---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 11/19/05: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:49 AM - Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More (MikeEasley@aol.com) 2. 09:09 AM - GPS IFR requirements () 3. 09:24 AM - Re: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 10:45 AM - MD200-306 indicator and dual navs () 5. 12:13 PM - Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs (BobsV35B@aol.com) 6. 12:27 PM - Re: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More (John Schroeder) 7. 05:59 PM - Re: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More (glong2) 8. 08:42 PM - Dual Alternator single battery question (Tammy Goff) 9. 09:39 PM - Re: Dual Alternator single battery question (Bruce Gray) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:49:55 AM PST US From: MikeEasley@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com I think our next step is to pull the indicator out of the panel and temporarily move it away from the radios. If that works, I would like suggestions on shielding the LED indicator. From all the tests, it appears that the RF is not coming down the wires, but penetrating the actual LED indicator case. Even if we could wrap the back of the indicator with lead, it still would leave the face of the indicator open to RF penetration. Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor? Live with it? Mike Easley Colorado Springs ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 09:09:04 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS IFR requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 11/19/2005 Hello Frank, You wrote ".....skip.... and its legal for IFR...as long as I say so in my OP-lims.....skip...." A clarification, if I may: The wording of the Operating Limitations, which are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate for an amateur built experimental aircraft, is specified in paragraph 153 "ISSUANCE OF EXPERIMENTAL AMATEUR-BUILT OPERATING LIMITATIONS" of FAA Order 8130.2F and is determined by the inspector. The only variance that the builder has any real control over (other than suggesting a flight test area) is whether or not the inspector is going to include paragraph 15 or 16 in the Operating Limitations. Paragraph 15 prohibiting aerobatic flight will be in the Operating Limitations unless the builder requests paragraph 16 which will permit aerobatic flight. Paragraph 8 is the relevant paragraph that will eventually permit IFR flight and it reads: "After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for nightand/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." This paragraph will be in each amateur built aircraft Operating Limitations and the builder has no say so in it being there or what it means. The builder does have control over what goes into the AFM (Aircraft Flight Manual). OC AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > > > Actually you don't need a "sign off" for IFR work. I will have mine > inspected for VFR and slide the GNS 430 in later to the preinstalled > tray...I then have the pitot-static/transponder check don and its legal > for IFR...as long as I say so in my OP-lims. > > I mean what does it say for my auto conversion??..Nothing...:) > > Frank ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:24:27 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:45 AM 11/19/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com > >I think our next step is to pull the indicator out of the panel and >temporarily move it away from the radios. If that works, I would >like suggestions on >shielding the LED indicator. > > From all the tests, it appears that the RF is not coming down the > wires, but >penetrating the actual LED indicator case. Even if we could wrap the back >of the indicator with lead, it still would leave the face of the indicator >open to RF penetration. > > >Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor? I would begin with attaching a .01uF monolithic ceramic capacitor from each of the indicator's input wires to the indicator's ground wire. If I recall correctly, the indicator is not fitted with a connector but instead brings all it's wires out in a short bundle to which the user splices extension wires. If I were to modify this product to live in the real world, I might start with fabricating some sort of bracketry or short enclosure that would mount a 9-pin d-sub connector to which the existing pigtails would be terminated. If this connector were a solder-cup style device, it would also offer a means for installing the capacitors cited above. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:45:55 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0011 1.0000 -4.4747 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Avionics-List message previously posted by: <> 11/19/2005 Hello Bill, To respond: <> 1) Not really. Early on the manufacturer felt the SL-30 was very sensitive to this calibration issue and wanted the SL-30 to be connected directly to one indicator. That was the company policy and the word they put out. As time has gone by more field experience has been gained and SL-30 modifications may also have been made. Now the experts say it is OK to connect the SL-30 along with another navigation information source to one indicator. I can dig back into my files for more specifics if you like. < AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 11/19/2005 12:51:17 P.M. Central Standard Time, bakerocb@cox.net writes: Note that field location and runway center