Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:02 AM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 08:40 AM - Alternator (Tom Reading)
3. 09:22 AM - Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? (Ken Brooks)
4. 10:39 AM - Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? (Jeffrey W. Skiba)
5. 10:58 AM - Re: Panel planner software (William Slaughter)
6. 12:16 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (brucem@olypen.com)
7. 12:41 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Dan Checkoway)
8. 12:50 PM - OV Module question for Bob (Dave Grosvenor)
9. 01:10 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 08/08/03 (Ronald Cox)
10. 01:15 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 02:06 PM - Radiated ignition noise? Maybe not. (Duncan McBride)
12. 03:40 PM - Re: Alternator (Tom Reading)
13. 05:00 PM - Re: Alternator (Terry Watson)
14. 05:15 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Pat Hatch)
15. 06:43 PM - Re: all-vacuum driven attitude instrumentation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 07:07 PM - Re: Do your own regs and certification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 07:09 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 07:33 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 07:35 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:36 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 09:52 PM - Grounding (TimRhod@aol.com)
22. 10:30 PM - Re: Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 10:39 PM - Re: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
24. 10:46 PM - Re: Grounding (TimRhod@aol.com)
Message 1
| 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 8/9/03 12:33:14 AM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
> With respect to standby instruments, we find 91.205(d)(3)
> calls for rate of turn unless you have a spill proof
> third gyro as called out in (i) plus directional
> and attitude gyros. Are these combinations
> of instrumentation not selected for their abilities
> to substitute for or back up each other?
>
Good Morning Bob,
While I disagree with very little of what you have stated, (fact is, what got
me into the area of discussion in the first place is my desire to totally
eliminate the pneumatic system in my current certified steed) I do feel compelled
to comment on the above statement.
Having been an active IFR pilot in the days when we flew without Directional
Gyros or Artificial Horizons, I do remember the reasons presented when the
authorities added those instruments to the list of required instrumentation.
My recollection is that the arguments were more along the line that it took a
lot more time to teach people to fly IFR using the, then traditional, rate
based method than it did to teach the attitude based style of IFR flight. I
think redundancy had little to do with the decision.
It was felt that more folks would opt for instrument training if it were made
easier to do.
The example of WWII training for our military forces was used. The pilots
had universally been taught to fly IFR in a very limited amount of time. While
they were taught, and did have to demonstrate a basic capability on partial
panel, the military aircraft came equipped with a "full panel."
The basic reasoning was similar to that used when they eliminated the spin
requirement.
Many folks were so bothered by spins, that it was eliminated from the
curriculum in an effort to encourage more people to learn to fly.
If instrument flight could be made easier, it was hoped that more folks would
fly IFR.
As was pointed out earlier, Beech only installed one source of power for the
standard flight instrumentation in their early Bonanzas. One of the selling
points of the aircraft at that time was that every Bonanza left the plant fully
meeting all of the CAA requirements for IFR flight. They all had a vacuum
pump, a vacuum powered T&B, an LF transmitter and a radio capable of receiving
the low frequency range signals. I am not sure, but I believe they all a had
the manual loop as well, but I suppose a few may have been delivered without
that excellent, though not required, device.
I also feel that the incidences of the old wet vacuum pump failures were no
more pervasive than the incidents of engine failure. It just wasn't a
significant cause of accidents. The accidents came along with the dry pumps and
the
lack of partial panel skills.
I think I also pointed out earlier, that one of the first things I installed
in my first Bonanza was an electric T&B. My second son and I own a 1955 Piper
PA-22/20. It came from the factory with all vacuum powered flight
instrumentation. (I guess Piper and Beech felt that the wet pumps were reliable
enough
for them.) One of the early changes we made to the Pacer was to replace the
vacuum T&B with an electric model. I just come from a long line of chickens!
It is my contention that the current drive for redundancy has come about
because it is now fairly easy to develop methods of redundancy at low financial
cost and with low weight penalties.
That is not all bad. We should develop new methods and new technologies.
My problem is with those who wish to confine us to the operations that are
currently in vogue or who wish to protect us from what might happen even though
history has not shown any need for that protection.
We have come as far as we have in spite of regulation, not because of it.
I still think I should be allowed to make my own decision as to how much
redundancy I want.
One pilot, one engine, one power source for flight instruments, one radio.
All sounds OK to me if that is what I want.
