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 |
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: | 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
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GPS Antenna Length |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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: Re-GPS Antenna Coax Length |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GPS Antenna Length |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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=============
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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=====
=========
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
| 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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Dewhirst" <idewhirst(at)indtechnology.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder King KX76a |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
[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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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: | "Charles Reiche" <reichec(at)verizon.net> |
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 |
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: | "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> |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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.>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
| 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 |
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 |
| 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 |
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> |
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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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: | 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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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: | "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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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?? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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?? |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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!!!! |
| 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> |
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 |
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> |
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!!!! |
| 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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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. <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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: | "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> |
Wtb or trade gnc250xl for a gnc300xl. Randy Pinkston 704-888-2888
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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 |
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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 |
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: | "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 |
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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Crowe" <groups(at)bobcroweaircraft.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A36 wiring diagram |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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: | "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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help with radio intereference |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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 |
| 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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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)
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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> |
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>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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. <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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 |
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> |
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> |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
The sender would like to recall the message, "KT-70".
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | XCOM Radio and Intercom |
| From: | "Mark Colbeck" <mark(at)masterpieceliving.ca> |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Putney <billp(at)wwpc.com> |
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> |
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> |
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??? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
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> |
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