Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:19 AM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
2. 03:44 AM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
3. 05:35 AM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Dennis O'Connor)
4. 05:44 AM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (Dennis O'Connor)
5. 06:35 AM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Denis Walsh)
6. 07:26 AM - turn coordinators (Gary Casey)
7. 08:01 AM - Re: turn coordinators (Jim Pack)
8. 08:06 AM - Re: turn coordinators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 08:25 AM - T&B forever (Fergus Kyle)
10. 08:32 AM - Re: turn coordinators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 08:33 AM - T&B forever (Fergus Kyle)
12. 08:54 AM - Re: turn coordinators (Terry Watson)
13. 09:05 AM - T&B forever (Fergus Kyle)
14. 09:05 AM - Re: turn coordinators (Dan Checkoway)
15. 09:07 AM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS (Bill Hibbing)
16. 09:11 AM - Re: T&B forever (David Carter)
17. 09:30 AM - Re: turn coordinators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 10:35 AM - Wiring Question (Randy Pflanzer)
19. 11:48 AM - Re: turn coordinators (Rico Voss)
20. 11:50 AM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Hebeard2@aol.com)
21. 12:04 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (Shannon Knoepflein)
22. 12:11 PM - Re: turn coordinators (Dennis O'Connor)
23. 12:11 PM - Re: T&B forever (BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN)
24. 12:13 PM - Re: T&B forever (Dennis O'Connor)
25. 12:19 PM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD)
26. 01:49 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (Richard Tasker)
27. 02:09 PM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
28. 02:36 PM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
29. 03:07 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (John Rourke)
30. 05:11 PM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS (lm4@juno.com)
31. 10:04 PM - Electroluminescent Lighting (Mark Phillips)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
Bob,
I salute you for continuing to be yourself, a man who knows how to keep his
priorities straight! We all know that behind every good man there is usually
a fantastic woman!
Keep watch'n 'em Bob. Those medical people have a full panel to scan and
need all the help they can get.
May God give you both the strength to ride this one out to a beautiful three
pointer!
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/2003 10:59:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
legacy147@cableone.net writes:
> I read Dennis O'Conner's comment as trying to inject some humor into a
> serious situation to make it easier to handle emotionally, a technique we
> all use to effect from time to time. Perhaps I misunderstood.
>
>
To All,
Humor is often all that keeps everyone's sanity in check during tough times.
The pilot who is trying to put one back on the earth with no fuel, no
electrical power, is happy to hear the right seat man quip: "Five hundred...
four hundred...three hundred...You can do it Joe!" "For God's sake, it's
8,000 miles in diameter!"
My dearest little brother who we lost in 1992 (he was 30) replied to the
doctor's announcement of: "I have very bad news about your biopsy report" by
saying: "Lay it on me Doc, I can go flat line for a while!" Tommy had a deep
appreciation for the value of humor to the very end.
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Every word is true Bob... It is also has nothing to do with the real
world...
Any pilot who manages to hold a knife edge in IMC long enough for the TC/TB
gyros to restabilize either doesn't need gyros in the first place, or he is
going to be dead no matter what... Your use of that as example is Reductio
Ad Absurdum, as an argument...
It simply doesn't matter which instrument is on the airplane.. If the
aircraft is allowed to reach extreme bank due to a failed AI before the
pilot starts using the TC/TB, it is too late and he is going to die
anyway... No further discussion will change that...
If the TC/TB is used as part of the cross check of a normal scan, the
aircraft will never be allowed to develop an extreme angle in the first
place... Either instrument will indicate approximately where level flight
is, which will limit bank, and which will stop rotation - or yaw, whatever
you want to call it...... The key to sucessful instrument flight is to
limit angle of bank, or pitch, or rate of turn, to manageable proportions in
the first place... Once you have done that, either the TC or the TB works
just fine... If the pilot is going to allow the aircraft to flail all over
the sky at extreme angles to begin with, NO instrument will save him...
If your students learning on a TC are not as good as your students who
learned on a TB, who's fault is that?
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/22/03 10:50:15 AM Central Standard Time,
> lists@stevet.net writes:
>
> > Hello All,
> >
> > Why not just post it here for everyone?
> >
>
> OK, but it's long and controversial. If the moderator would prefer that I
> not, let me know and I won't do it again.
>
> This is a copy of something I sent to another gentleman a few days ago.
When
> I sent it again today, my spell checker kept questioning my punctuation.
If
> it comes across with a bunch of funny symbols instead of periods, please
let
> me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Old Bob
>
> Old Bob's Stuff About the TC and T&B---------
>
> It has to do with the way our minds work. Just my thoughts and no science
> to base it on at all.
>
> I figure that when a pilot gets disoriented, it takes a major mental
effort
> to accept that his/her senses are all wrong and that some instrument is
> telling the truth.
>
> I believe that the sense that is the hardest to convince is the one that
> tells us whether or not we are right side up and one of the easier ones to
> accept is whether or not we are turning.
>
> Therefore, I think we should be emphasizing the idea that we should stop
the
> turn and not worry whether or not the wings are level. Even if our mind
> tells us that we are in a horrendous bank, but the airplane is not
turning,
> we will survive. Our mind can be right or wrong. The wings can be level
> or banked. It doesn't make any difference at all. If we don't turn,=20we
> will survive. Period!!
>
> Now, back to the instrument of choice for me.
>
> The Turn Coordinator shows either yaw or roll. If both are occurring
at=20the
> same time, the results will be cumulative.
>
> Sounds like a pretty good idea.
>
> If the wings are level and the aircraft is in trim, when a roll develops
it
> is likely to be followed by a turn.
>
> If you hook up an autopilot so that an anti-turning force is applied when
the
> first indication of a roll is noted, the TC becomes a very nice low cost
> sensor for a low cost autopilot.
>
> Still sounds like a good idea.
>
> If it is good for an autopilot to have that early warning of an impending
> turn, why not give that same warning to a human pilot?
>
> Back to my theory. Autopilots never get confused. Pilots do.
>
> If we aviators are comfortable with rate instrument flying and have good
> situational awareness, partial panel is a piece of cake whether one is
using
> a TC or a T&B.
