Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:15 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (Werner Schneider)
2. 06:23 AM - Re: WAAS or not (Brian Lloyd)
3. 08:28 AM - Re: WAAS or not (John Schroeder)
4. 08:28 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (D Fritz)
5. 08:32 AM - Re: avionics master (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:40 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (D Fritz)
7. 08:56 AM - Re: WAAS or not (Wayne Sweet)
8. 09:31 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (Rob Logan)
9. 09:31 AM - Re: WAAS or Not (Rob Logan)
10. 09:39 AM - Source for Alternator B+ lead (Neil K Clayton)
11. 10:37 AM - Re: WAAS or not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 11:51 AM - Re: Source for Alternator B+ lead (Scott Bilinski)
13. 01:16 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (Werner Schneider)
14. 01:17 PM - Re: Source for Alternator B+ lead (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 01:34 PM - Re: Odyssey Battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 01:40 PM - Re: avionics master (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 02:21 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Jim Oke)
18. 04:10 PM - Type I Contactor (Tinne maha)
19. 04:31 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (James Freeman)
20. 04:40 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Brian Lloyd)
21. 04:50 PM - Encoder test (Richard Suffoletto)
22. 05:11 PM - Cat 5 (Jay Brinkmeyer)
23. 06:15 PM - Speaking of Ultraviolet lights (EMAproducts@aol.com)
24. 06:56 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Wayne Sweet)
25. 07:05 PM - Re: Encoder test (Wayne Sweet)
26. 07:18 PM - Re: Encoder test (James Freeman)
27. 07:33 PM - Re: Encoder test (Larry McFarland)
28. 07:42 PM - Re: Type I Contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 08:33 PM - Re: Encoder test (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 08:47 PM - Re: Type I Contactor (Sam Chambers)
31. 09:07 PM - Fuse-link (Bikcrzy@aol.com)
32. 09:27 PM - Re: Encoder test (Paul McAllister)
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: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Fritz,
what software version are you using, as they have a better sampling rate on
the newest one I would love to hear what a new version will perform like in
a chandelle type maneuvers. You would need at least version 1.10 (actual is
1.12).
Keep us updated
Werner
BTW did you also compare the BMA EFIS in this conditions?
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Fritz" <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
> For those interested in how well the Dynon unit performs, I will give my
impressions after using it for about 125 hours in a Thorp T-18. I bought
the Dynon unit to act as backup to my Bluemountain Avionics EFIS-One in the
Velocity I'm building. SInce I'm still a ways off from flying the Velocity
and I had the Thorp at the time, I decided to mount it in the Thorp for some
VFR evaluation of its performance. Overall, I was quite impressed with the
performance of the unit AS A BACKUP, but would not launch into the weather
with it as my only attitude reference (this was the original D-10 unit).
The unit was quite stable in normal IFR flight (minor stepping in attitude
as I maneuvered) and would serve just fine to perform an approach to
full-stop landing. The unit was actually better than most of the backup
attitude indicators I've had in the military aircraft I fly. I subjected
the Dynon to a long test involving many 360 degree turns at progressively
larger bank angles from 4
> degrees
> to 60 degrees (try your patience sometime with a 4 degree banked 360
degree turn!) The Dynon performed flawlessly. However, on initial takeoff
and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed pull-up, or first turn out of
traffic), the unit had significant acceleration errors and frequently showed
erroneous bank angles. This may have been addressed in future Dynon
revisions; but was enough for me to swear off launching into the weather
with only this unit as an attitude reference. This is all in keeping with
what the Dynon folks are advertising as they say it is not intended for
sole-source IFR flight. They have built a great little unit that I would
trust for recovery and have used for several long night flights on moonless
nights.
>
> Dan Fritz
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 16, 2005, at 11:02 PM, cgalley wrote:
> Seems the numbers I heard was that ONE satellite was the cost of ONE
> ILS
> approach. There are only about 25 satellites but the are many more ILS
> approaches. there are at least 2 at our airport alone.
I like GPS. It is wonderful. I have an IFR-certified GPS in each of my
airplanes. It is not cheap though.
The numbers from about five years back are as follows:
Annual cost to operate LORAN -- $29M
Annual cost to operate GPS -- $400M
Cost to deploy GPS -- $10.5B
Cost for WAAS was supposed to be -- $1B (it went way over budget)
The costs have gone up substantially, especially for WAAS.
The Europeans have it right with their system that will do WAAS by
transmitting the corrections via LORAN. The nice thing is that their
WAAS datalink acts as a backup area navigation. If their satellites go
down for whatever reason, you can still find your way to your
destination. The way that the FAA is going we will have no backup
navigation system.
I do not advocate getting rid of GPS -- far from it. We need GPS. It is
just that it is monstrously more expensive than either VOR or LORAN for
navigation and it is easily jammed. The WAAS system is very poorly
designed.
What it boils down to is that I *really* want the FAA to keep VOR
and/or LORAN navigation around. I don't want to find out that some bad
guy has laid hands on one of the $4000 Russian GPS jammers just as I am
making a precision VLP approach to minimums on some dark and stormy
night after the FAA has 'retired' the VOR and LORAN systems. Someone at
the FAA needs to get a clue about systems design.