Since I am old and can afford a standby handheld comm unit, along with a
handheld GPS, that is what I generally take along when IFR flight is contemplated.
I have practiced IFR flight using the GPS HSI as a reference and find it
doable. Not beautiful, but doable. For me, that meets my minimum requirements.
Others want much more. If anyone wants to fly with less, I will fight to the
death to maintain their right to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Reading" <treading@comcast.net>
I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
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: | Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Brooks" <kenbrooks@charter.net>
-listers,
Amen to this!
". . .All the regulations and anecdotes should be carefully combed for
useful, simple-ideas that help us evolve. 99% of what we KNOW about the
certified experience is of no value in this regard except to acknowledge
that they're not doing it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
makes us look like really good pilots because our airplanes are free of
disappointments. Bob (Nuckolls). . ."
Now. . .I want to be able to fly my RV-8 legal IFR (no, I don't intend
to fly in bad weather, just be able to file, etc.) I've already been
through the "paper charts" thing, and yes, I'll have them in the cockpit
and they'll be up to date. We've designed the Dual Alt/Dual Batt system
around Bob's same in Aeroelectric Connection. We're using The EFIS-One
with EFIS-Lite backup on different busses. We have the Apollo SL-30
Nav/Com with CDI indicator. We have the Microair 760 VHF radio for
backup on a separate bus. We also have a back seat repeater display for
the EFIS-One (wife insisted). We can put the display power on a
different bus than the front display also. The part where we differ in
interpretation of the FARs is that some say you must have a wet compass.
As I read the reg, it just says "magnetic heading indicator" and the
solid state magnetometers with the EFIS-One/EFIS-Lite are just that, so
if someone can show me why/how I must have a wet compass, I'll change my
interpretation, but until then, the two (separate magnetometers) fit the
bill nicely. Of course I will also have the Microair transponder with
encoder with a lovely cable set made by Bob. By the way, with the
EFIS-One/EFIS-Lite, we'll have two electronic skid/slip indicators and
two independent turn coordinators with automatic standard rate turn
indicators. Have I forgotten anything else I need for legal IFR?
Thanks in advance.
Ken Brooks
RV-8QB in progress
N1903P reserved
How fortunate for governments that the people do not think -- Adolf
Hitler
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: | Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba@icosa.net>
Here is a read from the EAA I got a while back to confirm my thoughts:
"The magnetic direction indicator called out in 14 CFR 91.205 is not further
defined. As such, any instrument that has the capability of finding
magnetic north and transmitting directional info to the pilot based on that
finding would be acceptable. There is no strict requirement for a "whiskey
compass".
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have further questions.
Joe Norris
EAA Aviation Information Services
EAA Aviation Center, Oshkosh, WI
888-322-4636, extension 6806
jnorris@eaa.org "
I hope that helps either clear things up or possibly make it murkier...
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Brooks
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel Layout -- IFR requirements?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Brooks"
--> <kenbrooks@charter.net>
The part where we differ in interpretation of the FARs is that some say
you must have a wet compass. As I read the reg, it just says "magnetic
heading indicator" and the solid state magnetometers with the
EFIS-One/EFIS-Lite are just that, so if someone can show me why/how I must
have a wet compass, I'll change my interpretation, but until then, the two
(separate magnetometers) fit the bill nicely.
Ken Brooks
RV-8QB in progress
N1903P reserved
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: | Panel planner software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Beware! I have previously used the Panel Planner software, and it did
not size the panel accurately. See Randy Lervold's comments on the
"Panel 1" page of his excellent website www.rv-8.com. I currently use
the free Panel Builder software accessible at epanelbuilder.com (no
www!) for conceptual layouts, then draw it in my CAD software to
determine the actual fit.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Trampas
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Panel planner software
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Try:
http://www.panelplanner.com/
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David.vonLinsowe
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel planner software
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe"
<David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
While at Osh I ran into a booth that offered CAD style panel layout
software. It looked like it would do what I needed, but it didn't look
like they had the GRT Horizon 1 EFIS in their data base yet. I didn't
get a chance to get back to the booth to talk to the owner or pick up
any literature before we had to beat the incoming weather.
Could someone please point me in the right direction with either a web
address or phone number? Please send the info to davevon@tir.com, I
won't get the list info until Monday night.
BTW. A friend building a RV-7 figures he'll save 25 lbs by going to the
Dynon vs. a vacuum system!
