Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:03 AM - Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire (F1Rocket@comcast.net)
2. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: bus feed questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: bus feed questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:04 AM - Alternator diode bridge measurement (mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com)
5. 07:51 AM - Re: Alternator diode bridge measurement (Trampas)
6. 08:01 AM - Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire on Ray Allen servos (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:47 AM - Re: bus feed questions (Dan Checkoway)
8. 12:16 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (rwilliams)
9. 01:06 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Brett Ferrell)
10. 01:54 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Freddie Freeloader)
11. 03:10 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Richard Tasker)
12. 05:03 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Brad Benson)
13. 05:48 PM - Re: Re: Panel layout - request for comments ()
14. 07:06 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 08:20 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Dan Checkoway)
16. 08:42 PM - Re: Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Brad Benson)
17. 08:52 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 08:57 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 09:50 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (James E. Clark)
20. 09:59 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (James E. Clark)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire |
I've handled these wires in two ways. One, if a disconnect is needed, I
following the suggestion that Bob has on his web site for using a 9 pin
computer connector and soldering the wires to the pins. Here's the link:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Second, if I'm joining two wires together, I just solder them together and
cover them with heat shrink and forget about it. IMHO, this is much easier and
less risky than trying to get 26 gauge wire into a crimp connector made for a
22 gauge wire. Just my thoughts, you mileage may vary.
Randy
F1 Rocket #95
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame <charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
> I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
>
> The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
> look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
> satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
> fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
> smaller wires. Solder....???
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
> ---------------------------
>
> >
> > Time: 02:29:14 PM PST US
> > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> > At 02:40 PM 8/4/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
> > >
> > >My avionics have a lot of 24 AWG and 26 AWG wires onto which I must connect
> > >quarter inch "faston" terminals and butt splices. I don't have a crimp tool
> > >for wire that small and I can't get "faston" terminals that small. Is it
> > >OK to
> > >use 18-22 AWG terminals and butt splices? Should I then strip the insulation
> > >further back and bend the exposed wire to double it over so as to better fit
> > >the larger terminal?
> >
> > ???? Why 24 and 26 AWG wire ???? What kind of radios
> > are you installing that prohibit the use of 22AWG or larger
> > wire?
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> > ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> > ( and still understand nothing. )
> > ( C.F. Kettering )
> > --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: bus feed questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:25 PM 8/6/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
>Dan, I just looked at the picture of your e-bus diode and it looks like you
>might have it wired incorrectly. It looks to me like you need to move the
>feed from the Main DC bus from the lower left terminal to the upper right
>terminal in your picture. You may know this already, but just in case.
>
>Pat Hatch
>RV-4
>RV-6
>RV-7 QB (Building)
>Vero Beach, FL
The diode bridge rectifier has 4 diodes in a 'square'.
We wish to use one of the four devices, hence there are
4 different ways to make the connection, all of which
would function properly. Dan's depiction is functional
as is the one I cited from my website.
Note these assemblies have some means for showing the
(+) output or common cathodes terminal. The square will
either have a chamfered corner, one of the fast-ons
rotated 90 degrees to the others, or both.
The diode array will always serve it's intended purpose
if the (+) output terminal is wired to the e-bus, and
either adjacent terminal is wired to the main-bus.
Bob . . .
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: bus feed questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:04 PM 8/6/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> > Have you measured the voltage difference between e-bus and main bus?
>
>The drop is .79 volts.
Okay, you've only got one diode in the loop . . . good
> > It IS possible that you've wired the diode assembly such that you have
> > TWO diodes in series thus doubling the voltage drop discussed below.
> >
> > Take a peek at:
> > http://216.55.140.222/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
>
>Ah, interesting. I did connect the main bus to a different terminal (the
>lower left terminal in that photo), as you can see here:
>
>http://www.rvproject.com/images/diode_wiring.jpg
>
> > How did your diode differ from Z-11?
>
>I was confused by Z-11 because in the iso view of the diode, it's very clear
>which terminals are (+), (-) and (wave) (whatever the wave is supposed to
>mean, I have no idea).
>The issue I had is that in the actual wiring diagram, it's totally unclear
>to me *which* of the two (wave) terminals the main bus should connect to.
>You might want to clarify that to help people in the future, just a
>suggestion...because unless I missed something it's ambiguous and there are
>two choices. I chose the "other" one.
