Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:06 AM - Re: airworthiness (cgalley)
2. 05:19 AM - Re: airworthiness (Brian Lloyd)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: E-Mags (Scott Bilinski)
4. 06:47 AM - airworthiness (Glen Matejcek)
5. 07:11 AM - Re: airworthiness (Kent Ashton)
6. 08:26 AM - Re: airworthiness (Hicks, Wayne)
7. 08:29 AM - Re: Airworthiness and "TSO" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:33 AM - Re: Soldering Stations (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:38 AM - Re: E-Mags (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:59 AM - airworthiness ()
11. 09:21 AM - airworthiness ()
12. 09:31 AM - Re: airworthiness (Scott Bilinski)
13. 09:45 AM - Re: E-Mags (Walter Tondu)
14. 09:54 AM - Re: airworthiness (Matt Prather)
15. 09:56 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Hicks, Wayne)
17. 10:34 AM - Re: airworthiness (Brian Lloyd)
18. 11:00 AM - Re: airworthiness (Terry Watson)
19. 11:33 AM - Re: airworthiness (Brian Lloyd)
20. 11:35 AM - New Figure Z-10 (PeterHunt1@aol.com)
21. 11:49 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (echristley@nc.rr.com)
22. 11:59 AM - Re: airworthiness (Eric Ruttan)
23. 12:01 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
24. 12:23 PM - Dynon update (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
25. 12:51 PM - electrical schematic software (Sam Ray)
26. 12:52 PM - Re: airworthiness (cgalley)
27. 01:15 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Bruce Gray)
28. 01:29 PM - Re: electrical schematic software (Mickey Coggins)
29. 01:47 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Hicks, Wayne)
30. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Matt Prather)
32. 03:19 PM - Re: Dynon update (LarryRobertHelming)
33. 03:43 PM - Re: E-Mags (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
34. 03:57 PM - Re: Dynon update (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
35. 04:15 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
36. 04:51 PM - Re: E-Mags (Walter Tondu)
37. 06:11 PM - Re: electrical schematic software (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
38. 06:12 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
39. 06:17 PM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 06:28 PM - Re: New Figure Z-10 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 10:18 PM - Dynon update (Gerry Holland)
42. 11:34 PM - Re: Dynon update (Werner Schneider)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
If it isn't required by FAR then the TSO is not required. TSO is only one
of about 4 ways an item can be certified for use in a certificated airplane.
Maybe you can quote the number for the TSO requirement for radios used in
IFR?
Then and only then does it becopme a requirement like the
Transponder/encoder.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
> How about a nice game of Chess.
> You say it is not.
> I say it is.
> Your move. What will it be?
> If you don't know why something is so, then you don't know something is
so.
> Eric the Philosopher
> >
> > If they don't have to be TSOed, then there is no reason for WHY!
> > >
> > > The question was Why? Try again?
> > > Eric the Inquisitor
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
> > >
> > > > > Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
> > > > > The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in
> the
> > > > > Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all
> other
> > > > > aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
> > > > requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
> > > > specifically
> > > > > mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that
has
> a
> > > > > certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the
Issuer
> > may
> > > > > reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
> > > > >
> > > > > This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any
way.
> > > > Since
> > > > > Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those)
> are
> > > > > specifically exempted or not included in the governing
"certificate"
> > > > > regulations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is
> not
> > > > > certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those
parts
> > > > likely
> > > > > may be returned to certificated status when the applicable
> > requirements
> > > > are
> > > > > complied with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
> if
> > > the
> > > > > regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric the entertainer
> > >
> > > > > > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
> > > Rotax912UL
> > > > > and
> > > > > > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> > > > > > Leo Corbalis
>
>
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 26, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Eric Ruttan wrote:
> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
> the
> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
A: Radios in IFR do *NOT* have to be TSO's with the exception of
IFR-certified GPS receivers. They must be approved but they need not
meet TSO.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
"Maybe that is why Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag
on electronic failure"
Here is a thought that the above quote reminded me of.
You have the plugs gapped at .030 to take advantage of the EI. The EI craps
out and now your running on a mag. How is the mag going to fire the spark
across that .030 gap? Or, were the plugs gapped at .018? Then your not
getting much of a benefit from the EI that you could.
At 07:27 PM 10/26/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frankhsmit@wmconnect.com
>
>Anything that says "Mags
>
>
>3
>
>
>Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with it
>problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental
>builders we
>can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair, or Lightspeed
>systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no moving parts, are
>easy to
>install, use automotive plugs and wires, and have great
>performance. These can
>not be used on certified aircraft, but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why
>Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag on electronic
>failure so
>that they could get FAA approval. I don't think any certified aircraft come
>with Lasar installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to
>go. Good
>luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
>
>
>as OBam
>
>
>'
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if the
> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>
> Eric the entertainer
>
Actually, this is an important point that can get lost in the verbiage.
According to the FAA and EAA, the ONLY thing on an OBAM aircraft required
to be TSO'd is a GPS nav unit intended to be used in the terminal area.
Period. Other equipment can be required to MEET TSO specs, but that is
different than actually having a sticker on the unit. What the local
inspector demands as proof of compliance is yet another story.
According to the local (and very helpful... Really!) fed, there is even
a major spam can builder that installs non-tso'd instruments in their
products and then certifies the plane as a whole. Go figure...
Just to muddy things a little, and although my understanding of the flight
test time requirements are exactly as published on this list, I know of a
Rotax Kitfox that had either a 10 or 15 hour flight test period. I
suggested that this was in error and to be verrrry careful about the
situation. The fella in question called OSH and was told that although
that was an unusual test period, the person writing the ops limits / flight
test requirements had the authority to make them whatever they wanted and
that the shorter test period was legit. Where I live, I already know that
having EI on my Lyc powered RV means I will definitely have a 40 hour test
period.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
Regulations tell you what you must do, or what you must not do. If the
regulation is silent, the choice to do or not do something is yours.
--Kent
> From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
> How about a nice game of Chess.
> You say it is not.
> I say it is.
> Your move. What will it be?
> If you don't know why something is so, then you don't know something is so.
> Eric the Philosopher
>>
>> If they don't have to be TSOed, then there is no reason for WHY!
>>>
>>> The question was Why? Try again?
>>> Eric the Inquisitor
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
>>>
>>>>> Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
>>>>> The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in
> the
>>>>> Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all
> other
>>>>> aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
>>>> requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
>>>> specifically
>>>>> mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has
> a
>>>>> certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer
>> may
>>>>> reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
>>>>>
>>>>> This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
>>>> Since
>>>>> Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those)
> are
>>>>> specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
>>>>> regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is
> not
>>>>> certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
>>>> likely
>>>>> may be returned to certificated status when the applicable
>> requirements
>>>> are
>>>>> complied with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
> if
>>> the
>>>>> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric the entertainer
>>>
>>>>>> Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
>>> Rotax912UL
>>>>> and
>>>>>> an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
>>>>>> Leo Corbalis
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
EAA Sport Aviation published an article, "Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR
Operations," a while back that addresses what, if any, of the equipment
needs to be "TSO'ed". The lengthy article is posted in its entirety on the
EAA website, but I'm too lazy to go find the link for you. :-) But I do
keep this article in my personal archives and I've posted the pertinent
parts below for you.