Thanks,
Dave
The "Silver Turtle"
RV-6 Flying, but upgrading
Say good by to the vacuum pump :-)
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com
Pat,
Welcome to "Catch 22" in the FARs. 91.205 requires three gyroscopic
intstruments for IFR flight, so an exception for an EFIS panel (with or without
backups) would need some sort of DAR or FSDO approval IMHO. An advance check
with one of them would make sense before committing to an EFIS panel.
Regards, Bruce
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion of
Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe you
should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> Welcome to "Catch 22" in the FARs. 91.205 requires three gyroscopic
> intstruments for IFR flight, so an exception for an EFIS panel (with or
without
> backups) would need some sort of DAR or FSDO approval IMHO. An advance
check
> with one of them would make sense before committing to an EFIS panel.
Despite there being no moving parts, a solid state gyro can still be
considered a gyroscopic instrument.
http://www.rvproject.com/IFR_Equipment.pdf
According to the FAA Small Plane Directorate (whatever that is):
"Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the
gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of
what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
display."
I'm banking on this interpretation, as are MANY other builders (using
Dynons, Blue Mountains, etc.), and I will do my utmost to persuade any DAR
or FAA representative who preaches otherwise. We'll see how it goes.
)_( 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: | OV Module question for Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
I have put together an OV module and set it up and tested it as per
instructions. On the bench it works fine. When installed in the aircraft,
it was tripping the OV breaker when I switched on the master switch. I
remember someone else with this problem and the fix was to put a 10uF Tant
cap across the power leads going into the module. This I did and it stopped
the breaker tripping when the master went on. However, as soon as I hit the
start button, it trips again. It can then immediately be reset. Do I put
in a bigger cap to sort this out or is there possibly another solution.
Thanks
Dave
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 25 Msgs - 08/08/03 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald Cox" <racox@ix.netcom.com>
Brad:
I think Bob's point is that this, and a lot of other "dark and stormy night"
stories, is based on a situation that we have designed our systems not to
permit.
I don't think a backup power source for the PFD is unreasonable, but it may
be unnecessarily redundant if you use a system architecture like Bob
promotes.
(Someone else might point out that if you heard him, unless he was on a
handheld radio, the King Air didn't have a "total electrical failure". Or
else, how did you hear him?
Ron
> Time: 06:16:53 AM PST US
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
> From: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
>
>
> I'm not planning on having one (an electrical system failure, that
> is) and in fact am planning on using one of the systems outline in
> the AeroElectric connection. However, for the low cost/weight
> addition, a battery backup for the PFD certainly seems reasonable.
> I've had to abort a flight twice (one emergency) due to electrical
> system failure, and I heard a King Air declare an emergency due to
> "total electrical failure" once, so I'm happy with the cost/weight
> tradeoff.
>
> In any event it will be as reliable, if not more so, than the vacuum
> system that would have gone in its place.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> Brad "Sharpie" Benson
> RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
> A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/9/03 2:42:38 PM Central Daylight Time, dan@rvproject.com
writes:
> http://www.rvproject.com/IFR_Equipment.pdf
>
> According to the FAA Small Plane Directorate (whatever that is):
>
> "Any instrument that performs the function of the required gyroscopic
> instrument and presents info to the pilot in the same manner as the
> gyroscopic instrument will meet the requirement of 91.205, regardless of
> what mechanical or electronic means are used to generate the information and
> display."
>
> I'm banking on this interpretation, as are MANY other builders (using
> Dynons, Blue Mountains, etc.), and I will do my utmost to persuade any DAR
> or FAA representative who preaches otherwise. We'll see how it goes.
>
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D
> http://www.rvproject.com
Good Afternoon Dan,
Sounds good to me!
Incidentally. I have found that the higher I go up the food chain in the
hierarchy of the FAA, the better answers I get.
It isn't only the crud that floats to the top, cream does likewise.
While there are always a few folks in any organization that get promoted to
their level of incompetency, my experiences with the FAA at the Regional
offices and in Washington has been good.
Dealing with a FSDO can be difficult. They are at the bottom and are still
in the learning stage. Many are fine and hardworking gentlemen (and ladies).
Unfortunately, just like any other group from airline pilots to nuclear
engineers, they get a few bad apples. Combine that with the few that are just
hanging on until they retire and we can find some difficult folks to work with.
