Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:19 AM - Garmin 196 vs 295 (Fox5flyer)
2. 06:18 AM - Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 (David Burton)
3. 08:17 AM - Re: push-to-test (Robert McCallum)
4. 08:27 AM - bnc 90 fittings in the tray (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
5. 09:15 AM - Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 (Dj Merrill)
6. 09:23 AM - Re: push-to-test (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:10 AM - Re: Kitfox Electrical (Guy Buchanan)
8. 10:13 AM - Re: push-to-test (Kenneth Melvin)
9. 10:20 AM - Electric hints and kinks #4 (Fergus Kyle)
10. 10:44 AM - Dance of the Elders - diversion (Fergus Kyle)
11. 11:09 AM - Re: push-to-test (Robert McCallum)
12. 01:55 PM - Re: Kitfox Electrical (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 02:19 PM - Happy Holidays Bob & Mahlon! (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
14. 02:50 PM - Re: push-to-test (Kenneth Melvin)
15. 02:52 PM - Re: push-to-test (Kenneth Melvin)
16. 04:14 PM - Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 (Larry Bowen)
17. 05:26 PM - Re: KN65A DME (brucem@att.net)
18. 06:48 PM - Re: push-to-test (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 06:48 PM - Re: Re: KN65A DME (Brian Lloyd)
20. 06:51 PM - Re: Kitfox Electrical (Guy Buchanan)
21. 07:40 PM - Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 (Dj Merrill)
22. 09:09 PM - Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 (Tom Tholen)
23. 10:04 PM - Re: push-to-test (Kenneth Melvin)
24. 10:11 PM - Re: push-to-test (Robert McCallum)
25. 11:40 PM - Z13 (rduplooy)
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: | Garmin 196 vs 295 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
As much as I'd like to contribute a meaningful argument to the GPS/VOR
thread, I don't really have the long term experience that I need. However,
I learned to fly in the early 70s and got into GPS when the Garmin 95 AVD
hit the streets which I later upgraded to the Garmin 95XL. Overall it's
been a great unit, very reliable, and has always gotten me where I was
going, except for a few times. Once in a while the signal just drops off
completely and the few times it has I was left to dead reckoning (oh my
gawd!) with my compass which wasn't a crisis because I always try to keep
myself pinpointed with a chart next to me. Since I don't fly IFR it hasn't
been a big problem, but I'd hate to be in total IMC with turbulence at night
and have something like that happen.
Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably another Garmin) and am
considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
experience with both of these units tell me which one is the best bang for
the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to find anything
that compares the two for user friendliness and overall bang. I can go
either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better yet, does anybody
who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
Thanks for any help.
Darrel
Time: 06:57:01 AM PST US
From: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
--> 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 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: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Burton" <dburton@nwlink.com>
Take a look at:
http://www.avionix.com/gps-hand.html
for lots of reviews and information.
I'd take a good look at the displays on both. My old eyes have a lot of
trouble reading either...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
<morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
>
> As much as I'd like to contribute a meaningful argument to the GPS/VOR
> thread, I don't really have the long term experience that I need.
However,
> I learned to fly in the early 70s and got into GPS when the Garmin 95 AVD
> hit the streets which I later upgraded to the Garmin 95XL. Overall it's
> been a great unit, very reliable, and has always gotten me where I was
> going, except for a few times. Once in a while the signal just drops off
> completely and the few times it has I was left to dead reckoning (oh my
> gawd!) with my compass which wasn't a crisis because I always try to keep
> myself pinpointed with a chart next to me. Since I don't fly IFR it
hasn't
> been a big problem, but I'd hate to be in total IMC with turbulence at
night
> and have something like that happen.
> Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably another Garmin) and
am
> considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
> experience with both of these units tell me which one is the best bang for
> the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to find anything
> that compares the two for user friendliness and overall bang. I can go
> either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better yet, does anybody
> who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
> Thanks for any help.
> Darrel
>
>
> Time: 06:57:01 AM PST US
> From: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
>
> --> 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: | Re: push-to-test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Haven't seen a reply to your question yet Kenneth, so I'll try to get
you started.
One terminal, (common) is connected to ground, as in a normal indicator.
Another terminal, (signal or lamp) is connected to the signal you wish
to annunciate, again just like a normal indicator. The third wire (and I
presume the basis for your question, the push-to-test wire) goes to a
source of power like the buss which supplies power to the signalling
device providing the signal you are trying to annunciate. Now, having
said all that, there could be an alternate to this situation if the
signalling device normally operates the indicator by grounding it. If
this is the case, then the common terminal goes to the power source and
the mysterious third wire goes to ground.