Oh yeah, I forget:
"Hi, I'm from the FAA and I am here to help."
"Here at the FAA we're not happy until you're not happy!"
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 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: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Hey guys -
I doubt if comparing the cost of installing and maintaining the ILS
systems vs. the costs to the FAA of implementing WAAS can be done easily.
Nor can we blame the loss of signal when not looking at the southern skies
on the FAA, as Rob suggests. As Brian notes, the FAA bears little, if any
of the cost of the basic GPS system. The architecture is designed for
truly world-wide operations by the DOD - not for 95% reliability of
navigation by us good GA users. I also believe that the Coast Guard is OPR
for the Loran system.
Like so many other items benefitting the citizenry, the DOD picks up the
huge tab for this wonderful system - not only for U.S. citizens but for
the entire world!! Terrorists, drug runners, thugs included. This phenom
(almost complete loss of control of a strategic system by its owner) is
probably one of the great case studies of public policy, along with the
fairly large chunks of money Congress adds to the DOD budget for breast
and prostate cancer research every year. And there are many more tucked
away in the thousands of line items in that budget.
Don't get me wrong. GPS and its progeny, such as moving maps, is perhaps
the single most important technological contribution to general aviation
in the last 50 years. Now all we need to do is lobby the Hill; get
Congress to add a chunk of money to the DOD bill every year for about a
decade and have it earmarked for building a 95% reliable WAAS system for
us. :-))
Just some off-the-wall thoughts.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
>> I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each
>> for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over
>> $2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost
>> that much more.
>
> Hi Brian,
> I don't have any reports or anything to refer to, but I remember
> reading some time ago that this > was one of the selling points for them
> moving towards it. The GPS system is maintained to serve >
> multiple uses, not just aviation, so the overall cost to aviation of GPS
> is cheaper than the
> ILS/VOR/NDB cost times the number of installations at/near airports.
>
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: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Yes, the Dynon was completely installed in the system, plumbed to pitot and static
and running on ship's power. Incidentally, I was using the internal magnetometer
vice the remote option; also, I did not experience any of the noise interference
on my radio that other Dynon users had reported.
Dan Fritz
"I'd like to confirm one thing - did you have the Dynon EFIS connected
to the pitot and static systems? The reason I ask is that I
understand that they use the airspeed input to partially correct for
acceleration errors. The unit might behave strangely if it saw
accelerations but no airspeed.
Thanks for the Dynon report.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/"
---------------------------------
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:05 AM 1/17/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>if switch failure is still an issue for airplanes operated at the
>relatively low frequency of most recreational GA aircraft then why not
>just go ahead and replace the switch every 5 years or something and not
>worry about it.
>
>Anyone on the list actually had a toggle switch fail on a GA aircraft?
It's NOT just the switch . . . how about wires and terminals that
route from the main bus to the "avionics bus"? If you review
chapter 17 from the 'Connection at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf
. . . then consider what features you'd like for your
airplane to carry when things are not going well with the
electrical system. One feature of the e-bus concept
is DUAL power pathways to the bus . . . one from what
SHOULD be the most reliable power source in the airplane;
the BATTERY. The second feature is automatic and very
simple load-shedding to put the airplane into an ENDURANCE
mode of en route operations that will ASSURE comforable
arrival at the airport of intended destination . . . not
at some remote field less than 30 minutes from your
present location.
The third feature is driven by the notion that an
avionics master switch was conceived based on poor
understanding of the relationship between solid
state devices -AND- the power generation and
distribution system. There is no foundation in
physics or good design that calls for installation
of what has become popularized as an avionics master
switch.
Rather than getting bogged down in debating the
reliability of any particular switch or associated
hardware, why not ASSUME that the switch or wires
WILL fail at some point in time . . . What is your
"Plan B" for dealing with that situation? I'll suggest
that the dual supply path e-bus concept is at least
one rational approach . . . if you have others to
suggest, let's consider them.
But most important: make your design decisions
based on understanding of supporting simple ideas
and be very wary of ol' hangar tales and well
worn traditions that are not supported with
physics.
Bob . . .
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: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Werner,
I had one of the early units and updated the software once or twice, probably not
up to the 1.10 version. I can't say for sure as I've sold the aircraft and
last flew it in May '04. I did not compare these results with the Bluemountain
unit since it was not installed in the Thorp. I'll have to wait until the
Velocity is flying to do that test; however, I'm told Bluemountain went to great
lengths to successfully avoid these errors through the use of GPS aiding in
their filters.
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
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: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Brian,
The LORAN I flew with for a few years was, well, adequate, but lost track
several times in the most inopportune times. I was delighted to remove it
and install the first GPS. Since then, zero lost tracks, zero problems with
the Apollo 2001, UPS GX50 and now the GNS430.
To use LORAN in conjunction with a GPS system is a bit bizarre. VOR's will
go the way of NDB's.