Have faith. Try to present the FSDO personnel with data they can use to give
you the answer you want to see.
Works for me!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Radiated ignition noise? Maybe not. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duncan McBride" <duncanmcbride@comcast.net>
Maybe it's just noise.
First thing this morning I walked all around the plane with the handheld listening
to the noise, sticking the antenna everywhere. All I noticed was that the
closer to the engine I was, the louder it was. Then I realized as I was walking
away from the plane it was quieter than when I was walking towards it, like
my body shielded the noise. So I pinch the microphone between my thumb and
forefinger and the noise is almost gone. I know I reported earlier that this
had no effect but now it did.
One more time I enlist a buddy, this time one with a lot of GA experience, to listen
on the handheld while I fly. The report is that while there is a good deal
of engine and wind noise, my transmissions are clear enough to understand.
To him it didn't sound that unusual. To cap it off, I adjusted the intercom
so the volume was as loud as the radio and (smack my forehead) sure enough there
is roughly the same noise in the intercom. When the intercom squelch is broken,
and I'm listening to the engine and the wind, I can push the PTT and the
noise gets a little bit louder at the higher frequency, that's all.
It may be that all this time I've just been picking up a really loud exhaust and
prop noise coming over my shoulder, and the intercom just didn't amplify it
as well as the radio. That would be consistent with the fact that I would get
the same noise on the Microair intercom when it was hooked up.
Now I'm wondering if a different microphone for high noise environments is the
answer. The buddy at the field is a BFI and he swears by the Comtronics unit.
He says they use a dynamic mic and it does a much better job in this kind of
installation. I'm going to try out a pair when I can. They use different plugs
so I need to scrounge up an adapter. Does this sound reasonable?
Also, if this is it, would it be feasible to change out the mic on my headsets
(DC H10-80, Lighspeed QFRXC) or should I just bite the bullet and get new headsets?
Sorry I didn't get to spray water on the prop or watch it at night, but if this
angle doesn't pan out, I'm on it.
I've found some good reports on the Comtronics headsets in the archives, but does
anyone have anything specific to how the microphones cancel noise next to GA
headsets like mine? I'd appreciate your comments.
Thanks, Duncan
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Reading" <treading@comcast.net>
Thought you guys would find this interesting and please answer my
alternator question-thanks
New Technology Goes Into Amish Buggies
LEDs Make Batteries Last Longer
UPDATED: 5:52 p.m. EDT August 8, 2003
GORDONVILLE, Pa. -- Many of the Amish are turning to a high tech item to
light the way for their buggies.
Susan Shapiro's Report
A solar energy company in Lancaster County is making buggy headlights with
light emitting diodes, or LEDs, the energy-efficient light you often see in
digital clocks. They will shine for about 100 hours before the battery needs
a charge, compared to about six hours for incandescent lights.
Sunline Solar is behind this new product.
Amish workers assemble the headlights in a renovated barn in Gordonville.
The LEDs, manufactured by a California company, are placed in a four over
four configuration and is run with AA batteries.
General manager Steve Mellinger said the lights are very energy efficient,
which makes them a perfect fit for Amish carriages.
"This gives them the ability to have light without draining the battery
down. (They) can take longer trips," Mellinger said.
The lights aren't brighter, but they look a little different.
Elam Beiler, the president of Sunline Solar, said the Amish have been very
receptive to the high tech headlights and taillights.
"It's been widely accepted. We haven't had any negative feedback as far as
conforming to church standards and that type of thing," Beiler said. "I
don't have to worry if a battery is a quarter full. I can go for hours and
don't have to worry about battery dying."
The technology is used in other items like flashlights. The batteries last
about 20 times longer than in a normal flashlight, and you can drop it and
not worry about the bulb breaking.
The LEDs are being tested for automobile headlights, but they probably won't
be standard for a few years down the road.
LEDs have been around for about two decades, but it was only a few years ago
that a Japanese researcher came up with a way for them to emit white light.
Copyright 2003 by TheWGALChannel.com. All rights reserved. This material may
not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Tom
Reading
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Reading"
<treading@comcast.net>
I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
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: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Tom,
This is an answer Bob gave just a few days ago:
That is exactly what happens in certified ships. Figure Z-12
is not recommended for new design. It's an easy fix to add a
second alternator to an existing airplane. This this case, both
alternators are ON but the aux alternator regulator is set
for about 1 volt below normal bus voltage. Soooo . . . with
the main alternator working, the aux alternator relaxes.