In simplest terms the third wire (push-to-test function) goes to the
same place as the side of the signalling device (pressure switch, gear
switch, whatever) AWAY from the lamp. The other two wires are connected
exactly the same as a normal NON push-to-test lamp. There should be some
indication, either on the device itself, or in the accompanying
literature, identifying the terminals as to which ones are, the common,
the lamp, and the push-to-test switch.
I hope this doesn't sound way too confusing and has helped with your
problem.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | bnc 90 fittings in the tray |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
My trays for my 430/330/ etc all come with a straight BNC mounted to the
tray. It floats a bit so the unit sliding in can mate up nicely.
Coming out the back of the tray I am out of room. I tried putting on a
90 degree adapter but there is no room for the adapter. If the fitting
coming out of the tray was 90 degrees instead of straight, Id be in
business. Does Garmin make these? They are like a bulkhead fitting in
that they have a retaining nut and a special sleeve that hold it in the
tray. No doubt if they do, Im gonna have to hock the house to buy it. I
need 5 of em.
Help!
Thanks
Mike
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: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Fox5flyer wrote:
> Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably another Garmin) and am
> considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
> experience with both of these units tell me which one is the best bang for
> the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to find anything
> that compares the two for user friendliness and overall bang. I can go
> either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better yet, does anybody
> who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
> Thanks for any help.
> Darrel
Hi Darrel,
I've never used the 196, but I have had the 295
for about 4 years now, and I really love it. The color
screen makes it very easy to distinguish between items
on the screen. I think you can get these used and/or
refurbished for about $700-$800.
However, if the Garmin 296 had been out at the
time, that would be the one I would buy. Same features as
the 295, plus has the simulated instrument screen of the 196 and
has the terrain and obstacle database. Quite impressive.
They are a bit more expensive - around $1600-$1700.
-Dj
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:03 PM 12/23/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
><melvinke@direcway.com>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
The term "press-to-test" lamp can cover many different brands
and styles but I'll assume you're asking about the dimmable
MS25041 series like these:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/presstotest.php
If so, then there is an exemplar wiring diagram on page 3
of this document:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
If you're talking about some other device, I'd have to know
more about it to offer any advice.
Bob . . .
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Kitfox Electrical |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 07:23 PM 12/25/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:01 AM 12/24/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> 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.
Bob,
Thanks so much for the reply. It sounds like the safest course is
to put the power control hardware forward of the stainless firewall. I had
a note on the Kitfox forum where at least one builder had had noise issues
resolved by moving the regulator forward.
Thanks again,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
Thanks again,
Kenneth
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
--> <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Haven't seen a reply to your question yet Kenneth, so I'll try to get you
started.
One terminal, (common) is connected to ground, as in a normal indicator.
Another terminal, (signal or lamp) is connected to the signal you wish to
annunciate, again just like a normal indicator. The third wire (and I
presume the basis for your question, the push-to-test wire) goes to a source
of power like the buss which supplies power to the signalling device
providing the signal you are trying to annunciate. Now, having said all
that, there could be an alternate to this situation if the signalling device
normally operates the indicator by grounding it. If this is the case, then
the common terminal goes to the power source and the mysterious third wire
goes to ground.
In simplest terms the third wire (push-to-test function) goes to the same
place as the side of the signalling device (pressure switch, gear switch,
whatever) AWAY from the lamp. The other two wires are connected exactly the
same as a normal NON push-to-test lamp. There should be some indication,
either on the device itself, or in the accompanying literature, identifying
the terminals as to which ones are, the common, the lamp, and the
push-to-test switch.
I hope this doesn't sound way too confusing and has helped with your
problem.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
>--> <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
>
>
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: | Electric hints and kinks #4 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
I ran across a material which seems to have an endless list of
uses. The material comes under several categories, but in my case is usually
out of a craft store and reads "Liquid Embroidery" or similar.
I comes in squeeze bottles of two ounce size or similar and
comes in a myriad of colours including "Neon" bright and metallic (silver,
gold, bronze) themes. It is used by crafters to mark, write or decorate
clothes and fabrics. I found it to be excellent for 'softening' openings
where chafing may be easily inspected and refurbished as it is easy to use,
controllabe and hardy. It hardens from an applied 'touthpaste' consitency to
rubbery in two hours and over a week harden into a hard rubber surface. When
part cured, it is easily finished with a wet platen to form the surface
sought. I use the neon colours for important and vital parts and signs, and
the metallic quality finishes are ideal for filling in unsightly cracks and
visible areas. The open section of bearings (i.e:Outriggers) is a perfect
example. Each bottle is about $2 and can be used over several years if
properly stoppered.
When Ms. Perfect gets out of jail you can revert to her advice.