If you don't like to read, let me spare you the outcome--> The bottom line
is none of the equipment installed in a homebuilt aircraft is required to be
built under a TSO authorization, but it's to the builder's advantage to
install "TSO'ed" equipment if possible. GPS for IFR certified enroute,
terminal, and approach operations don't have to be manufactured to a TSO,
but it MUST meet the performance requirements of TSO C129.
If you like to read, this is snipped and copied directly from the article:
"TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined in 14 CFR Part
21, section 21.601(b)(1) as "....a minimum performance standard for
specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles means
materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft." A TSO
is actually a performance standard to which an article can be manufactured."
"When someone says an article is "TSO'ed", what they really mean is that the
unit was manufactured under a TSO authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says,
"A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the
manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO".
You'll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal specifically with design
and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation."
"Now we have an idea what a TSO is, but we still haven't answered he
question of whether or not our instruments and avionics in a homebuilt need
to be "TSO'ed". Our OpLims state that we have to equip the aircraft in
accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but
nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO'ed equipment. Thus, the
answer is NO, the instruments and equipment installed in your homebuilt
under the requirements of 91.205 are not required to be "TSO'ed"."
"So far, so good, but that's not the whole story. Most builders who plan to
equip their homebuilt for IFR operations don't stop at the minimums, so
let's take a look at some of the other commonly installed equipment and see
what's required."
<...big snip here...>
"What about GPS? <...more snips...> Some of these units are approved for
IFR operations, and the FAA has developed guidance on how to approve the
installation of GPS equipment in individual aircraft. This guidance comes
primarily in the form of FAA Advisory Circular 20-138, titled "Airworthiness
Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for use as
a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System." GPS equipment must meet the
performance requirements of the applicable TSO (in this case, C129), but
there is no specific requirement for the equipment to be built under a TSO
authorization. However, if the equipment is not built under a TSO
authorization, it is up to the builder to verify and document that the
equipment performs within the required specifications."
====================
Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/waynehicks/index.html
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: Airworthiness and "TSO" |
0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:18 AM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>On Oct 26, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Eric Ruttan wrote:
>
> > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
> > the regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>
>A: Radios in IFR do *NOT* have to be TSO's with the exception of
>IFR-certified GPS receivers. They must be approved but they need not
>meet TSO.
The copy of FAR91 from
http://www.airworthy.org/far-91.txt
speaks only to TSO'ed transponders, encoders and ELTs.
"FAR 21.601(B)(2) A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production
approval issued to
the manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO."
Unlike DO-160 testing which is general and tailored to the application for an
appliance, TSO speaks to specific performance requirements of an appliance and
may include DO-160 issues but is always expanded to include performance issues
for that appliance. For example, transponder/encoder combinations have accuracy
issues with respect to reporting altitude, so there's a specific TSO document
that speaks to these issues for transponders.
TSO-C91 is for ELT transmitters
TSO-C74b is for Transponders (mode a/c)
TSO-C112 is for Transponders (mode S)
TSO-C10b is for Encoding Altimeters
TSO-C88 is for blind encoders
TSO-C151 is for Terrain Avoidance equipment
The above list was gleaned from a search of FARS 21,23,25 and 91 with
most of them comming from FAR91. The only mention of TSO in Part 25
refers to brakes. There is no mention of TSO in Part 23.
Other references to TSO documents were found with some simple
searches on the 'net.
VOR receivers: TSO C40c
Localizer receivers: TSO C36e
Glideslope receivers: TSO C34e
Marker Beacon: TSO C35d
GPS: TSO C129a
VHF COM: TSO C37d
Given that Part 91 is the only FAR applicable to our operations it
might be useful for OBAM aircraft owners to suck a copy into their
word processors and do searches for phrases like "TSO", "certified",
and "approved" to see what things you may have to contend with
when that guy in a suit walks up to you with the big rule book under
his arm.
For example: Check out Sec. 91.107 "Use of safety belts, shoulder
harnesses, and child restraint systems."
You may be more likely to get gigged for "unapproved" restraint systems
than whether or not your radios are TSO'ed'.
Bob . . .
---
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: Soldering Stations |
0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:02 PM 10/26/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>Bob,
> I'm returning a Weller digital soldering station that was broken
>out of the box and though I'd better do the smart thing and stick with your
>Metcal recommendation. There are a couple of SP 200's for sale on Ebay
>right now. Unfortunately, I'm unable to determine, from the information
>available on the Metcal site, if the 200 or the 800 is the right iron for
>sticking wires and connectors. Metcal seems to deal only in board level
>soldering. Would you be so kind as to offer a model recommendation for
>Metcal for someone that needs to assemble his Kitfox and do other
>"recreational" soldering. (And one who hates to "buy twice".)
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Soldering tools are soldering tools . . . the don't know or care
WHAT you're soldering. They're simply a way of putting a concentrated
and hopefully controlled bucket of heat energy into the parts sufficient
to flow the solder.
The nice thing about Metcal irons is the very localized concentration
of heat. This 35 watt iron will solder the smallest joint you can see
in one case and let you solder a bare terminal on a piece of 2AWG wire
in the next case.
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:21 AM 10/27/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>"Maybe that is why Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag
>on electronic failure"
>
>Here is a thought that the above quote reminded me of.
>
>You have the plugs gapped at .030 to take advantage of the EI. The EI craps
>out and now your running on a mag. How is the mag going to fire the spark
>across that .030 gap? Or, were the plugs gapped at .018? Then your not
>getting much of a benefit from the EI that you could.
Those of us who certify aircraft hardware for a living are
completely mystified as to the rational behind the Unison ignition
product. If two magnetos are enough, why install two more ignition
systems on top of the magnetos? Their decision was especially
mystifying when you look at all the wiring it takes to make that
system work. In my never humble opinion, that system has to be
the product of somebody's bad dream . . . it was certainly not
an evolutionary step in the right direction. While every other
technology is getting cheaper, works better, is getting lighter
and simpler, the Unison system got more expensive, heavier and
more complex.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ericruttan@chartermi.net>
<<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
if
the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the entertainer>>
10/27/2004
Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick question, an
exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with some obfuscation,
or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is some educational benefit
involved in responding.
1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?) do not have
to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that statement please provide
the specific reference(s) otherwise.
2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to OBAM aircraft.
If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to FAR Sec 91.1 and
the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate
of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
OC
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: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom@mn.rr.com>
<<A long time ago, I looked all through the FARs. The only
place I found that said anything about TSO is when talking
about transponders and ELTs.>>
10/27/2004
Hello Tom, What you write is correct, but when one goes through FAR Part 91, for
instance, one will find several sections that require approved equipment.
FAR Sections 91.205 (b) (11), (12), (13), and (14) are examples. And of course
one of the primary ways that the FAA Administrator approves equipment is through
the TSO process.
OC
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Sounds like he is getting other to do the foot work for him!! :-0
At 11:59 AM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
><ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
><<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
>TSO'd, if
>the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the entertainer>>
>
>10/27/2004
>
>Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
>question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
>some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
>some educational benefit involved in responding.
>
>1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?) do
>not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that statement
>please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
>
>2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
>OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to FAR
>Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
>Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
>OC
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 10/27 10:38, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Those of us who certify aircraft hardware for a living are
> completely mystified as to the rational behind the Unison ignition
> product. If two magnetos are enough, why install two more ignition
> systems on top of the magnetos? Their decision was especially
> mystifying when you look at all the wiring it takes to make that
> system work. In my never humble opinion, that system has to be
> the product of somebody's bad dream . . . it was certainly not
> an evolutionary step in the right direction. While every other
> technology is getting cheaper, works better, is getting lighter
> and simpler, the Unison system got more expensive, heavier and
> more complex.