>
>Now looking at the jpeg you posted above, I see exactly how you did it. But
>tell me this...does it matter which (wave) terminal the main bus is
>connected to, or are they both internally connected? Judging by the diode
>symbol on the diagram it looks like either one would work fine?
>
> > Bottom line is that what you have observed is predictable,
> > understandable and not relevant to how the system operates
> > in the air.
>
>Phew...thanks!
The diode array is a bridge rectifier. The wavy symbol is
use to show one of two AC power input terminals. Either
can be used. You're wired up just fine and everything will
be hunky-dory when you get the engine fired up and the
alternator comes on line.
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: | Alternator diode bridge measurement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com" <bob@flyboybob.com>
Bob,
I am in the process of modifying my internally regulated alternator to use
an external linear regulator. It was removed from service because it only
was putting out 13.0 volts. The claim of the shop was that it had a bad
regulator. I have disconnected the diode/regulator board from the stator.
The stator windings read 1 ohm from A-B, A-C, or B-C and infinite resistance
to the core. The rotor measures 3 ohms between the two brush slip rings and
infinite resistance to the core. Do these values seem reasonable for a 40A
Hitachi alternator?
The diode bridge and regulator are all in one assembly in this unit. I will
need to perform a lobotomy on the regulator and then connect the rotor
positive brush to what was the idiot light output connection on the
alternator. Before performing this surgery on the regulator, I would like
to know that the diode bridge is intact. The following table shows the
resistance values that I got from the diode bridge. The results seem
inconclusive to me. My assumption is that my DVM does not supply sufficient
voltage to bias the diodes??? Is there a way to measure diode bridge
without removing each individual diode?
Terminals in top row, ohm meter positive lead
Terminals in left column, ohm meter negative lead
(All readings are Kohms)
B+ GND A B C
B+ XXXX 2940 1960 1860 1910
GND inf XXXX 1960 1890 1850
A inf 1810 XXXX 3770 3730
B inf 1820 3780 XXXX 2880
C inf 1840 3790 2760 XXXX
Regards,
Bob Lee
______________________________
3380 Ashton Drive
Suwanee, GA 30024
Cell: (404) 538-1427
Phone: (770) 844-7511
Fax: (770) 844-7501
mailto:bob@flyboybob.com
http://flyboybob.com
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: | Alternator diode bridge measurement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Most good DVM have a diode function which will provide larger bias
current and show the diode forward voltage drop.
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator diode bridge measurement
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mailbox bob at
mail.flyboybob.com" <bob@flyboybob.com>
Bob,
I am in the process of modifying my internally regulated alternator to
use
an external linear regulator. It was removed from service because it
only
was putting out 13.0 volts. The claim of the shop was that it had a bad
regulator. I have disconnected the diode/regulator board from the
stator.
The stator windings read 1 ohm from A-B, A-C, or B-C and infinite
resistance
to the core. The rotor measures 3 ohms between the two brush slip rings
and
infinite resistance to the core. Do these values seem reasonable for a
40A
Hitachi alternator?
The diode bridge and regulator are all in one assembly in this unit. I
will
need to perform a lobotomy on the regulator and then connect the rotor
positive brush to what was the idiot light output connection on the
alternator. Before performing this surgery on the regulator, I would
like
to know that the diode bridge is intact. The following table shows the
resistance values that I got from the diode bridge. The results seem
inconclusive to me. My assumption is that my DVM does not supply
sufficient
voltage to bias the diodes??? Is there a way to measure diode bridge
without removing each individual diode?
Terminals in top row, ohm meter positive lead
Terminals in left column, ohm meter negative lead
(All readings are Kohms)
B+ GND A B C
B+ XXXX 2940 1960 1860 1910
GND inf XXXX 1960 1890 1850
A inf 1810 XXXX 3770 3730
B inf 1820 3780 XXXX 2880
C inf 1840 3790 2760 XXXX
Regards,
Bob Lee
______________________________
3380 Ashton Drive
Suwanee, GA 30024
Cell: (404) 538-1427
Phone: (770) 844-7511
Fax: (770) 844-7501
mailto:bob@flyboybob.com
http://flyboybob.com
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: | Re: crimping connectors to 24-26 AWG wire on Ray Allen |
servos
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Ray Allen Company
2528-8 Pioneer Avenue
Vista, CA 92083
Via Fax: 760-599-4383
Good morning,
By way of introduction, I am an electronics engineer with over 40 years
experience in light aircraft. For the past 17 years, I have been
supporting the owner built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft community
though publishing and real-time support efforts. I publish a
builder assistance book called the AeroElectric Connection which is
in it's 10th revision after 15 years of publication and over
10,000 copies sold. I'll invite you to visit my website
at www.aeroelectric.com for a more detailed description of
our activities in support of the OBAM aircraft industry.
