Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:48 AM - Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:45 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 12/08/05 (Ernest Christley)
3. 07:37 AM - Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus (Mark R. Supinski)
4. 08:04 AM - Glass Cockpit Options (Valovich, Paul)
5. 08:22 AM - Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus (Dave Morris \)
6. 08:48 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 (Lee Logan)
7. 09:06 AM - Re: ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:29 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bruce Gray)
9. 10:02 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
10. 10:07 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Alan K. Adamson)
11. 10:43 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Dave Morris \)
12. 11:11 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Paul Folbrecht)
13. 11:36 AM - Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Steve Sampson)
14. 11:37 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Matt Prather)
15. 11:45 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
16. 11:59 AM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bruce Gray)
17. 12:01 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
18. 12:19 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bruce Gray)
19. 12:20 PM - Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus (Mark R. Supinski)
20. 12:44 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Paul Folbrecht)
21. 01:01 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (AI Nut)
22. 01:08 PM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (LarryRobertHelming)
23. 01:26 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
24. 01:32 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
25. 01:36 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Paul Folbrecht)
26. 02:08 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Alan K. Adamson)
27. 03:07 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
28. 03:07 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
29. 03:17 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
30. 03:39 PM - Re: LEDs (Eric M. Jones)
31. 03:56 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Matt Prather)
32. 04:20 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
33. 04:30 PM - Re: Re: LEDs (Richard Dudley)
34. 05:05 PM - Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt (Jim Jewell)
35. 05:56 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Robert Sultzbach)
36. 06:17 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Craig Payne)
37. 06:22 PM - Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Dennis Johnson)
38. 06:24 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
39. 06:58 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Craig Payne)
40. 07:01 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Wayne Sweet)
41. 07:31 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Matt Prather)
42. 07:35 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Stein Bruch)
43. 07:35 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
44. 07:37 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
45. 07:42 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bruce Gray)
46. 07:43 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
47. 07:44 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bruce Gray)
48. 07:53 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Craig Payne)
49. 08:06 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
50. 08:06 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Wayne Sweet)
51. 08:06 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Richard E. Tasker)
52. 08:06 PM - Fw: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss)
53. 08:09 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (Bruce Gray)
54. 08:13 PM - Re: Glass Cockpit Options (BobsV35B@aol.com)
55. 08:40 PM - Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus (Greg@itmack)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:49 AM 12/9/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
>
>The main and engine battery bus in Z19 are meant to be 6 inches from the
>battery contactors. I know that 6" is not exactly written in stone but if I
>wanted to bring the bus into the cabin would a fuseable link be acceptable?
Depends on who's doing the "accepting." Industry practices and
regulations would vigirously discourage it . . . but
it's your airplane.
Bob . . .
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 12/08/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>Bob,
> I see a LOT of ECM failures on Dodge full size vans for the past 20
>years. They insist on mounting the ECM on the firewall (engine compartment
>side) My experience as a mechanic is that in autos and trucks, mounting the
>ECM under the hood increases the failure rate by two orders of magnitude.
>This is not manufacturer dependant. All installations of ECMs under the
>hood prove to be problematic. Heat and vibration kill them.
>Charlie
>
>
I can vouch for that, Charlie. I have a Dodge Dakota. The ECM is on
the inside of the right front wheel well. It started acting up and when
it did the engine would just die cold. It would crank and run perfectly
fine after it cooled down. While waiting for the dealership to get
around to replacing it, I found that I could get to where I was going if
I carried a bottle of water. A couple of times I had access to dry
ice. The ECM was designed and temp rated for a Jeep Cherokee. They
just slapped it into the Dakota without doing a heat analysis.
From that experience, my rule of thumb now is that all essential
electronics should either be hardened components or share the same
environmental protections that the passengers enjoy.
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
On 12/8/05, Greg@itmack <greg@itmack.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
>
> The main and engine battery bus in Z19 are meant to be 6 inches from the
> battery contactors. I know that 6" is not exactly written in stone but if
> I
> wanted to bring the bus into the cabin would a fuseable link be
> acceptable?
>
> Thanks
> Greg RV8
About a month ago I was asking the exact same Z19 question. I wanted all
the fuse blocks located together in the cabin & it was a bummer to think of
having two of them on the engine side of the firewall.
I got over it & moved them. Having done so, I have no regrets. They are
right next to the contactors and the batteries. Instead of having to run
fat wires to them in the cabin, I'm running small wires to the various
components served by them.
So.. my opinion is that best-practices are best-practices. They got that
way because somebody(s) learned a lesson somewhere.
Mark
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Now see, I did the opposite, and put the battery in the (much cooler) cabin
along with the contactor and fuse blocks. The penalty of a pair of fat
wires running a few feet is worth it in my opinion in battery temperature
exposure and ease of fuse and battery access.
Dave Morris
At 09:36 AM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski"
><mark.supinski@gmail.com>
>
>About a month ago I was asking the exact same Z19 question. I wanted all
>the fuse blocks located together in the cabin & it was a bummer to think of
>having two of them on the engine side of the firewall.
>
>I got over it & moved them. Having done so, I have no regrets. They are
>right next to the contactors and the batteries. Instead of having to run
>fat wires to them in the cabin, I'm running small wires to the various
>components served by them.
>
>So.. my opinion is that best-practices are best-practices. They got that
>way because somebody(s) learned a lesson somewhere.
>
>Mark
>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan <leeloganster@gmail.com>
Thanks a lot "Old Bob" and Peter. Just the answer I was looking for on the
heated pitot question. I feel sure I will have sufficient "load budget"
for it, but the discussion has been useful in illuminating this interesting
issue. Around here, at least, it will not be on very often!
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:32 PM 12/8/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lincoln Probst <elprobst@yahoo.com>
>
>So after looking at the LED ATO fuses from a previous post, I ended up
>also seeing
>these fuse/circuit breakers-- ie, normal ATO/ATC fuse dimensions, but manually
>reseting circuit breakers.
>
>I saw them here: http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/218_069.PDF
>(About 1/2 way down on the right, stock number 46791 for a 5 amp version).
>
>They are a little sparse on details other than "Conforms to SAE spec J553 and
>J1284." and they are for up to 28V DC operation.
>
>I searched the list but didn't find anything... anyone think about these
>or know of
>reasons not to use them?
If 99.99% of all fuses and breakers installed in
all vehicles run the lifetime of the vehicle and
never trip, what's the return on investment FOR
using them?
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Let me take a contrary stand from the opinions I'm sure you're going to
receive.
Why is the glass panel SR-22 40 percent more expensive to insure than the
equivalent new steam gage C-182? Do the insurance companies know something
we don't?
Glass panels are fantastic, hypnotic, and unless done right, deadly. We've
come to be very familiar with the failure modes of our steam gage basic 6
pack. It's has evolved into a very sophisticated instrument group that
brings the information we need to safely fly IFR to the front of our eyes.
It does this from several disparate sources of data, vacuum/electric gyros,
static pitot sources, all presented in a manner such that if there is a
failure in any system, it's readily noted.
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
<pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bruce,
Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
flight?
I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even have hope
that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude based
turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite IFR
instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a Turn
Coordinator!
If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR the
way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs were invented,
they
were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR pilots learned to
fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not go
back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
transition the student to glass?
The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots normal
range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a Boeing
747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any other sort of
instrument presentation.
It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly practiced
,
the skill is never lost.
My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
when all else fails.
The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
I have to chime in on this one point... That being the glass of the SR22
being more expensive to insure than a new C182. That couldn't be more
wrong. I should know, I have a new C182. In fact, the Glass version of the
C182 (G1000 version, which I own), is NO more expensive to insure than the
Steam gauge version of the C182 (which I doubt they are even making many
off).
The issue with the SR22 has nothing to do with the Glass and everything to
do with the "little handle above the center console" - That being the
Ballistic Recovery Parachute. It's just too easy to pull the handle instead
of trying to Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. And if you do, it just cost you
a $500K airplane as they haven't had much success repairing them after chute
pulls.