>
> Bob . . .
More expensive? yes.
Heavier? maybe a dozen ounces,
More complex? yes.
More wiring? a few extra wires.
Does it work? yes.
What are the failure rates of LASAR vs. (pick your favorite EI).
Anybody have any hard figures? Without that we're just assuming
one is more reliable than the rest. We need some data here.
BTW, what is "better"? Performance, Price, Efficiency, Reliability,
Maintainability, Availability?
Everyone has their own opinion about this too. A very rich man
may place Price near the bottom of his list.
Here's the reason I chose the LASAR system; if LASAR EI fails, you
*fly* home. If (pick your favorite EI) fails, you *glide* somewhere
which is usually -not- home. And I get some of the benefits of
an all electric EI. Not all, but enough.
Just my opinion. I'm no EE so if you can show me that LASAR
is without merit I'll probably buy it. But safety is high on
my list.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.. Not
WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
relates to
the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
system.
Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
> <<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
> TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> entertainer>>
>
> 10/27/2004
>
> Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
> some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
> some educational benefit involved in responding.
>
> 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
>
> 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
> OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> FAR Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
> Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> OC
>
>
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: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
At 10:40 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
>There was some discussion of these lights before, and IIRC, someone
>pointed out that the color temperature of the HID lights so closely
>matched that of the daytime sky that they were less visible that the
>yellowish tungsten and halogen lamps now in common use. Just a potential
>downside to think about.
He had (have) a Lopresti HID system on our AGATE research
Bonanza . . . our control tower guys were quick to point out
that the landing light was more difficult to see in daytime
than the lights on other airplanes in the traffic area.
>Oh, yeah, and the post about the WW2 bombers that used rheostat-adjustable
>lights in their leading edges and nose to blend with the daytime sky -
>probably more of the same idea.
Hmmm . . . an incandescent lamp at FULL voltage already has a color
temperature below that of sunlit clear sky . . . adding any kind
of rheostat or other voltage reducing scheme would only serve to
reduce the temperature still more pushing the color toward red and
away from the sky-blue. I'm also mystified by the idea that one would
run lights in the daytime and then purposely adjust their color so that
they were less visible.
>Looks like we need HID for best light output in a night landing situation,
>and tungsten bulbs on a wig-wag for staying out of each other's way in the
>daytime. Bummer.
I'm mystified by the quest for lumens in landing lights. If you
study what's really needed from lights to assist you in
greasing a night landing . . . it's being able to see the ground
under the wings. I took a customer for a night ride in our
J-3 carrying two flashlights. One was the classic 6-volt
fisherman's lantern ($5 at Wallmart including battery). The
guy in the front seat held the "landing light" and we shot several
touch and goes using this 6v, 0.5A lamp (3 watts) and found it
not the least bit difficult to handle the airplane.
I've had builders of Rotax powered airplanes install a pair of
12v, 25 watt display window lamps in each wingtip pointed down,
slightly forward and slightly outboard to illuminate the ground
in the pilot's peripheral vision under the wings. They report
very satisfactory performance as "landing lights" although the
system draws a small fraction of energy of contemporary lighting
installations.
Given the expense of a HID lamp installation and given further
the utility of this lamp (operates less than 1% of total flight
time) are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
-----> They are if your municipal runway is a haven for deer. On my very
first night landing with my instructor, I was 50 feet about the runway
getting ready to flare when I saw 10 eyes glowing back at me. Had we had
any smaller of a landing light, I would have been eating Bambi inside a
destroyed Tomahawk.
====================
Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/waynehicks/index.html
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 27, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.
Who, what, when, where, and how are engineering questions.
Why is a philosophical question and mostly meaningless.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
While "Why did my panel just go dark?" has some existential philosophical
implications, I think it is more productively treated as an engineering
question.
Terry
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 27, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
>
> I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.
Who, what, when, where, and how are engineering questions.
Why is a philosophical question and mostly meaningless.
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:57 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
> <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> While "Why did my panel just go dark?" has some existential
> philosophical
> implications, I think it is more productively treated as an engineering
> question.
Hmm, called on the carpet twice in about as many minutes.
I think your question is "how" did my panel go dark, "what" is the
system failure, "where" is the fault, etc., implying some physical
cause.
And I was thinking in terms of "why" the FAA makes a particular rule.
In that case the "why" is unimportant but compliance is not. And
before someone goes off on me about that, yes, many of the FARs
actually are based on sound logic.
Besides, I am having a bad day and felt like being a curmudgeon.
Sorry. I shouldn't talk to people when I get this way.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
Bob:
In your new Figure Z-10, shouldn't the e-bus contactor and the battery bus
contactor both be an S701-2, not an S702-1?
Say out there. Am I the only one utilizing the 20 amp aux alternator (on the
vacuum pump pad) and the appropriate switches to turn the main bus off
without also turning the essential bus off?
Pete
Clearwater, FL
RV-6, finishing wiring
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
>
> >Oh, yeah, and the post about the WW2 bombers that
used rheostat-
> adjustable
> >lights in their leading edges and nose to blend
with the daytime
> sky -
> >probably more of the same idea.
>
> Hmmm . . . an incandescent lamp at FULL voltage
already has a color
> temperature below that of sunlit clear sky . . .
adding any kind
> of rheostat or other voltage reducing scheme
would only serve to
> reduce the temperature still more pushing the
color toward red and
> away from the sky-blue. I'm also mystified by
the idea that one
> would run lights in the daytime and then
purposely adjust their
> color so that
> they were less visible.
>
Bombers. Anti-aircraft fire. Being invisible was a
good thing at times.
The sky if often sunlit, but not always clear. At
the rate we lost bombers over Europe, even a small
save rate would make any idea worthwhile.
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
We do not have a "standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate", so FAR
14.91.205 Does not apply to OBAM.
The section is quoted from
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/janqtr/14cfr91.205.htm
91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard
category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the
instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved
equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of
equipment are in operable condition.
Eric the Lawyer
Subject: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
>
> <<A long time ago, I looked all through the FARs. The only
> place I found that said anything about TSO is when talking
> about transponders and ELTs.>>
>
> 10/27/2004
>
> Hello Tom, What you write is correct, but when one goes through FAR Part
91, for instance, one will find several sections that require approved
equipment.
>
> FAR Sections 91.205 (b) (11), (12), (13), and (14) are examples. And of
course one of the primary ways that the FAA Administrator approves equipment
is through the TSO process.
>
> OC
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: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Bob,
Thanks for the laugh and the list contributions. I had the visual of you walking
down the walmart isle looking over flashlights and picking out the perfect
handheld runway searchlight :-)
I don't think I could ever do that here at Boeing... ;-)
do not archive,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> aircraft
>
> At 10:40 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> >
> >There was some discussion of these lights before, and IIRC, someone
> >pointed out that the color temperature of the HID lights so closely
> >matched that of the daytime sky that they were less visible that the
> >yellowish tungsten and halogen lamps now in common use. Just a potential
> >downside to think about.
>
> He had (have) a Lopresti HID system on our AGATE research
> Bonanza . . . our control tower guys were quick to point out
> that the landing light was more difficult to see in daytime
> than the lights on other airplanes in the traffic area.