>
> The trouble comes when some poor sole named Kennedy, Carnahan or John Q.
> Public has a mind that is telling him/her one thing while an instrument is
> telling him/her something else.
>
> Why can't we tell them to not worry about it! Regardless of the attitude
> they are in, just stop the turn. So what if you are leaning way over
to=20one
> side or the other. That is not important. JUST STOP THE TURN!
>
> Putting the TC in the position where the "wings" are level will stop the
> turn, but don't you think there will be a very difficult mental block to
> accepting that fact?
>
> If we are using a turn needle, it has nothing about it that even suggests
a
> wing or whether or not the aircraft is level. All it does is tell us
if=20the
> airplane is yawing. If it isn't yawing, it isn't turning. I think that
> indication is MUCH easier for a confused pilot to accept.
>
> There is nothing else in the airplane that looks anything at all like a
T&B.
>
> Go out someday in an aircraft equipped with a Turn Coordinator and do a
nice
> strong Knife Edge. Doesn't it seem rather strange to be flying that knife
> edge and also be looking at the turn coordinator that is showing a "Wings
> Level" indication?
>
> Do the same maneuver in an airplane equipped with T&B.=A0 The T&B will be
> sitting in the center for the same reason the TC was showing wings
level.=20=A0
> No turns and no yaw in a properly flown knife edge. Isn't it a lot easier
> for even we experienced aviators to accept that the T&B is doing what it
> should be doing than it is to accept that the wings level indication of
the
> TC is proper?
>
> The TC is always compromised. There is no way to determine if it is
showing
> a roll or a yaw without using supporting information.
>
> If a T&B needle is showing an indication, the aircraft is yawing. No yaw,
> no turn. No turn, no graveyard spiral.
>
> There is no doubt that I suffer somewhat from the primacy phenomenon. When
> I received my instrument training, we were not allowed to use any attitude
or
> direction gyros either in training or on the flight test. The only
> gyroscopic instrument allowed was the Turn Needle. It is a rate instrument
> as are the airspeed, altimeter and vertical speed.
>
> When the canted gyro was first introduced, it was as a device to allow a
low
> cost wing leveler. Someone realized that if the canted gyro was tied to
> some sort of an indication which could be presented to the pilot, the
pilot
> would be given the same advance warning of an impending turn as the canted
> gyro gave to the wing leveler.
>
> Sounded good to me!
>
> When the first TC came on the market, I installed them in my trainers and
> started to use them for all training purposes. After a few years, I noted
> that the proficiency in partial panel of students who had been trained on,
> and continued the use of TCs, was not as good as had been the case when we
> were all using T&Bs.
>
> Part of the problem, I feel, is because we no longer emphasize the use of
> standard rate turns so that regardless whether one is using a TC or a T&B,
it
> does not tend to be in the normal scan. Any technique we quit using gets
> rusty.
>
> Beyond that though, I think that there is always a bit of confusion in our
> minds as to just what is happening with a TC. With the T&B, there is never
> any doubt.
>
> The example of the knife edged flight is one that I have used often.
It=20is
> amazing to see the look on the face of folks who have been flying with a
TC
> for years and have never seen such a demonstration.
>
> I repeat, there is nothing else on the panel that even looks remotely like
a
> classic T&B.=A0
>
> So many folks confuse a TC with an attitude gyro that many have a notation
> warning that it provides no pitch information.
>
> Once again.
>
> I think we should emphasize that one needs to stop the turn at all costs.
>
> While leveling the wings will most likely stop the turn, it will require a
> leap of faith and strong will to persuade us to go against what our senses
> are telling us.
>
> In my opinion, it is much easier to get that poor lost soul to accept the
> fact that he/she just needs to stop that turn regardless of how it feels
or
> where the ball is located.
>
> Any help?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Dennis O'Connor's post was an intemperate outburst about a touchy subject at
an inappropriate time and I regret it...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <KITFOXZ@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Off line for a time . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/22/2003 10:59:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> legacy147@cableone.net writes:
>
> > I read Dennis O'Conner's comment as trying to inject some humor into a
> > serious situation to make it easier to handle emotionally, a technique
we
> > all use to effect from time to time. Perhaps I misunderstood.
> >
> >
>
> To All,
>
> Humor is often all that keeps everyone's sanity in check during tough
times.
> The pilot who is trying to put one back on the earth with no fuel, no
> electrical power, is happy to hear the right seat man quip: "Five
hundred...
> four hundred...three hundred...You can do it Joe!" "For God's sake, it's
> 8,000 miles in diameter!"
>
> My dearest little brother who we lost in 1992 (he was 30) replied to the
> doctor's announcement of: "I have very bad news about your biopsy report"
by
> saying: "Lay it on me Doc, I can go flat line for a while!" Tommy had a
deep
> appreciation for the value of humor to the very end.
>
> John P. Marzluf
> Columbus, Ohio
> Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@attbi.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
> <doconnor@chartermi.net>
>
> Every word is true Bob... It is also has nothing to do with the real
> world...
> Any pilot who manages to hold a knife edge in IMC long enough for the TC/TB
> gyros to restabilize either doesn't need gyros in the first place, or he is
> going to be dead no matter what... Your use of that as example is Reductio
> Ad Absurdum, as an argument...
>
> It simply doesn't matter which instrument is on the airplane.. If the
> aircraft is allowed to reach extreme bank due to a failed AI before the
> pilot starts using the TC/TB, it is too late and he is going to die
> anyway... No further discussion will change that...
> If the TC/TB is used as part of the cross check of a normal scan, the
> aircraft will never be allowed to develop an extreme angle in the first
> place... Either instrument will indicate approximately where level flight
> is, which will limit bank, and which will stop rotation - or yaw, whatever
> you want to call it...... The key to sucessful instrument flight is to
> limit angle of bank, or pitch, or rate of turn, to manageable proportions in
> the first place... Once you have done that, either the TC or the TB works
> just fine... If the pilot is going to allow the aircraft to flail all over
> the sky at extreme angles to begin with, NO instrument will save him...
>
> If your students learning on a TC are not as good as your students who
> learned on a TB, who's fault is that?