Sorry for the off topic content, but I'm a huge fan of Glass in the cockpit,
I believe it provides a much safer environment than not having it. There
have been three huge advancements in Aviation in my lifetime (yep, I'll date
my self - on the young side). GPS, GLASS and Semi-Realtime In cockpit
weather. All of the above is exactly why the Lancair Legacy that I'm
building will have a Chelton EFIS and XM weather.
But then again, this is just my nickel. If you like, AOPA did a safety
study of exactly this topic and it discussed the SR22 phenomena as well as
the expected costs. Bottom line the reason insurance in the NEW Glass (or
Steam) C182 is more expensive.... It's the $300K hull value
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
Let me take a contrary stand from the opinions I'm sure you're going to
receive.
Why is the glass panel SR-22 40 percent more expensive to insure than the
equivalent new steam gage C-182? Do the insurance companies know something
we don't?
Glass panels are fantastic, hypnotic, and unless done right, deadly. We've
come to be very familiar with the failure modes of our steam gage basic 6
pack. It's has evolved into a very sophisticated instrument group that
brings the information we need to safely fly IFR to the front of our eyes.
It does this from several disparate sources of data, vacuum/electric gyros,
static pitot sources, all presented in a manner such that if there is a
failure in any system, it's readily noted.
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
<pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and
the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
You can get the T&B information from a GPS and a cheap $25 slip indicator
from Wicks, and you can get the AS and ALT information from a Rocky
Mountain MicroEncoder. I'm building a cheap "glass cockpit" by feeding
those three instruments into a computer and then displaying the information
on an LCD display. If the computer craps out, I can always look at the
source instruments.
http://www.MyGlassCockpit.com
However, I do not intend to use this for IFR flight, so my requirements are
much lower.
Regards,
Dave Morris
At 12:01 PM 12/9/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>Good Morning Bruce,
>
>Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
>flight?
>
>I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
>of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even
>have hope
>that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude based
>turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite IFR
>instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a Turn
>Coordinator!
>
>If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
>that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR
>the
>way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
>instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs
>were invented, they
>were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR pilots learned to
>fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
>
>We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not go
>back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
>transition the student to glass?
>
>The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
>have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
>
>A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
>one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
>
>Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots normal
>range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a Boeing
>747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any
>other sort of
>instrument presentation.
>
>It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
>using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
>practiced ,
>the skill is never lost.
>
>My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
>could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
>when all else fails.
>
>The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
>vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
>
>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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>Bruce@glasair.org writes:
>
>So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
>certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
>glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
>hang my life on.
>
>Bruce
>
>
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
>reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
>have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
>for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
>
>
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
>modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
>of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
>malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
>AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
>some strange software errors.
>
>There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
>required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
>flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
>
>So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
>certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
>glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
>hang my life on.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
>Paul
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
><pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
>
>After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
>regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
>considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
>if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
>7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
>a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
>driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
>
>
>I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
>TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
>altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
>So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
>have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
>- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
>screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
>"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>Ridgecrest, CA
>
>661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall. It must
get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is considerable.
Comments? Steve.
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Old Bob,
Having only recently done much IFR training, I'd like to add support to
what you are saying. In practicing partial panel (vacuum failure - no AI,
no DG), I find that I actually control the airplane at least as precisely.
That's probably an indication that my use of the AI and DG is not as good
as it could be. When the vacuum failure is 'fixed' I find the
now-functioning instruments to be slightly distracting..
I also can think of two enhancements which would improve the safety of
glass panels. The first is something which cross-checks the data coming
from the AHRS from that of a(n independent) turn and bank system.
Digitizing the T&B should be cheap. If the T&B says the ball is centered,
and that the plane isn't turning, while the AHRS says you're banked, the
EFIS should disable the AI output. The hard part of partial panel is
figuring out which instrument is lying to you. If the AI information is
taken away from you when it becomes unreliable, the situation is easy to
fly.
And the other item (which has been discussed at length in the past) is the
use of the T&B to drive a wing leveler. Then the only remaining problem
is to avoid CFIT.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK, C182 N4838D
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Morning Bruce,
>
> Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
> flight?
>
> I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the
> wave of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I
> even have hope that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid
> state attitude based turn indicator that will be as reliable and
> economical as my favorite IFR instrument, the old fashioned Turn and
> Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a Turn Coordinator!
>
> If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
> that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly
> IFR the way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While
> attitude instruments have been available from almost the same time as
> T&Bs were invented, they were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to
> that time, IFR pilots learned to fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
>
> We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why
> not go back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed,
> then transition the student to glass?
>
> The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
> have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively
> inexpensive.
>
> A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to
> right, one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
>
> Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots
> normal range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane
> from a Boeing 747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the
> failure of any other sort of instrument presentation.
>
> It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
> using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
> practiced , the skill is never lost.
>
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Dave,
Are you sure you can get true and full T&B information from a GPS device?
Do you have a particular model GPS to which you are referring?
All that I am aware of merely advise you that you have a ground track that
is turning in the horizontal plane. It would be my opinion that such
information is not as good as the information provided by a T&B if you are trying
to
recover from a grave yard spiral.
I do hope that new electronic instrumentation is developed that will give us
the back up we can get from a mechanical turn needle, but I have not yet
seen such a device.
Don't get me wrong. I have practiced under the hood using both the Garmin
196 and the 296. It is better than nothing, but still a lot more expensive
than a T&B. I also find the T&B much easier to use, but then again, I have a
lot of experience flying partial panel!
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 12/9/2005 12:47:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
BigD@DaveMorris.com writes:
You can get the T&B information from a GPS and a cheap $25 slip indicator
from Wicks, and you can get the AS and ALT information from a Rocky
Mountain MicroEncoder. I'm building a cheap "glass cockpit" by feeding
those three instruments into a computer and then displaying the information
on an LCD display. If the computer craps out, I can always look at the
source instruments.
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Folbrecht
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
>reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
>have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
>for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
>
>
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
>modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
>of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
>malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
>AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
>some strange software errors.
>
>There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
>required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
>flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
>
>So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
>certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
>glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
>hang my life on.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
>Paul
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
><pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
>
>After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
>regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
>considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
>if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
>7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
>a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
>driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
>
>
>I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
>TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
>altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
>So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
>have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
>- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
>screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
>"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>Ridgecrest, CA
>
>661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their 'certified'
systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
>
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
> >reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
> some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
> including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
> mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
> wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
> EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
> effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
> >malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
> >required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
> >flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >Bruce
> >www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> >regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> >considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
> >if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their 'certified'
systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<PFOLBRECHT@STARKINVESTMENTS.COM>
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective bac
kup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only a
irplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
<PVALOVICH@DCSCORP.COM>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
<BR
>
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Both Chelton and GRT use the Crossbow AHRS that was prohibited from IFR use
until a fix could be found it's sporadic errors.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
>
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
> >reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS
signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and have
> some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
> including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most
use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
> mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
> wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
> EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
> effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
> >malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The
Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
> >required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
> >flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away
from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >Bruce
> >www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
> >regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
> >considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
> >if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<PFOLBRECHT@STARKINVESTMENTS.COM>
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective bac
kup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only a
irplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
<PVALOVICH@DCSCORP.COM>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
<BR
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
On 12/9/05, Dave Morris BigD <BigD@davemorris.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <
> BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Now see, I did the opposite, and put the battery in the (much cooler)
> cabin
> along with the contactor and fuse blocks. The penalty of a pair of fat
> wires running a few feet is worth it in my opinion in battery temperature
> exposure and ease of fuse and battery access.