Ferg
Europa A064
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dance of the Elders - diversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Hi. I have just been enlightened by the byplay twixt Old Bob and Brian -
both of whom appear to be contemporaries of mine and of similar if not
superior experience, although 20,00 hours might still be a bit short on
time!
Both of these gentlemen (and one's Dad) have my respect and eyeball
when they put finger to keyboard, and when they differ if only slightly, I'm
there to learn. The day you stop finding out something is the day to set
fire to your airman's certificate, licence, permit, whatever.
The late discussion regarding GPS, DME and simplicity keeps
reminding me of the Adcock and the earphones singing:
"Neep- nahhhhhhhhhhhhh,neep- nahhhhhhhhhhh" for perhaps two hours at a time.
This tune versus, "nahp-neeeeeeeeeeeee, nahp-neeeeeeeeeee" will tell you
whether your in the port otr starboard side of the leg and in the bi-signal
zone.
All it took basically was an LF receiver and a pair of 'phones - so
simple BUT it only took you across the country in a very tiny segment of the
sky. To me the DME sounds more like it than the GPS does, but I can see the
logic in both attitudes.............. Most entertaining, thank you!
Ferg
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
>connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
>third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
>push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
>intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
>labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
>Thanks again,
>Kenneth
>
>
>
>
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: Kitfox Electrical |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:10 AM 12/26/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
>
>At 07:23 PM 12/25/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> ><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> >At 10:01 AM 12/24/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> > 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.
>
>Bob,
> Thanks so much for the reply. It sounds like the safest course is
>to put the power control hardware forward of the stainless firewall. I had
>a note on the Kitfox forum where at least one builder had had noise issues
>resolved by moving the regulator forward.
Interesting! Could you see if the builder who had the
problem would be interesting in talking with me about
it? You could give him my direct e-mail address
b.nuckolls@cox.net. It would be useful to talk to
him about his experiences.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Happy Holidays Bob & Mahlon! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Happy Holidays Bob & Mahlon! Thanks for helping us all out year 'round, even over
the Holidays.
Lucky
do not archive
Happy Holidays Bob Mahlon! Thanks for helping us all out year 'round, even over
the Holidays.
Lucky
do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
Most helpful, as ever. Thank you Bob.
Ken melvin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:03 PM 12/23/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
><melvinke@direcway.com>
>
>How does one wire the three terminals on a push-to-test lamp?
>
>Kenneth Melvin
The term "press-to-test" lamp can cover many different brands
and styles but I'll assume you're asking about the dimmable
MS25041 series like these:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/presstotest.php
If so, then there is an exemplar wiring diagram on page 3
of this document:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
If you're talking about some other device, I'd have to know
more about it to offer any advice.
Bob . . .
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
You are absolutely correct! Good diagnosis. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
McCallum
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
--> <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections reversed.
This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a short by your fuse
but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
Bob McC
Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
>--> <melvinke@direcway.com>
>
>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is
>running-- connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I
>connected the third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A
>fuse. So either the push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which
>doesn't sound correct for the intended purpose or circumstances, or I
>have the three wires improperly labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will
remove and check.
>Thanks again,
>Kenneth
>
>
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: | Garmin 196 vs 295 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I've had both. I like the 196 better. Faster screen. More value. I don't
miss the color.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Burton [mailto:dburton@nwlink.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 9:22 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Burton"
> --> <dburton@nwlink.com>
>
> Take a look at:
> http://www.avionix.com/gps-hand.html
> for lots of reviews and information.
> I'd take a good look at the displays on both. My old eyes
> have a lot of trouble reading either...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fox5flyer" <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 196 vs 295
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fox5flyer"
> <morid@northland.lib.mi.us>
> >
> > As much as I'd like to contribute a meaningful argument to
> the GPS/VOR
> > thread, I don't really have the long term experience that I need.
> However,
> > I learned to fly in the early 70s and got into GPS when the
> Garmin 95 AVD
> > hit the streets which I later upgraded to the Garmin 95XL.
> Overall it's
> > been a great unit, very reliable, and has always gotten me
> where I was
> > going, except for a few times. Once in a while the signal
> just drops off
> > completely and the few times it has I was left to dead
> reckoning (oh my
> > gawd!) with my compass which wasn't a crisis because I
> always try to keep
> > myself pinpointed with a chart next to me. Since I don't fly IFR it
> hasn't
> > been a big problem, but I'd hate to be in total IMC with
> turbulence at
> night
> > and have something like that happen.
