Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:23 AM - Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd)
2. 06:57 AM - Re: KN65A DME (sarg314)
3. 07:49 AM - Alternative navigation sources, was: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 07:49 AM - Re: KN65A DME (Paul McAllister)
5. 11:09 AM - Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd)
6. 12:45 PM - Re: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 01:54 PM - Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd)
8. 05:23 PM - Re: Kitfox Electrical (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:23 PM - Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO ()
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 24, 2004, at 9:49 PM, Ron Koyich wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Koyich" <Ron@Koyich.com>
>
> Merry Christmas all!
>
> Why would anyone want to install a KN-65 DME - or any old DME in an
> aircraft in 2005?
Uh, let's see:
1. it is dirt simple to use;
2. the Air Force is unlikely to turn it off in the middle of your
approach;
3. ATC understands what, '35 DME from foobar' means;
4. it is faster and easier to get a distance from a VORTAC with a DME
than it is with a GPS.
Need I go on?
> Heavy, old, junk, IMO. I was making money fixing those things in 1975
> and
> they weren't reliable then.
I had a KN-64 in one airplane and a KNS-80 in another. They both have
been more reliable than GPS.
There are some really interesting ways that GPS fails.
> Sure they're a TSO'd DME - and a Garmin 196 isn't - but I'd rather
> the
> Garmin any day.
Until it stops working.
GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
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 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
>
>cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
>VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
>most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
>tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
>
Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver.
Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2
independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
navigating.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, firewall.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Alternative navigation sources, was: KN65A DME |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/25/2004 8:57:40 A.M. Central Standard Time,
sarg314@comcast.net writes:
Not to pile-on, but I have to agree with Brian. GPS is the greatest
thing since sliced bread, but my plane will also have a VOR receiver.
Partly, I guess, I'm just being retro, but it seems prudent to have 2
independent, unrelated (except thru the electrical system) means of
navigating.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A, firewall.
Good Morning Tom,
I suppose I should start by mentioning that my current steed has GPS, ADF,
DME and dual VORs, However!!
I see nothing dangerous or even inconvenient with having nothing more than
one GPS as long as it is a GPS that is legally authorized for single source
navigation.
To my knowledge, the only box so authorized also has a VOR in the same unit
so I guess the question is academic. Nevertheless, I flew many hours and many
approaches in airplanes equipped with one Low Frequency range receiver and
one HF transceiver capable of transmitting on only one frequency. I did not
consider that to be an unusual risk at the time and I would not consider a
similar piece of equipment to entail a high risk today.
I fly a single engine airplane equipped with a single alternator quite often
with full confidence.
Engines quit and wings break off. We do what we can to alleviate such
disasters, but there are safety options that can be used to ameliorate both of
those conditions.
I have known many fine and experienced aviators who will not fly in a single
engine airplane unless it is equipped with a parachute equipped, zero
altitude, ejection seat.
We do all need to operate to our own level of comfort.
I try very hard to fly airplanes that have wings that won't break. That, I
think we will all agree, is not too hard to do.
The engine situation is a little tougher. Engines do quit. Fortunately,
under most flight conditions, an engine failure can be handled adequately so as
to result in a survivable landing.
Some of us do accept that additional risk.
A far more likely to occur situation is one where the entire electrical
system fails. In the days of the low frequency range, I tried to carry enough
fuel so that I could DR to a point where visual flight to a landing could be
assured. With modern fuel efficient airplanes, that is a lot easier to do than
it was sixty years ago! On top of that, we now have excellent, lightweight,
low cost, handheld communication and navigation devices.
I firmly believe that reliance on a single source of navigation is a very
rational decision, and always has been, provided that alternative plans have
been made.
Today, alternative plans are a snap.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Brian,
Interesting observations I have a GX60 and yes it great, but.... you can be
sure that ATC will think up some way to re vector you that takes a good
amount of button pushing to accommodate. I have both now, A Narco 122
VOR/LOC/GS and a GPS. On VOR approaches a simple twist of the dial gets you
where you want to be every time.