>
> Dave Morris
In my case, I was able to locate the batteries on the "cool" side of the
engine. Since I have a water-cooled rotary, I have the luxury of a
firewall-forward side which does not get cooked equally by the engine -- the
port side gets cooked, the starboard side does not. Better still, the
cooling design on mine brings ram-air independently to the radiators below
the engine, the VAM muffler, and directly to the batteries to keep them
well-chilled.
So, your point above is well taken -- my install is not typical wrt the heat
from a more-typical air cooled aviation engine install.
Mark
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
I realized after my last post that I'd largely failed to respond to your
main point (that it's erroneous data, not outright failure, that'll kill
ya). Sorry bout that. :-} That's why there's an electric AI - for a
cross-check. Then again, you really do need 3 sources, one for a
tie-breaker. I'll keep thinking about that. But, at the least, if
something looks seriously whacked on approach I can go missed and climb
out on the guages.
Bruce Gray wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
>It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
>to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
>you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
>'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
>left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
>
>Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
>industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
>
>Bruce
>www.glasair.org
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Paul, do you have any interest in 'rolling your own?'
David M.
Valovich, Paul wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul" <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
>
>After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
>regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
>considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
>if for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
>7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
>a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
>driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
>
>
>Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
>Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
>will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
>
>
>The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
>and the SL30.
>
>
>I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
>TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
>altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
>
>
>So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
>have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
>- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
>screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
>"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Paul Valovich
>
>Booger
>
>Ridgecrest, CA
>
>661-400-3640
>
>
>
>
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Odyssey in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
The largest supplier of airplanes in the world is now Vans Aircraft. For
their current models they suggest mounting the battery on the engine side of
the FW. They have thousands flying. But not all are mounted FWF due mostly
to W&B considerations.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 76 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall. It
> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
> considerable.
>
> Comments? Steve.
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: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 2:02:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Personally, I have two T&B instruments ( NOT Turn Coordinators!) each from a
separate power source. That is my redundancy. If those two agree and
everything else disagrees, I go with the T&Bs. If one of those fails, it is easy
to spot. Ninety nine and forty-four one hundredths of a percent of the tome,
a T&B will fail so that the needle just fails to wiggle. If you tap a
rudder, and the needle swings right or left, the instrument is working and can
be
trusted. Then rate may not be perfect, but even that won't keep you from
using it. The same thing goes for another possible discrepancy. Occasionally,
as an instrument ages, it may develop a small error such that the needle is
not perfectly centered even though no yaw is present. Nevertheless, If you keep
the needle centered , you will still stay out of that dreaded graveyard
spiral. You might be in a very slight turn, but you will be alive!
If you have an attitude gyro for a back up, it mat be giving you the wrong
information. A common mode of failure is for an attitude gyro to get the
"leans" if you have two attitude gyros and one is failing, they will both respond
to roll inputs, but opine or the other will be way off. You then have to
"vote" to see which one is correct, The current method of resolving that dilemma
in air carrier aircraft is to look at the third attitude gyro. The other way
to do it is to revert to rate flying techniques, but if you have not
maintained a sensitivity to rate instrument flying, the vote becomes more difficult.
As some of you may already know, I am not a fan of Turn Coordinators. It is
my opinion that they do lead folks to think too much about where the wings
are and not enough about whether or not the airplane is turning. However, even
a turn coordinator is a more reliable back up than a back up attitude gyro
and it is a lot cheaper.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
OOOPs! Sent this out previously when I meant to use the spell checker. Here
is the corrected version. Sorry for the duplication.
Do Not Archive
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Personally, I have two T&B instruments (NOT Turn Coordinators!) each from a
separate power source.
That is my redundancy.
If those two agree and everything else disagrees, I go with the T&Bs. If
one of those fails, it is easy to spot. Ninety nine and forty-four one
hundredths of a percent of the time, a T&B will fail so that the needle just fails
to
wiggle. If you tap a rudder and the needle swings right or left, the
instrument is working and can be trusted. The rate may not be perfect, but even
that won't keep you from using it.
The same thing goes for another possible discrepancy.
Occasionally, as an instrument ages, it may develop a small error such that
the needle is not perfectly centered even though no yaw is present.
Nevertheless, If you keep the needle centered, you will still stay out of that
dreaded
graveyard spiral. You might be in a very slight turn, but you will be alive!
If you have an attitude gyro for a back up, it may be giving you the wrong
information. A common mode of failure is for an attitude gyro to get the
"leans" if you have two attitude gyros and one is failing, they will both respond
to roll inputs, but one or the other will be way off. You then have to
"vote" to see which one is correct, The current method of resolving that dilemma
in air carrier aircraft is to look at the third attitude gyro. The other way to
do it is to revert to rate flying techniques, but if you have not maintained
a sensitivity to rate instrument flying, the vote becomes more difficult.
As some of you may already know, I am not a fan of Turn Coordinators. It is
my opinion that they do lead folks to think too much about where the wings
are and not enough about whether or not the airplane is turning. However, even
a turn coordinator is a more reliable back up than a back up attitude gyro
and it is a lot cheaper.
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 12/9/2005 2:02:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
As a follow-up to this, how safe are most of us flying IFR now on the
vacuum steam guages, which is what almost all of us are using? Survival
rate in low IMC with vacuum failure is not good!! I think it's
difficult to argue that a good, non-certified AHRS with a reliable
track-record puts us worse-off. With a vacuum, it's not if the thing
will break, it's when. I've had one already in under 400 hours. (VMC
with foggles on and I figured it out without doing anything crazy.
Speaking of which it's been 3+ months since I've done any partial-panel
practice and that's not good...)
Also, for cross-check, for bank, GPS track is a cross-check of attitude
data. It can replace the DG of the traditional 6-pack for this
purpose. That's the tie-breaker when the EFIS and the backup AI are
each begging you to trust them.
Paul Folbrecht wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
>I realized after my last post that I'd largely failed to respond to your
>main point (that it's erroneous data, not outright failure, that'll kill
>ya). Sorry bout that. :-} That's why there's an electric AI - for a
>cross-check. Then again, you really do need 3 sources, one for a
>tie-breaker. I'll keep thinking about that. But, at the least, if
>something looks seriously whacked on approach I can go missed and climb
>out on the guages.
>
>
>Bruce Gray wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>>
>>It's not the dark glass panel failure that's going to kill you, it's going
>>to be that little software bug that testing didn't find that tells you
>>you're nose high on the GS after passing the OM. So you drop your nose and
>>'THUD'. What you going to do when your gee wiz panel tells you you're in a
>>left turn and your T&B says, nope we're in a right turn. Which one is right?
>>
>>Sorry, until they get dual redundant, self crosschecking circuitry the
>>industry isn't there yet, for me anyway.
>>
>>Bruce
>>www.glasair.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Where does this stuff come from?
Chelton uses the only certified AHRS in existence, ok, well, the second one,
as Garmin rolled their own and it's certified. The Chelton sport uses a non
certified version, both from Xbow. The Certified one, to the best of my
knowledge has no problem, but then again, they want 20K for it. The
non-certified version found a problem recently that has already been
addressed and was noted for VFR use until the fix is made available. I
think that happened to my King 89B approach certified GPS a few years ago as
well.
GRT does not use a Xbow AHRS, they rolled their own.
BTW, the Chelton Sport unit and AHRS is tested to the same certification
standards as the certified version, but neither GRT nor BMA can make that
claim.