>
> Denny
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 1/22/03 10:50:15 AM Central Standard Time,
>> lists@stevet.net writes:
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> Why not just post it here for everyone?
>>>
>>
>> OK, but it's long and controversial. If the moderator would prefer that I
>> not, let me know and I won't do it again.
>>
>> This is a copy of something I sent to another gentleman a few days ago.
> When
>> I sent it again today, my spell checker kept questioning my punctuation.
> If
>> it comes across with a bunch of funny symbols instead of periods, please
> let
>> me know.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>> Old Bob's Stuff About the TC and T&B---------
>>
>> It has to do with the way our minds work. Just my thoughts and no science
>> to base it on at all.
>>
>> I figure that when a pilot gets disoriented, it takes a major mental
> effort
>> to accept that his/her senses are all wrong and that some instrument is
>> telling the truth.
>>
>> I believe that the sense that is the hardest to convince is the one that
>> tells us whether or not we are right side up and one of the easier ones to
>> accept is whether or not we are turning.
>>
>> Therefore, I think we should be emphasizing the idea that we should stop
> the
>> turn and not worry whether or not the wings are level. Even if our mind
>> tells us that we are in a horrendous bank, but the airplane is not
> turning,
>> we will survive. Our mind can be right or wrong. The wings can be level
>> or banked. It doesn't make any difference at all. If we don't turn,=20we
>> will survive. Period!!
>>
>> Now, back to the instrument of choice for me.
>>
>> The Turn Coordinator shows either yaw or roll. If both are occurring
> at=20the
>> same time, the results will be cumulative.
>>
>> Sounds like a pretty good idea.
>>
>> If the wings are level and the aircraft is in trim, when a roll develops
> it
>> is likely to be followed by a turn.
>>
>> If you hook up an autopilot so that an anti-turning force is applied when
> the
>> first indication of a roll is noted, the TC becomes a very nice low cost
>> sensor for a low cost autopilot.
>>
>> Still sounds like a good idea.
>>
>> If it is good for an autopilot to have that early warning of an impending
>> turn, why not give that same warning to a human pilot?
>>
>> Back to my theory. Autopilots never get confused. Pilots do.
>>
>> If we aviators are comfortable with rate instrument flying and have good
>> situational awareness, partial panel is a piece of cake whether one is
> using
>> a TC or a T&B.
>>
>> The trouble comes when some poor sole named Kennedy, Carnahan or John Q.
>> Public has a mind that is telling him/her one thing while an instrument is
>> telling him/her something else.
>>
>> Why can't we tell them to not worry about it! Regardless of the attitude
>> they are in, just stop the turn. So what if you are leaning way over
> to=20one
>> side or the other. That is not important. JUST STOP THE TURN!
>>
>> Putting the TC in the position where the "wings" are level will stop the
>> turn, but don't you think there will be a very difficult mental block to
>> accepting that fact?
>>
>> If we are using a turn needle, it has nothing about it that even suggests
> a
>> wing or whether or not the aircraft is level. All it does is tell us
> if=20the
>> airplane is yawing. If it isn't yawing, it isn't turning. I think that
>> indication is MUCH easier for a confused pilot to accept.
>>
>> There is nothing else in the airplane that looks anything at all like a
> T&B.
>>
>> Go out someday in an aircraft equipped with a Turn Coordinator and do a
> nice
>> strong Knife Edge. Doesn't it seem rather strange to be flying that knife
>> edge and also be looking at the turn coordinator that is showing a "Wings
>> Level" indication?
>>
>> Do the same maneuver in an airplane equipped with T&B.=A0 The T&B will be
>> sitting in the center for the same reason the TC was showing wings
> level.=20=A0
>> No turns and no yaw in a properly flown knife edge. Isn't it a lot easier
>> for even we experienced aviators to accept that the T&B is doing what it
>> should be doing than it is to accept that the wings level indication of
> the
>> TC is proper?
>>
>> The TC is always compromised. There is no way to determine if it is
> showing
>> a roll or a yaw without using supporting information.
>>
>> If a T&B needle is showing an indication, the aircraft is yawing. No yaw,
>> no turn. No turn, no graveyard spiral.
>>
>> There is no doubt that I suffer somewhat from the primacy phenomenon. When
>> I received my instrument training, we were not allowed to use any attitude
> or
>> direction gyros either in training or on the flight test. The only
>> gyroscopic instrument allowed was the Turn Needle. It is a rate instrument
>> as are the airspeed, altimeter and vertical speed.
>>
>> When the canted gyro was first introduced, it was as a device to allow a
> low
>> cost wing leveler. Someone realized that if the canted gyro was tied to
>> some sort of an indication which could be presented to the pilot, the
> pilot
>> would be given the same advance warning of an impending turn as the canted
>> gyro gave to the wing leveler.
>>
>> Sounded good to me!
>>
>> When the first TC came on the market, I installed them in my trainers and
>> started to use them for all training purposes. After a few years, I noted
>> that the proficiency in partial panel of students who had been trained on,
>> and continued the use of TCs, was not as good as had been the case when we
>> were all using T&Bs.
>>
>> Part of the problem, I feel, is because we no longer emphasize the use of
>> standard rate turns so that regardless whether one is using a TC or a T&B,
> it
>> does not tend to be in the normal scan. Any technique we quit using gets
>> rusty.
>>
>> Beyond that though, I think that there is always a bit of confusion in our
>> minds as to just what is happening with a TC. With the T&B, there is never
>> any doubt.
>>
>> The example of the knife edged flight is one that I have used often.
> It=20is
>> amazing to see the look on the face of folks who have been flying with a
> TC
>> for years and have never seen such a demonstration.
>>
>> I repeat, there is nothing else on the panel that even looks remotely like
> a
>> classic T&B.=A0
>>
>> So many folks confuse a TC with an attitude gyro that many have a notation
>> warning that it provides no pitch information.
>>
>> Once again.
>>
>> I think we should emphasize that one needs to stop the turn at all costs.
>>
>> While leveling the wings will most likely stop the turn, it will require a
>> leap of faith and strong will to persuade us to go against what our senses
>> are telling us.
>>
>> In my opinion, it is much easier to get that poor lost soul to accept the
>> fact that he/she just needs to stop that turn regardless of how it feels
> or
>> where the ball is located.