Paul
> Uh, let's see:
>
> 1. it is dirt simple to use;
> 2. the Air Force is unlikely to turn it off in the middle of your
> Need I go on?
>
> GPS is not a panacea. I have had enough GPS failures to know that you
> cannot rely on it as the sole source of navigation. I actively use my
> VOR receivers and have gone back to flying the victor airways for the
> most part. They tend to keep you out of restricted airspace and there
> tend to be more airports along or near the airways.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 25, 2004, at 9:44 AM, Paul McAllister wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
> <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
> Brian,
>
> Interesting observations I have a GX60 and yes it great,
Yeah, I have one in my Comanche. I just performed my first GPS approach
the other day too. Nice.
But when ATC says, "say DME from frotzblat," the DME is still a lot
easier and quicker to use.
> but.... you can be
> sure that ATC will think up some way to re vector you that takes a good
> amount of button pushing to accommodate.
I have. Once when my area nav was an IFR-certified LORAN (now replaced
by the GX-60) I was on an IFR flight across the LA TCA (now class-B)
and they amended my routing three times in five minutes. They so
overloaded me with button pushing and knob twisting that I gave up,
asked for an approach to a nearby airport, landed, and quit for the
day.
> I have both now, A Narco 122
> VOR/LOC/GS and a GPS. On VOR approaches a simple twist of the dial
> gets you
> where you want to be every time.
Ah grasshopper, you show wisdom.
There are certainly people on this list with more experience with older
nav systems than I but I have a fair bit of experience. I have flow IFR
using everything from the Adcock range with a GCA/PAR at the end of the
flight, ADF/NDB, VOR, VOR/DME, RNAV, ILS, LORAN, GPS enroute, and now
GPS approach. The interesting thing is that as the technology has
gotten more capable and sophisticated the learning curve has gotten
much steeper. My father has been flying for 52 years and has amassed
something like 20,000 hours. He can fly IFR just fine using VOR/DME/ADF
but the LORAN and GPS learning curves have just proven too steep for
him. Still, he can get the airplane anywhere and then shoot an ILS to
minimums at the end of the flight.
Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity.
(Do you really need that gizmo in your airplane?)
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 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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brianl@lloyd.com writes:
Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity.
Good Afternoon Brian,
I agree totally with the above statement, but I think the GPS IS the
simplification.
It is, in my mind, much easier to use than the average DME. Obviously, some
GPSs are easier to use than others and some DMEs are easier to use than
others, but I can't see how setting a GPS identifier in a window is ever any harder
than tuning a frequency in a DME receiver. For some DME receivers there are
even auxiliary switches that must be set correctly to display the desired
information in the manner that will be most usable. The same is true of the
GPS.
If you know how to use the box you own, neither the DME nor the GPS is hard
to tune.
I find my GPS to be easier to set for distance measurements than most DMEs.
If one wants to learn how to use all of the other functions available in a
GPS, it can be daunting. However, I have been flying for quite a bit longer
than has your father and I think I have managed to be able to learn how to use
the functions of my GPS adequately for my purposes.
I am sure if he wanted to, he could do as well, probably better.
It was amazing how many people complained about having to learn to use the
VOR when we first got them. Now some folks are saying the same thing about
GPS.
The GPS is cheaper, more accurate and more reliable than anything we have
had before.
It took training to use the Loop range, the ADF, the VOR, the ILS and the
Radar approach. The GPS is no different.
I think it is easier, but it is certainly no harder!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 25, 2004, at 2:44 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/25/2004 1:10:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brianl@lloyd.com writes:
>
> Not every improvement is. There is great beauty in simplicity.
>
>
> Good Afternoon Brian,
>
> I agree totally with the above statement, but I think the GPS IS the
> simplification.
In some ways it is. In others, it is not.