I just wanted to make sure that people going with GRT didn't think they were
getting an AHRS from Xbow, and one that has *way* more testing and
certification support than either GRT's or BMA's... Course the Chelton
Sport is about 7X more expensive too and we wont even talk about the
500AHRS, it's 2X the sport price
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
Both Chelton and GRT use the Crossbow AHRS that was prohibited from IFR use
until a fix could be found it's sporadic errors.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
>
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude
> >heading reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT,
> >Dynon and
others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS
signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and
> have some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their
> stuff, including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much
> stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most
use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system)
> and mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can
> keep wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that
> if the EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap
> and effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to
> >say, a
few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with
> >a malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The
Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only
> >because
of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels
> >are required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic
> >comparator that flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude
instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away
from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for
> >me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >Bruce
> >www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard
> >decisions regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the
> >factors to be considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the
> >capability to do so if for some reason I end up there - or decide
> >it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience
> >7000+ isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and
> >bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their
'certified' systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
<PFOLBRECHT@STARKINVESTMENTS.COM>
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading
reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal
for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have
some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their stuff,
including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and
mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep
wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the
EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and
effective bac
kup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a
few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a
malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because
of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are
required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that
flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only a
irplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
<PVALOVICH@DCSCORP.COM>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
<BR
>
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
May be tested to the same specs, but the Chelton sport AHARS isn't a "certified"
unit like the one in the "certified" Chelton. Two different animals. The
certified xbow is still using some analog tech while the one in the sport is all
digital. Or so the Direct2 guys told me at OSH. The uncertified one is supposed
to have better characteristics but we all know what the cost of that is
now, lot's of people with 15K+ boat anchors until the fix. I'll still probably
get one though (assuming it's fixed by then). :-)
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage inventorying
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. Adamson
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
--> <aadamson@highrf.com>
Where does this stuff come from?
Chelton uses the only certified AHRS in existence, ok, well, the second one, as
Garmin rolled their own and it's certified. The Chelton sport uses a non certified
version, both from Xbow. The Certified one, to the best of my knowledge
has no problem, but then again, they want 20K for it. The non-certified version
found a problem recently that has already been addressed and was noted for
VFR use until the fix is made available. I think that happened to my King 89B
approach certified GPS a few years ago as well.
GRT does not use a Xbow AHRS, they rolled their own.
BTW, the Chelton Sport unit and AHRS is tested to the same certification standards
as the certified version, but neither GRT nor BMA can make that claim.
I just wanted to make sure that people going with GRT didn't think they were getting
an AHRS from Xbow, and one that has *way* more testing and certification
support than either GRT's or BMA's... Course the Chelton Sport is about 7X more
expensive too and we wont even talk about the 500AHRS, it's 2X the sport price
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Gray
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
Both Chelton and GRT use the Crossbow AHRS that was prohibited from IFR use until
a fix could be found it's sporadic errors.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their 'certified'
systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht <pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
>
>
> >The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude
> >heading reference system). The low end non certified systems (GRT,
> >Dynon and
others)
> >have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS
signal
> >for attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange
failure
> >
> >
>
> You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so
> nonchalantly. The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is
> not GPS-dependent and that is the reason they've been the front-runner
> for me for some time now. They also take safety very seriously and
> have some people with pretty impressive credentials designing their
> stuff, including certified (Boeing) sytems. (Do you put THAT much
> stock in FAA
> certification?)
>
> Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement
> for, as I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives -
> not the whole panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have
> backup. There is no way that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of
> MTBF than any vacuum system out there, certainly not the dry ones most
use.
>
> Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system)
> and mechanical ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can
> keep wings-level at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that
> if the EFIS goes dark in the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap
> and effective backup and if you can't fly IFR with just those three
> instruments, in a pinch, you certainly shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
> :-} Agreed?
>
>
> >modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to
> >say, a
few
> >of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with
> >a malfunctioning AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The
Crossbow
> >AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only
> >because
of
> >some strange software errors.
> >
> >There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels
> >are required to have 2 independent systems with an automatic
> >comparator that flags any discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude
instrument.
> >
> >So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
> >certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away
from
> >glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for
> >me to
> >hang my life on.
> >
> >Bruce
> >www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
> >Paul
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> >
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
> >
> >
> >After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard
> >decisions regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the
> >factors to be considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the
> >capability to do so if for some reason I end up there - or decide
> >it's a good idea. I'm a
> >7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience
> >7000+ isn't
> >a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
> >driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
> >
> >
> >Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
> >Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
> >will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
> >
> >
> >The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
> >and the SL30.
> >
> >
> >I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
> >TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
> >altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
> >
> >
> >So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may
> >have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and
> >bad
> >- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
> >screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
> >"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Paul Valovich
> >
> >Booger
> >
> >Ridgecrest, CA
> >
> >661-400-3640
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
i think the grt ahrs might even be the one used by chelton in one of their 'certified'
systems?
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Paul Folbrecht pfolbrecht@starkinvestments.com
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <PFOLBRECHT@STARKINVESTMENTS.COM>
The major Achilles heal of a glass panel is it's AHRS (attitude heading reference
system). The low end non certified systems (GRT, Dynon and
others)
have a home grown non-certified AHRS, some even require a valid GPS signal for
attitude stabilization. These things have very weird and strange failure
You really can't group the various experimental AHRS's together so nonchalantly.
The GRT system does use a separate magnetometer and is not GPS-dependent
and that is the reason they've been the front-runner for me for some time now.
They also take safety very seriously and have some people with pretty impressive
credentials designing their stuff, including certified (Boeing) sytems.
(Do you put THAT much stock in FAA
certification?)
Any system needs proper backup. What the glass EFIS is a replacement for, as
I see it, is the vacuum system and the instruments it drives - not the whole
panel. Of course you need to consider failure and have backup. There is no way
that a GRT system is less-reliable in terms of MTBF than any vacuum system
out there, certainly not the dry ones most use.
Backup for me will be an electric AI (on an e-bus, dual-alt system) and mechanical
ASI and alt. And, besides that, an autopilot that can keep wings-level
at the least. The goal (requirement) for me is that if the EFIS goes dark in
the clouds I won't wet myself. This is cheap and effective bac kup and if you
can't fly IFR with just those three instruments, in a pinch, you certainly
shouldn't be flying IFR at all.
:-} Agreed?
modes. That glass panel display is very hypnotic and I'm sorry to say, a few
of us are going to fly that pretty horizon right into the ground with a malfunctioning
AHRS. Even the certificated stuff has problems. The Crossbow
AHRS (certified, $7,000 price tag), just got flagged for VFR only because of
some strange software errors.
There's a reason why Part 121 (Airlines) airplanes with glass panels are required
to have 2 independent systems with an automatic comparator that flags any
discrepancy, and a 3rd tie breaker attitude instrument.
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a certified
redundant system, or want a VFR only a irplane, to stay away from glass panels,
at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to hang my life
on.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Valovich,
Paul
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
<PVALOVICH@DCSCORP.COM>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so
if for some rea
son I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the
driver. And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine
Monitor display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I
will also have a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A
and the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA,
TruTrak ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard
altimeter, airspeed and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing th
at some of you may
have very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small
screen Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about
"their" product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
tive Gifts provided
<BR
>
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Bob,
You absolutely correct. GPS T&B (such as the Garmin series of handhelds) is
derived from the GPS data and not from any aircraft attiude. Great for emergencies
but not for everyday use.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Fuselage inventorying
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Afternoon Dave,
Are you sure you can get true and full T&B information from a GPS device?
Do you have a particular model GPS to which you are referring?
All that I am aware of merely advise you that you have a ground track that is turning
in the horizontal plane. It would be my opinion that such information
is not as good as the information provided by a T&B if you are trying to recover
from a grave yard spiral.
I do hope that new electronic instrumentation is developed that will give us the
back up we can get from a mechanical turn needle, but I have not yet seen such
a device.
Don't get me wrong. I have practiced under the hood using both the Garmin
196 and the 296. It is better than nothing, but still a lot more expensive than
a T&B. I also find the T&B much easier to use, but then again, I have a lot
of experience flying partial panel!
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 12/9/2005 12:47:10 P.M. Central Standard Time, BigD@DaveMorris.com
writes:
You can get the T&B information from a GPS and a cheap $25 slip indicator from
Wicks, and you can get the AS and ALT information from a Rocky Mountain MicroEncoder.