>>
>> Any help?
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<The TC is considered better because the gyro is canted and
gives you some rate information as opposed to just angle of displacement and
direction... I will be putting a TC into N15ET - rather than just a needle
and ball...>>
<<In my opinion, it is much easier to get that poor lost soul to accept the
fact that he/she just needs to stop that turn regardless of how it feels or
where the ball is located.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob>>
To correct the first posting above, it should read "...the gyro is canted
and gives you some roll rate as opposed to just yaw rate..." It doesn't
measure angle or direction, only rate.
And second, a most excellent dissertation, Bob. I read that long ago
someone thought that the needle didn't look enough like the airplane in the
attitude indicator and if one were to revert from one's favorite instrument,
the AI, in a vacuum-loss situation the instrument should look familiar. The
fact that the airplane moved in one instrument and the horizon moved in the
other didn't seem to bother them. I would like to see the display look more
like a rudder pedal because I think your brain should connect the
information directly to the pedals - neither the needle or the little
airplane make that connection obvious. When I do informal training for
partial panel (seem to do a lot of that because I get a free ride with
someone that wants to stay proficient) I emphasize to the pilot that they
just use the rudder to center the little airplane - everything else will
take care of itself, just as Bob says. I like that technique partially
because the airplane is better damped about the yaw axis - the yaw rate
instantly changes with rudder input and will instantly stop, not
overshooting (much). I like to practice instrument proficiency by not
touching the yoke from takeoff to short final, using only the rudder and
trim to fly the airplane. After you do that for a while instrument
proficiency comes much easier.
As for the "DC-AC-DC" comment, I believe that most of the new TC's use
brushless motors, eliminating the brushes as a failure mode. The T&B's all
use brush-type motors, probably because no one is willing to spend the money
to certify a new design of T&B.
Gary Casey
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
Can partial panel be practiced effectively using the panel view on the new
garmin 195?
Does the Turn Coordinator on the Garmin work like a real turn coordinator or
is it like a turn & bank or is it something else entirely?
- Jim
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/03 9:27:19 AM Central Standard Time,
glcasey@adelphia.net writes:
> I would like to see the display look more
> like a rudder pedal because I think your brain should connect the
> information directly to the pedals - neither the needle or the little
> airplane make that connection obvious.
Good Morning Gary,
How very true and well stated.
When the University of Illinois was doing the experimentation leading up to
the AOPA "180" maneuver, I tried having folks just sit on their hands and
flying the airplane using rudder alone.
Most of the testing I did was in a Bonanza. The final U of I AOPA procedure
had the subject determine a power setting and trim position that they could
go to before trying the recommended emergency escape maneuver. I felt that
the procedure was just too much to expect a petrified John Doe to be able to
do.
With the person flying the airplane at their normal cruise airspeed and power
settings, I would cover all gyros other than the T&B, have them close their
eyes and would then place the aircraft into various angles of bank.
The directions were to sit on their hands and touch nothing but the rudder
pedals. The only instruction was to push on the rudder pedal until the
needle was in the middle. No trimming or power changes at all.
I found that with bank angles up to thirty degrees, the airplane never
approached either redline or stall. For bank angles over thirty degrees, I
would occasionally have to apply some corrective action to avoid a speed
above redline, but it never came close to a stall.
The combination of rudder and a T&B works great!
I guess this is pretty far off topic for this list. Sorry, I will let it go
for now.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
It's because the T&B needle displays yaw only, whilst TC's mix yaw and
roll - TC's are easier to interpret in near stable flight, but misleading in
extreme attitudes and maneouvers (like spinning) - T&B's give reliable
information all of the time, so are preferred by experienced pilots....
Miles
Bang on.
Ferg
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/03 10:02:16 AM Central Standard Time, jpack@igs3.com
writes:
> Can partial panel be practiced effectively using the panel view on the new
> garmin 195?
>
> Does the Turn Coordinator on the Garmin work like a real turn coordinator
> or
> is it like a turn &bank or is it something else entirely?
>
> - Jim
>
Good Morning Jim,
I have never seen a 196, but my gut feeling is that the "TC" it shows is only
sensitive to yaw or turn and not to roll. If that is true, it reacts more
like a T&B than a conventional TC.
The GPS based instrumentation that was used for the Stanford experiment had
multiple antennas so that the instrument could show roll, yaw and pitch. The
first versions had the antennas at the wingtips and at forward and aft
positions of the fuselage. It is my recollection that the aft one was
mounted on the top of the vertical fin in place of a rotating beacon. If I
recollect correctly, they had a later version where the antennas where only
separated by a foot or less.
I know that technology is advancing rapidly, but I doubt if they could get
adequate separation between antenna elements in a small portable antenna do
discern roll. Therefore my assumption that the thing shows only yaw (turn).
If that is not correct, I am sure someone will let us know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory
about how our minds react when in a panic situation."
Zackly. Have you heard, "Needle, Ball and Airspeed"?
"Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation, I
won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the whole
enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator"
Just MHO too.
Cheers, Ferg - not nearly as ancient, but able to remember spinning T-6
(Harvard) with just those instruments.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Jim,
The new Garmin 196 uses satellite information to simulate a turn
coordinator. The current (February, 2003) issue of The Aviation Consumer
tested it and concluded that works as a gyro backup, in spite of a slight
time lag that makes it hard to follow.
I have played with mine under the hood briefly and came to about the same
conclusion.
Terry
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"Old Bob"
I'm delighted to see you were prompted to print......
I instructed (post AF training) and found the same controversy.
Years later students came back and said, "You were right!" From Sabre to T-6
and back again, we spun them all and recovered mostly on T&B. The artificial
horizon just doesn't do it for someone in a graveyard spiral.
Your discussion is suitably copied and given proper recognition.
It goes up at the next Chapter meeting and at the museum. Too many latterday
drivers need to read it and digest.
Thanks,
Ferg
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Can partial panel be practiced effectively using the panel view on the new
> garmin 195?
>
> Does the Turn Coordinator on the Garmin work like a real turn coordinator
or
> is it like a turn & bank or is it something else entirely?