> > Anyway, I'm in the market to upgrade my GPS (probably
> another Garmin) and
> am
> > considering the 196 and the 295. Can anybody who has considerable
> > experience with both of these units tell me which one is
> the best bang for
> > the buck? Both seem to be nice units, but I can't seem to
> find anything
> > that compares the two for user friendliness and overall
> bang. I can go
> > either with a used unit or new, doesn't matter. Better
> yet, does anybody
> > who is upgrading have one they want to sell (offlist)?
> > Thanks for any help.
> > Darrel
> >
> >
> > Time: 06:57:01 AM PST US
> > From: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: KN65A DME
> >
> > --> 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.
> >
> >
>
>
> =========
> =========
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> =========
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
0.01 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look like IP addresses
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs. oranges.
The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS provides that and
a whole lot more. If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing,
is it any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS? In some
airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately, introducing additional
steps. Then too there was the mental math that went with slant range considerations
at higher altitudes.
Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twisting when using a GPS reflects
its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and automatically sequence,
something NA in the VOR world (unless you have a $100K FMS on board).
As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite the WAAS
capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR 91.205(d)(2) still
requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your Garmin 480.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs. oranges.
The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS provides that and
a whole lot more. If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing,
is it any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS? In some
airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately, introducing additional
steps. Then too there was the mental math that went with slant range considerations
at higher altitudes.
Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twistingwhen using a GPS reflects
its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and automatically sequence,
something NA in the VOR world (unless you have a $100K FMS on board).
As practical matter we will have bothkinds in our airplanes. Despite the WAAS capable
GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR 91.205(d)(2) still
requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be
used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your Garmin 480.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:09 PM 12/26/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>
>Bob McC
>
>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
> <melvinke@direcway.com>
> >
> >Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
> >Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
> >connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
> >third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
> >push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
> >intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
> >labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
> >Thanks again,
> >Kenneth
I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
a fuse-popping fault.
About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
function while held in the "test" position. There are
no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
the press-to-test switch.
Bob . . .
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 26, 2004, at 7:25 PM, brucem@att.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
>
> Comparison between VOR/DME and GPS based navigation can be apples vs.
> oranges. The former is a simple distance/bearing system while the GPS
> provides that and a whole lot more.
There are also DME/DME navigators that compute position from the
distance from two DMEs but other than the Narco Star*Nav I have never
seen one for light GA aircraft.
> If the GPS box is used only for the same point-to-point routing, is it
> any more complicated entering a waypoint and hitting direct to than
> putting a new frequency into the nav receiver and twisting the OBS?
Perhaps and perhaps not. It is certainly interesting when you plug in
SJC VOR expecting to get the one near San Jose, California, and instead
get the one in Costa Rica or wherever. Getting the correct navaid when
there is more than one with the same identifier can make it a tad bit
more difficult. It means you do need to pay attention when entering
data into your GPS receiver to ensure that what it is telling you is
what you really want to know.
> In some airplanes that I have flown the DME was tuned separately,
> introducing additional steps. Then too there was the mental math that
> went with slant range considerations at higher altitudes.
Yes, that does happen. Still, the user interface is unambiguous. Most
people who have learned to use a VOR or VOR/DME in one airplane can get
into another with equipment from a different manufacturer and make it
work immediately. Not necessarily true with GPS receivers.
> Complaints that amended clearances cause much knob twisting when using
> a GPS reflects its capability to fly preloaded flight plans and
> automatically sequence, something NA in the VOR world (unless you have
> a $100K FMS on board).
Right. And you have to consider how hard it is to mentally sequence
your VORs vs. how hard it is to reprogram the route in your GPS.
> As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite
> the WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR
> 91.205(d)(2) still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to
> the ground facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to
> back up your Garmin 480.
And my point was not to say that VOR/DME is better than GPS. My point
was to have people consider how GPS has its own set of idiosyncrasies
and that VOR/DME has its own set of advantages. Advances in technology
are not always the panacea the marketing departments would have us
think they are.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Kitfox Electrical |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
At 03:55 PM 12/26/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:10 AM 12/26/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
> >
> >At 07:23 PM 12/25/2004 -0600, you wrote:
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > ><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> > >
> > >At 10:01 AM 12/24/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> >Bob,
> > Thanks so much for the reply. It sounds like the safest course is
> >to put the power control hardware forward of the stainless firewall. I had
> >a note on the Kitfox forum where at least one builder had had noise issues
> >resolved by moving the regulator forward.
>
> Interesting! Could you see if the builder who had the
> problem would be interesting in talking with me about
> it? You could give him my direct e-mail address
> b.nuckolls@cox.net. It would be useful to talk to
> him about his experiences.
Sure! He loves to chat. (On the list, that is.)