>
>
> >Oh, yeah, and the post about the WW2 bombers that used rheostat-adjustable
> >lights in their leading edges and nose to blend with the daytime sky -
> >probably more of the same idea.
>
> Hmmm . . . an incandescent lamp at FULL voltage already has a color
> temperature below that of sunlit clear sky . . . adding any kind
> of rheostat or other voltage reducing scheme would only serve to
> reduce the temperature still more pushing the color toward red and
> away from the sky-blue. I'm also mystified by the idea that one would
> run lights in the daytime and then purposely adjust their color so that
> they were less visible.
>
>
> >Looks like we need HID for best light output in a night landing situation,
> >and tungsten bulbs on a wig-wag for staying out of each other's way in the
> >daytime. Bummer.
>
> I'm mystified by the quest for lumens in landing lights. If you
> study what's really needed from lights to assist you in
> greasing a night landing . . . it's being able to see the ground
> under the wings. I took a customer for a night ride in our
> J-3 carrying two flashlights. One was the classic 6-volt
> fisherman's lantern ($5 at Wallmart including battery). The
> guy in the front seat held the "landing light" and we shot several
> touch and goes using this 6v, 0.5A lamp (3 watts) and found it
> not the least bit difficult to handle the airplane.
>
> I've had builders of Rotax powered airplanes install a pair of
> 12v, 25 watt display window lamps in each wingtip pointed down,
> slightly forward and slightly outboard to illuminate the ground
> in the pilot's peripheral vision under the wings. They report
> very satisfactory performance as "landing lights" although the
> system draws a small fraction of energy of contemporary lighting
> installations.
>
> Given the expense of a HID lamp installation and given further
> the utility of this lamp (operates less than 1% of total flight
> time) are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
> the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bob,
Thanks for the laugh and the list contributions. I had the visual of you walking
down the walmart isle looking over flashlights and picking out the perfect handheld
runway searchlight :-)
I don't think I could ever do that here at Boeing... ;-)
do not archive,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<B.NUCKOLLS@COX.NET>aircraft
At 10:40 AM 10/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
There was some discussion of these lights before, and IIRC, someone
pointed out that the color temperature of the HID lights so closely
matched that of the daytime sky that they were less visible that the
yellowish tungsten and halogen lamps now in common use. Just a potential
downside to think about.
He had (have) a Lopresti HID system on our AGATE research
Bonanza . . . our control tower guys were quick to point out
that the landing light was more difficult to see in da
ytime
than the lights on other airplanes in the traffic area.
Oh, yeah, and the post about the WW2 bombers that used rheostat-adjustable
lights in their leading edges and nose to blend with the daytime sky -
probably more of the same idea.
Hmmm . . . an incandescent lamp at FULL voltage already has a color
temperature below that of sunlit clear sky . . . adding any kind
of rheostat or other voltage reducing scheme would only serve to
reduce the temperature still more pushing the color toward red and
away from the sky-blue. I'm also mystified by the idea that one would
run lights in the daytime and then purposely adjust their color so that
they were less visible.
Looks like we need HID for best light output in a night landing situation,
and tungsten bulbs on a wig-wag for staying out of each other
's way in the
daytime. Bummer.
I'm mystified by the quest for lumens in landing lights. If you
study what's really needed from lights to assist you in
greasing a night landing . . . it's being able to see the ground
under the wings. I took a customer for a night ride in our
J-3 carrying two flashlights. One was the classic 6-volt
fisherman's lantern ($5 at Wallmart including battery). The
guy in the front seat held the "landing light" and we shot several
touch and goes using this 6v, 0.5A lamp (3 watts) and found it
not the least bit difficult to handle the airplane.
I've had builders of Rotax powered airplanes install a pair of
12v, 25 watt display window lamps in each wingtip pointed down,
slightly forward and slightly outboard to illuminate the ground
in the pilot's peripheral vision under the wings. They report
very
satisfactory performance as "landing lights" although the
system draws a small fraction of energy of contemporary lighting
installations.
Given the expense of a HID lamp installation and given further
the utility of this lamp (operates less than 1% of total flight
time) are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
Bob . . .
---
NEW LIST CHAT!! http://www.matronics.com/chat
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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@matronics.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in the office
late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March was his
predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at the moment.
I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was not going
to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a prototype for
about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner wants to go in
one direction - all in one Wonder Kid similar sounding to GRT and Blue Mountain
combined. That's my description, not his. He said engine, weather, traffic,
and all the other bells instead of just the same function as the current Dynon
but in a larger display. The autopilot was way out there in 06 at the earliest.
They are hoping to copy the code from some unmanned system a sister company
has fielded and currently being tested (sounded military).
I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a larger display
but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
do not archive,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
>
> I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.. Not
> WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
> applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
> relates to
> the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
> system.
> Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> >
> > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> >
> >
> > <<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
> > TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> > entertainer>>
> >
> > 10/27/2004
> >
> > Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> > question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
> > some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
> > some educational benefit involved in responding.
> >
> > 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> > do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> > statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
> >
> > 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
> > OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> > FAR Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
> > Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
> >
> > OC
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in the office
late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March was his
predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at the moment.
I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was not going to
be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a prototype for about
a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner wants to go in one direction
- all in one Wonder Kidsimilar sounding to GRT and Blue Mountain combined.
That's my description, not his. He said engine, weather, traffic, and all
the other bells instead of just the same function as the current Dynon but in
a larger display. The autopilot was way out there in 06 at the earliest. They
are hoping to copy the code from some unmanned system a sister company has fielded
and currently being tested (sounded military).
I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a larger display
but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
do not archive,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <MPRATHER@SPRO.NET>
I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.. Not
WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
relates to
the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
system.
Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
Regards,
Matt-
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: <BAKEROCB@COX.NET>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ERICRUTTAN@CHARTERMI.NET>
...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does
anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
entertainer
10/27/2004
Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
some educational benefit involved in responding.
1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
FAR Sec 91.1 and t
he Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
OC
List FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
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: | electrical schematic software |
10/27/2004 13:51:23
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sam Ray <str@us.ibm.com>
I'm looking for suggestions on which electrical schematic software package
to buy. What do you guys use?
Sam Ray
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: airworthiness |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Your quote doesn't Say any thing about TSO. There are at least 3 maybe more
ways of getting FAA approval.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
> We do not have a "standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate", so
FAR
> 14.91.205 Does not apply to OBAM.
>
> The section is quoted from
> http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/janqtr/14cfr91.205.htm
> 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness
> certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
> (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
> section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard
> category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
> paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains
the
> instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved
> equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items
of
> equipment are in operable condition.
>
> Eric the Lawyer
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
> >
> > <<A long time ago, I looked all through the FARs. The only
> > place I found that said anything about TSO is when talking
> > about transponders and ELTs.>>
> >
> > 10/27/2004
> >
> > Hello Tom, What you write is correct, but when one goes through FAR Part
> 91, for instance, one will find several sections that require approved
> equipment.
> >
> > FAR Sections 91.205 (b) (11), (12), (13), and (14) are examples. And of
> course one of the primary ways that the FAA Administrator approves
equipment
> is through the TSO process.
> >
> > OC
>
>
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
It is if you're coming over the fence at 100 KTS.....
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III aircraft
Given the expense of a HID lamp installation and given further
the utility of this lamp (operates less than 1% of total flight
time) are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
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: electrical schematic software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Sam,
I'm using visio. It's ok, but a lot of money for what I need.
