---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 11/21/05: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:14 AM - Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... (Matt Dralle) 2. 04:06 AM - Re: (bob noffs) 3. 04:46 AM - Re: 2-5 switches (LarryRobertHelming) 4. 06:32 AM - Re: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs (Mark & Lisa) 5. 07:36 AM - GPS instead of DME (was MD200-306 indicator and dual navs) (rd2@evenlink.com) 6. 07:36 AM - GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs (BobsV35B@aol.com) 7. 09:24 AM - Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs (Matt Prather) 8. 09:27 AM - Re: Wire wrap (jerb) 9. 09:35 AM - Re: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs (Mark & Lisa) 10. 11:04 AM - Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, (G McNutt) 11. 11:17 AM - Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: MD200... (BobsV35B@aol.com) 12. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: A... (BobsV35B@aol.com) 13. 01:34 PM - OV protection cross-talk in dual altenator system (Jon Goguen) 14. 01:40 PM - Latching power relays? (Jon Goguen) 15. 03:57 PM - Re: OV protection cross-talk in dual (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 04:07 PM - Re: Wire wrap (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 06:04 PM - nav/glide slope antenna question (trumansager@insightbb.com) 18. 06:31 PM - Re: nav/glide slope antenna question (BobsV35B@aol.com) 19. 06:44 PM - Re: nav/glide slope antenna question (Greg Young) 20. 06:48 PM - Re: nav/glide slope antenna question (Pat Hatch) 21. 07:52 PM - Re: nav/glide slope antenna question (Wayne Sweet) 22. 08:07 PM - Re: nav/glide slope antenna question (Alex Peterson) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:14:30 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great services!! The Contribution Site is fast and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:06:49 AM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" Hi all, Thanks for the alternator wiring info. I will do as bob suggested. Bob Noffs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 10:09 AM 11/14/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken >> >>I am not familiar with Jabiru's but if I was ordering new materials for >>this I'd use awg12 wire and a 20 amp breaker. >> >>15 amps might be OK but a 20 amp breaker should not nuisance trip. I >>wouldn't trust a 15 amp fuse as they tend to be quick to trip and might >>well trip when you apply power after an engine start. Your 15 amp >>alternator rating is a nominal rating and it might well put out a little >>more in some conditions. 12 awg wire fits yellow PIDG connectors so it >>is easy to install and will handle 15 or so amps without excessive >>heating or voltage drop for reasonable lengths and wire bundle sizes. >> >>Ken > > Good answer, I agree. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:46:43 AM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 2-5 switches --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" Sure you can use it. The small round push button us surrounded by a round rim/shield to help prevent accidental activation and give it a different look and feel than all the other switches. Indiana Larry ----- Original Message ----- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" > > Z-11 & Z-20 Question > > I want to use most of Z-19 but want to use one electronic ignition while > retaining one mag. Can I use 2 2-5 switches as I would rather not have a > push button start switch but use the top momentary portion of the switches > to start per note 2. I have a continental 0200 with one mag. > > > Thankyou > > Ron Triano > > > Ron's Quickies, Page 8 is the Q200 and 9 is the Quickie and page 10 is a > new > Q200 page. > http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page8.html > > http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page9.html > > http://bld01.ipowerweb.com/contentmanagement/websites/rtrianoc/page10.html > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:32:18 AM PST US From: "Mark & Lisa" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" For everyone's edification: COPIED FROM AOPA's WEBSITE (search for "GPS in lieu of DME"). Effective July 16, 1998, pilots may substitute IFR-certified GPS receivers for DME and ADF avionics for all operations except NDB approaches without a GPS overlay. GPS can be used in lieu of DME and ADF on all localizer-type approaches as well as VOR/DME approaches, including when charted NDB or DME transmitters are temporarily out of service. It also clarifies that IFR GPS satisfies the requirement for DME at and above Flight Level 240 specified in FAR 91.205(e). This approval represents a major step toward removing the need to retain DME or ADF in our cockpits for any reason. Note: Air carrier operators should consult their operations specifications and their principal operations inspector for approval. LIMITATIONS There are still three instances in which DME or ADF are required. NDB approaches that do not have an associated GPS overlay approach must still be flown using an ADF. A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely requires DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not permitted in this case. DME transmitters associated with a localizer may not be retrievable from your GPS until the manufacturer incorporates them in the database. Pilots are not authorized to manually enter coordinates. AOPA is working with the FAA and the manufacturers to have these restrictions removed and will keep you informed. Note: Pilots should exercise caution when selecting the appropriate DME and NDB/LOM locations to avoid erroneous distance information. END OF COPY Mark & Lisa Sletten Legacy FG N828LM http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:14 AM PST US From: rd2@evenlink.