Since my first visit to OSH in 1986, I have been fielding questions
about practical ways to interface your popular and capable products
into OBAM aircraft. Difficulties arise most often when
neophyte builders are learning to deal with wires that are smaller
than the more robust, mil-w-22759/16, 22AWG wires; the
smallest size recommended for airframe wiring.
There is another issue with respect to the use of two white
wires to bring motor leads out of the trim actuators. The system
designer who specifies your products cannot produce a wiring
diagram that is 100% accurate for system functionality. The
builder has a 50-50 chance of wiring the motor right the
first time.
The note below is an example of conversations I've had with
builders about your products for lots of years. I've copied
you on this exchange to apprise you of perceptions
and customer discomfort with the use of Ray Allen products.
If there is any interest on your part to effect some
relief, I for one would be most supportive. My readers
would appreciate it too.
Kindest regards,
Bob Nuckolls
AeroElectric Connection
Wichita, KS
Cell:(316) 209-7528
Fax:(316) 685-8617
Email: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
At 03:55 PM 8/6/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame
><charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
>I'm interested in the answers to this question also.
>
>The wires in my MAC servos and trim indicators are 22 AWG at best, and
>look much smaller. The instructions says that "... up to 28 AWG is
>satisfactory." I have trouble crimping 22 AWG wires into 18-22 AWG
>fastons and splices and am at a complete loss as to what to do with
>smaller wires. Solder....???
Heard this question a lot when I worked out of B&C's booth
at OSH every year. It was mystifying to me that given
the compact size of M22769, 22AWG wire, that they were
so hard-over on using such small wire on their products.
Further, any recommendation that wires as small as
28AWG (?????) could be used in airframe wiring was
mind boggling . . . ESPECIALLY for neophyte technicians.
The current rating of wires as small as 28AWG
might be satisfactory for rated performance of their
product. However, there was no consideration given for relative
robustness of small wires and the difficulties of
acquiring convenient connection hardware designed
for those small wires.
Every time I stopped by MAC's booth at for about 10 years
running, I asked if they would consider up-sizing the wires
to 22AWG -AND- using a second color for one of the motor
wires (with two white wires, you have 50-50 chance of wiring it right
the first time). Never have I encountered an organization
so disconnected from the tenants of elegant design, practical
acumen and empathy with the customers they claim to
serve.
Their standard response was, "Gee, we've heard no
complaints . . . we must be doing a good thing".
A deep root of resistance for them has to be the
number of STC's in which their products are called
out. Making the most rudimentary of changes
to a holy-watered product has become a labor
intensive, financial boondoggle of jumping through
regulatory hoops.
That's an advantage the OBAM aircraft community
has over the certified ships. Products and
processes can evolve as the elegant solutions
dictate. You folks have the opportunity to be
a the leading edge of aviation evolution while
our spam-can driving brethren are flying designs
carved into regulatory stone.
If I had no other options than to use Ray Allen products,
I would interface their pendant wires with REAL
airframe wiring using a technique like:
http://216.55.140.222/articles/macservo/macservo.html
Understand they are under new management. Perhaps
another suggestion for making their products more
user friendly would be useful. I'll fax a copy of
this note to the factory.
Bob . . .
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: bus feed questions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> can be used. You're wired up just fine and everything will
> be hunky-dory when you get the engine fired up and the
> alternator comes on line.
Thanks again for putting my mind at ease. The voltage drop explains the
symptom...wish I had thought to break out the voltmeter. Next time I will.
Couldn't get through this (first OBAM) without all your help.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
Tony:
Valid questions. However, ... .
Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the difference in
cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite and a
"conventional" panel?
Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an all-electric panel.