Never heard of a device that jams GPS signals. How does such equipment
interfere with signals from 25 satellites over a wide geographical area?
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
> On Jan 16, 2005, at 11:02 PM, cgalley wrote:
>
>> Seems the numbers I heard was that ONE satellite was the cost of ONE
>> ILS
>> approach. There are only about 25 satellites but the are many more ILS
>> approaches. there are at least 2 at our airport alone.
>
> I like GPS. It is wonderful. I have an IFR-certified GPS in each of my
> airplanes. It is not cheap though.
>
> The numbers from about five years back are as follows:
>
> Annual cost to operate LORAN -- $29M
>
> Annual cost to operate GPS -- $400M
>
> Cost to deploy GPS -- $10.5B
>
> Cost for WAAS was supposed to be -- $1B (it went way over budget)
>
> The costs have gone up substantially, especially for WAAS.
>
> The Europeans have it right with their system that will do WAAS by
> transmitting the corrections via LORAN. The nice thing is that their
> WAAS datalink acts as a backup area navigation. If their satellites go
> down for whatever reason, you can still find your way to your
> destination. The way that the FAA is going we will have no backup
> navigation system.
>
> I do not advocate getting rid of GPS -- far from it. We need GPS. It is
> just that it is monstrously more expensive than either VOR or LORAN for
> navigation and it is easily jammed. The WAAS system is very poorly
> designed.
>
> What it boils down to is that I *really* want the FAA to keep VOR
> and/or LORAN navigation around. I don't want to find out that some bad
> guy has laid hands on one of the $4000 Russian GPS jammers just as I am
> making a precision VLP approach to minimums on some dark and stormy
> night after the FAA has 'retired' the VOR and LORAN systems. Someone at
> the FAA needs to get a clue about systems design.
>
> Oh yeah, I forget:
>
> "Hi, I'm from the FAA and I am here to help."
>
> "Here at the FAA we're not happy until you're not happy!"
>
> 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
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 692 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
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 |
|
|July 24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:15:51 AM,
Serialize by Router on mtasmtp1-clev/P/SERVER/PHILIPS-CLE(Release 5.0.11
|July
24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:16:17 AM,
Serialize complete at 01/17/2005 11:16:17 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> on initial takeoff and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed
> pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the unit had significant
> acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank angles.
The $15k certified xbow 500 in a lancair will do the same.
Its better than any spinning tungsten because the kalman filter
level it soon after. (no caging) enough so I take mine IMC with
a backup T&B. the trick is to fly GPS barring and track (or
Chelton velocity vector) for the first 2mins.
Rob
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 |
|
|July 24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:16:35 AM,
Serialize by Router on mtasmtp1-clev/P/SERVER/PHILIPS-CLE(Release 5.0.11
|July
24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:17:11 AM,
Serialize complete at 01/17/2005 11:17:11 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan <Rob@Logan.com>
> At airports located in high obstacle fields, the lowest minima will
almost
> always be via a non precision level flight segment approach.
while this is true, a CNX80 loaded with 2.0 software or any Chelton
will provide vertical guidance below MDA from FAF to MAP via a perfect
to hit dirt (yea its shallow) GS. with a Chelton one
can do a "VFR" approach with any angle GS (all the way to dirt) but
I'd prefer to take the surveyed path up high.
For those that have actually pushed mins, ground lighting is
extremely important.. heck, I've gone missed on an ILS twice
and then went to an airport with centerline lighting and made
it.. Lighting is extremely important. This and another experience
makes me note the type of lighting (RAIL) before any approach.
The point the original author of the thread was trying to make
before it was hijacked was: Does the shutdown of your
entire navigator if one very hard to receive SV signal is lost,
increase safety? wouldn't some information be better than none?
Bob's been waiving the MDA, LPV minima flag for 3+ years to keep
us legal, and that's *very* important. but these navigators
offer real life advantages, and lets hope that can be
improved too.
Rob
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@matronics.com
| Subject: | Source for Alternator B+ lead |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
I read that the alternator output (B+) lead should be #6 AWG and shielded.
I can't find a source for shielded #6 cable.
Could someone pls direct me?
Is the shielding grounded? both ends? one end? what kind of connection?
Thanks
Neil
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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/2005 10:55:11 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jschroeder@perigee.net writes:
I doubt if comparing the cost of installing and maintaining the ILS
systems vs. the costs to the FAA of implementing WAAS can be done easily.
Nor can we blame the loss of signal when not looking at the southern skies
on the FAA, as Rob suggests. As Brian notes, the FAA bears little, if any
of the cost of the basic GPS system. The architecture is designed for
truly world-wide operations by the DOD - not for 95% reliability of
navigation by us good GA users. I also believe that the Coast Guard is OPR
for the Loran system.
Good Points John,
Personally, I am just a user and can't comprehend all of the subtleties of
finance involved. I just note that it works great and has never failed me
even once in over fifteen years of use.
I think the fact that it is a worldwide system and relied upon by so many
others besides aviation will assure it's being adequately available to all.