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 196 vs 295 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Larry Bowen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
>
> I've had both. I like the 196 better. Faster screen. More value. I don't
> miss the color.
After using the color, I can't imagine going
back to B&W! *grin*
I guess it is just personal preference.
-Dj
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: | Garmin 196 vs 295 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Tholen" <ttholen@hotmail.com>
Hi Darrell,
I have been using a 196 for about 2 years now and love it. I had a
GarminIII before that and it was also a very good GPS. The color would be
nice but for the extra cost I dont feel its worth it. Plus it eats batteries
faster, so whichever u get make sure u have a cigarette lighter plug or
direct wire it, or buy stock in Duracell! The 196 is easy to use but there
is a learning curve. Mainly learning which menu and tab gets u where u wanna
go. As Brian has said its not as easy or quick to change as DME is, but it
can to some really awesome things. If you would like to make some
comparasions you can go to Avshop and they have and they have an independent
GPS review at http://www.avshop.com/gpsroundup.html . Hope this helps in
the decision but i wouldnt give up my 196 except for a 296 and then the
price has to come WAY down!
Tom
Future builder
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
Taken it apart and found a single strand of wire straddling two terminals.
Your deduction was right on target Bob. I'll start over.
Thanks,
Kenneth
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: push-to-test
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:09 PM 12/26/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>
>Bob McC
>
>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
> <melvinke@direcway.com>
> >
> >Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
> >Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is
> >running-- connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When
> >I connected the third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the
> >5A fuse. So either the push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which
> >doesn't sound correct for the intended purpose or circumstances, or I
> >have the three wires improperly labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will
remove and check.
> >Thanks again,
> >Kenneth
I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
a fuse-popping fault.
About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
function while held in the "test" position. There are
no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
the press-to-test switch.
Bob . . .
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: push-to-test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
With all due respect Bob this isn't necessarily true, depending upon
which specific lamp holder is employed here. The three connections to a
simple push to test lamp socket are: 1; to the "shell" of the lamp
socket. 2; to the "centre contact" of the lamp socket. 3; to the
"push-to-test" switch which becomes connected to the centre contact when
pressed. i.e. in the test state. Now if you were to wire this
particular type of lamp holder with the "ground" wire on the centre pin,
the "signal" wire ( made live via the circuit you wish to have
notification of) to the lamp shell and your "push to test" pin powered
from the buss via a fuse, then when you "press to test" you will be
directly connecting the live buss to the grounded centre pin of the
socket resulting in a dead short. This will blow the fuse as Kenneth
described but the light itself will work properly if the "test" feature
is not pressed. If the socket is wired correctly with the ground wire on
the shell, then the light will also work correctly but the press to test
will now apply buss power via the fuse to the lamp, testing its
function, though the signal wire may not otherwise be powered. If the
lamp holder is more sophisticated with a double throw feature to the
push to test then the short will not happen, but the simplest of push to
test sockets simply attach the "test" wire to the "signal" pin via a
SPST switch which can result in the symptoms Kenneth experienced. In the
more sophisticated lamp holders which feature SPDT switching then of
course your statement is correct and he could not blow the fuse this way.
Bob McC
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 02:09 PM 12/26/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
>><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>>
>>Sounds like you might have the "signal" and "common" connections
>>reversed. This would cause the push to test feature to be seen as a
>>short by your fuse but would allow the lamp itself to function properly.
>>
>>Bob McC
>>
>>Kenneth Melvin wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin
>>>
>>>
>><melvinke@direcway.com>
>>
>>
>>>Thank you so much for your help, Robert. The lamp in question is from
>>>Aircraft Spruce, and is to indicate when the hydraulic pump is running--
>>>connected to the switched side of the pump contactor. When I connected the
>>>third wire to a power distribution bus, it blew the 5A fuse. So either the
>>>push-to-test actually grounds the lamp, which doesn't sound correct for the
>>>intended purpose or circumstances, or I have the three wires improperly
>>>labelled as to origin on the lamp. Will remove and check.
>>>Thanks again,
>>>Kenneth
>>>
>>>
>
> I can't deduce how mis-wiring this fixture would cause
> a fuse-popping fault.
>
> About the most that can happen is that the lamp either
> fails to illuminate or illuminates continuously while
> not depressed while properly indicating the monitored
> function while held in the "test" position. There are
> no two terminals of this fixture that form a low resistance
> pathway in either a depressed or relaxed position of
> the press-to-test switch.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rduplooy" <rduplooy@iafrica.com>
Hi,
Is there a PDF version of Z13...?
I opened with IE...got the schematic but cannot read the print?..( Very "blocky"
writing)
Thanks
Robert
RV-8
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! --
|