I already had it to do network diagrams. It has not been
configured to have any intelligence about the objects that
are drawn.
There are a lot of cheaper programs out there that do the same
thing, like smartdraw.
Mickey
>I'm looking for suggestions on which electrical schematic software package
>to buy. What do you guys use?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
Go to a boat supply house (like West Marine, Boats US, etc.) and look at the
cheap 2,000,000 candle power hand held spot beams. $19. Remove the
plastic. Keep the reflector, bulb, and lens. The reflector and lens can be
cut down to the shape and size you need.
Look also at the "docking lights" that are made to screw into the front of a
boat's hull, sort of like headlights on a car. All cheap solutions.
====================
Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/waynehicks/index.html
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: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
At 04:15 PM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>It is if you're coming over the fence at 100 KTS.....
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
What's your speed got to do with anything? My passenger's
perceptions of skill have to do with how rough the trip is
and how much cursing they hear from the left seat. In 20+
years of flying, I've taken lots of folks for rides that
I hope they remember as pleasant even during landings;
I've never had to avoid a cow or any other obstacle on the
runway. Perception of height above the ground is a greater
benefit to me than anything I see out the windshield. Try
landing at night with a hood on. Just watch down the centerline
for whatever distance your lights will show you and see how
well you do. You don't realize how important that peripheral
data visual data is until it's gone. For me at least, the
peripheral visual data is more valuable than the centerline data.
Bob . . .
---
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Bob,
It seems like we are talking about two different uses of a landing light:
One is to provide the ability to judge the altitutude above and sink rate to
the desired touch down point. For this, a dim, difuse light like you
suggest seems perfectly adequate.
The other use is to help see and avoid hazards that may exist. For a
slow moving airplane, a dim relatively dim light probably allows you to
see hazards soon enough to avoid them. It is my belief (mostly based
on driving cars), that the faster you go, the more light you need to be
able to see and avoid hazards.
How is it that you haven't ever had to avoid a runway hazard at night?
I have had to delay a takeoff roll because of dear that were 500' or
so down the runway. I am not sure I would have seen these guys
at night if I had been using a 6V flashlight...
Are we talking about the same thing?
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net> aircraft
>
> At 04:15 PM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
>> <Bruce@glasair.org>
>>
>>It is if you're coming over the fence at 100 KTS.....
>>
>>Bruce
>>www.glasair.org
>
> What's your speed got to do with anything? My passenger's
> perceptions of skill have to do with how rough the trip is
> and how much cursing they hear from the left seat. In 20+
> years of flying, I've taken lots of folks for rides that
> I hope they remember as pleasant even during landings;
> I've never had to avoid a cow or any other obstacle on the
> runway. Perception of height above the ground is a greater
> benefit to me than anything I see out the windshield. Try
> landing at night with a hood on. Just watch down the centerline for
> whatever distance your lights will show you and see how
> well you do. You don't realize how important that peripheral
> data visual data is until it's gone. For me at least, the
> peripheral visual data is more valuable than the centerline data.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
Message 32
| 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: Dynon update |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
"I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
the moment. "
That is one big disappointment with the problems many are experiencing
with the attitude display drifting 10-15 degrees. I just hope someone does
not get killed before they decide to make *IT* their priority. But if
someone does pass, I hope Dynon survives the lawsuit to be able to support
those of us who bought into the system. do not archive
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty;
in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts;
in flying a virgin plane never flown before.
- Richard L. Evans & Larry R Helming
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy@comcast.net>
<aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>; <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon update
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in
the office late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
>
> I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
the moment. I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was
not going to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a
prototype for about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner
wants to go in one direction - all in one Wonder Kid similar sounding to GRT
and Blue Mountain combined. That's my description, not his. He said
engine, weather, traffic, and all the other bells instead of just the same
function as the current Dynon but in a larger display. The autopilot was
way out there in 06 at the earliest. They are hoping to copy the code from
some unmanned system a sister company has fielded and currently being tested
(sounded military).
>
> I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a
larger display but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
>
> Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
>
> do not archive,
> lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> >
> > I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals..
Not
> > WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
> > applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
> > relates to
> > the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
> > system.
> > Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matt-
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> > >
> > > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> > >
> > >
> > > <<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to
be
> > > TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> > > entertainer>>
> > >
> > > 10/27/2004
> > >
> > > Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> > > question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question
with
> > > some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there
is
> > > some educational benefit involved in responding.
> > >
> > > 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> > > do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> > > statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
> > >
> > > 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply
to
> > > OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> > > FAR Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the
Special
> > > Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental
aircraft.
> > >
> > > OC
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in
the office late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
>
> I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
the moment. I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was
not going to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a
prototype for about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner
wants to go in one direction - all in one Wonder Kidsimilar sounding to GRT
and Blue Mountain combined. That's my description, not his. He said engine,
weather, traffic, and all the other bells instead of just the same function
as the current Dynon but in a larger display. The autopilot was way out
there in 06 at the earliest. They are hoping to copy the code from some
unmanned system a sister company has fielded and currently being tested
(sounded military).
>
> I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a
larger display but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
>
> Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
>
> do not archive,
> lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<MPRATHER@SPRO.NET>
>
> I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals..
Not
> WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
> applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
> relates to
> the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
> system.
> Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: <BAKEROCB@COX.NET>
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> <ERICRUTTAN@CHARTERMI.NET>
>
> ...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does
> anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
> TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> entertainer
>
> 10/27/2004
>
> Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
> some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
> some educational benefit involved in responding.
>
> 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
>
> 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
> OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> FAR Sec 91.1 and t
> he Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
> Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> OC
>
>
> List FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
>
>
Message 33
| 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" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:35 AM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
>On 10/27 10:38, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > Those of us who certify aircraft hardware for a living are
> > completely mystified as to the rational behind the Unison ignition
> > product. If two magnetos are enough, why install two more ignition
> > systems on top of the magnetos? Their decision was especially
> > mystifying when you look at all the wiring it takes to make that
> > system work. In my never humble opinion, that system has to be
> > the product of somebody's bad dream . . . it was certainly not
> > an evolutionary step in the right direction. While every other
> > technology is getting cheaper, works better, is getting lighter
> > and simpler, the Unison system got more expensive, heavier and
> > more complex.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>More expensive? yes.
>Heavier? maybe a dozen ounces,
>More complex? yes.
>More wiring? a few extra wires.
>
>Does it work? yes.
>
>What are the failure rates of LASAR vs. (pick your favorite EI).
>Anybody have any hard figures? Without that we're just assuming
>one is more reliable than the rest. We need some data here.
>
>BTW, what is "better"? Performance, Price, Efficiency, Reliability,
>Maintainability, Availability?
>
>Everyone has their own opinion about this too. A very rich man
>may place Price near the bottom of his list.
Don't see that opinion even figures into it. let us consider the
attributes cited:
Performance: Differences are measured in tiny percentages with
laboratory grade equipment . . . not an issue.
Price: Lasar was about 4x more expensive than the other systems
last time I checked.
Efficiency: again, very few differences that John Q. Pilot is going
to perceive in day-to-day operations of his airplane. 10% fuel
savings will be a BUNCH . . . and most folks report less.