> It is, in my mind, much easier to use than the average DME. Obviously,
> some
> GPSs are easier to use than others and some DMEs are easier to use than
> others, but I can't see how setting a GPS identifier in a window is
> ever any harder
> than tuning a frequency in a DME receiver. For some DME receivers
> there are
> even auxiliary switches that must be set correctly to display the
> desired
> information in the manner that will be most usable. The same is true
> of the
> GPS.
I have never met a GPS or LORAN that I could use completely without
referring to the manual at least once. I have never met a DME I could
not use immediately. The reason is that the knobs on the DME are
clearly labeled as to their function. They are not overloaded. About
the only think you really need to know about the DME is whether it is
being remotely channeled by the Nav and whether you have to press the
'hold' button to lock the DME frequency when you switch to the
localizer freq on an ILS/DME approach that uses the DME off the
on-field VORTAC.
Most people can use the 'direct-to' feature of their GPS without too
much trouble but when it comes time to define and/or modify a flight
plan, all bets are off. Also, using the GPS to provide DME functions
from a nearby navaid while still using the GPS to navigate a
flight-plan route can be a real challenge. Again, the DME wins
hands-down in this area for simplicity.
> If you know how to use the box you own, neither the DME nor the GPS is
> hard
> to tune.
No, GPS is not difficult but it is still more difficult than using
VOR/DME. It requires much more training but if used correctly can
greatly improve situational awareness.
> I find my GPS to be easier to set for distance measurements than most
> DMEs.
Oh well, my experience differs from yours.
> If one wants to learn how to use all of the other functions available
> in a
> GPS, it can be daunting. However, I have been flying for quite a bit
> longer
> than has your father
Sorry. It seems I can't subtract in my head anymore. He has been
flying for 62 years. He started in 1942. He is 82. Not too many people
still flying who have been flying longer than my father. Regardless I
know you have a great deal of experience.
> and I think I have managed to be able to learn how to use
> the functions of my GPS adequately for my purposes.
Many (most) people do. My point is that not all advances are
simplification.
> I am sure if he wanted to, he could do as well, probably better.
Perhaps. It does not come naturally to him. Most GPSes have abysmal
user interfaces that are anything but obvious to use. This is where I
make the point that DME is easier to use.
> It was amazing how many people complained about having to learn to use
> the
> VOR when we first got them. Now some folks are saying the same thing
> about
> GPS.
The VOR requires interpretation in your head. That can be more of a
challenge too. The GPS is more direct in that respect. OTOH they keep
loading more and more features in and it makes the user interface more
and more complex.
> The GPS is cheaper, more accurate and more reliable than anything we
> have
> had before.
It is more accurate. It is not necessarily more reliable. As I have
said, I found some interesting ways in which GPS fails. If you don't
fly often enough or long enough for it to get a full update of its
Almanac and its ephemeris it just stops working after a couple of
months. I had that happen to me in flight. Poof -- no more GPS halfway
to the destination. It is most disconcerting. The solution? Let is sit
on the ramp for 45 minutes without moving it. Yeah, I knew that ...
after a call to the manufacturer.
In the southwest the Air Force plays games with the accuracy. This is
also quite disconcerting.
And I have had the pleasure of holding a Russian GPS jammer in my hand.
To think that I could have taken out GPS in the LA basin with that
little gadget. Do you think I could have taken out all VOR/DME/ILS with
one little hand-held box? I don't.
So, yes, GPS is wonderful. It just isn't quite as wonderful as everyone
hoped it would be. Now a GPS/LORAN combo would be quite robust.
> It took training to use the Loop range, the ADF, the VOR, the ILS and
> the
> Radar approach. The GPS is no different.
>
> I think it is easier, but it is certainly no harder!
Well, you caught me playing devil's advocate. I own an approach GPS and
wouldn't trade it for the world. I was trying to make the point that
the old stuff is not necessarily worse and a DME is certainly useful. I
do know that when ATC amends my clearance enroute I can shift gears
more easily when flying VOR or VOR/DME than when flying GPS. You should
hear the young guys grumble in the cockpit when they hear the words, "I
have amended routing. Advise when ready to copy clearance." Imagine
trying to write a new flight plan into your GPS at night, on the
gauges, in turbulence without an autopilot or copilot to keep the wings
level. It is a challenge.