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS instead of DME (was MD200-306 indicator and dual navs) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com You're right (Old) Bob, I just checked the AIM. My edition is pre-Sep2005, but also states that an IFR approved GPS _can_ be used instead of a DME (for most everything, as it reads in 1-1-19, f.). I'll have to dig out my source and pint out that the info was wrong. Thanks (no more so young :) Rumen do not archive _____________________Original message __________________________ (received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:19 PM 11/20/2005 EST) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 11/20/2005 8:55:02 P.M. Central Standard Time, rd2@evenlink.com writes: Hmmmm.... not sure about that, Bob. I did read recently (don't remember the source) that using GPS as a DME substitute when the DME is used for cross-bearings is ok, but not when the DME is the principal instrument for the approach (like when the plate says DME required or for DME arcs). Do you remember the source? Rumen Good Evening Rumen, Yes I am sure. The only reference is in the AIM and it IS hard to read, but that was the intent. Believe it or not, I helped write the language, but since it had to be blessed by almost every department of the FAA, the language got pretty convoluted before it was published. For the first few years after the interpretation was published, I had the name of a gentleman to call at Oklahoma City who would be glad to talk to any FSDO office about that subject. He preferred that I NOT give his name out to routine questions, but specifically asked that I have any FSDO inspector who was confused about those provisions give him a call. That fellow has since moved on and is no longer in the office, but I am sure an inquiry at Oklahoma City by a FSDO inspector would get the correct answer. If you know any FSDO inspector who is telling anyone something other than what I said, I would really appreciate giving me that inspector's name. I will contact the Ok City FAA folks and get the proper information distributed. --------snip--------- If you care to dig through that AIM language, it can be found at 1-1-19, f. Look particularly at f, 1, (a), (2) The revision date on that page is 23 SEP 05. If your AIM is not up to date, try checking 1-1-20. That is the section the same information was located in until a year or so ago. -----snip---------------- Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:16 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Mark, That is an excellent compilation and simplification of what the AIM says. Unfortunately, there have been a few folks who don't read the paragraph (attached below) you sent correctly. They leave off the first sentence of that paragraph and just quote the last two. Those two sentences ONLY apply when the airport is being considered for use as an alternate. Even then, it is only for planning purposes. If the aircraft does divert to the alternate, and all components of the GPS are working normally upon arrival, the GPS may be used as a substitute for the DME or ADF functions. This is true in all segments of the US National Airspace System. It may or may not be true in other jurisdictions. Canada was considering adopting the same specifications. I do not know whether or not they or other countries did so. The GPS can ALWAYS be used in lieu of ANY required DME distance. It can be used for ANY required ADF function other than an NDB based approach. We tried to get that changed, but were unsuccessful. The argument at the time was that we should not worry about ADF approaches because they would all get overlays and it would not be a problem. That did not happen and there are still a very few places where the NDB approach has the best minima available. Very rare, very stupid, but sad when it happens! For what it is worth, let me brag a bit. I started bugging the FAA to make the "GPS in Lieu Of" provision in 1994. I was getting nowhere until I managed to get the ear of an FAA inspector who was also an avid GA pilot. He liked my idea and he was working in the right department. By this time, AOPA was also solidly behind my effort. Bob Wright was promoted to the head of Flight Standards and he put the idea on budget. Bob called me and asked if I would confer with the folks in Oklahoma to get the job done. It took about a year, but it did happen! I am very familiar with all that happened and what was the true intent. We didn't get all we wanted, but we got most of it! Between Bob Wright of the FAA and Randy Kenagy and his associates of AOPA, the program was instituted in 1968. I came away with the realization that the FAA does have a lot of very good and very caring people involved. When given good reason, things can be changed. Unfortunately, Bob Wright has retired and the people with whom I worked in Ok City have moved on. There may not be anyone there who was involved in the actual process that developed the interpretation for the AIM. More than you ever wanted to know! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 11/21/2005 8:34:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, marknlisa@hometel.com writes: "A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely requires DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not permitted in this case." ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 09:24:20 AM PST US Subject: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" Hello listers, I am enjoying reading this discussion.. I'd like to bring up a question that's sort of related. I have dual nav-coms in my airplane (old C182), a loran, and an ADF. Neither of the CDIs include a glideslope needle, but one of the nav-coms can drive a glideslope (one is a KX165). So, I want to replace one of the CDIs with one that has a glideslope. I am also sort of considering removing the loran, and ADF, and getting a King KLN89B or KLN90B GPS in their stead. My understanding is that to use the GPS for IFR approaches, I'll need to have it drive a CDI, and I'll need an annunciator if that CDI is installed such that it can be driven by both a nav receiver and the GPS. What I propose, is that I get a Mid Continent MD-200 CDI and install it as my primary CDI. It includes an annunciator to show whether the Nav or the GPS is driving it. Get an IFR capable GPS, and set it up to be the GPS input to the MD-200. My questions are these: 1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of the CDI? 2. If I am flying an ILS with the CDI (driven by the Nav), can I still use the GPS to identify fixes on the approach? Stated differently, does the GPS have to be driving a CDI in order for me to identify a fix that's a part of a non-GPS approach? As a side question, can I fly an ILS using the GPS to act as the localizer? 3. Is there a more cost effective way to get ILS (glideslope) capability and an approach GPS, starting with the equipment already installed? Thanks for any thoughts and ideas you might provide.. Regards, Matt- VE N34RD, C150 N714BK, C182 N4838D > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > Good Morning Mark, > > That is an excellent compilation and simplification of what the AIM > says. > > Unfortunately, there have been a few folks who don't read the paragraph > (attached below) you sent correctly. > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:27:15 AM PST US From: jerb Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire wrap --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jerb A good source of ty-wraps (neutral and black) at a reasonable price is Altex. http://www.altex.com/ jerb At 05:53 PM 11/20/2005, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >At 01:55 PM 11/20/2005 -0800, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" > > > >Here's a quote from a letter to the Editor: > >"these things can and do saw their way through any metal components because > >of the dirty environment.." > >"I have examples of primer lines, oil .lines, fuel lines and even engine > >mounts that have been nearly severed..." > >This from an aircraft mechanic and instructor of 52 years experience. > >Another writer, states he has seen tie-wraps fall off bundles after only 10 > >years. Apparently these tie-wraps absorb water and expand and contracts with > >humidity changes. This can cause the above problems. > >Wayne > > Like the cable clamps that Dave cited, there are equally > variable grades of product in tie-wraps. A big jar of > brightly colored tie-wraps from Harbor Freight is a real > bargain but of unknown pedigree for material. Purchase > tie-wraps from catalogs that cite brand names and ratings > for the products. See: > >http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1444.pdf > >http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/1446-1447.pdf > > and . . . > >http://www.tnb.com/contractor/docs/tyfast.pdf > > Products from branded sources will cite recommended > limits for usage. The "jelly-bean" products are good > for at least -40C to +80C applications. You can purchase > UV resistant versions for about 20% more but probably > not really useful in aircraft. > > I've seen that quotation about severing engine mounts, etc. > and this is mostly hyperbole. ANY banded holding mechanism > operating in a dirty environment can pick up grit. If it's > allowed to move under vibration, it will grind holes in > things. I had a RUBBER power steering hose rub a hole in > a STEEL brake line using greasy dirt from the environment > as a grinding compound. The hose was barely marked and the > brake line failed. The quoted admonition should NOT be uniquely > applied to nylon tie straps and it's a concern only under the > rarest of conditions. > > The commercial and military aircraft industries have been > using nylon tie straps for decades in just about every > location except areas subject to high temperatures. Even > if you do use them under the cowl, how long would it take > and what would it cost to replace EVERY tie wrap under the > cowl at every annual? > > Not all words from flagship publications are golden and > the ones you've cited are especially odorous. I like string > because it's cheap. One roll fits all size tying jobs. Multiple > passes of string around the job can apply a great deal of > pressure if needed (I've replaced radiator hose clamps with > three or four, two-pass ties). Finally, the knot on the finished > tie doesn't snag like the buckle on a tie-wrap. None-the-less, > I stock and use the nylon ties in a whole lot of applications > as to my contemporaries. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:35:59 AM PST US From: "Mark & Lisa" Subject: RE: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" Bob, Not at all; I like to hear the "details." I truly thought this horse dead many moons ago--just goes to show how powerful disinformation can really be. I believe only rumor and innuendo are higher on the list. Alas, truth, or at least my perception of it, falls a distant fourth (fifth, sixth?) for those whose apathy prevents the research, study and analysis required to find it. Please accept my belated thanks for your efforts to make my flying much more enjoyable and, more importantly, safer! Mark -----Original Message----- From: BobsV35B@aol.com [mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 09:36 To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Cc: marknlisa@hometel.com Subject: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs Good Morning Mark, That