Not having used one of these, I still think Garmin might have made a huge
mistake having on their display a "gauge" that implies a horizon. No matter
how quickly the display might update, I wouldn't rely on it for any sort of
attitude reference whatsoever.
If the gauge is intended to show rate of turn information, I think they
should have come up with their own display metaphor, rather than using
something that looks like a horizon. I sure hope pilots don't get into
trouble because of this.
Again, I haven't flown with one, so I might be off-base here.
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage/finish)
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh@bellsouth.net>
I just recently bought the X-Pak 604 from The Strobeguy and he passed along
some interesting information. I was going to buy the more powerful 904 but
he told me that running only 2 strobe flashtubes, like I am on the wingtips
alone, the 904 reduces the power output and the 604 will actually give a
brighter flash because it doesn't auto reduce power. Just something FWIW.
If you're running 3 flashtubes or more then the 904 would be the one to use.
Bill
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Right on, me too.
David Carter
(used to fly partial panel radio beacon and adf approaches in flight
simulator when I was an enlisted simulator instructor and repairman - was
later #1 in my pilot training class - strong in instruments, etc, etc.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: T&B forever
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> It's because the T&B needle displays yaw only, whilst TC's mix yaw and
> roll - TC's are easier to interpret in near stable flight, but misleading
in
> extreme attitudes and maneouvers (like spinning) - T&B's give reliable
> information all of the time, so are preferred by experienced pilots....
> Miles
>
> Bang on.
> Ferg
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/03 10:33:37 AM Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B@aol.com writes:
> I know that technology is advancing rapidly, but I doubt if they could get
> adequate separation between antenna elements in a small portable antenna do
>
> discern roll. Therefore my assumption that the thing shows only yaw (turn).
>
> If that is not correct, I am sure someone will let us know!
>
>
Good Morning Jim and All,
On second thought, I don't think I should have said it shows yaw. I think it
can show nothing but turn. I believe you could yaw back and forth all day
long. If the flight track doesn't change, I think you would see nothing at
all.
For What It's Worth, when the 295 first became available, I had a friend fly
with me to check out it's usability as an emergency standby source of
instrumentation.
The protocol was that I placed a blanket over my head so that I could see
absolutely nothing on the panel. My 295 is mounted on the cross arm of my
Bonanza and that is all I could see.
My friend placed the aircraft in classic unusual attitude positions while I
kept my eyes closed. When told, I opened my eyes and used the indications of
the 295 to effect recovery to a level flight attitude. Obviously, it is much
easier to do things like that when you know what is happening than it is
after conditions are rapidly deteriorating. Nevertheless, it was relatively
easy to regain control and climb, descend or take up a heading as requested
by my check pilot.
We tried several different configurations on the display page. I found
recovery and interpretation to be the easiest when it showed a half page
sized HSI and a half page of terrain map.
It is my understanding that 196 updates the picture more rapidly. That
should make it easier to use than the 295. I believe that both sets only
update the actual DME data once per second, but that the rapid update of the
picture is what makes the 196 easier to use.
I don't feel my finances will allow me to buy another hand held GPS, but I am
hoping someone who has a 196 will allow me to check it against the
indications on my 295.
There has been some comment here on using the GPS instead of a T&B or TC. I
don't think the current level of GPS technology would be any aid at all in
recovering from a spin. I have used a T&B for spin recoveries, but have
never tried to do it with a TC. Friends claim that it doesn't work very
well.
It may well depend on what type of aircraft is being used for the spin.
There are so many possibilities for various wiggles and wobbles during a spin
that I think rational evaluation would be difficult.
I also realize that we don't do spins much anymore, but it still seems best
that an emergency unit should have as much capability as possible.
For the time being, I will still rely on my T&B for the final word, but the
GPS will be right there in case the T&B doesn't do the job.
If you can only afford one or the other, the T&B is about 600 bucks brand new
and list price.
I think the 196 is going for around 900. However, it has a lot more
capabilities than just as an instrument back up.
Personally, I think it would be a great idea to have both, but if I could
only afford one or the other, the T&B would win.
One final comment. It would be nice if Garmin had decided to use a T&B
presentation instead of the TC, but I really shouldn't complain until I have
seen and evaluated the unit itself.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
For all you listers that have just about burned your brain reading
about Turn Coordinators and T & B instruments, here's a real wiring
question for you while Bob is out tending to more important business:
Why doesn't the power feed wire to the main bus have any protection?
It seems to me that if the main bus (Fuse block) were to become
grounded, this wire would fry big time.
I ask this because Z-12 shows circuit breakers for the alt field and LV
Warnining circuits. Since I'm using a fuse block as my main power bus,
I will have to run a power feed to my bank of circuit breakers in my
armrest and I'm thinking about what size and how to protect it.
What am I missing? This is only my third airplane so I'm
just "beginning" to understand how electrons behave ;>)
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss <vozzen@yahoo.com>
> > Can partial panel be practiced effectively using
> the panel view on the new
> > garmin 195?
> >
> > Does the Turn Coordinator on the Garmin work like
> a real turn coordinator
> > or
> > is it like a turn &bank or is it something else
> entirely?
> >
> > - Jim
> >
Jim, here's another try...
A single antenna GPS doesn't know doodly-squat about
your attitude. It only knows your position and
calculated track-line thru space. You could be
inverted or flying tail-first, for all it knows.
My guess is that Garmin has programmed the 196 to
translate a constant ground-track into level wings on
the HSI, and a changing ground-track (ie, turn) into
banked wings. Probably a faster change in trackline
would display a steeper bank.
My thinking is that, with a centered ball (not prone
to any kind of failure) and a changing ground-track
indicated by the HSI, that the aircraft is turning.
That is where I see the value of the 196 as a
bacon-saver. Probably useless in spins, but could get
you thru the clouds when all else fails.
I'm a low-time pilot, I don't have as much instrument
experience I should have with T&B or TC, but I do know
what GPS can do, and I intend to buy a 196 someday.
How about some response from all the Garmin owners out
there.