I'm building a cheap "glass cockpit" by feeding those three instruments
into a computer and then displaying the information on an LCD display.
If the computer craps out, I can always look at the source instruments.
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 5:09:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rvbuilder@sausen.net writes:
You absolutely correct. GPS T&B (such as the Garmin series of handhelds)
is derived from the GPS data and not from any aircraft attitude. Great for
emergencies but not for everyday use.
Good Evening Michael,
On top of that, Garmin provides a picture of a Turn Coordinator to show that
ground path yaw.
That is just adding one error to another. There is no way for the Garmin
GPS to show any indication of roll at all. A mechanical Turn Coordinator shows
both roll and yaw. That is why it makes such a good low cost sensor for an
autopilot and why it is so bad to use as an instrument for a pilot to fly. I
think the Garmin would be better if they used a picture of a T&B instead of a
Turn Coordinator. At least, that way, it would be telling something closer
to the truth!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Recently there have been several AeroElectric postings on LEDs, and I have
not made any comments because there was just too much to say. Here is a
summary of LED technology, which should be especially useful for builders
who are a year or more from completion--
Light sources can be typified by the amount of visible light (lumens) per
electrical power (watts). This efficiency is important because it determines
the energy costs in the long run. Expected lifetime is also important
because replacing lamps is expensive too.
The excitement with LED technology is based on one particularly amazing
fact--The efficiency of major light sources has topped out, but the
efficiency of LEDs is on a rocket ride to 200 lumens per watt or more. Lamps
have known degradation physics, but LED degradation is very slow compared to
other light sources, and they are getting better almost faster than the
tests can be run.
For illustration, here are some typical efficiency figures in lumens/watt.
Incandescent (very small) 2
Incandescent flashlight bulbs 6 Short lamp life
Incandescent night light (7w) 6
Early LEDs 8 Originally only
red-very long lifetime.
Incandescent (100W) 15 Short lifetimes--No further
improvement
Incandescent (halogen type) 20 Long lifetime--No further
improvement
LED's circa 2000 25 All colors and white
available
White LED circa 2004 25
Xenon arc 25-40
Compact fluorescent 48-60
F40T12 cool white fluorescent 60-65 Ballasts
32 watt T8 fluorescent 85-95 Ballasts--No further
improvement
2005 LEDs 45
2006 LEDs 80
2007 LEDs 125 Headlamps in luxury cars
introduced.
2008 LEDs 140
Metal Halide HID 50-110 Complicated Ballast, many gas
mixes
Low Pressure Sodium 130-190 Sodium color--No further improvement
2009-2015 LEDs 150-200 Mature technology (?)
So if these numbers mystify you, just remember that in 2010, you will be
able to buy a landing light for your airplane that will be brighter than a
100W halogen, will be three times as efficient as a fluorescent lamp, will
cost $35, and will last essentially forever (>100,000 hours).
So why would we use them in our aircraft? I could give you the arguments but
they will simply replace all the lights in every place in every thing. LEDs
were only used as indicators right up to the time they became efficient
enough to surpass halogen lamps in general illumination. Now organic OLEDs
will do most of the display and indicator work. LEDs will chase HID metal
halides in some uses for a while, but in the end almost every light source
in the world, --tanning beds, street lamps, and even landing lights will go
the way of the tube amplifier, the Monroe calculator, telegrams and the
slide rule. The solid-state revolution.not too bad!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
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 |
|
Subject: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Michael,
Maybe this is a fine point of distinction (amplification?), but I would
say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you still have a normally
functioning turn indicator. Having to use the handheld is being in a
position of last resort.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Bob,
>
> You absolutely correct. GPS T&B (such as the Garmin series of
> handhelds) is derived from the GPS data and not from any aircraft
> attiude. Great for emergencies but not for everyday use.
>
> Michael Sausen
> -10 #352 Fuselage inventorying
> Do not archive
>
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Matt,
This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
I would hesitate to use the word emergency because that implies that we may
need extraordinary skills to save the day.
Back when I received my instrument rating, we were not allowed to use any
gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other than the turn and bank. It
wasn't until several years later that the FAA changed it's mind. They then
started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have an attitude indicator and
a
directional gyro.
My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a directional gyro, but no
artificial horizon. That was the case of most Bonanzas and many other light
airplanes.
The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the rule.
While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer plan on flying IFR
without all of the currently required equipment being available, I do not feel
that the IFR flying we did back in those days should be referred to as being
emergencies!
And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no better aviators than are the
pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what was available and
required at the time.
There is no doubt that flying needle ball and airspeed while trying to load
a complicated route into a GPS would be much more demanding than just
listening to a four course radio range.
Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro constitutes an emergency,
couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the aviator asked for special
handling due to demanding conditions?
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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
Maybe this is a fine point of distinction (amplification?), but I would
say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you still have a normally
functioning turn indicator. Having to use the handheld is being in a
position of last resort.
Regards,
Matt-
Message 33
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 Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
Hi Eric,
Great summary of LEDs. The increased use has been very apparant. The
high brightness of recent white LEDs is impressive. However, I was not
aware of the quantative efficiency and further expected improvements.
Thanks,
Richard Dudley
Do not archive
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Recently there have been several AeroElectric postings on LEDs, and I have
>not made any comments because there was just too much to say. Here is a
>summary of LED technology, which should be especially useful for builders
>who are a year or more from completion--
>
>Light sources can be typified by the amount of visible light (lumens) per
>electrical power (watts). This efficiency is important because it determines
>the energy costs in the long run. Expected lifetime is also important
>because replacing lamps is expensive too.
>
>The excitement with LED technology is based on one particularly amazing
>fact--The efficiency of major light sources has topped out, but the
>efficiency of LEDs is on a rocket ride to 200 lumens per watt or more. Lamps
>have known degradation physics, but LED degradation is very slow compared to
>other light sources, and they are getting better almost faster than the
>tests can be run.
>
>For illustration, here are some typical efficiency figures in lumens/watt.
>
>Incandescent (very small) 2
>Incandescent flashlight bulbs 6 Short lamp life
>Incandescent night light (7w) 6
>Early LEDs 8 Originally only
>red-very long lifetime.
>Incandescent (100W) 15 Short lifetimes--No further
>improvement
>Incandescent (halogen type) 20 Long lifetime--No further
>improvement
>LED's circa 2000 25 All colors and white
>available
>White LED circa 2004 25
>Xenon arc 25-40
>Compact fluorescent 48-60
>F40T12 cool white fluorescent 60-65 Ballasts
>32 watt T8 fluorescent 85-95 Ballasts--No further
>improvement
>2005 LEDs 45
>2006 LEDs 80
>2007 LEDs 125 Headlamps in luxury cars
>introduced.
>2008 LEDs 140
>Metal Halide HID 50-110 Complicated Ballast, many gas
>mixes
>Low Pressure Sodium 130-190 Sodium color--No further improvement
>2009-2015 LEDs 150-200 Mature technology (?)
>
>So if these numbers mystify you, just remember that in 2010, you will be
>able to buy a landing light for your airplane that will be brighter than a
>100W halogen, will be three times as efficient as a fluorescent lamp, will
>cost $35, and will last essentially forever (>100,000 hours).
>
>So why would we use them in our aircraft? I could give you the arguments but
>they will simply replace all the lights in every place in every thing. LEDs
>were only used as indicators right up to the time they became efficient
>enough to surpass halogen lamps in general illumination. Now organic OLEDs
>will do most of the display and indicator work. LEDs will chase HID metal
>halides in some uses for a while, but in the end almost every light source
>in the world, --tanning beds, street lamps, and even landing lights will go
>the way of the tube amplifier, the Monroe calculator, telegrams and the
>slide rule. The solid-state revolution.not too bad!
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>(508) 764-2072
>
>"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes
>less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe.