If the main alternator quits, the bus voltage sags, the
aux alternator comes alive automatically. The SB-1 reglator
is fitted with a circuit to illuminate an "AUX ALT LOADED"
warning light and flash it if the aux alternator output
is higher than 20A . . . reduce load until light stops
flashing.
Terry
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Reading"
<treading@comcast.net>
I've been trying to understand what would happen if both BC 40amp and BC20
amp where on at the same time. Would this give you 60 amp capicity or would
one sleep because the alt 's set point are not ever precisely the same.
Thanks Tom Reading RV7 wiring
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: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Bruce,
I appreciate your comments. I am currently designing my panel too.
I am building an IFR-capable RV-7 and plan on having a Dynon D-10 as the
"artificial horizon," an electric DG for the "directional gyro," and a turn
coordinator for the required "rate-of-turn indicator." In my mind the
heading portion of the D-10 probably would not "qualify" as the directional
gyro, at least not in its current configuration. The 7 will be an
all-electric airplane with two alternators and two batteries.
Both my RV-4 and RV-6 are IFR capable. My -6 is GPS-approach capable. I
have never been able to get anyone in the FAA to "approve" anything I have
done. At first I wasn't comfortable with just going out and purchasing a
bunch of gyros and electronics without obtaining some kind of approval from
a FISDO or DAR. Slowly it became apparent to me that the FAA had no basis
in regulations for approving what I was doing or, for that matter, really
had no interest. It took me a while to realize the FAA is not proactive in
this area, and back in 1988 when I was building my -4, had probably not had
much exposure to people wanting to build IFR homebuilts.
My opinion: you take responsibility for interpreting the regs and building
your airplane accordingly, the FAA will probably not want to get involved in
commenting on the IFR equipment you may be proposing. This is probably a
good thing--if gives us flexibility. I doubt if the DAR will give any kind
of approval to your airplane for IFR flight either. What it all comes down
to ultimately is your ability to defend your design choices and
craftsmanship of your airplane should you be involved in an altercation with
the FAA over some kind of incident or accident
I think we have a lot going for us: all the new technology and many people
out there building IFR airplanes that are all pretty much like-minded,
thanks to people like Bob Nuckolls and the Aeroelectric List.
One could argue that we building airplanes that are probably superior for
IFR flight than a lot of spam cans. We have a real advantage in that we
have real flexibility to design the most up-to-date panel possible. I don't
see how the certified folks can possibly keep up. This all bodes well for
the sport aircraft hobby.
do not archive
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com
>
> Pat,
>
> Welcome to "Catch 22" in the FARs. 91.205 requires three gyroscopic
> intstruments for IFR flight, so an exception for an EFIS panel (with or
without
> backups) would need some sort of DAR or FSDO approval IMHO. An advance
check
> with one of them would make sense before committing to an EFIS panel.
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
> Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
> standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion
of
> Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
> instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
> operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
> properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe
you
> should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
>
> Pat Hatch
> RV-4
> RV-6
> RV-7 QB (Building)
> Vero Beach, FL
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
> http://www.olypen.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: all-vacuum driven attitude instrumentation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:22 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 10:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>For What It Is Worth, my first 1947 Bonanza came from Beech with a vacuum
>powered T&B and a vacuum powered DG. When the FAA added the requirement
>for an
>Artificial Horizon and Directional gyro, all I had to do was add the Attitude
>gyro.
>
>I had previously installed an electric T&B as a back up to be used if my
>vacuum pump should fail, but having the electric T&B was not a requirement
>for IFR
>flight. My reading of the FARs say that is still the case. All gyro
>instruments could be pneumatically powered and the airplane would be legal
>for IFR
>flight.
>
>Vacuum T&Bs are getting a bit hard to find, but I did buy one with a fresh
>overhaul just last year at Oshkosh.
>
>A single source of power is all that is required.
If one considers both flow of electrons and molecules
of air as POWER sources for useful purposes
on the panel, how do all-vacuum gyros square with
the 30 minute rule?
Of course, the Bonanza is a CAR3 airplane and much
to the frustration of those who are paid to protect
us from ourselves, enjoyed a lot of grand-fathered
freedoms from current rules as they evolved. That
was pulled up short not by FAR but I believe by
administrative orders that decreed that major
changes to airframes under any old certification rules
would be conducted to the latest rules.