Reliability: System reliability or component reliability? The
parts count of the Lasar system is much higher than Electro-Air
or Lightspeed both of which have higher parts count than
E-Mag/P-Mag systems. Of course, a magneto has the lowest
parts count yet . . . unfortunately, they are highly stressed
parts with low individual reliability numbers compared to their
more complex descendants. Now, this degredation of reliability
is most likely to show up as cost of ownership issues (needs
fixing more often using $high$ parts) as opposed to system
reliability (mayday, mayday, ignition system failure! we're
going down!).
Maintainability: Generally inversely related to parts complexity
and packaging. Here the E-Mag/P-Mag systems promise to be a
hands-down winner.
Availability: If the system is reliable, then availability is mostly
a concern for original installation hardware. Everyone has production
problems from time to time. You may need to wait on delivery
for original parts or spares from time to time irrespective of your
system of choice.
>Here's the reason I chose the LASAR system; if LASAR EI fails, you
>*fly* home. If (pick your favorite EI) fails, you *glide* somewhere
>which is usually -not- home. And I get some of the benefits of
>an all electric EI. Not all, but enough.
Why do you think that a failure of ANY system makes the engine
stop? We've always been discussing dual ignition systems. The
concern is, "What is probability of loosing two systems during
any one flight?" If we were (and still are) comfortable with
launching behind a couple of magnetos, ANY other system has
mean time between failure numbers that are better than magnetos.
So if we we are still comfortable with launching skyward sitting
behind a pair of magnetos, then what combination of electronic
or non-electronic ignition systems is any worse?
>Just my opinion. I'm no EE so if you can show me that LASAR
>is without merit I'll probably buy it. But safety is high on
>my list.
It has a lot of merit . . . 4x merit with a price to match.
It seems to have been configured with the idea that if 4 prop
bolts are good, 8 prop bolts are better. Let's go drill some
more holes.
From a flight system RELIABILITY perspective, there is little
value in spending dollars to improve over the current
numbers on dual magnetos. How many accidents cite dual ignition
failure as a contributing factor? Dual magnetos have served us
very well. EI systems CAN offer cost-of-ownership gains in lower cost
plugs, lower battery/starter wear when the engine starts sooner,
and a modicum of savings on fuel efficiency.
The biggest concern for replacing magnetos is "first to do
no harm". This means failure rates should be no WORSE than
a magneto. Now, if you can do this and get performance
improvements too, great. If you can do it for a price comparable
to or less than magnetos. Greater yet. If you can reduce the cost
of ownership too . . . Shazham! Electro-Air and Lightspeed
were very good first starts with good track records that go
back over ten years. E-Mag/P-Mag products pushed off in the same direction
with obvious potential for better performance yet. . . but no history
to date. Unison simply marched off in the wrong direction.
See this article on Lasar by Wichita's Favorite Son aviation journalist:
http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=avweb&story.id=182489
http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=avweb&story.id=182490
He likes it. He only has to fly 500 hours to get his money
back in fuel savings. He flies professionally, it would
take me 10-15 years to get that money back. You'll have to make your
own calculations. Hmmm . . . how about plugs? Unison drives
certified plugs. The OBAM aircraft ignition systems can
drive ACs or Champions at 1/4th the system acquisition price
and 1/10th the price on plugs NOW how long does it take to get
your money back?
As long as our brothers down in Texas don't stub their toes,
the E-Mag/P-Mag products are going to leave the competition in
the dust.
Bob . . .
---
Message 34
| 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: Dynon update |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
I'm pretty sure he meant it was their top priority in the category of New Items
which was the topic of our conversation. It could be second to some issue in
the field.
If you are that concerned I suggest you call them. It was painless and informative
for me.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
>
>
> "I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
> was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
> the moment. "
>
> That is one big disappointment with the problems many are experiencing
> with the attitude display drifting 10-15 degrees. I just hope someone does
> not get killed before they decide to make *IT* their priority. But if
> someone does pass, I hope Dynon survives the lawsuit to be able to support
> those of us who bought into the system. do not archive
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
>
> The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty;
> in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts;
> in flying a virgin plane never flown before.
> - Richard L. Evans & Larry R Helming
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lucky"
> To: "RV yahoo" ;
> ;
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon update
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in
> the office late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
> >
> > I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
> was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
> the moment. I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was
> not going to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a
> prototype for about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner
> wants to go in one direction - all in one Wonder Kid similar sounding to GRT
> and Blue Mountain combined. That's my description, not his. He said
> engine, weather, traffic, and all the other bells instead of just the same
> function as the current Dynon but in a larger display. The autopilot was
> way out there in 06 at the earliest. They are hoping to copy the code from
> some unmanned system a sister company has fielded and currently being tested
> (sounded military).
> >
> > I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a
> larger display but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
> >
> > Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
> >
> > do not archive,
> > lucky
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> > >
> > > I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals..
> Not
> > > WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
> > > applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
> > > relates to
> > > the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
> > > system.
> > > Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Matt-
> > >
> > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> > > >
> > > > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to
> be
> > > > TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> > > > entertainer>>
> > > >
> > > > 10/27/2004
> > > >
> > > > Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> > > > question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question
> with
> > > > some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there
> is
> > > > some educational benefit involved in responding.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> > > > do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> > > > statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply
> to
> > > > OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> > > > FAR Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the
> Special
> > > > Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental
> aircraft.
> > > >
> > > > OC
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in
> the office late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
> >
> > I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
> was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
> the moment. I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was
> not going to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a
> prototype for about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner
> wants to go in one direction - all in one Wonder Kidsimilar sounding to GRT
> and Blue Mountain combined. That's my description, not his. He said engine,
> weather, traffic, and all the other bells instead of just the same function
> as the current Dynon but in a larger display. The autopilot was way out
> there in 06 at the earliest. They are hoping to copy the code from some
> unmanned system a sister company has fielded and currently being tested
> (sounded military).
> >
> > I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a
> larger display but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
> >
> > Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
> >
> > do not archive,
> > lucky
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
>
> >
> > I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals..
> Not
> > WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
> > applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
> > relates to
> > the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
> > system.
> > Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matt-
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> >
> > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> >
> >
> > ...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does
> > anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
> > TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> > entertainer
> >
> > 10/27/2004
> >
> > Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> > question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
> > some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
> > some educational benefit involved in responding.
> >
> > 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> > do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> > statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
> >
> > 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
> > OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> > FAR Sec 91.1 and t
> > he Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
> > Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
> >
> > OC
> >
> >
> > List FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I'm pretty sure he meant it was their top priority in the category of New Itemswhich
was the topic of our conversation. It could be second to some issue in the
field.
If you are that concerned I suggest you call them. It was painless and informative
for me.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
<LHELMING@SIGECOM.NET>
"I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
the moment. "
That is one big disappointment with the problems many are experiencing
with the attitude display drifting 10-15 degrees. I just hope someone does
not get killed before they decide to make *IT* their priority. But if
someone does pass, I hope Dynon survives the lawsuit to be able to support
those of us who bought into the system. do not archive
Indiana Larry, RV7 TipUp "SunSeeker"
The sincerest satisfactions in life come in doing and not dodging duty; <
BR> in meeting and solving problems, in facing facts;
in flying a virgin plane never flown before.