>For example, there are no solids in the universe. There's
>not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute con-
>tinuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
>
> - R. Buckminster Fuller
>
>
>
>
Message 34
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 in engine cmptmt |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
Hi Steve,
A cooling enclosure with a blast tube could resolve most of your concerns
about heat inside the cowls. with the cooling box in place with the battery
mounted a bit below the centre line hot soaks should be survivable.
Keeping in mind the positioning of the batteries under the hood of the
average ground bound vehicles, the whole question is likely moot.
In light of the somewhat different battery technology the question is worth
the asking.
Jim in Kelowna- The paint is done and the RV is at long last at the airport
today.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
> <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
> Any strong views on having the battery the engine side of the firewall. It
> must get quite hot. Clearly the advantage of short cable runs is
> considerable.
>
> Comments? Steve.
>
>
>
Message 35
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
Old Bob,
I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
must declare an emergency.
Bob Sultzbach
--- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening Matt,
>
> This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
>
> I would hesitate to use the word emergency because
> that implies that we may
> need extraordinary skills to save the day.
>
> Back when I received my instrument rating, we were
> not allowed to use any
> gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other
> than the turn and bank. It
> wasn't until several years later that the FAA
> changed it's mind. They then
> started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have
> an attitude indicator and a
> directional gyro.
>
> My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a
> directional gyro, but no
> artificial horizon. That was the case of most
> Bonanzas and many other light
> airplanes.
>
> The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the
> rule.
>
> While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer
> plan on flying IFR
> without all of the currently required equipment
> being available, I do not feel
> that the IFR flying we did back in those days should
> be referred to as being
> emergencies!
>
> And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no
> better aviators than are the
> pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what
> was available and
> required at the time.
>
> There is no doubt that flying needle ball and
> airspeed while trying to load
> a complicated route into a GPS would be much more
> demanding than just
> listening to a four course radio range.
>
> Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro
> constitutes an emergency,
> couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the
> aviator asked for special
> handling due to demanding conditions?
>
> 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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central
> Standard Time,
> mprather@spro.net writes:
>
> Maybe this is a fine point of distinction
> (amplification?), but I would
> say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you
> still have a normally
> functioning turn indicator. Having to use the
> handheld is being in a
> position of last resort.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
>
> Click on
> about
> provided
> www.buildersbooks.com,
> Admin.
> _->
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 36
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
You probably aren't interested in it but I like the MGL Ultra Horizon XL.
The best thing about it (aside from price) is that it has a large
*monochrome* display. As I have said before don't buy any instrument with an
LCD until you have personally seen it in direct sunlight.
http://www.mglavionics.co.za/ultraHXL.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Valovich,
Paul
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Valovich, Paul"
--> <pvalovich@dcscorp.com>
After months of avionics dreaming it's time to make the hard decisions
regarding the panel of my RV-8A QB. I understand the factors to be
considered in flying an RV IMC, but want to have the capability to do so if
for some reason I end up there - or decide it's a good idea. I'm a
7000+ hour former Navy jet guy so instrument training / experience isn't
a limiting factor. And although $ is a consideration, it isn't the driver.
And I plan to wire it myself.
Two designs are in contention. The first is a dual GRT EFIS / Engine Monitor
display with their internal GPS. Comm/Nav is a Gamin SL30. I will also have
a panel-mounted Gamin 396.
The second consists of dual Dynon 100's, with a Gamin 396, Gamin 106A and
the SL30.
I will have the Gertz heated pitot tube and the Advance Sport AOA, TruTrak
ADI pilot for autopilot / attitude backup, and standard altimeter, airspeed
and VSI backup gages.
So the question for this august group (realizing that some of you may have
very biased opinions): What has been the experience - good and bad
- of the GRT and Dynon products (I realize I have to use the small screen
Dynon experience base)? For those with biased opinions about "their"
product, what do you like? What would you change?
Thanks,
Paul Valovich
Booger
Ridgecrest, CA
661-400-3640
Message 37
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: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
Hi Bob,
Two days ago, in a message timed 11:37:30 discussing how to crimp terminals, you
said:
"With the jaws fully closed,
looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
where the WIRE goes in."
In your cartoon discussion of crimping, at http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html, you say:
"As a general rule, tools with unsymmetrical dies will have a smaller, closed-die
cross section on the wire grip side."
Is this a contradiction or am I confused with the lingo?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month, Z-13/8.
Message 38
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Bob
They don't say you can't ask!
If you don't get what you want, just tell them to standby. That won't
require a declaration of an emergency!
As I said in the start, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
I see no sense of urgency or distress involved. Asking for a bit more time
is not something I think requires an emergency to be declared.
That doesn't mean I would have any reluctance to do so, but I do not agree
that you cannot make a request to have your flight handled differently than the
controller was expecting without declaring an emergency.
If you disagree with my interpretation, could you point out where such a
restriction is written?
It is a matter of semantics.
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 12/9/2005 7:59:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
endspeed@yahoo.com writes:
I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
must declare an emergency.
Bob Sultzbach
Message 39
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
FWIW the Cirrus has three mechanical backup gauges below the glass panel:
ASI, altimeter and horizon.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bruce,
Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
flight?
I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even have
hope that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude
based turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite
IFR instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a
Turn Coordinator!
If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR
the way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs were
invented, they were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR
pilots learned to fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not
go back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
transition the student to glass?
The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots
normal range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a
Boeing
747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any other sort
of instrument presentation.
It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
practiced , the skill is never lost.
My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
when all else fails.
The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
Message 40
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
As an aside, when I worked as a lowly CFI/parttime charter pilot, I picked
up a old Cessna 206 on Long Island. After climbing out in IMC on a IFR
flight plan, I (FINALLY MAYBE???) notice near zero oil pressure. informed
ATC and asked for the VOR approach to I believe New Haven. After the
controller jerked me around with vectors, I told him I wanted direct FAF or
I would declare an emergency. He then issue a vector direct to the FAF.
Never did declare an emergency,since it seemed there still was a couple of
pounds of oil pressure. Turned out the oil bypass was stuck open and for
some reason, Continental put the oil pressure sense line so it apparently
measured pressure at the filter. Don't know that for sure.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening Bob
>
>
> They don't say you can't ask!
>
> If you don't get what you want, just tell them to standby. That won't
> require a declaration of an emergency!
>
> As I said in the start, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
>
> I see no sense of urgency or distress involved. Asking for a bit more time
> is not something I think requires an emergency to be declared.
>
> That doesn't mean I would have any reluctance to do so, but I do not agree
> that you cannot make a request to have your flight handled differently
> than the
> controller was expecting without declaring an emergency.
>
> If you disagree with my interpretation, could you point out where such a
> restriction is written?
>
> It is a matter of semantics.
>
> 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 12/9/2005 7:59:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> endspeed@yahoo.com writes:
>
> I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
> must declare an emergency.
>
> Bob Sultzbach
>
>
>
Message 41
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Too many Bobs.. :)
Informing ATC of "minimum fuel" will sometimes get you special handling
without you declaring an emergency.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach
> <endspeed@yahoo.com>
>
> Old Bob,
>
> I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
> must declare an emergency.
>
> Bob Sultzbach
>
>
> --- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>> BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>> Good Evening Matt,
>>
>> This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
>>
>> I would hesitate to use the word emergency because
>> that implies that we may
>> need extraordinary skills to save the day.
>>
>> Back when I received my instrument rating, we were
>> not allowed to use any
>> gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other
>> than the turn and bank. It
>> wasn't until several years later that the FAA
>> changed it's mind. They then
>> started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have
>> an attitude indicator and a
>> directional gyro.
>>
>> My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a
>> directional gyro, but no
>> artificial horizon. That was the case of most
>> Bonanzas and many other light
>> airplanes.
>>
>> The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the
>> rule.
>>
>> While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer
>> plan on flying IFR
>> without all of the currently required equipment
>> being available, I do not feel
>> that the IFR flying we did back in those days should
>> be referred to as being
>> emergencies!