--Tio Rico
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hebeard2@aol.com
In the real world the T&B once saved my life. Back in the 50's I took off in
a P-80 in a snowstorm with a 400' ceiling. The last thing I remember was
climbing thru 29,000' still IFR before passing out due to a failed oxygen
regulator. When I woke up all the gyros had tumbled except my trusty T&B
which had the needle pointed to one side and the ball on the other side.
This needed no interpretation and even in my woozzy state I knew I was in a
spin. A spin recovery was made and I regained level flight at 7,000' on
partial panel, still in the snowstorm. I was very lucky as the minimum safe
emergency altitude in the area was 13,000'. Had I been required to figure out
the situation with a TC indication I doubt that I would be here today.
Just one very real world testimonial for the T&B when seconds counted.
Needless to say I prefer the T&B.
Harley E. Beard
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Well, my numbers are different. I show .249 ohms per 1000 feet for #4,
and .156 ohms per 1000 feet for #2. Using those numbers, I think my
calculations were correct.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Tasker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
<retasker@optonline.net>
Make sure that you calculate the voltage drops correctly. At 200 amps
and 10 feet that is 2000 ampere-feet. A #2 conductor would have
(0.396V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 0.792V. A #4 conductor would have
(0.613V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 1.23V. Two #4s in parallel would have
half that or 0.613V. This would give you a total drop of 1.4V - an
appreciable part of the 12V (nominal) available at the batteries. Of
course, the batteries don't put out 12V when you are drawing 200A at
start.
I cannot really say if this is okay or not - it depends on your
batteries, your starter, your engine, any additional voltage drops due
to contactors, connections, etc., additional loads over and above the
200A starting current, battery and engine temperature, etc., etc.
If Rob doesn't seem to have problems with this setup, assuming yours is
similar, then you should be okay.
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
<kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>I totally understand your concern and have been contemplating that
exact
>issue. Every time you upsize the wire, you get less voltage
>drop...thats the simple part. I guess my real question is this: What
>is an acceptable voltage drop for starting?
>
>My only real world experience with this exact setup is my buddy Rob
>Logan up in Cleveland. He has a flying Legacy, very similar in set up
>to mine. We both have dual alt, dual 17ah systems, with our batteries
>behind the seat. The only major difference is his is actually flying,
>while mine is still being built :) I helped him a bit with his power
>wire decisions, and if I recall correctly, he has a #4 from each
battery
>a crossfeed contactor on the firewall, and a #2 ground. On starting,
>the crossfeed is on, so the 2 #4's are in parallel. He has no problems
>that I know of, Rob care to comment on starting voltage and currents?
>At 10' and 200A, the 2 #4's in parallel would be 0.249V, while the #2
>ground would be 0.312V, or 0.561V total.
>
>---
>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Richard Tasker
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
><retasker@optonline.net>
>
>I am not entirely sure what you are saying here about 2 #4's and 140
>amps, but the issue for starting current is voltage drop, not
>temperature rise.
>
>Accordiing to my wire tables, #2 has a voltage drop of .396V per 1000
>ampere-feet (current draw x length in feet) while #4 has .631V.
>
>I don't know exactly what your setup is, but you need to consider how
>many volts actually gets to the starter with the different wire sizes.
> You will have to calculate the current in each wire (starter &
whatever
>
>else is on at that time) and the length of each wire both to and from
>the battery to see what you get.
>
>For example, assume you use the main feed to run the starter (200A) and
>you ignore whatever else you have turned on. If the path is 10ft each
>way, then you have .79 V drop on the #2 wire (to the starter) and 1.23
V
>
>drop on the #4 wire (back to the battery). This means that you get
>whatever the battery puts out less over 2V at the starter. This
totally
>
>ignores any resistance in the contactors, connections, etc. If you
used
>
>#2 wire each way in the path to the starter you would get an additional
>.44V at the starter.
>
>Dick Tasker
>
>Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>
>>
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>
>>Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
>>is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an
issue.
>>I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
>>continuous, so I'll go with that.
>>
>>Main Feed, #4
>>Alt/ESS Feed, #4
>>Combined Ground for both #2
>>
>>That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
>>Anyone? Bueller?
>>
>>---
>>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Shannon Knoepflein
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>><kycshann@kyol.net>
>>
>>Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2
for
>>Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Benford2@aol.com
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>>
>>You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show
72
>>amps
>>max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am
>>
>>
>runnig
>
>
>>a
>>V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
>>ways.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: turn coordinators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
The TC in the Garmin 196 works by rapidly measuring the change in heading
and the ground speed and displaying an angle of bank that reflects those two
values... It is a mathematically derived angle, not measured....
You could of course, be in knife edge flight straight ahead and displaying
no bank... Which is where I came in on this conversation...
Taaa
Denny
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: turn coordinators
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pack" <jpack@igs3.com>
>
> Can partial panel be practiced effectively using the panel view on the new
> garmin 195?
>
> Does the Turn Coordinator on the Garmin work like a real turn coordinator
or
> is it like a turn & bank or is it something else entirely?
>
> - Jim
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar@3rivers.net>
In part the recovery steps for spin recovery in the mighty T-37 (Tweet)
was..........Full opposite rudder, opposite spin direction, opposite turn
needle and hold..........
Buck Buchanan Tweet IP a long time ago.
-> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory
about how our minds react when in a panic situation."
Zackly. Have you heard, "Needle, Ball and Airspeed"?
"Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation, I
won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the whole
enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator"
Just MHO too.
Cheers, Ferg - not nearly as ancient, but able to remember spinning T-6
(Harvard) with just those instruments.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
When I was forced to do that for over 200 miles by diabolical instructor, it
included a whiskey compass...
Afterwards we both wanted whiskey...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: T&B forever
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
>
> "My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory
> about how our minds react when in a panic situation."
> Zackly. Have you heard, "Needle, Ball and Airspeed"?
>
> "Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation,
I
> won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the
whole
> enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
> Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator"
>
> Just MHO too.
> Cheers, Ferg - not nearly as ancient, but able to remember spinning T-6
> (Harvard) with just those instruments.
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston@wpafb.af.mil>
I'm confused. In this situation wouldn't the TC have provide the same information.