line can come in varying degrees of precision depending upon the information available. You may have runway end location from a data base and instrument approach quality runway alignment from an approach plate. You may only have the field location from a data base or the field lat long printed on an approach plate. You may only have the numbers painted on the runway for your runway alignment. Regardless of the source or precision the big picture provided can be of value to you. Good Afternoon OC, All that you say is consistent with my understanding of the system, but It may be helpful for folks to realize that you CAN select the site of the localizer associated DME transceiver. That is very helpful when shooting an ILS or localizer approach because all waypoints along that course will be delineated by that DME site. For the original Garmin units, that site can be found in the waypoint section listed under the associated identifier. As an example, at Rockford Illinois (KRFD) LOC (BACK CRS) Rwy 19 approach, the DME site will have IRFD as the identifier of the waypoint. I am not sure how they are handling the 480. When it was an UPSAT unit, they had that waypoint on a dedicated page for such locations. In any case, the localizer associated DME site will always use the same four letter identifier as the approach being executed. The difficulty using airport identifier delineated waypoints (Airport Reference Point) is that it is difficult to find where that point is at many airports. Jeppesen posts them on the airport view at some, but not all, airports as the ARP. NACO rarely lists them at all other than giving the long/lat. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:27:36 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" Mike - Gene also agrees that since it does not effect the actual operation of the tab servos, I'm going to live with it. The next step, however is to raise hell with Ray Allen. Did you see Bob Nuckolls email on the subject? He also thinks it is the LED indicator itself. And if he can get a diagram of the circuitry, he can suggest a couple of steps/parts to add that would eliminate the problem. Cheers, John On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:45:21 EST, wrote: > Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor? > Live with it? -- ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:59:23 PM PST US From: "glong2" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glong2" I like Dave's solution - use it to your advantage. Use the LED's as a transmit active indicator. If all of your trim LED's are dim/weird and you are not pushing the transmit key, you know you have a "stuck mic." Eugene Long Lancair Super ES glong2@netzero.net -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Schroeder Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ray Allen Indicator Light, PTT, More --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" Mike - Gene also agrees that since it does not effect the actual operation of the tab servos, I'm going to live with it. The next step, however is to raise hell with Ray Allen. Did you see Bob Nuckolls email on the subject? He also thinks it is the LED indicator itself. And if he can get a diagram of the circuitry, he can suggest a couple of steps/parts to add that would eliminate the problem. Cheers, John On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 10:45:21 EST, wrote: > Does anybody see any reason to shield the position sensor? > Live with it? -- ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:42:42 PM PST US From: "Tammy Goff" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator single battery question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" I have a dual alternator (40 amp and a 20 amp from B&C) Z-12 schematic. I have the OV protective voltage regulators from B&C installed. The fellow that I am working with would like to wire the system where the silicone diode is left out and there is no essential bus. There would be a on off switch for each alternator. My question is what would happen if both alternators were "on" at the same time? They would both be feeding into the avionics and the regular bus at the same time. Would those expensive voltage regulators or other part go up in smoke or would things run without difficulty? Thanks, George ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:39:15 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator single battery question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" Normal setup is to set the voltage for the standby alternator about .5 Volts below normal buss voltage. If the main alternator dies the voltage sags and the standby kicks in. B&C have a special regulator for this purpose. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tammy Goff Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator single battery question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" I have a dual alternator (40 amp and a 20 amp from B&C) Z-12 schematic. I have the OV protective voltage regulators from B&C installed. The fellow that I am working with would like to wire the system where the silicone diode is left out and there is no essential bus. There would be a on off switch for each alternator. My question is what would happen if both alternators were "on" at the same time? They would both be feeding into the avionics and the regular bus at the same time. Would those expensive voltage regulators or other part go up in smoke or would things run without difficulty? Thanks, George