I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at least with conventional "steam
gauges"-an electric artificial horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and
the rest of the vacuum system put together. Vacuum system components are
readily available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
The folks at MyGlassCockpit@yahoogroups.com are experimenting with various
"roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site is
disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like Nuckolls-but I
suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from amateurs than
greedy corporations. I suspect that if I ever get a glass cockpit, it will
be built with "off the shelf" components [like a tablet p.c., automotive
sensors, etc.] and homebuilder cooperation.
Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these lines, or am
I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)? Are homebuilt
instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric discussion?
Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then add GPS (the
components are all already available) and moving maps, then finally
integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done and I'm simply ignorant?
Thanks!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell@123mail.net>
The Dynon is essentially only the ADI screen of the BMA EFIS/Lite.
The BMA also includes an HSI, Moving Map, AutoPilot, and a CDI for VOR/GPS
guidance. The EFIS/Lite essentially replaces the standard "six pack" gauges
(Airspeed, altimeter, attitude, turn coordinator, vertical speed, heading),
and adds a moving map GPS, autopilot (if purchased), and Nav head.
The EFIS/One full system adds, for one, the engine, fuel, OAT, and other
monitoring items....
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
>
> Tony:
>
> Valid questions. However, ... .
>
> Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the difference in
> cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite and a
> "conventional" panel?
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
> their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an all-electric panel.
> I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at least with conventional
"steam
> gauges"-an electric artificial horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and
> the rest of the vacuum system put together. Vacuum system components are
> readily available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
> priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
>
> The folks at MyGlassCockpit@yahoogroups.com are experimenting with
various
> "roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site is
> disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like Nuckolls-but I
> suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from amateurs than
> greedy corporations. I suspect that if I ever get a glass cockpit, it
will
> be built with "off the shelf" components [like a tablet p.c., automotive
> sensors, etc.] and homebuilder cooperation.
>
> Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these lines, or
am
> I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)? Are homebuilt
> instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric discussion?
>
> Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then add GPS
(the
> components are all already available) and moving maps, then finally
> integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done and I'm simply
ignorant?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Freddie Freeloader <lists@stevet.net>
Hello rwilliams,
Thursday, August 7, 2003, 12:15:13 PM, you wrote:
r> I suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from
r> amateurs than greedy corporations.
Just curious, when did designing and marketing and making a profit
turn into "greedy?"
--
Best regards,
Freddie mailto:lists@stevet.net
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
I would second this comment. I own (with two partners) a company
(www.astsensors.com) that makes pressure sensors. We sell thousands to
large numbers of industrial and commercial customers. I would like to
make our products available to homebuilders (and to mainline GA and
aeronautical companies as well). However, the costs for insurance that
will cover sales to anything related to aircraft is ridiculous!
The additional cost to sell one sensor into an aviation application
would be more than double what we pay to sell over $2M to industrial
customers!
So it is not specifically "greedy corporations" - it is more the lawyers
and our litigious society that raises the costs.
My $0.02...
Dick Tasker, RV9A 90573
Starting fuselage...
Freddie Freeloader wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Freddie Freeloader <lists@stevet.net>
>
>Hello rwilliams,
>
>Thursday, August 7, 2003, 12:15:13 PM, you wrote:
>
>r> I suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from
>r> amateurs than greedy corporations.
>
> Just curious, when did designing and marketing and making a profit
> turn into "greedy?"
>
>
>
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: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
Pardon me for butting into the conversation, but I just wanted to
throw in my $0.02 on how I "justified" the Dynon unit.
I'm building an RV6A, and one of my requirements is that it is
capable fof basic IFR flight. I don't need WAAS approach
capability, two-axis autopilot, auto-throttles, or anything like
that - just the equipment required to go through a layer of clouds
to VFR on top or to shoot the occasional ILS. After pricing out
the basics, I found the Dynon actually cost very little more than
the traditional vacuum system. My bill for the Dynon came to $2200,
and from my budget I was able to remove the following items :
Mode-C altitude encoder - $150
Attitude Indicator - $450
Gyro Compass - $450
Vacuum Pump - $350
Suction Gauge - $75
Regulator & filter - $600
Note that these prices are basically estimates based on what is
available from Wicks/Spruce/Van's etc. Before choosing the Dynon
unit, I decided that I did not want to peg my well-being on a used
device with an unknown background from eBay.