I mean even with it tilted gyro axis, wouldn't it have pegged to the same
limit as the TB and given you the info needed to stop turning? Are you TB types
saying there are situations where the TC would actually mislead you? I'm not
talking about symbology here, I understand those concerns and aggree with the
gentleman who would prefer something that related to the pedals.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Hebeard2@aol.com [mailto:Hebeard2@aol.com]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hebeard2@aol.com
In the real world the T&B once saved my life. Back in the 50's I took off in
a P-80 in a snowstorm with a 400' ceiling. The last thing I remember was
climbing thru 29,000' still IFR before passing out due to a failed oxygen
regulator. When I woke up all the gyros had tumbled except my trusty T&B
which had the needle pointed to one side and the ball on the other side.
This needed no interpretation and even in my woozzy state I knew I was in a
spin. A spin recovery was made and I regained level flight at 7,000' on
partial panel, still in the snowstorm. I was very lucky as the minimum safe
emergency altitude in the area was 13,000'. Had I been required to figure out
the situation with a TC indication I doubt that I would be here today.
Just one very real world testimonial for the T&B when seconds counted.
Needless to say I prefer the T&B.
Harley E. Beard
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Size.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
Looking back at the tables I referred to, I just noticed that the values
were listed for a 70C wire temperature. Obviously, you are not going
to get to that temperature while you are cranking, so your numbers are
more correct. The rest of the discussion is still correct, but the
numbers are smaller. Sorry for the confusion in the actual numbers.
Dick
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Well, my numbers are different. I show .249 ohms per 1000 feet for #4,
>and .156 ohms per 1000 feet for #2. Using those numbers, I think my
>calculations were correct.
>
>---
>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Richard Tasker
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
><retasker@optonline.net>
>
>Make sure that you calculate the voltage drops correctly. At 200 amps
>and 10 feet that is 2000 ampere-feet. A #2 conductor would have
>(0.396V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 0.792V. A #4 conductor would have
>(0.613V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 1.23V. Two #4s in parallel would have
>half that or 0.613V. This would give you a total drop of 1.4V - an
>appreciable part of the 12V (nominal) available at the batteries. Of
>course, the batteries don't put out 12V when you are drawing 200A at
>start.
>
>I cannot really say if this is okay or not - it depends on your
>batteries, your starter, your engine, any additional voltage drops due
>to contactors, connections, etc., additional loads over and above the
>200A starting current, battery and engine temperature, etc., etc.
>
>If Rob doesn't seem to have problems with this setup, assuming yours is
>similar, then you should be okay.
>
>
>Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>
>>
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>
>>I totally understand your concern and have been contemplating that
>>
>>
>exact
>
>
>>issue. Every time you upsize the wire, you get less voltage
>>drop...thats the simple part. I guess my real question is this: What
>>is an acceptable voltage drop for starting?
>>
>>My only real world experience with this exact setup is my buddy Rob
>>Logan up in Cleveland. He has a flying Legacy, very similar in set up
>>to mine. We both have dual alt, dual 17ah systems, with our batteries
>>behind the seat. The only major difference is his is actually flying,
>>while mine is still being built :) I helped him a bit with his power
>>wire decisions, and if I recall correctly, he has a #4 from each
>>
>>
>battery
>
>
>>a crossfeed contactor on the firewall, and a #2 ground. On starting,
>>the crossfeed is on, so the 2 #4's are in parallel. He has no problems
>>that I know of, Rob care to comment on starting voltage and currents?
>>At 10' and 200A, the 2 #4's in parallel would be 0.249V, while the #2
>>ground would be 0.312V, or 0.561V total.
>>
>>---
>>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Richard Tasker
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
>><retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>>I am not entirely sure what you are saying here about 2 #4's and 140
>>amps, but the issue for starting current is voltage drop, not
>>temperature rise.
>>
>>Accordiing to my wire tables, #2 has a voltage drop of .396V per 1000
>>ampere-feet (current draw x length in feet) while #4 has .631V.
>>
>>I don't know exactly what your setup is, but you need to consider how
>>many volts actually gets to the starter with the different wire sizes.
>>You will have to calculate the current in each wire (starter &
>>
>>
>whatever
>
>
>>else is on at that time) and the length of each wire both to and from
>>the battery to see what you get.
>>
>>For example, assume you use the main feed to run the starter (200A) and
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>you ignore whatever else you have turned on. If the path is 10ft each
>>way, then you have .79 V drop on the #2 wire (to the starter) and 1.23
>>
>>
>V
>
>
>>drop on the #4 wire (back to the battery). This means that you get
>>whatever the battery puts out less over 2V at the starter. This
>>
>>
>totally
>
>
>>ignores any resistance in the contactors, connections, etc. If you
>>
>>
>used
>
>
>>#2 wire each way in the path to the starter you would get an additional
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>.44V at the starter.
>>
>>Dick Tasker
>>
>>Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>><kycshann@kyol.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
>>>is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an
>>>
>>>
>issue.
>
>
>>>I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
>>>continuous, so I'll go with that.
>>>
>>>Main Feed, #4
>>>Alt/ESS Feed, #4
>>>Combined Ground for both #2
>>>
>>>That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
>>>Anyone? Bueller?
>>>
>>>---
>>>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>Shannon Knoepflein
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>><kycshann@kyol.net>
>>>
>>>Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2
>>>
>>>
>for
>
>
>>>Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>Benford2@aol.com
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>>>
>>>You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show
>>>
>>>
>72
>
>
>>>amps
>>>max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>runnig
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>a
>>>V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
>>>ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/03 1:51:00 PM Central Standard Time, Hebeard2@aol.com
writes:
> Just one very real world testimonial for the T&B when seconds counted.
> Needless to say I prefer the T&B.
>
> Harley E. Beard
>
>
Thank you Harley,
Your story will go in my files.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/23/03 2:20:34 PM Central Standard Time,
John.Livingston@wpafb.af.mil writes:
> I'm confused. In this situation wouldn't the TC have provide the same
> information. I mean even with it tilted gyro axis, wouldn't it have pegged
> to the same limit as the TB and given you the info needed to stop turning?
Good Afternoon John,
Quite likely it would, but I couldn't be sure.
There are so many different forms of spins that it is hard to say for sure.
Did you know that in most airplanes the position of the ball in a ball/bank
instrument will be dependent on it's placement on the panel and NOT the
direction of the turn?