So one has to be clear in making distinctions between
was was required way back when, what is required now,
what's a good idea anyhow, and what some local FSDO
guy belives. If you were a DER and had the 30 minute rule
laid out in front of you, what would be your advice
to anyone proposing all vacuum attitude instruments
driven by single pump?
Bob . . .
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: Do your own regs and certification |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:55 PM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
>
>Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
>standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion of
>Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
>instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
>operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
>properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe you
>should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
. . . here's the neat thing about OBAM aircraft
configuration and construction. Take the simple idea
of a self-imposed requirement. "My airplane is fitted
and operated in a manner wherein no single failure
of equipment has a profound influence on the outcome
of any proposed flight."
Now, if one has all-the-eggs-in-one-basket type
of display, it's a relatively simple task to deduce
what alternative equipment and mode of operation will
get you back on the ground without breaking a sweat.
Write a failure mode effects analysis that discusses
exactly what you plan to do in case of failure of
ANY and all pieces of equipment. A few paragraphs that discuss
(1) how you will become aware of the failure, (2) is
the failure pre-flight detectable, (3) is that device
necessary for sweat-free continuation of flight,
(the discussion may stop here where you say, "not
necessary for comfortable continuation of flight)
and (4) what alternatives are supplied for replacing the
lost function if loss of equipment CAN make you
break a sweat.
This is a very simple exercise you should do for
yourself no matter who else may be invited to pass
judgment on your airplane. Believe me, those-who-
are-paid-to-protect-us-from-ourselves will be
surprised if not astounded to be presented with
such a document. It will be a black and white
demonstration that you know more about your airplane
than they do.
This has the effect of -BOTH- cooperating with
the spirit and intent of regulation -AND- ensuring
your personal familiarization and confidence
in the machine you operate. It's easy. You
can do it in the word processor. It can and
should speak to EVERY piece of equipment in
the cockpit and maybe some pieces under the
cowl as well. Treat it sorta like typing
and expanding on your notes after a lecture.
This exercise will go a long way for your
personal confidence and understanding. It'll
blow the socks off any bureaucrat that thinks
he's walking up to just another neophyte that
wants to get in that thing and put daylight
under the wheels.
This will go a long way toward earning their
respect and reducing any resistance they may
have toward turning you and your machine
loose on the rest of us unsuspecting citizens.
Bob . . .
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 01:45 PM 8/8/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>Here's the link to 23.1311 for the URL-challenged:
>
>http://checkoway.com/url/?s=86bb96ba
>
>Quoting it:
>
>"(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
>independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude
>instrument or individual electronic display indicators for the altitude,
>airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary
>electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in
>panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by
>Sec. 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility
>requirements of Sec. 23.1321(a)."
>
>The "or" in that constraint seems to be the magic bullet. I interpret that
>to mean that a Dynon EFIS-D10 with its own internal backup battery satisfies
>that requirement. You can rip the whole electrical system out of the plane,
>and the Dynon's battery will run that puppy, complete with those required
>display indicators (altitude, airspeed, attitude) independently of the
>electrical system.
>
>I hope my interpretation is a correct one.
. . . still leaves a concern with failures internal
and vital to the operation of the system. What are
your alternatives when a solder joint comes loose and
the screen goes black?
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: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:10 PM 8/8/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>
>Hello Bob List,
>
>I am installing a singleLight Speed Engineering Electronic ignition on my
>Lyc O-235 powered Kitfox. As you may or may not remember, in order to
>avoid putting a big hole in the firewall, I've decided to cut the main
>wire running from the direct crank sensor to the 15 pin connector that
>inputs to the controller re-connect the 15 pinwith D-Subs. I've already
>purchased the tools materials from BC but need to get clear on a couple
>of things before I proceed. Am hoping Bob /oranyone who has installed an
>LSE ignitionwill giveadvice on the following:
>
>#1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
>I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
>the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
>missing something)
Sounds like you have a soldered on connector. You just
cut it off and replace with a crimped pin connector.
Tools and pins are available from B&C. Unfortunately,
Radio Shack for some strange reason thinks that 9 and
25 pin connector are the only d-subs . . . they
don't stock a 15-pin, 20AWG d-sub connectors.