The total of the above units is $2075; that doesn't include the
hoses or fittings for plumbing the vacuum system. For $125 more,
the Dynon offers an effective _solid-state_ replacement, with the
addition of a G-meter, Angle-of-attack indicator, voltmeter, and
more. It might be a bit cheaper; I ordered the optional backup
battery to run the unit in case of failure of the electrical system.
Cheers,
Brad "Sharpie" Benson
RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
rwilliams said:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rwilliams"
> <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
>
> Tony:
>
> Valid questions. However, ... .
>
> Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the
> difference in cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain
> EFIS/Lite and a
> "conventional" panel?
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box
> than their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an
> all-electric panel. I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at
> least with conventional "steam gauges"-an electric artificial
> horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and the rest of the vacuum
> system put together. Vacuum system components are readily
> available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
> priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
>
> The folks at MyGlassCockpit@yahoogroups.com are experimenting
> with various "roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site
> is
> disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like
> Nuckolls-but I suspect that affordable systems are more likely to
> come from amateurs than greedy corporations. I suspect that if I
> ever get a glass cockpit, it will be built with "off the shelf"
> components [like a tablet p.c., automotive sensors, etc.] and
> homebuilder cooperation.
>
> Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these
> lines, or am I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)?
> Are homebuilt instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric
> discussion?
>
> Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then add
> GPS (the components are all already available) and moving maps,
> then finally integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done
> and I'm simply ignorant?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
> Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Digests: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list _-> Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
Brad Benson, Software Architect
Computer Data Strategies, Inc.
Ph. 651-730-4156 / Fax 651-730-4161
"What's another word for thesaurus?"
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is that
you would need at leat two of them to maybe qualify for IRF or have a vacume
system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be gone...no partial
panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally. With steam
guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you some options.
That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with all the bells
and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the way PDAs are headed you could
almost do it with them...
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/7/03 7:48:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
mjheinen@adelphia.net writes:
> My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or have a
> vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally.
With
> steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you some
> options.
> That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with all the
> bells and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the way PDAs are headed
> you could almost do it with them...
>
>
Good Evening mjheinen,
I am not at all familiar with the requirements for IFR flight with current
construction experimental airplanes, but any part 91 airplane that has been
certificated for a few years does not require any back up instrumentation at all.
Most folks like to have something to fall back on, but nothing is required by
regulation.
You can have everything driven off one vacuum pump or the entire panel driven
by electricity and have no back up electrical power at all.
May or may not be advisable, but it is legal.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> > My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels"
is
> > that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or
have a
>
> I am not at all familiar with the requirements for IFR flight with current
> construction experimental airplanes, but any part 91 airplane that has
been
Folks, sorry to be blunt, but it's time to break out the FARs and refresh
your memory on 91.205.
http://checkoway.com/url/?s=44f0f6ce
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
For part 91 aircraft, there is no requirement for a backup gyro
device. I know it is required for jet aircraft and also for part
121/135 but I confess that I am too lazy to dig out my FAR/AIM at
the moment. Anyway, my panel is being built around my Dynon D10 and
I will have a turn coordinator installed even though the Dynon
includes that function.
Cheers,
Brad "Sharpie" Benson
RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
>
>
> My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass
> panels" is that you would need at leat two of them to maybe
> qualify for IRF or have a vacume system backup. If you unit
> failed all your instruments would be gone...no partial
> panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally.
> With steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still
> gives you some options.
> That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with
> all the bells and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the
> way PDAs are headed you could almost do it with them...
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:05 PM 8/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 7:48:47 PM Central Daylight Time,
>mjheinen@adelphia.net writes:
>
> > My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> > that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or
> have a
> > vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> > gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR
> legally. With
> > steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you
> some
> > options.
> > That said....I too would prefer a (plus backup) glass panel with all the
> > bells and whistles at an affordable cost. My guess is the way PDAs are
> headed
> > you could almost do it with them...
> >
> >
>Good Evening mjheinen,
>
>I am not at all familiar with the requirements for IFR flight with current
>construction experimental airplanes, but any part 91 airplane that has been
>certificated for a few years does not require any back up instrumentation
>at all.
>Most folks like to have something to fall back on, but nothing is required by
>regulation.
>
>You can have everything driven off one vacuum pump or the entire panel driven
>by electricity and have no back up electrical power at all.