I have no doubt that there are good reasons to keep the Loran in operation,
but I sure hope we GA type do not have to use it at all.
When I had my IFR approved LORAN set, it always failed me when I wanted it
the most. Every time I was in precipitation, it told me it was unreliable.
That has never happened when I was using GPS. I realize just one operators
experience doesn't make a valid case for all, but it sure impressed me.
All of those brainy techies tell me that with better static wicks, better
grounding of aircraft components and a newer, and yet to be developed, antenna,
the LORAN problems will be mitigated.
I am not so sure that will ever work for us small plane devotees. The last
"H" style antenna I saw was so big it could never be used in a Bonanza let
alone an RV.
I can go to the K-Mart and buy a GPS for one hundred dollars that will work
in a torrential downpour and still give me excellent positional accuracy
anywhere on the planet Earth.
I hope the LORAN dies and pleasant and honorable death.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: Source for Alternator B+ lead |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
You can buy shielding sleeve and shield any wire. I have seen it, but dont
know where to get it.
At 11:23 AM 1/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton
><harvey4@earthlink.net>
>
>I read that the alternator output (B+) lead should be #6 AWG and shielded.
>
>I can't find a source for shielded #6 cable.
>Could someone pls direct me?
>
>Is the shielding grounded? both ends? one end? what kind of connection?
>
>Thanks
>Neil
>
>
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: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Dan,
sorry for the name mismatch.
Thanks for the update, from whom did you get this message about BMA? I just
can remember, that BMA had severe problems even in 30 deg turns until about
a year ago. As the 1.10 is from December last years you did fly with the old
version of the Dynon.
Thx for the update
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Fritz" <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
> Werner,
> I had one of the early units and updated the software once or twice,
probably not up to the 1.10 version. I can't say for sure as I've sold the
aircraft and last flew it in May '04. I did not compare these results with
the Bluemountain unit since it was not installed in the Thorp. I'll have to
wait until the Velocity is flying to do that test; however, I'm told
Bluemountain went to great lengths to successfully avoid these errors
through the use of GPS aiding in their filters.
>
> Dan Fritz
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
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: Source for Alternator B+ lead |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:23 AM 1/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton
><harvey4@earthlink.net>
>
>I read that the alternator output (B+) lead should be #6 AWG and shielded.
>
>I can't find a source for shielded #6 cable.
>Could someone pls direct me?
>
>Is the shielding grounded? both ends? one end? what kind of connection?
Where did you read this? I'm aware of no practical reason for
shielding any lead wires to or from the alternator. This was
done as part of the ADF installation kit on Cessnas back in
the 60s. However, the kit also included a noise filter capacitor
on the alternator's b-lead . . .
Turns out that all benefits of the kit were realized by adding
the capacitor. Shielding added nothing but labor and cost. We
didn't have the knowledge or tools to deduce this at the time
so yet another baseless fabrication philosophy was plowed into
the fertile ground of tradition.
Leave the shielding off. You're going to be just fine. If you
do have a noise problem, it won't be due to lack of shielding
on the alternator's wiring.
Bob . . .
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: Odyssey Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:51 PM 1/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>" but don't lust after an Odyssey
> if your budget is limited. There are other practical choices."
>
>I researched all batteries, and don't know what has changed in 3 months,
>but you can get a New PC-680 Odyssey on eBay delivered for about $50 + $15
>shipping. (add $12 for MJ=metal jacket). I know B&C specialties sells a
>little 12 volt 16 amp for $120. Ouch! I don't know what brand, they don't
>mention it.
>
>I looked at all options, Panasonic, Power Sonic, Dyna-Bat, Yuasa, Hawker
>Genesis (retagged odyssey), Universal, B & B, and a few others and the
>Odyssey it the best Value, has the lowest internal resistance, fits the RV
>aircraft box and has the better M6 female terminals.
>
>The "OTHERS" SLA / AGM batteries with the same approx "FIT" cost around
>$32-$69 (or more). Why would you want anything else? The El Cheap-O's do
>work for most under normal conditions, but one who tried the Odyssey and
>then a Cheap-O notice that the cheap battery did not crank as vigorously
>as the Odyssey. Likely due to the higher internal resistance, Example is a
>Panasonic LC-XB1220P 20 amp does not crank like a 16 amp Odyssey. Also the
>"others" have the Tabs, not the nice internal threaded M6 terminals. You
>can get some "Other" Batteries with a M5 female terminal but end up
>costing about $70.
>
>The Odyssey is affordable and the best choice; *(Odyssey may-be $12-$20
>bucks diff from the cheapest battery, which has less performance. You get
>what you pay for AND shop around.)
>
>Show me where I am wrong. :- )
There is nothing "wrong" with the Odyssey battery . . . and nothing
"wrong" with the selection of any other battery. My caution about
designing a premium battery into you airplane is based on
the notion that BATTERY MAINTENANCE should include either (1)
periodic testing for CAPACITY such that you KNOW the battery
will support the e-bus for duration of fuel aboard or (2) periodic
replacement of the battery IN SPITE of the fact that it still
cranks the engine very nicely. Even if you do periodic
CAP TESTS, you'll be swapping the battery out long before
it fails to crank the engine. This means that you not only
expend $time$ to do the testing, you still swap the battery
out before it's "dead". If you use the cheapest battery and
swap it out every annual, then you have zero $time$ for testing
and you minimize the cost per operating hour for batteries.