>>
>> And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no
>> better aviators than are the
>> pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what
>> was available and
>> required at the time.
>>
>> There is no doubt that flying needle ball and
>> airspeed while trying to load
>> a complicated route into a GPS would be much more
>> demanding than just
>> listening to a four course radio range.
>>
>> Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro
>> constitutes an emergency,
>> couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the
>> aviator asked for special
>> handling due to demanding conditions?
>>
>> 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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central
>> Standard Time,
>> mprather@spro.net writes:
>>
>> Maybe this is a fine point of distinction
>> (amplification?), but I would
>> say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you
>> still have a normally
>> functioning turn indicator. Having to use the
>> handheld is being in a
>> position of last resort.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>> Click on
>> about
>> provided
>> www.buildersbooks.com,
>> Admin.
>> _->
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 42
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: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Here's the deal in simple terms. A good crimper should have a dual cavity
die with two different shapes them. One side should be "half moon" or
somewhat elliptical in shape. The other side (the side the wire gets
squished in) for lack of a better explanation is "Bow Tie" shaped.
When buying crimpers there is no reason to spend hundreds of dollars on the
AMP crimpers for the number of terminals that the average homebuilder is
likely to crimp. There are several cheaper crimpers with interchangeable
dies that work just fine....just don't use the plain type with the oval
shaped cavities on both sides, never use the yellow handeled "plier type"
everything in one tools, etc... That being said, most of our harness
production now gets done on automated crimpers and machines of the like, but
we still use most all of the tools we sell in day to day operation. B&C as
well sells a decent set of crimpers that do a very good job without breaking
the bank, as do several others.
In our shop we have everthing from really reasonably priced ratcheting
crimpers to the high end AMP stuff, but find the cheaper ones are just as
good if they have the proper dies.
Like I said, no reason to spend hundreds of bucks on crimper when there are
equally good substitutes to be had for under $50.00.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
P.S., if you really want to get picky, the super good dies (in manual and
automatic machines) will have a tiny "dimple" in the cavity for visual
inspection of the crimps and ensuring the proper crimp has been placed.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson"
<pinetownd@volcano.net>
Hi Bob,
Two days ago, in a message timed 11:37:30 discussing how to crimp terminals,
you said:
"With the jaws fully closed,
looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
where the WIRE goes in."
In your cartoon discussion of crimping, at
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html, you say:
"As a general rule, tools with unsymmetrical dies will have a smaller,
closed-die cross section on the wire grip side."
Is this a contradiction or am I confused with the lingo?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month, Z-13/8.
Message 43
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
Good Evening Wayne,
I am not sure, but I do know you are supposed to tell them if a navigational
device fails. That rule started after the TWA/UAL crash near Staten Island.
I think if a primary instrument failed, it would be good idea to let them
know.
Still no requirement to declare an emergency though. The idea of declaring
an emergency is that you feel you may become in distress or have an urgency.
You want to get an immediate approach or something like that. Just because
everything in the airplane is not working as it was does not mean any distress
or urgency is affecting your flight. Once again, there is no reason not to
declare an emergency if you think it is wise to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 44
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
One more thing Wayne,
What are the six basic flight instruments?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 45
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
The point I'm trying to make is that one set of backups is not enough. You
need a tie-breaker. The insidious failure modes of glass panels are not yet
understood. They don't call it the 'bleeding edge of technology' for no
reason.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
Payne
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
<craig@craigandjean.com>
FWIW the Cirrus has three mechanical backup gauges below the glass panel:
ASI, altimeter and horizon.
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bruce,
Mind If I use your message to make a pitch for my thoughts on OBAM IFR
flight?
I think the glass cockpit fed from solid state attitude sensors is the wave
of the future and it is what I hope to have in my airplane. I even have
hope that there will eventually be some sort of glass solid state attitude
based turn indicator that will be as reliable and economical as my favorite
IFR instrument, the old fashioned Turn and Bank. By that I DO NOT mean a
Turn Coordinator!
If anyone wants to go modern and have an all glass cockpit, I would urge
that they first spend the time and money it takes to learn how to fly IFR
the way it was done before attitude instruments took over. While attitude
instruments have been available from almost the same time as T&Bs were
invented, they were not ubiquitous until WWII. Prior to that time, IFR
pilots learned to fly using Needle Ball and Airspeed.
We have all heard about the rules of primacy in flight training. Why not
go back to starting IFR students out on Needle Ball and Airspeed, then
transition the student to glass?
The needle turn indicator is the most reliable mechanical instrument we
have. It will not tumble, it is light and, it is relatively inexpensive.
A very simple basic "save the day" IFR panel can consist of left to right,
one airspeed indicator, one T&B and one altimeter.
Given those three instruments placed close together and in the pilots
normal range of view, a properly trained pilot can get any airplane from a
Boeing
747 to a Piper Cub safely under control after the failure of any other sort
of instrument presentation.
It takes about twenty hours of concentrated training to really get good
using Needle Ball and Airspeed, but once it is learned and thoroughly
practiced , the skill is never lost.
My vote is to build that OBAM airplane with all the gee whiz stuff anyone
could want, but stick to that little lifeboat three gauge panel for the time
when all else fails.
The T&B is much more reliable than any except electronic instruments and
vastly cheaper than any attitude indicator ever built!
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 12/9/2005 11:34:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
So, my advice is, that unless you want to spend some big bucks for a
certified redundant system, or want a VFR only airplane, to stay away from
glass panels, at least for now. They are just not mature enough for me to
hang my life on.
Bruce
Message 46
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:09:21 P.M. Central Standard Time,
craig@craigandjean.com writes:
FWIW the Cirrus has three mechanical backup gauges below the glass panel:
ASI, altimeter and horizon.
Good Evening Craig,
I am aware of that. If it were my choice, I would replace the Attitude
Indicator with a T&B. Cheaper and more reliable. Unfortunately, the FAA does
not
agree with me. Doesn't mean I couldn't add one if I ever decided I wanted a
powered sometime parachute!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 47
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
What's wrong with declaring an emergency. Unless you bend the airplane or
break an FAR, you don't even have to file a report.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Too many Bobs.. :)
Informing ATC of "minimum fuel" will sometimes get you special handling
without you declaring an emergency.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach
> <endspeed@yahoo.com>
>
> Old Bob,
>
> I believe the AIM says to get special handling you
> must declare an emergency.
>
> Bob Sultzbach
>
>
> --- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>> BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>> Good Evening Matt,
>>
>> This is probably getting into a matter of semantics!
>>
>> I would hesitate to use the word emergency because
>> that implies that we may
>> need extraordinary skills to save the day.
>>
>> Back when I received my instrument rating, we were
>> not allowed to use any
>> gyroscopic instrument during the flight test other
>> than the turn and bank. It
>> wasn't until several years later that the FAA
>> changed it's mind. They then
>> started to require that all aircraft flying IFR have
>> an attitude indicator and a
>> directional gyro.
>>
>> My first two Bonanzas were equipped with a
>> directional gyro, but no
>> artificial horizon. That was the case of most
>> Bonanzas and many other light
>> airplanes.
>>
>> The "Full Panel" was the exception rather than the
>> rule.
>>
>> While I prefer having the full panel and I no longer
>> plan on flying IFR
>> without all of the currently required equipment
>> being available, I do not feel
>> that the IFR flying we did back in those days should
>> be referred to as being
>> emergencies!
>>
>> And I will absolutely guarantee that we were no
>> better aviators than are the
>> pilots of today. We just learned to fly with what
>> was available and
>> required at the time.
>>
>> There is no doubt that flying needle ball and
>> airspeed while trying to load
>> a complicated route into a GPS would be much more
>> demanding than just
>> listening to a four course radio range.