> Happy Skies,
Always.
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
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 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: Kitfox Electrical |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:01 AM 12/24/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>(by way of Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>)
>
>
>Hi all!
> I'm finishing a Kitfox with a 582 and Bob's Z-17 electrical. The
>question is where to put everything.
>
>1. I searched the list and it seemed the consensus was to put the Rotax
>264870 finned regulator on the engine side of the firewall, even though it
>might suffer from the heat, to minimize the comm interference. Still true?
>Any experience with it on the back side of the firewall?
I'd rather put it on the cool side. There's no
evidence that this regulator is any more prone
to radiated noise into comms or any other radio.
However, given the relatively low area of real
estate on the firewall of this airplane, I'd
have no problem putting it out in the engine
side. It's not as hot out there as one might
think in flight . . . and that's the only time
this regulator is going to be putting out much
heat.
>2. What about the large filter cap? Since it's filtering noise I guess it
>really wants to be forward of the firewall as well.
This filter has nothing to do with radio specific
noise. I.e., if you're hearing noises in a radio
where the noise goes up and down with volume control
(means radiated into the antenna) then the fat
electrolytic capacitor intended for ripple filtering
is not likely to help with high frequency noises as
well.
>3. I need to mount a Sigtronics RES-401 intercom control box. Is this box
>OK next to the regulator? Is it OK on the firewall? Or should I mount it to
>the back of the instrument panel for some vibration isolation?
It's a good idea to isolate power control and generation
equipment as far as practical from small signal avionics
and audio systems. This has to do more with MAGNETIC
coupling from the power system into the small signal
system and is MUCH more difficult to deal with later.
4. Is the overvoltage relay OK aft of the firewall? Or should I put it
forward as well to minimize noise?
It's not a contributor to the noise issues. Mount it
on same side as regulator.
Bob . . .
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Altimeters- TSO vs non TSO |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
<n3eu@comcast.net>
> ....skip....... It cannot be installed in a production aircraft, unless it
> is FAA-approved by other means, such as an STC.....skip.....>>
>> My question to you is: What is the basis for your statement above?
> Think it works like this. Part 91 isn't the only rule for maintaining
> type-certificated aircraft, but also Parts 21 and 43. These make it
> clear it to me at least that only actual aircraft parts go into actual
> airplanes....skip...
> However, an altimeter is not a trivial item, and the Regs forbid
> anyone from making one and selling it as an aircraft part, except for
> homebuilts and ultralights. If they sell a nonTSOd instrument but
> with a PMA, maybe a shop might go with that, if it's not the specific
> part the airframe mfr used. Is there such an animal out there? None
> of the instruments I have, sold for homebuilt only, say PMA. Fred F.
12/25/2004
Hello Fred, Thanks for your prompt and on point response. I am inclined to
agree.
FAR Sec21.303 says "....no person may produce a modification or replacement
part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is
produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this
subpart."**
That would seem to prevent the manufacture of non approved parts intended to
be installed in type certificated aircraft.
But what FAR Sec in Part 43, or elsewhere in the regulations, do you feel
prevents the installation of non approved parts in type certificated
aircraft?
The closest that I can come to such a prohibition is FAR Sec 43.13 (b) which
says "Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive
maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a
quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic function, structural
strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities
affecting airworthiness).##
Thanks for your help.
OC
**PS: This is the FAR that Bill Bainbridge of B&C was accused of violating
by the FAA in a famous case in which the FAA was forced to drop the charges
and apologize.
##PPS: We had some pompous FAA ass who made a presentation to our local EAA
Chapter several years ago that tried to tell us that that section of the
FAR's meant that we could not make modifications to our amateur built
experimental aircraft that improved any of those characteristics because the
aircraft must remain equal to the condition that it was in when it received
its original airworthiness inspection.
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! --
|