>
>May or may not be advisable, but it is legal.
A fully electric airplane is considered to have TWO
power sources, one alternator and one battery. An
airplane with one-source vacuum gyros still has an
electric T/C with two power sources. The idea is that
with some degree of practice, one can reasonably
expect to navigate sans one power source.
Of course, given that most airplane batteries are
treated the same as car batteries, one might
effectively discount reliability of the second
source . . . combine this with the a demonstrated
miserable performance of alternators on most SE
aircraft, and it's easy to see why our spam-can
flying brothers are so fond of their vacuum systems.
They must seek solace with an airplane full of
redundant junk as opposed to refitting and configuring
their flight system to be failure tolerant of equipment
EXPECTED to last a long time.
If one installed a low cost efis that replaced the
standard 6-pak, one could still argue adequate redundancy
with needle, ball, and airspeed installed on the right
side. Once might also add a digital readout of the
encoder data as backup altimeter. A radio-aided wing
leveler might also be considered superior backup in
lieu of T/C leaving only an altimeter and a/s readout
needed for comfortable redundancy. This doesn't take
a lot of extra dollars or panel space.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:03 PM 8/7/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
>
<snip>
>The total of the above units is $2075; that doesn't include the
>hoses or fittings for plumbing the vacuum system. For $125 more,
>the Dynon offers an effective _solid-state_ replacement, with the
>addition of a G-meter, Angle-of-attack indicator, voltmeter, and
>more. It might be a bit cheaper; I ordered the optional backup
>battery to run the unit in case of failure of the electrical system.
How do you plan to have an "electrical system failure?"
It's usually less expensive, lighter and safer to plan
an electrical system that isn't going to fail than to plan
for a flight system that is tolerant of an electrical
system failure.
Bob . . .
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: | Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
"Cheap" is relative.
Also, "Cheap" may *NOT* be what you want. :-)
Seriously, in my opinion, nobody comes close to offering what they offer at
the price they do. Maybe Blue Mountain *could* (with a very stripped down
"Lite') but they do not. Maybe PCflightSystems (or ControlVision) with their
PDA offerings but they don't at this time. Seems though I recall seeing that
PCFlightSystems had something at OSH that was less costly.
Personally I am surprised that they are able to offer what they do for the
price they do.
I would guess they are doing "forward pricing" in an attempt to "own" this
space so they can eventually get enough volume to catch up (on expenses)
with subsequent products.
Just a different perspective on the matter.
James
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
> their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> Bob
>
>
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: | Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
See this link for PCFlightSystems "stuff".
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/images/PCFSPRODUCTS2003.pdf
They seem to have offerings between about $1000 and about $2000.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> rwilliams
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:15 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rwilliams" <rwilliams@C1ama.net>
>
> Tony:
>
> Valid questions. However, ... .
>
> Some of us are working on very tight budgets. What is the difference in
> cost between the Dynon D10 or the Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite and a
> "conventional" panel?
>
> Dynon should be commended for bringing out a much lower priced box than
> their competitors, but it is still not cheap.
>
> In sentiment, I agree with Bob Nuckolls' desire for an all-electric panel.
> I'd love to have a glass cockpit. However-at least with
> conventional "steam
> gauges"-an electric artificial horizon costs as much as a vacuum a.h. and
> the rest of the vacuum system put together. Vacuum system components are
> readily available reconditioned. Thus far, most electronics seem to be
> priced to probe just how high the market will tolerate.
>
> The folks at MyGlassCockpit@yahoogroups.com are experimenting
> with various
> "roll your own" solutions. The progress on that site is
> disappointing--probably because they lack a sparkplug like Nuckolls-but I
> suspect that affordable systems are more likely to come from amateurs than
> greedy corporations. I suspect that if I ever get a glass
> cockpit, it will
> be built with "off the shelf" components [like a tablet p.c., automotive
> sensors, etc.] and homebuilder cooperation.
>
> Is there anyone else in the group that is thinking along these
> lines, or am
> I alone "out in left field" (or right, or whatever)? Are homebuilt
> instruments a valid topic for an Aerolectric discussion?
>
> Perhaps one could start by computerizing engine readouts, then
> add GPS (the
> components are all already available) and moving maps, then finally
> integrate EFIS. Or has all this already been done and I'm
> simply ignorant?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bob
>
>
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! --
|