Lots of variables.
If an airplane is rolled to the left and yawed to the right, the TC will show
the same as if the airplane is level.
Admittedly, that sort of condition can't last long. The problem is that you
can never be sure what the TC is telling you without referring to some other
information source.
However, The T&B shows only yaw and it always tells the truth.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Size.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Rourke <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Shannon, your numbers are correct, I remember getting the same values
for 22759/16 cable from AC43.13 4 years ago; although now looking at the
table 11-10 in AC43.13B, I see slightly different numbers, .18 and .28
ohms/Kft for #2 and #4 copper wire, respectively. In any event, I did
several tests back then, comparing automotive battery cable, 22759/16
cable, welding cable and copper tubing... (automotive cable was right
out, of course, but I was just curious, especially in the heat and flame
tests).
Welding cable was actually the best, but that does not take into account
the fact that it weighs more than 22759/16, and is not tinned like 22759
is. Here's the numbers again, in case anyone wants actual numbers, not
just values from a table in a book (but those tables are very close, and
are slightly conservative compared to real world numbers, as they should
be):
Cable: Ohms/Kft Lbs/ft
4ga 22759/16-4 0.245 0.137
4ga welding cable 0.230 0.170
2ga welding cable 0.148 0.275
3/4ID x .050 Copper 0.066 0.416
-John Rourke
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
> Well, my numbers are different. I show .249 ohms per 1000 feet for #4,
> and .156 ohms per 1000 feet for #2. Using those numbers, I think my
> calculations were correct.
>
> ---
> Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Richard Tasker
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
> <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> Make sure that you calculate the voltage drops correctly. At 200 amps
> and 10 feet that is 2000 ampere-feet. A #2 conductor would have
> (0.396V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 0.792V. A #4 conductor would have
> (0.613V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 1.23V. Two #4s in parallel would have
> half that or 0.613V. This would give you a total drop of 1.4V - an
> appreciable part of the 12V (nominal) available at the batteries. Of
> course, the batteries don't put out 12V when you are drawing 200A at
> start.
>
> I cannot really say if this is okay or not - it depends on your
> batteries, your starter, your engine, any additional voltage drops due
> to contactors, connections, etc., additional loads over and above the
> 200A starting current, battery and engine temperature, etc., etc.
>
> If Rob doesn't seem to have problems with this setup, assuming yours is
> similar, then you should be okay.
>
>
> Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>
> <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>>I totally understand your concern and have been contemplating that
>
> exact
>
>>issue. Every time you upsize the wire, you get less voltage
>>drop...thats the simple part. I guess my real question is this: What
>>is an acceptable voltage drop for starting?
>>
>>My only real world experience with this exact setup is my buddy Rob
>>Logan up in Cleveland. He has a flying Legacy, very similar in set up
>>to mine. We both have dual alt, dual 17ah systems, with our batteries
>>behind the seat. The only major difference is his is actually flying,
>>while mine is still being built :) I helped him a bit with his power
>>wire decisions, and if I recall correctly, he has a #4 from each
>
> battery
>
>>a crossfeed contactor on the firewall, and a #2 ground. On starting,
>>the crossfeed is on, so the 2 #4's are in parallel. He has no problems
>>that I know of, Rob care to comment on starting voltage and currents?
>>At 10' and 200A, the 2 #4's in parallel would be 0.249V, while the #2
>>ground would be 0.312V, or 0.561V total.
>>
>>---
>>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Richard Tasker
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
>><retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>>I am not entirely sure what you are saying here about 2 #4's and 140
>>amps, but the issue for starting current is voltage drop, not
>>temperature rise.
>>
>>Accordiing to my wire tables, #2 has a voltage drop of .396V per 1000
>>ampere-feet (current draw x length in feet) while #4 has .631V.
>>
>>I don't know exactly what your setup is, but you need to consider how
>>many volts actually gets to the starter with the different wire sizes.
>>You will have to calculate the current in each wire (starter &
>
> whatever
>
>>else is on at that time) and the length of each wire both to and from
>>the battery to see what you get.
>>
>>For example, assume you use the main feed to run the starter (200A) and
>
>
>>you ignore whatever else you have turned on. If the path is 10ft each
>>way, then you have .79 V drop on the #2 wire (to the starter) and 1.23
>
> V
>
>>drop on the #4 wire (back to the battery). This means that you get
>>whatever the battery puts out less over 2V at the starter. This
>
> totally
>
>>ignores any resistance in the contactors, connections, etc. If you
>
> used
>
>>#2 wire each way in the path to the starter you would get an additional
>
>
>>.44V at the starter.
>>
>>Dick Tasker
>>
>>Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>>
>>>
>>
>><kycshann@kyol.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
>>>is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since
>>>
>>>
>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>
>>>current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an
>>
> issue.
>
>>>I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
>>>continuous, so I'll go with that.
>>>
>>>Main Feed, #4
>>>Alt/ESS Feed, #4
>>>Combined Ground for both #2
>>>
>>>That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
>>>Anyone? Bueller?
>>>
>>>---
>>>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>Shannon Knoepflein
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>><kycshann@kyol.net>
>>>
>>>Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2
>>
> for
>
>>>Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>>Benford2@aol.com
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>>>
>>>You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show
>>
> 72
>
>>>amps
>>>max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am
>>>
>>>
>>
>>runnig
>>
>>
>>
>>>a
>>>V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
>>>ways.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: lm4@juno.com
Try this Shaun.
http://strobeguy.safeshopper.com/70/2043.htm?359
Larry Mac Donald
Rochester N.Y.
do not archive
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 20:32:22 -0800 "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns@hevanet.com>
writes:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shaun Simpkins"
> <shauns@hevanet.com>
>
> A "Nova Xpac power supply" ?
>
> What's that?
>
> Shaun
>
> Do not archive.
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
RV-list <rv-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Electroluminescent Lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
About 2 or 3 months ago there was a brief discussion on EL lighting with
some links- I can not find the one I need in the archives, (I found the
"Being Seen" site). This was for the non-aviation sheet and strip
lighting. Would appreciate any links- Thanks!
Mark Phillips - do not archive -
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|