If one uses a premium battery, there is an underlying desire
on the part of most owners to take advantage of the capability
of the premium product . . . i.e. run that puppy 'til it croaks
just like we do in our cars and most of our airplanes.
It depends on what your time and equipment costs are worth.
Run the gold-plated battery if you wish but track it for
capability and ditch it when capacity falls below your established
minimums. Or, run the copper-plated battery for one year and
pitch it.
This isn't a decision driven so much by battery performance
as the economics of $time$. Run any battery you like but
please do so with understanding of how that product fits
into your operating and maintenance goals. Which one is the
better VALUE five years down the road?
Bob . . .
>
>Thanks George
>
>PS I note that the Max temp specification limit is 45c and 80c, for the
>Odyssey PC-680 and PC-680MJ respectively. I guess the $12 bucks for the
>extra layer may be good. Any idea of temp under a RV-7 cowl on the firewall?
>
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: avionics master |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:25 PM 1/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
><retasker@optonline.net>
>
>For what it's worth, I have had a switch suddenly go open for no
>apparent reason (while it was on and supplying power). The failure was
>permanent - it would no longer turn on even though it would physically
>toggle from off to on and back.
Had one do it on a Beechjet last week. In this case, the switch
carried TOO LITTLE current and was NEVER operated except in case
of emergency . . . the contacts of this $high$ Microswitch product
simply went open. I hooked a power supply to it and caused it
to carry 20A constant current for a few dozen operations . . . it
"recovered" and will probably run well for another 10 years.
Bottom line is that the most reliable system design philosophy
with respect to switches is figure out a way NOT to have the
switch there in the first place. But if you MUST, then USE IT
periodically, like every flight.
This is the other side of the coin for "advantages" of not having
to fiddle with radio switches when there's an avionics master
switch in place . . . every radio power switch exists in
a non-operating, ageing mode.
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Keep in mind that GPS is not "just" an aviation system and there are many,
many other users out there who benefit from GPS (and now WAAS). There are
all sorts of applications from tracking pizza delivery vans, agriculture
(high tech farmers use GPS guidance to selectively apply chemicals, monitor
their harvest, etc.), scientific, surveying, to marine navigation that have
evolved from the basic GPS system. This has led to a very large commercial
market for GPS based devices, of which aviation is only a relatively small
part. Land based military users such as infantry, artillery and tank drivers
also probably drove a lot of the requirement in the first place and not
aviation users (either civil or military).
How to get all these users to pay their "fair share" of GPS costs is a
difficult, probably insoluble, political question. The US Govt. seems to
have adopted a "we'll be content to fund GPS and reap the benefits
indirectly from the extra economic activity" approach vice trying to make it
a user pay system. The Europeans are now playing catch up ball with their
Galileo system so as not to be left behind. The coming (whenever) GPS II
upgrade is likely intended to ensure the United States keeps a jump ahead in
commercial GPS applications.
Indeed, the politics of these high-tech systems is often just as fascinating
as the technology itself!
Jim Oke
RV-6A C-GKGZ (GPS equipped - of course!)
Wpg., MB
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Hey guys -
>
> I doubt if comparing the cost of installing and maintaining the ILS
> systems vs. the costs to the FAA of implementing WAAS can be done easily.
> Nor can we blame the loss of signal when not looking at the southern skies
> on the FAA, as Rob suggests. As Brian notes, the FAA bears little, if any
> of the cost of the basic GPS system. The architecture is designed for
> truly world-wide operations by the DOD - not for 95% reliability of
> navigation by us good GA users. I also believe that the Coast Guard is OPR
> for the Loran system.
>
> Like so many other items benefitting the citizenry, the DOD picks up the
> huge tab for this wonderful system - not only for U.S. citizens but for
> the entire world!! Terrorists, drug runners, thugs included. This phenom
> (almost complete loss of control of a strategic system by its owner) is
> probably one of the great case studies of public policy, along with the
> fairly large chunks of money Congress adds to the DOD budget for breast
> and prostate cancer research every year. And there are many more tucked
> away in the thousands of line items in that budget.
>
> Don't get me wrong. GPS and its progeny, such as moving maps, is perhaps
> the single most important technological contribution to general aviation
> in the last 50 years. Now all we need to do is lobby the Hill; get
> Congress to add a chunk of money to the DOD bill every year for about a
> decade and have it earmarked for building a 95% reliable WAAS system for
> us. :-))
>
> Just some off-the-wall thoughts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Schroeder
>
>>> I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each
>>> for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over
>>> $2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost
>>> that much more.