- Richard L. Evans Larry R Helming
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <LUCKYMACY@COMCAST.NET>
To: "RV yahoo" <VANSAIRFORCE@YAHOOGROUPS.COM>;
<AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>; <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon update
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in
the office late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
was his predicted date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
the moment. I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was
not g
oing to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a
prototype for about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner
wants to go in one direction - all in one Wonder Kid similar sounding to GRT
and Blue Mountain combined. That's my description, not his. He said
engine, weather, traffic, and all the other bells instead of just the same
function as the current Dynon but in a larger display. The autopilot was
way out there in 06 at the earliest. They are hoping to copy the code from
some unmanned system a sister company has fielded and currently being tested
(sounded military).
I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a
larger display but not charge 3 times more for it. ;-)
Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
do not archive,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals..
Not
WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
relates to
the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
system.
Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
Regards,
Matt-
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by:
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <
BR>
...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to
be
TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
entertainer
10/27/2004
Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question
with
some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there
is
some educational benefit involved in responding.
1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
statement plea
se provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply
to
OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
FAR Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the
Special
Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental
aircraft.
OC
Thought I'd throw an avionics "update" out there. I talked to someone in
the office late Monday (darn, was the name Doug? I forget).
I asked when the engine monitor would be available for sale. Next March
was his predict
ed date but it is the item they are working the hardest on at
the moment. I asked when the 7 inch monitor was coming out. He said it was
not going to be anytime soon despite the fact the owner has been flying a
prototype for about a year. Not even next year. Sucks. He said the owner
wants to go in one direction - all in one Wonder Kidsimilar sounding to GRT
and Blue Mountain combined. That's my description, not his. He said engine,
weather, traffic, and all the other bells instead of just the same function
as the current Dynon but in a larger display. The autopilot was way out
there in 06 at the earliest. They are hoping to copy the code from some
unmanned system a sister company has fielded and currently being tested
(sounded military).
I sure wish someone would put out the Dynon or Blue Mountain Lite in a
larger display but not charge 3 times more
for it. ;-)
Anyone hear of anything new on the EFIS horizon? no pun intended.
do not archive,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<MPRATHER@SPRO.NET>
I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals..
Not
WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
relates to
the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
system.
Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
Regards,
Matt-
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: <BAKEROCB@CO
X.NET>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ERICRUTTAN@CHARTERMI.NET>
...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does
anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
entertainer
10/27/2004
Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
some educational benefit involved in responding.
1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
FAR Sec 91.1 and t
he Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
OC
List FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
&
tributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 35
| 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: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
At 01:40 PM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hicks, Wayne"
><wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
>
>
> are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
> the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
>
>-----> They are if your municipal runway is a haven for deer. On my very
>first night landing with my instructor, I was 50 feet about the runway
>getting ready to flare when I saw 10 eyes glowing back at me. Had we had
>any smaller of a landing light, I would have been eating Bambi inside a
>destroyed Tomahawk.
We tap a LOT of deer in my part of the world too. Got one myself a few
years ago. Had great headlights. Got a really good look at him before
he trashed the front end of my car. Yup, I've also avoided some deer
because I had enough visibility down the road . . . but I've come close
to dying far more times due to the actions of 2-legged dears as opposed
to 4-legged deer. It's just as likely that you'll crash the airplane
because you attempted to avoid a deer and didn't have enough energy on
the airframe for it to fly. Life is a risky business and having
good tools can mitigate risk . . . but they're usually not as beneficial
as the purveyors of tools would have you believe.
If deer on the runway are a high risk hazard -AND- the big fuzzy can
be spotted soon enough for you to react in useful ways, it won't
(as you've experienced) take a klieg light on the wing to make the
difference. There are a LOT of high intensity lighting products
out there to choose from that are not nearly expensive as HID and
more visible in the daytime to boot.
Bob . . .
---
Message 36
| 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: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 10/27 5:43, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 11:35 AM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
> >
> >On 10/27 10:38, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> > > Those of us who certify aircraft hardware for a living are
> > > completely mystified as to the rational behind the Unison ignition
> > > product. If two magnetos are enough, why install two more ignition
> > > systems on top of the magnetos? Their decision was especially
> > > mystifying when you look at all the wiring it takes to make that
> > > system work. In my never humble opinion, that system has to be
> > > the product of somebody's bad dream . . . it was certainly not
> > > an evolutionary step in the right direction. While every other
> > > technology is getting cheaper, works better, is getting lighter
> > > and simpler, the Unison system got more expensive, heavier and
> > > more complex.
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> >More expensive? yes.
> >Heavier? maybe a dozen ounces,
> >More complex? yes.
> >More wiring? a few extra wires.
> >
> >Does it work? yes.
> >
> >What are the failure rates of LASAR vs. (pick your favorite EI).
> >Anybody have any hard figures? Without that we're just assuming
> >one is more reliable than the rest. We need some data here.
> >
> >BTW, what is "better"? Performance, Price, Efficiency, Reliability,
> >Maintainability, Availability?
> >
> >Everyone has their own opinion about this too. A very rich man
> >may place Price near the bottom of his list.
>
> Don't see that opinion even figures into it. let us consider the
> attributes cited:
>
> Performance: Differences are measured in tiny percentages with
> laboratory grade equipment . . . not an issue.
>
> Price: Lasar was about 4x more expensive than the other systems
> last time I checked.
I don't know what the average price of dual EI is because I didn't
get quotes for that. But I paid $2300 for LASAR.
> Efficiency: again, very few differences that John Q. Pilot is going
> to perceive in day-to-day operations of his airplane. 10% fuel
> savings will be a BUNCH . . . and most folks report less.
>
> Reliability: System reliability or component reliability? The
> parts count of the Lasar system is much higher than Electro-Air
> or Lightspeed both of which have higher parts count than
> E-Mag/P-Mag systems. Of course, a magneto has the lowest
> parts count yet . . . unfortunately, they are highly stressed
> parts with low individual reliability numbers compared to their
> more complex descendants. Now, this degredation of reliability
> is most likely to show up as cost of ownership issues (needs
> fixing more often using $high$ parts) as opposed to system
> reliability (mayday, mayday, ignition system failure! we're
> going down!).
Again, without firm figures about failure rates (Reliability) we
are just making assumptions. I wish there were somewhere to get
this hard evidence but it is unlikely.
Here I agree that parts counts, count, but lets look at the typical
circuit board and then lets look at one with double the parts count
that does effectively the same thing. With today's manufacturing
techniques and ultra reliable electronics I'm not sure that parts
counts is a huge factor. If were talking about double the amount
of parts under physical/rotational/etc stresses, ie mechanical parts
then I whole heartedly agree.
> Maintainability: Generally inversely related to parts complexity
> and packaging. Here the E-Mag/P-Mag systems promise to be a
> hands-down winner.
Generally also inversely related to parts availability as you note below
and the availability of resources to fix any related problems. I don't
think that any of us OBAM people are going to fix our own EI systems
when they break. We'll still rely on field maintenance and the manufacturer.
> Availability: If the system is reliable, then availability is mostly
> a concern for original installation hardware. Everyone has production
> problems from time to time. You may need to wait on delivery
> for original parts or spares from time to time irrespective of your
> system of choice.
>
>
> >Here's the reason I chose the LASAR system; if LASAR EI fails, you
> >*fly* home. If (pick your favorite EI) fails, you *glide* somewhere
> >which is usually -not- home. And I get some of the benefits of
> >an all electric EI. Not all, but enough.
>
> Why do you think that a failure of ANY system makes the engine
> stop? We've always been discussing dual ignition systems. The
> concern is, "What is probability of loosing two systems during
> any one flight?" If we were (and still are) comfortable with
> launching behind a couple of magnetos, ANY other system has
> mean time between failure numbers that are better than magnetos.