is an excellent compilation and simplification of what the AIM says. Unfortunately, there have been a few folks who don't read the paragraph (attached below) you sent correctly. They leave off the first sentence of that paragraph and just quote the last two. Those two sentences ONLY apply when the airport is being considered for use as an alternate. Even then, it is only for planning purposes. If the aircraft does divert to the alternate, and all components of the GPS are working normally upon arrival, the GPS may be used as a substitute for the DME or ADF functions. This is true in all segments of the US National Airspace System. It may or may not be true in other jurisdictions. Canada was considering adopting the same specifications. I do not know whether or not they or other countries did so. The GPS can ALWAYS be used in lieu of ANY required DME distance. It can be used for ANY required ADF function other than an NDB based approach. We tried to get that changed, but were unsuccessful. The argument at the time was that we should not worry about ADF approaches because they would all get overlays and it would not be a problem. That did not happen and there are still a very few places where the NDB approach has the best minima available. Very rare, very stupid, but sad when it happens! For what it is worth, let me brag a bit. I started bugging the FAA to make the "GPS in Lieu Of" provision in 1994. I was getting nowhere until I managed to get the ear of an FAA inspector who was also an avid GA pilot. He liked my idea and he was working in the right department. By this time, AOPA was also solidly behind my effort. Bob Wright was promoted to the head of Flight Standards and he put the idea on budget. Bob called me and asked if I would confer with the folks in Oklahoma to get the job done. It took about a year, but it did happen! I am very familiar with all that happened and what was the true intent. We didn't get all we wanted, but we got most of it! Between Bob Wright of the FAA and Randy Kenagy and his associates of AOPA, the program was instituted in 1968. I came away with the realization that the FAA does have a lot of very good and very caring people involved. When given good reason, things can be changed. Unfortunately, Bob Wright has retired and the people with whom I worked in Ok City have moved on. There may not be anyone there who was involved in the actual process that developed the interpretation for the AIM. More than you ever wanted to know! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 11/21/2005 8:34:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, marknlisa@hometel.com writes: "A non-GPS approach procedure must exist at the alternate airport when one is required to be filed by regulation. If the non-GPS approaches on which the pilot must rely requires DME or ADF, the aircraft must be equipped with DME or ADF avionics as appropriate. GPS substitution for DME/ADF is not permitted in this case." ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:04:05 AM PST US From: "G McNutt Was": gmcnutt@shaw.ca Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: G McNutt Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200-306 indicator and dual navs Hi Matt Let me give you my opinions. 1) You will need an appropriate switch/annunciator panel with at least a "waypoint hold" and "approach arm" switch and the required annunciator lights. Different manufacturers use different names for the same thing to confuse the issue so switch/light labeling terminology will differ. 2) Distance, bearing, speed etc are not shown on the CDI so are obtained from the GPS itself at all times so I don't see any problem here. If you were using the CDI for a GPS approach you would still read distance from the GPS. NO you cannot fly a GPS track when doing an ILS approach, ILS is primary, but there is nothing wrong with having the GPS track showing on a second CDI. 3) Just a thought, but from my point of view you really want to make your airplane IFR legal without the GPS (unless you really require GPS approaches). Have a good VFR GPS as a secondary source of information. When you talk about cost you have to consider the (outrageous) cost of keeping a GPS database up to date. The 28 day data cycles can be a problem, older GPS's may have to be removed from the aircraft for update and consider a two week holiday trip leaving a week before the database expires, that may create update problems. George in Langley BC Yes - the 7A I am building will have ADF!! Matt Prather wrote: > >My questions are these: > >1. What do I need in the way of switches or relays to swap the source of >the CDI? > >2. If I am flying an ILS with the CDI (driven by the Nav), can I still >use the GPS to identify fixes on the approach? Stated differently, does >the GPS have to be driving a CDI in order for me to identify a fix that's >a part of a non-GPS approach? As a side question, can I fly an ILS using >the GPS to act as the localizer? > >3. Is there a more cost effective way to get ILS (glideslope) capability >and an approach GPS, starting with the equipment already installed? > >Matt- >VE N34RD, C150 N714BK, C182 N4838D > > > > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:17:57 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: AeroElectric-List: MD200... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 11/21/2005 11:26:30 A.M. Central Standard Time, mprather@spro.net writes: My understanding is that to use the GPS for IFR approaches, I'll need to have it drive a CDI, and I'll need an annunciator if that CDI is installed such that it can be driven by both a nav receiver and the GPS Good Morning Matt, I hope I can add a bit without making any serious errors or omissions! There are a lot of variables and some of the implementations are dependent on who is signing for the installation. However, there is no requirement, as such, that a separate CDI be used. The CDI within the Panel Control Unit may be used if it meets all other requirements. There is a requirement that whatever indication is being used to stay on course is within the pilots "normal" scan. There is further amplification in other data that does define normal scan, though even that interpretation is open to interpretation! Garmin has pressed the point and has, in some instances, been able to get a 430 approved as the guidance source using the internal CDI when the panel unit is installed in the ubiquitous Bonanza canted right side radio stack. It is my opinion that such a location does NOT meet the intent of the TSO. If you are planning to mount the panel control unit in the normal scan such as might be done on a 1950s Bonanza, Navion, Stinson, Piper, Cessna etc. which have the "glove box" radios on the left side, I would say that the unit was definitely within normal view. Some of the more modern Piper and Cessna aircraft have a radio stack mounted in the center very close to the flight control panel. Those may fit within the guidance as well. The vast majority of IFR GPS approvals do have some sort of dedicated or shared external CDI. If it is a shared CDI, there needs to be some way of telling which navigational provider is feeding the CDI. It is my contention that a well labeled switch should be acceptable. Unfortunately, not all FAA folks agree with me on that point. That in of itself is not a show stopper though, as I haven't attempted to press the matter. I think the point could be won if it were really important. The bigger problem comes when there is an automatic selection device installed. Many GPS units use a shared indicator that is automatically switched to the VHF nav unit whenever a localizer frequency is selected on the "primary" VHF navigation radio. If that is done, some sort of annunciator should be added. I have that system on my Bonanza. Instead of using a four hundred dollar annunciator I used a couple of ten dollar light units. As an aside, when I installed my IFR GPS, our local office was insisting that auto switching be provided. In the middle nineties, the FAA sent out a circular stating that automatic switching was a good idea, but that it was NOT required. If I were making an installation today, I would NOT do auto switching. What I have stated above is strictly for normally certificated flying machines. You who have experimental machines do not have to jump through the same hoops, but it would be my suggestion that whatever CDI you are using be placed in your normal line of sight as the FEDs suggest. Clear as mud? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:04 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re GPS Indicators: WAS: GPS in Lieu of DME, Was: A... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Afternoon George, I agree that I would want my airplane legal without the GPS, but using the GPS in lieu of DME and ADF does save considerable weight, cost and panel space. That saving must be balanced against the need to maintain a current datacard. The cost of such data has been dropping and it is my hope that competition will bring it down further in the future. I do not find the need to install new data to be any problem at all. I normally receive the new data eight to ten days before it needs to be installed. By carrying a spare datacard with me, I can insert it when needed. In the rare event that I will be on the road during that time, I could download the information and load the new card anytime during that ten day period via a laptop computer. I find getting such updates easier than getting the paper charts updated when on the road! I also agree with you that when flying an ILS localizer, the VHF course must be followed. However, it is very handy to have all of the waypoints via GPS and not have to use bearings and radials to find those positions. The IFR approved GPS makes it legal to do so Obviously, we all have to make choices based on our usage and our pocket books. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 11/21/2005 1:10:05 P.M. Central Standard Time, gmcnutt@shaw.ca writes: Stated differently, does >the GPS have to be driving a CDI in order for me to identify a fix that's >a part of a non-GPS approach? As a side question, can I fly an ILS using >the GPS to act as the localizer? ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:22 PM PST US From: Jon Goguen Subject: AeroElectric-List: OV protection cross-talk in dual altenator system --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen I'm working on a dual-alternator dual battery system with a ND automotive alternator and the the PM alternator internal to the Rotax 912S. The Rotax alternator will power the auxiliary battery, which under normal circumstances will power the turn coordinator but not much more. Both batteries will be identical (12 Ah), so I can do the annual swap recommended by Bob. I will include a cross-feed for use during starting and alternator failure. Although I don't plan to have both alternators on-line simultaneously, I would prefer the system to operable in that configuration since I can imagine leaving the cross-feed closed accidentally, etc. It appears to me that running both alternators isn't likely to affect regulator operation, but does present a problem for over voltage protection: if one alternator drives the buss voltage high, OV protection on both alternators might be triggered. I plan to avoid this by comparing the current in both alternator B leads, and introducing circuitry that allows only the OV protection on the alternator with the highest current (and therefore the highest voltage) to be active at and given time. Seem reasonable? Any comments? Thanks! Jon Jon Goguen jon.goguen@umassmed.edu Central Massachusetts Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved) Complete except for electrics and avionics "Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind" --Woody Allen ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:17 PM PST US From: Jon Goguen Subject: AeroElectric-List: Latching power relays? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen I'm wondering if there is any data or experience regarding the use of modern latching power relays like those made by KG Technology or Gruner in light aircraft. These seem to have good resistance to shock and vibration. Jon Jon Goguen jon.goguen@umassmed.edu Central Massachusetts Kitfox Series V Rotax 912S / N456JG (reserved) Complete except for electrics and avionics "Nothing worth knowing can be understood by the human mind" --Woody Allen On Nov 21, 2005, at 2:46 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:57:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" altenator system Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV protection cross-talk in dual altenator system --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" altenator system At 04:32 PM 11/21/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon Goguen > >I'm working on a dual-alternator dual battery system with a ND >automotive alternator and the the PM alternator internal to the Rotax >912S. The Rotax alternator will power the auxiliary battery, which >under normal circumstances will power the turn coordinator but not much >more. Both batteries will be identical (12 Ah), so I can do the annual >swap recommended by Bob. I will include a cross-feed for use during >starting and alternator failure. Although I don't plan to have both >alternators on-line simultaneously, I would prefer the system to >operable in that configuration since I can imagine leaving the >cross-feed closed accidentally, etc. It appears to me that running >both alternators isn't likely to affect regulator operation, but does >present a problem for over voltage protection: if one alternator >drives the buss voltage high, OV protection on both alternators might >be triggered. I plan to avoid this by comparing the current in both >alternator B leads, and introducing circuitry that allows only the OV >protection on the alternator with the highest current (and therefore >the highest voltage) to be active at and given time. Seem reasonable? > Any comments? Cross-feeds are intended to be operated only when one of the two alternators is inoperative. I recommend an annunicator light be incorporated to show when the cross-feed contactor is energized. You are correct that unless special provisions are made for selective ov trip, one alternator runaway can and probably will trip both systems. B&C regulators are selective-trip . . . i.e. they shut down only the alternator that is seeing moderate field voltage (the working regulator will sense a too-high voltage and relax the normally operating system). Recommend you keep it simple and close the cross-feed only for starting and for alternator-out operations. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 04:07:23 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire wrap --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:26 AM 11/21/2005 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jerb > >A good source of ty-wraps (neutral and black) at a reasonable price is Altex. >http://www.altex.com/ >jerb Their prices are sure right and they claim UL/MIL approvals. It would be interesting to know the brands they're selling. I blew up one of the catalog pictures trying to read the lettering on one of the offerings but was unable to see it clearly. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:13 PM PST US From: trumansager@insightbb.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: trumansager@insightbb.com Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or similar) on the bottom of a RV? Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If so, can you cut the antenna mount standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom frame inside the fuselage to hold the block? All this with appropriate doublers of course. Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer was all completed before I made the decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended for the CNX 80. Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search. Trying to get the fuselage closed up. Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:41 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 11/21/2005 8:08:34 P.M. Central Standard Time, trumansager@insightbb.com writes: Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or similar) on the bottom of a RV? Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If so, can you cut the antenna mount standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom frame inside the fuselage to hold the block? All this with appropriate doublers of course. Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer was all completed before I made the decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended for the CNX 80. Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search. Trying to get the fuselage closed up. Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN Good Evening Truman, While I have no knowledge of the construction of an RV, I would strongly suggest that you consider putting blades on the tail rather than using a cat's whisker set up. Cat whiskers mounted low have put eyes out in very small children when they were running around the airplane. I know that we all think we can watch our children and grandchildren, but accidents do happen. How far below the horizontal stabilizer does the RV fuselage extend? If you can get the blades at last eight or ten inches away from the stabilizers, they should work fine. The closer they are to the stabilizer, the more loss there will be, but since most use of the VHF navigation equipment will be close to the airport, not much of a signal is required. I have had blades on my Bonanza for fifteen years and I love them dearly. I devised a very strong yet light weight method of mounting them. If you care to see how they are done for a Bonanza, I would be happy to have our son send you a copy of the article he wrote concerning the mounting on his Bonanza. The antennas actually receive a more balanced signal than cat whiskers. If it wasn't for the interference from the stabilizer, the signal would be vastly superior to the wires as well as much safer for little kids to bump into. Comant and Sensor Systems both make very nice examples of VHF blade style Navigation antennas. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:41 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question From: "Greg Young" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" Yes, you can cut off the standoffs. It's been done many times. If you mount it on the .040 skin you can avoid adding doublers. If you go forward of that skin you'll want to add adoubler that connects with the J-stringers. Regards, Greg Young - Houston (DWH) RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: trumansager@insightbb.com > > > Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker > antenna (or similar) on the bottom of a RV? > Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal > stabilizer. If so, can you cut the antenna mount > standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build > a custom frame inside the fuselage to hold the block? All > this with appropriate doublers of course. > Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the > stabilizer was all completed before I made the decision to > install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is > recommended for the CNX 80. > Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive > search. > Trying to get the fuselage closed up. > Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN -- Checked by AVG Free Edition. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:48:04 PM PST US From: "Pat Hatch" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" Truman, Have you considered mounting a Bob Archer VOR/ILS antenna in one of your wingtips thus avoiding the cat whisker problem altogether? I have used both and the wingtip arrangement is definitely superior in my opinion. It is totally enclosed within the wingtip avoiding the drag and the hazards of protruding cat whiskers. Pat Hatch RV-6 RV-7 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of trumansager@insightbb.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: trumansager@insightbb.com Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or similar) on the bottom of a RV? Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If so, can you cut the antenna mount standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom frame inside the fuselage to hold the block? All this with appropriate doublers of course. Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer was all completed before I made the decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended for the CNX 80. Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search. Trying to get the fuselage closed up. Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:00 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" Sorry to butt in here, but I have a concern about my VOR/GS antenna and am interested in the Bob Archer system. Would you post a email or web address for this antenna? Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hatch" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" > > Truman, > > Have you considered mounting a Bob Archer VOR/ILS antenna in one of your > wingtips thus avoiding the cat whisker problem altogether? I have used > both > and the wingtip arrangement is definitely superior in my opinion. It is > totally enclosed within the wingtip avoiding the drag and the hazards of > protruding cat whiskers. > > Pat Hatch > RV-6 > RV-7 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > trumansager@insightbb.com > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: trumansager@insightbb.com > > > Has anyone out there mounted a Comant CI 215 cat whisker antenna (or > similar) on the > bottom of a RV? > Iv'e seen some RVs that have them under the horizontal stabilizer. If > so, > can you cut the antenna mount > standoffs off and lay it on the skin, or do you have to build a custom > frame > inside the fuselage to hold the > block? All this with appropriate doublers of course. > Putting it in the vertical stab. is not an option as the stabilizer > was > all > completed before I made the > decision to install the Garmin CNX80. This type of antenna is recommended > for > the CNX 80. > Any advise would be appreciated. No hits on archive search. > Trying to get the fuselage closed up. > Truman Sager, Floyds Knobs, IN > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 08:07:58 PM PST US From: "Alex Peterson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: nav/glide slope antenna question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" > Sorry to butt in here, but I have a concern about my VOR/GS > antenna and am interested in the Bob Archer system. Would you > post a email or web address for this antenna? > Wayne Type in "bob archer antenna" into a google search, you'll have more than enough. His wingtip VOR/LOC/GS antenna works quite well. Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 691 hours Maple Grove, MN