>>
>> Hi Brian,
>> I don't have any reports or anything to refer to, but I remember
>> reading some time ago that this > was one of the selling points for them
>> moving towards it. The GPS system is maintained to serve >
>> multiple uses, not just aviation, so the overall cost to aviation of GPS
>> is cheaper than the
>> ILS/VOR/NDB cost times the number of installations at/near airports.
>>
>
>
>
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: | Type I Contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Listers,
My battery contactor is a Type I, the kind where two flat surfaces come
together to supply current through the big wire & one of the flat surfaces
is formed by the internal end of the post to which we bolt our ring
terminals. I'm sure it works great unless one of the posts is rotated & the
flat surfaces are no longer parallel, thus preventing the maximum amount of
surface area to come into contact.
Well, the other day when tightening a bolt on my battery contactor, the post
rotated some. Can anyone suggest how I can be positive that the post is
rotated back to the optimum position?
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
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: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
On Jan 17, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Werner Schneider wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider"
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> Hello Dan,
>
> sorry for the name mismatch.
>
> Thanks for the update, from whom did you get this message about BMA? I
> just
> can remember, that BMA had severe problems even in 30 deg turns until
> about
> a year ago.
(snip)
Werner, I know from personal experience that's not accurate (not
sniping, just trying to squelch a rumor). There have been _lots_ of
rumors swirling around most of the EFII. I had one of the earliest
EFIS-One boxes (plastic case) which initially had some issues but the
in-flight inertial performance was quite good as early as summer of
'02. After a software upgrade at that time, I was unable to confuse
the EFIS in flight in a Cessna 150 or 337 (I did hook up temporary
pitot and GPS inputs) I tried aggressive maneuvering (within the
flight envelopes of the cessnas), level acceleration and deceleration,
and multiple turns (7 or 8 consecutive 360 degree turns at various bank
angles). I was able to consistently confuse the TSOd vacuum gyros
installed in the airplanes, but not the EFIS.
I have flown a few hours behind an early EFIS Lite in an RV8A, and it
works very well, except that you can saturate the sensors in a
full-deflection roll.
I won't dispute that BMA probably shipped stuff a little too soon, but
Greg has worked aggressively to make things right. I was very
disturbed after Sam Buchanan had his problems, and flew with my box to
Copper hill. Greg bench checked my box, and then went flying with me
for more than an hour until I was satisfied that it was working
properly.
I think his biggest problem right now is production, and the current
flight planning and engine monitoring software have significant room
for improvement.
James Freeman
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: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
> The LORAN I flew with for a few years was, well, adequate, but lost
> track
> several times in the most inopportune times. I was delighted to remove
> it
> and install the first GPS.
You had to understand its limitations. The addition of the
mid-continent chains and the availability of receivers to track
multiple chains eliminated the coverage and geometry problems.
> Since then, zero lost tracks, zero problems with
> the Apollo 2001, UPS GX50 and now the GNS430.
I have had problems with GPS.
> To use LORAN in conjunction with a GPS system is a bit bizarre.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. They both provide reliable area
navigation. GPS has better absolute accuracy and LORAN has astounding
repeatability. They work at completely separate frequencies so that a
problem that jams one will not affect the other. LORAN is almost
impossible to jam because the signal is just so bloody powerful and the
required antenna is huge, i.e. hundreds of feet, not something you will
cart around in the back of your car. Unlike GPS, you can't carry a
LORAN jammer in your briefcase.
And as the Europeans have shown, you can combine the two systems and
get something much better. You can easily fly an approach to VOR or NDB
minimums using LORAN reliably and safely. That is why it makes such a
good backup for GPS.
> Never heard of a device that jams GPS signals. How does such equipment
> interfere with signals from 25 satellites over a wide geographical
> area?
Since all the satellites share a single frequency, you just need a
jammer on that frequency. Since the satellites are so far away (14,000
mi) and transmitting a not-very-powerful signal, someone in a C-172
with the lunchbox-sized Russian 5-watt jamming transmitter could wipe
out GPS for the whole of the Los Angeles basin or the whole of the Bay
Area. You just have to get high enough that the GPS antennas on the
aircraft can see your jammer too. Because the jammer is so much closer,
it will completely swamp the signal from the satellites.
And an even more devious hack would be to transmit valid but bogus
satellite transmissions. You could make a single aircraft fly anywhere
you wanted it to just by forcing the signals it hears to be what you
want them to be. Imagine taking a single airliner and change the
signals it receives so that it flies off-course into higher terrain
while all the receivers on the airplane show it tracking the approach.
It could be done and if I can think of it ...
BTW, the Russsian jamming transmitter was selling for $4000 a couple of
years back. They were showing it off at the Tail Hook convention in
Reno a couple years back.
The whole point of this is not to rant but to help people understand
just how fragile GPS is. The way it is currently designed, it cannot be
depended on as sole-source navigation where such navigation is
life-critical. It is just too easy to make it not work.
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 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto" <rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see if
it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages are
where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach (not
impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before
closing it in.