>>
>> Instead of saying the loss of an attitude gyro
>> constitutes an emergency,
>> couldn't we say that it might be a good idea if the
>> aviator asked for special
>> handling due to demanding conditions?
>>
>> 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 12/9/2005 5:58:27 P.M. Central
>> Standard Time,
>> mprather@spro.net writes:
>>
>> Maybe this is a fine point of distinction
>> (amplification?), but I would
>> say that an AI failure is an emergency, even if you
>> still have a normally
>> functioning turn indicator. Having to use the
>> handheld is being in a
>> position of last resort.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>> Click on
>> about
>> provided
>> www.buildersbooks.com,
>> Admin.
>> _->
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 48
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
1. Wet finger stuck in the air
2. Eyes (1 ok, 2 optional)
3. Seat o' the pants
4. Inner ear (combined with #2 for redundancy)
5. $60,000 worth of sensors and more computing power than existed in the
entire world 50 years ago.
6. Damn, I don't remember...
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
One more thing Wayne,
What are the six basic flight instruments?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 49
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:47:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Bruce@glasair.org writes:
What's wrong with declaring an emergency. Unless you bend the airplane or
break an FAR, you don't even have to file a report.
Bruce
Good Evening Bruce,
Nothing wrong with declaring an emergency if you think the situation
warrants it. However, I don't think most system failures give any individual
the
right to ask for preferential handling that delays or inconveniences other
traffic. It is kinda like calling wolf when there is no wolf around!
Strictly a judgement call. What may be an emergency for one pilot may not be
an emergency for another.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 50
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two support
instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a couple
of decades ago.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
>
> Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that
> if
> any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
>
>
> One more thing Wayne,
>
> What are the six basic flight instruments?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
>
Message 51
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: Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
You are confused.
The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the other,
smaller end.
I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
Dick Tasker
Dennis Johnson wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Two days ago, in a message timed 11:37:30 discussing how to crimp terminals, you
said:
>
>"With the jaws fully closed,
> looking into the terminal cavity, if one side is larger than
> the other (with AMP this is LIKELY), then the larger side is
> where the WIRE goes in."
>
>In your cartoon discussion of crimping, at http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html, you say:
>
>"As a general rule, tools with unsymmetrical dies will have a smaller, closed-die
cross section on the wire grip side."
>
>Is this a contradiction or am I confused with the lingo?
>
>Thanks,
>Dennis Johnson
>Lancair Legacy #257, starting wiring next month, Z-13/8.
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
Message 52
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 |
|
alternators
Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage |
regulator alternators #2 was modern alternators
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net> regulator
alternators #2 was modern alternators
>snipped
> > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim and Lucy
> > > <jpollard@ciaccess.com>
> > > >
> > > >I was talking with a friend that was until recently in the alternator
> > > >rebuild business. I had an old 1969 ford dump truck alternator regulator
> > > >get stuck on and fry a few things.(radio and ignition points)
> > > >He said lots of present day autos are external regulator type.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > >Jim,
> > > Chrysler is using this design. They have bundled not only the voltage
> > >regulator into the ECM (engine computer), but electrical control of
> the air
> > >conditioning compressor as well. I have a customer (1995 Dodge Van) who is
> > >mad as hell that his A/C won't work till he buys a remanufactured ECM for
> > >$350! This is what your friend is referring to, regarding installing a
> > >stand alone VR on this type of vehicle. It's cheaper to install a stand
> > >alone external VR, than to replace the ECM.
> > >Charlie Kuss
> >
> > Interesting. 1995?? Ten years worth of market life translates
> > into lots of after-market product flow and inventory. Anyone
> > know of a part number we can check on? It's going to be
> > some time before I can visit any of my usual data-sources
> > to find out more.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob,
> A quick call to my local parts supplier shows 3 possible alternators for
>this vehicle. The first two are a 75 amp and a 90 amp unit. The parts man
>says that his replacement book shows a single unit for replacement. The
>largest alternator is a 120 amp unit. All 3 alternators are Nippon Denso
>units. His book calls out a # 13245 for the smaller units. This is in
>SunCoast brand. I asked for a Lester number, but his catalog didn't show
>it. He suspects that it's the same as the SunCoast number.
> A quick Google search has led me to Transpo's web site. I was able to
>search for 1995 Dodge B Series Van w/ 4.9 L 6 cylinder engine. They show
>separate part numbers for both the 75 amp and the 90 amp units. (I suspect
>that Sun Coast substitutes the 90 amp unit for the 75 amp models in their
>catalog) The OE part number is 1210003460 The Transpo rectifier part
>number is INR729. They have a photo & drawing of the rectifier pack below
>
>http://195.125.241.148/Catalog/Car_Fr.htm
>
>Plug in the vehicle info listed above to view the information mentioned.
>They do no allow linking to individual pages. :-(
>
>SunCoast has a web site, but there is no tech info on it, only contact
>info. See
>
>http://www.suncoastproducts.com/
>
>Hope this helps
>
>Charlie Kuss
Bob,
I had a bit more time to research this tonight. That SunCoast part number
is the same as the Lester number. I found this info with photos and
applications. All show external voltage regulator.
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90201.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90202.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90204.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90206.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90207.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90205.htm
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd90203.htm
Does anyone know of a newer, externally regulated ND alternator application
of less than 70 amps output? Are their any late model Hondas that have the
VR in the ECM or other external location?
Charlie Kuss
Message 53
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: | Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Back in my young, brash days when I thought I was indestructible, I did some
VERY foolhardy, dumb things. Looking back on it now, I just shudder. Luck
not skill saw me through. I've been dumb enough to shoot
'needle/ball/airspeed' approaches down to 200 and 1/2 in C-310 rather than
divert 200 miles to VFR. Flown D-18's on night check delivery runs through
thunderstorm alley in Kansas. I have some hair raising stories from that
period of my life. What has all this taught me? I just don't go there
anymore. If it can break, it will - at the most inopportune time. NEVER
trust your life to one piece of equipment, NEVER. Always have an out, a plan
B. Don't be afraid to declare an emergency. I have, several times. It sure
wakes up the ATC folks at 4AM.
And last but not least. Don't trust a pilot who regales you with his war
stories about how his skill got him out of all of his precarious situations.
What he's not saying is that his dumb decisions got him into the pickle to
start with.
Be careful out there.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 9:03:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
Bob, you would know this; doesn't the regs or at least the AIM say that if
any of the 6 basic flight instruments fail, ATC must be informed???
Good Evening Wayne,
I am not sure, but I do know you are supposed to tell them if a
navigational
device fails. That rule started after the TWA/UAL crash near Staten
Island.
I think if a primary instrument failed, it would be good idea to let them
know.
Still no requirement to declare an emergency though. The idea of declaring
an emergency is that you feel you may become in distress or have an
urgency.
You want to get an immediate approach or something like that. Just because
everything in the airplane is not working as it was does not mean any
distress
or urgency is affecting your flight. Once again, there is no reason not to
declare an emergency if you think it is wise to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 54
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: Glass Cockpit Options |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:07:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two support
instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a couple
of decades ago.
Wayne
Sounds reasonable, but the VSI is not even a required instrument for IFR
flight!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 55
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 |
|
From: | "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com> |
Subject: | Re: Z19 main & engine battery bus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" <greg@itmack.com>
Mark could you tell me more about your installation off list. I'm putting a
rotary into an RV8. Some pics if you have them.
Greg
>
>
> In my case, I was able to locate the batteries on the "cool" side of the
> engine. Since I have a water-cooled rotary, I have the luxury of a
> firewall-forward side which does not get cooked equally by the engine --
the
> port side gets cooked, the starboard side does not. Better still, the
> cooling design on mine brings ram-air independently to the radiators below
> the engine, the VAM muffler, and directly to the batteries to keep them
> well-chilled.
>
> So, your point above is well taken -- my install is not typical wrt the
heat
> from a more-typical air cooled aviation engine install.
>
> Mark
>
>
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! --
|