out performing the Garmin SL30 by a wide margin, Highly recommended unit, Even though I will only use it as a emergency Radio :-), it's a shame that our CAA will not authorize its use in the UK because its not typed approved, Regards Ivor/Europa XS -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Holbrook Sent: 22 July 2008 02:21 Subject: Avionics-List: xcom radio I'm looking at an xcom radio as replacement for my Terra. The install issue discussed last week is noted. Any operational experience/comments about the latest xcom? Thanks, Dennis/RV6 - VA ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jul 28, 2008
From: Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com>
Subject: VFR GPS'
I just saw the King AV8OR. It looks pretty cool but no NMEA serial output. How could anyone make such a blunder? The display is only 4.3" and all the connectors are on the side so it'll be hard to panel mount. I've been looking for a while for something to replace my Skymap IIIC. The Skymap is great but it doesn't have XM-WX capability. That's really the only thing I miss. I have the panel mount kit and it drives my fuel flow instrument and an autopilot coupler. If I could find something else with a 5" display, fits in my radio stack, not over 4" deep and has XM-WX and NMEA serial out I'd buy it. Anyone seen any new cool thing at Oshkosh? - Bill ________________________________________________________________________________
From: G Vogt <teamgrumman(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: VFR GPS'
Date: Jul 30, 2008
Go look at the Icon LSA. It's an all composite amphib. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 28, 2008, at 9:27 PM, Bill Putney wrote: > > I just saw the King AV8OR. It looks pretty cool but no NMEA serial > output. How could anyone make such a blunder? The display is only > 4.3" and all the connectors are on the side so it'll be hard to > panel mount. > > I've been looking for a while for something to replace my Skymap > IIIC. The Skymap is great but it doesn't have XM-WX capability. > That's really the only thing I miss. I have the panel mount kit and > it drives my fuel flow instrument and an autopilot coupler. > > If I could find something else with a 5" display, fits in my radio > stack, not over 4" deep and has XM-WX and NMEA serial out I'd buy it. > > Anyone seen any new cool thing at Oshkosh? > > - Bill > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bose X Aviation Headset For Sale
From: "Geico266" <Geico266(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 05, 2008
I have a nice Bose X for sale on e-Bay http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=020&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=300247651009&rd=1 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=196671#196671 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: .110 fast on connectors???
Date: Aug 08, 2008
Listers: Is there such a thing as a .110 fast on connector? I have IDEC pushbutton switches with .110 male terminals and I would much prefer a female fast on =2C as opposed to soldering. I haven't been able to locate any=2C so I'm t hinking they don't exist and I will have to solder??? Thanks. Don...www.donsbushcaddy.comDon Morrisey's Skunkworks _________________________________________________________________ Get more from your digital life. Find out how. http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2008
From: Harley <harley(at)agelesswings.com>
Subject: Re: .110 fast on connectors???
Morning, Don... Yes they exist, and funny that you can't find any...I just did a Google search using "faston connectors .110" for the search terms, and found this page among hundreds of others (this was the first one): http://tinyurl.com/5wrscu Scroll WAY over to the right for the sizes and whether they are male or female...it's the female you want to attach to a .110 tab. I'm sure you can find it in many other places either online or locally. For example, Radio shack shows some on their website, but don't mention the size (except for wire size). Harley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don Morrisey wrote: > Listers: > > Is there such a thing as a .110 fast on connector? I have IDEC > pushbutton switches with .110 male terminals and I would much prefer a > female fast on, as opposed to soldering. I haven't been able to > locate any, so I'm thinking they don't exist and I will have to solder??? > > Thanks. Don... > > www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> > Don Morrisey's Skunkworks > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get more from your digital life. Find out how. > <http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008> > * > > > * > Agelesswings certifies that no virus is in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 08, 2008
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: .110 fast on connectors???
Molex has an Avikrimp quick disconnect, female for 18-22 wire with a .110 x .032 or .020. Molex has many others. Link to the datasheet here. <http://www.molex.com/cgi-bin/bv/molex/jsp/products/datasheet.jsp?part=active/0190190004_QUICK_DISCONNECTS.xml&BV_SessionID=@@@@0786566583.1218205874@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadeekkkhejfcflgcehedffgdfmk.0&channel=Products&Lang=en-US> They are available through Mouser. Try page 1455 of there catalog. Link to the catalog page here: <http://www.mouser.com/catalog/635/1455.pdf> Larry Don Morrisey wrote: > Listers: > > Is there such a thing as a .110 fast on connector? I have IDEC > pushbutton switches with .110 male terminals and I would much prefer a > female fast on, as opposed to soldering. I haven't been able to > locate any, so I'm thinking they don't exist and I will have to solder??? > > Thanks. Don... > > www.donsbushcaddy.com <http://www.donsbushcaddy.com/> > Don Morrisey's Skunkworks > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Get more from your digital life. Find out how. > <http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008> > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: .110 fast on connectors???
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil(at)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 11, 2008
The 0.110 fastons are actually not odd-ball. They are probably dominant in modern signal circuits where density is a factor. The 0.250 terminals in OBA are easier to work with and handle more current without over heating. Any real electronics supply house (Note: not electrical, or RS) will stock both 0.110 and 0.250 parts. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=197912#197912 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 12, 2008
From: Dave McDonald <n3722r(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: KLN-89B NMEA or AVLINK interface
I am trying to mate my EZ pilot autopilot to my KLN-89B. However it requires either an NMEA 0183 or AVLINK input from the GPS. I understand the KLN-89B does not output in NMEA, however I am not sure about AVLINK. Does anyone know if an acceptable output is possible with this combination? For the NMEA format the desired output is NMEA 0183, Rev 2.0 (or greater), 4800 baud rate, 8 data bits, no parity, 1 stop bit (8, N, 1). The AVLINK is 9600, 8 data bits, no parity, 1 stop bit (8, N, 1). Thanks, Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2008
From: "D Wysong" <hdwysong(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: KLN-89B NMEA or AVLINK interface
> I am trying to mate my EZ pilot autopilot to my KLN-89B. However it requires either > an NMEA 0183 or AVLINK input from the GPS. I understand the KLN-89B does > not output in NMEA, however I am not sure about AVLINK. Does anyone know if > an acceptable output is possible with this combination? Doesn't sound promising, Dave. If you can get your hands on the Installation manual for the 89B it should tell you what the RS-232 output protocol looks like. D ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: KT-70 Lens
Date: Aug 14, 2008
Does anybody know where to buy a lens for a KT-70 transponder (-0101 version)? Any idea what the part number for the lens might be? Thanks, Don ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: No Sidetone driving me insane!
From: "keithmckinley" <keith.mckinley(at)townisp.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2008
Hi, I've got an Icom a200 radio connected through a pm 1200 intercom. When I got the plane it had no side tone at all. Pulled the radio and tried to adjust the sidetone pot to no avail. Turned off intercom and still no side tone. I've tried numerous different headsets. I did notice what seems to be a disconnected wire(s) at the molex connector but don't no if that's an issue. The wiring job is shoddy to begin with but I'd hate to rip it out and start new if it's actually a radio issue. radio transmits and receives just fine and the intercom is awesome at canceling out noise in my very loud warbird.


November 28, 2007 - August 28, 2008

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-an