I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit
difficult due to my location...
thanks
richard
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer <jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
Cat 5 cable is typically used for Ethernet networks running at 10 or 100
Mbps... More than you want to know here:
http://www.lanshack.com/cat5e-tutorial.asp
Jay
> >Hi All-
> >
> >Can someone explain to me the significance of cat5 and or cat5e cable?
> >What makes it special? When would I want to use it vs a bundle of plain
> >old fashioned MS tefzel?
> >
=====
__________________________________
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: | Speaking of Ultraviolet lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com
Geiger Counters & instrument panels
In the '60 & '70's I flew aircraft from L-19, Twin Beech, Twin Bonanza,
DC-3/C47's and the F-27 for the US Atomic Energy Commission. I know on the C
& D-18's & Gooney birds they used a Geiger counter to try and get the lead
"pigs" with the hot material as far forward as possible because of CG. They
would move them forward until the counter behind the bulkhead read the same as
we
got in the cockpit from the instruments. This was on a lakebed in the Nevada
Test Site after the underground shots. I hauled the "samples" from the shot to
a laboratory, normally taking off the lakebed around 2-3AM, with pickup at far
end of strip for lighting, glad I didn't have to return, no other lights for
many miles.
It must have been OK, I'm still here!
Elbie
Elbie H. Mendenhall
EM Aviation, LLC
www.riteangle.com
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I fly regularly with other pilots with GPS equipped aircraft and have not
heard a single complaint about GPS signal loss. BTW, I was flying the LORAN
(Apollo 618) when all the chains were up. Still lost track one night going
into Columbia Airport in the Sierra foothills and departing Arlington, WA.
The latter was the last straw. Lost track frequently in the southwest.
Have flown across the U.S., down to the southwest and the northwest, never
lost track with the GPS.
Oh, on one of the initial test flights, did lose track on the Apollo 2001,
but a reposition of the antenna solved the problem. Wonder how many other
lost tracks in aircraft can be attributed to poor antenna location.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
> On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote:
>
>> The LORAN I flew with for a few years was, well, adequate, but lost
>> track
>> several times in the most inopportune times. I was delighted to remove
>> it
>> and install the first GPS.
>
> You had to understand its limitations. The addition of the
> mid-continent chains and the availability of receivers to track
> multiple chains eliminated the coverage and geometry problems.
>
>> Since then, zero lost tracks, zero problems with
>> the Apollo 2001, UPS GX50 and now the GNS430.
>
> I have had problems with GPS.
>
>> To use LORAN in conjunction with a GPS system is a bit bizarre.
>
> Actually, it makes perfect sense. They both provide reliable area
> navigation. GPS has better absolute accuracy and LORAN has astounding
> repeatability. They work at completely separate frequencies so that a
> problem that jams one will not affect the other. LORAN is almost
> impossible to jam because the signal is just so bloody powerful and the
> required antenna is huge, i.e. hundreds of feet, not something you will
> cart around in the back of your car. Unlike GPS, you can't carry a
> LORAN jammer in your briefcase.
>
> And as the Europeans have shown, you can combine the two systems and
> get something much better. You can easily fly an approach to VOR or NDB
> minimums using LORAN reliably and safely. That is why it makes such a
> good backup for GPS.
>
>> Never heard of a device that jams GPS signals. How does such equipment
>> interfere with signals from 25 satellites over a wide geographical
>> area?
>
> Since all the satellites share a single frequency, you just need a
> jammer on that frequency. Since the satellites are so far away (14,000
> mi) and transmitting a not-very-powerful signal, someone in a C-172
> with the lunchbox-sized Russian 5-watt jamming transmitter could wipe
> out GPS for the whole of the Los Angeles basin or the whole of the Bay
> Area. You just have to get high enough that the GPS antennas on the
> aircraft can see your jammer too. Because the jammer is so much closer,
> it will completely swamp the signal from the satellites.
>
> And an even more devious hack would be to transmit valid but bogus
> satellite transmissions. You could make a single aircraft fly anywhere
> you wanted it to just by forcing the signals it hears to be what you
> want them to be. Imagine taking a single airliner and change the
> signals it receives so that it flies off-course into higher terrain
> while all the receivers on the airplane show it tracking the approach.
> It could be done and if I can think of it ...
>
> BTW, the Russsian jamming transmitter was selling for $4000 a couple of
> years back. They were showing it off at the Tail Hook convention in
> Reno a couple years back.
>
> The whole point of this is not to rant but to help people understand
> just how fragile GPS is. The way it is currently designed, it cannot be
> depended on as sole-source navigation where such navigation is
> life-critical. It is just too easy to make it not work.
>
> 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
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 693 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
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: | Re: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Always assume you WILL have to get to the avionics and make access an
hatche(s) to provide such access. My plans called for riveting the bottom
skin panel, but I realize that to access behind the instrument panel would
be impossible for all but a 4 foot midget avionics tech., so that bottom
skin was screws and nutplates, about 50 of them. It takes 30 minutes to
remove it, then the fuel distribution system. Then I can sit on a creeper
and get up behind the panel with complete access to all the stuff. I have
updated the avionics several times and that one feature made it possible.