> So if we we are still comfortable with launching skyward sitting
> behind a pair of magnetos, then what combination of electronic
> or non-electronic ignition systems is any worse?
Let's just say for a moment that as a fact, while flying, anything
can and sometimes does happen. We do everything we can to prevent
this and the best thing we can do is build it ourselves (OBAM).
If, for instance on my aircraft, the battery lead comes off the
battery (single point of failure) & (sh$t happens principle) then I'm
still getting home by flying and not gliding. Now I could have
followed your diagrams and installed two batteries and the whole
shebang but we do make our decisions, right or wrong (hopefully
I'm not wrong and the lead stays on :)
I guess what I'm saying is that beyond the #1 most relevant thing
in the plane; the pilot, the engine is next. I know the airframe
is #1 but you get what I'm saying, all things being equal and the
plane still has wings, yadda yadda. When I started building
I didn't have a very good trust rating about EI. The more I know
(thank you) the more I can make informed decisions.
> >Just my opinion. I'm no EE so if you can show me that LASAR
> >is without merit I'll probably buy it. But safety is high on
> >my list.
>
> It has a lot of merit . . . 4x merit with a price to match.
> It seems to have been configured with the idea that if 4 prop
> bolts are good, 8 prop bolts are better. Let's go drill some
> more holes.
>
> From a flight system RELIABILITY perspective, there is little
> value in spending dollars to improve over the current
> numbers on dual magnetos. How many accidents cite dual ignition
> failure as a contributing factor? Dual magnetos have served us
> very well. EI systems CAN offer cost-of-ownership gains in lower cost
> plugs, lower battery/starter wear when the engine starts sooner,
> and a modicum of savings on fuel efficiency.
I believe that back when LASAR was designed it was trying to combine
the efficiencies of EI with mags for *Certified* aircraft. The
OBAM market wasn't nearly as large back then as now. And it does
a good job of combining both, albeit for a price.
> The biggest concern for replacing magnetos is "first to do
> no harm". This means failure rates should be no WORSE than
> a magneto. Now, if you can do this and get performance
> improvements too, great. If you can do it for a price comparable
> to or less than magnetos. Greater yet. If you can reduce the cost
> of ownership too . . . Shazham! Electro-Air and Lightspeed
> were very good first starts with good track records that go
> back over ten years. E-Mag/P-Mag products pushed off in the same direction
> with obvious potential for better performance yet. . . but no history
> to date. Unison simply marched off in the wrong direction.
>
> See this article on Lasar by Wichita's Favorite Son aviation journalist:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=avweb&story.id=182489
> http://www.avweb.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=avweb&story.id=182490
>
> He likes it. He only has to fly 500 hours to get his money
> back in fuel savings. He flies professionally, it would
> take me 10-15 years to get that money back. You'll have to make your
> own calculations. Hmmm . . . how about plugs? Unison drives
> certified plugs. The OBAM aircraft ignition systems can
> drive ACs or Champions at 1/4th the system acquisition price
> and 1/10th the price on plugs NOW how long does it take to get
> your money back?
Damn, If I knew how much flying was going to cost me over my lifetime
I would have Never taken lessons. This is not a cheap hobby no matter
how you slice it. At least I can build my own airplane for half the
cost of a new one and double the performance and fun.
> As long as our brothers down in Texas don't stub their toes,
> the E-Mag/P-Mag products are going to leave the competition in
> the dust.
I see your points and you do make some very convincing points. But
unfortunately, E-Mag/P-Mag aren't available now. When my LASAR
mags die I'll most likely replace them with dual EI.
Thanks Bob for your insight, always appreciated.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Message 37
| 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: electrical schematic software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:51 PM 10/27/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sam Ray <str@us.ibm.com>
>
>
>I'm looking for suggestions on which electrical schematic software package
>to buy. What do you guys use?
>
>Sam Ray
the data CD downloadable from my website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC8_0.zip
has three cad programs on it that will open, edit, save and print
the autocad drawings found on the same disk. 90% of your
wirebook is already done.
Bob . . .
---
Message 38
| 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: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
At 07:00 PM 10/27/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>Bob,
>Thanks for the laugh and the list contributions. I had the visual of you
>walking down the walmart isle looking over flashlights and picking out the
>perfect handheld runway searchlight :-)
Found this one in my car . . . but it occurred to me that I'd
better carry two flashlights. I'm not sure how graceful I would
have been with no light at all!
Bob . . .
---
Message 39
| 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: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
>
>
>Bombers. Anti-aircraft fire. Being invisible was a
>good thing at times.
>The sky if often sunlit, but not always clear. At
>the rate we lost bombers over Europe, even a small
>save rate would make any idea worthwhile.
I understand that. What I don't understand is why one would
want ANY lights showing on the airplane in the daytime irrespective
of some desire/attempt to make them "invisible" by adjusting color
temperature on lamps that could never be the right color
to disappear against a daytime blue sky.
It sounds like a mis-interpretation of some actions or
facts surrounding some other situation.
Bob . . .
---
Message 40
| 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: New Figure Z-10 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:34 PM 10/27/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
>
>Bob:
>
>In your new Figure Z-10, shouldn't the e-bus contactor and the battery bus
>contactor both be an S701-2, not an S702-1?
Actually, S701-1 contactors. Good eye. Thanks for the heads up.
Fixed drawing has been published at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10B.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10B.dwg
>Say out there. Am I the only one utilizing the 20 amp aux alternator (on the
>vacuum pump pad) and the appropriate switches to turn the main bus off
>without also turning the essential bus off?
>
>Pete
>Clearwater, FL
>RV-6, finishing wiring
Bob . . .
---
Message 41
| 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: Gerry Holland <gnholland@onetel.com>
Larry Hi
> That is one big disappointment with the problems many are experiencing
> with the attitude display drifting 10-15 degrees. I just hope someone does
> not get killed before they decide to make *IT* their priority.
What is the basis for stating 'many'. Who is assembling this vast number of
complainants as inferred by you above.
Two things:
How many?
Where can they be found registered?
BTW. The Dynon is a non-IFR certified device, well here in Europe at least.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't work OK but in the same light peddling
information on poor or inadequate performance needs facts too. Can we have
them other than the one or two RV Builders who have experienced an
'occurrence'.
I'm not challenging you. Would just like facts rather than an
unsubstantiated statement.
I use a Dynon!
Regards
Gerry
Europa 384 G-FIZY
Trigear with Rotax 912 and Arplast CS Prop.
Dynon EFIS, KMD 150, Icom A-200 and SL70 Transponder.
PSS AoA Fitted.
http://www.g-fizy.com
Mobile: +44 7808 402404
WebFax: +44 870 7059985
gnholland@onetel.com
Message 42
| 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: Dynon update |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Larry,
> That is one big disappointment with the problems many are experiencing
> with the attitude display drifting 10-15 degrees. I just hope someone
does
I had this showing up twice ( 50 hrs in use) with a fast oscillation (1 sec
up 1 sec down, about 2-3 times then it was gone again) both times after
about 0.5-1.5hrs, but it was easily visible, that it was a non normal
behavior.
What was your experience on that? Did you get any feedback from them? I
blamed it partially to my installation where the Dynon gets very hot (had 3
times showing me thermal overload).
Would be interesting to get some details from you.
Werner
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! --
|