>#2 - There are 2 shielded wires that go into the connector: One for
>power one for ground. The two shields are connected to each other close
>to the 15 pin but LSE says to leave thoseends un-connected. I don't
>understand what purpose they could serve. As my battery is in the tail of
>my aircraft I need to lengthen the existing wires to get back to my
>battery bus. Should I install shielded wires install per LSE or is it
>permissible to install un-shielded wire.
Unshielded wire is fine . . .
>#3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
>that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
>side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
>amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
>Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables.
>Any advice here would help.
I'd pitch the RG-58 and go with a twisted pair of wires. Other
builders have done this with success and the physics surrounding
the nature of twisted pairs says it will work. You could even use
shielded twisted pair . . .
This is a constantly recurring problem for builders. I've heard
a number of cases where the 1940's insulation on RG-58 has
melted under the cowl. I'm going to publish an alternative
to wiring the coils in a shop notes. Will try to get it up
tomorrow.
Tell you what. If there's interest, I'll put up a kit consisting
of 4 lengths of twisted pair shielded with BNC connectors installed
on one end, and a 15-pin d-sub connector, pins and backshell. I think
I've got about 7000 feet of twisted pair and bins full of
connectors. Is the replaced connector male or female?
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: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:12 PM 8/8/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>
> #1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
>I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
>the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
>missing something)
>
>They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
>cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
>
>
>Thanks Dan! I'll get a new one (or two) from BC like I probably should
>have in the first place.
>
>
> #3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
>
>
>that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
>side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
>amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
>Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
>advice here would help.
>
>See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
>Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
>gets wrapped around the shield.
This would be fine on modern insulated wire. That polyethylene
inner conductor insulation runs like water at solder temps.
That's why he tells you not to use heatshrink. You can't install
heatshrink without damaging the wire!!!!
Hold off on the RG58 until you see my shop notes addition
tomorrow.
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: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:05 PM 8/8/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
>
>Don't use the RG58 that comes with the LSE. Use RG400 from B&C. I've had
>engine heat melt the insulator and short out RG58.
If you want to stay with coax, this is a MUCH more appropriate
wire.
Bob . . .
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: TimRhod@aol.com
Bob: Awhile back you stated fig Z15b (ground system for canard pusher)
wasnt a good idea and would be revised in the next edition but you didnt explain
why? Would you please?
Assuming you would rather have the panel ground going to the #2 wire coming
from the engine end to the battery like diagram Z15C. Would it be best to
run the #2 wire up from the floor channel its running in to behind the panel and
attached to a ground plate that all the panel grounds are attached to or
could I run a smaller wire from the panel ground plate down to the #2 wire running
in the floor track. Thanks Tim
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:45 AM 8/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>Bob: Awhile back you stated fig Z15b (ground system for canard pusher)
>wasnt a good idea and would be revised in the next edition but you didnt
>explain
>why? Would you please?
the original design used the battery (-) terminal
as a common junction point. The updated figure
has been posted at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z15ak.pdf
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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 |
|
| Subject: | Panel Layout -- IFR requirements? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:36 PM 8/9/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba@icosa.net>
>
>Here is a read from the EAA I got a while back to confirm my thoughts:
>
>"The magnetic direction indicator called out in 14 CFR 91.205 is not further
>defined. As such, any instrument that has the capability of finding
>magnetic north and transmitting directional info to the pilot based on that
>finding would be acceptable. There is no strict requirement for a "whiskey
>compass".
How about a hand-held gps like the GPS310 from Magellan
set up to give present course in magnetic degrees.
BTW, when I started using these low cost receivers, I bought
in to the widely distributed notion that one always wanted
to power them up while in pre-flight so they could get
locked to signals and figure out where one was before
you became airborne.
In years since, I've conducted a number of experiments
with asking the receiver to do a cold start a some distance
away from shutdown and perhaps at cruising speed. Worst
case was at 29,000 ft, 500+ MPH and over 1,500 miles
from where the receiver had been turned off. It took
the GPS310 less than 1 minute to sort it all out and
produce a display.
Sooo . . . even hidden away in the flight bag, this
technology is available on very short notice to
back up anything else in the cockpit that displays
the same data.
Bob . . .
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: TimRhod@aol.com
Thanks I found the updated drawing but the question is why? Im trying to
learn
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! --
|