Otherwise, no way.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Suffoletto" <rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto"
> <rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
>
>
> This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see
> if
> it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages
> are
> where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach
> (not
> impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before
> closing it in.
>
>
> I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit
> difficult due to my location...
>
> thanks
>
> richard
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 693 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
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: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
On Jan 17, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Richard Suffoletto wrote:
> Is there any way to test an encoder to see if
> it is working?
snip
>
> I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a
> bit
> difficult due to my location...
>
snip
Jim Weir wrote an article about making an encoder "test box" a few
years ago, but I can't seem to find it on the web. Someone may have a
copy stashed.
If you are building at an airport, see if you can find someone with a
well-equipped late model IFR airplane with the BF Goodrich Skywatch.
It would be trivial to turn the skywatch on and see if it can see your
transponder and (ground) altitude
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: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
Richard,
The encoder has to be tested by an authorized instrument repairman that can
tag it
for use in controlled airspace. There are methods available for you to do
it, but I wouldn't
get too excited about that. The system coupled with your altimeter will be
tested to 20,000 ft
the first time in an installation. Your Airworthiness Cert will require you
have this done beforehand.
Additionally, I'd recommend you look at making the forward top skin
removable so you can check
this system and so many others as often as you like. My forward top skin
comes off in 10 minutes
with my canopy tilted forward so that I can check the engine mount
attachments and service the
other wiring, plumbing etc. If you're interested in this, both the
inspection process is in my journal
7 or 8 along with pictures of the removable forward top skin and how it was
done. I've had it off
probably 15 times since April of 2004. Site is www.macsmachine.com
Good question.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS Stratus with Ram Heads at 50 hours.
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto"
> <rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
>
>
> This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see
> if
> it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages
> are
> where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach
> (not
> impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before
> closing it in.
>
>
> I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit
> difficult due to my location...
>
> thanks
>
> richard
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: Type I Contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:50 PM 1/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>Listers,
>
>My battery contactor is a Type I, the kind where two flat surfaces come
>together to supply current through the big wire & one of the flat surfaces
>is formed by the internal end of the post to which we bolt our ring
>terminals. I'm sure it works great unless one of the posts is rotated & the
>flat surfaces are no longer parallel, thus preventing the maximum amount of
>surface area to come into contact.
>
>Well, the other day when tightening a bolt on my battery contactor, the post
>rotated some. Can anyone suggest how I can be positive that the post is
>rotated back to the optimum position?
You can't without taking the lid off and then it's trash anyhow.
Bob . . .
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: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:34 PM 1/17/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto"
><rsuffoletto@hotmail.com>
>
>
>This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see if
>it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages are
>where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach (not
>impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before
>closing it in.
>
>
>I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit
>difficult due to my location...
No real easy way. I use an Airsport transponder receiver and display
which you can view at:
http://www.airsport-corp.com/
For most transponders, you can lay a 115 vac drillmotor on a stool
right under the transponder antenna. Tie the switch ON with a rubber
band. Brush noise from the motor will cause the transponder to "reply"
continuously. You can read the altitude being reported directly from
the Airsport receiver's panel. Put a small hand vacuum pump on the static
system. These work well:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/c-10101/s-10101/p-161626/mediaCode-ZX/appId-385312
I use a pint mason jar with a couple of hose fittings soldered
to the lid for a vacuum accumulator. A brass needle valve from
an aquarium supplies store provides a precision leak-down valve
to control rate of descent.
Plumb a calibrated altimeter into this system and you can
do your own static system checks with the same degree of
precision as the $high$ guys.
Bob . . .
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: Type I Contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Chambers" <schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Replace it with a type II?
Sam Chambers
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Type I Contactor
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha"
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
> Listers,
>
> My battery contactor is a Type I, the kind where two flat surfaces come
> together to supply current through the big wire & one of the flat surfaces
> is formed by the internal end of the post to which we bolt our ring
> terminals. I'm sure it works great unless one of the posts is rotated &
the
> flat surfaces are no longer parallel, thus preventing the maximum amount
of
> surface area to come into contact.
>
> Well, the other day when tightening a bolt on my battery contactor, the
post
> rotated some. Can anyone suggest how I can be positive that the post is
> rotated back to the optimum position?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant Krueger
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy@aol.com
Hello List,
I need an explanation why the wire coming off the master switch connecting
to the main power bus on the Z-11 generic light aircraft system drawing needs
a fuse-link instead of a standard fuse? Is it because the fuse-link will
handle spikes better than a fuse? I don't see any special path that would require
a break before a fuse? There probably is an easy answer but this stuff is
somewhat new to me. Thanks in advance. John Robinson RV-7A.
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: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Richard,
You might want to re think access. The avionics shop will need to adjust the
offset and gain to match your altimeter. My shop let me take in the encoder
and altimeter separately and then they performed a leak test latter. If you
really have to bury it inside your aircraft then this might me an option. My
encoder drifted out of calibration (an ACK30) 5 months latter, so they do
fail sometimes.
Paul
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! --
|