---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 12/09/05: 55 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:48:16 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z19 main & engine battery bus --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:49 AM 12/9/2005 +1000, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:21 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 43 Msgs - 12/08/05 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:37:05 AM PST US From: "Mark R. Supinski" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z19 main & engine battery bus --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" On 12/8/05, Greg@itmack wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:04:18 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "Valovich, Paul" --> 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 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:22:31 AM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z19 main & engine battery bus --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" 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" > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:48:24 AM PST US From: Lee Logan Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 60 Msgs - 12/07/05 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:06:52 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ATO/ATC Circuit Breakers --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:32 PM 12/8/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lincoln Probst > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:29:29 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:02:41 AM PST US From: 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 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:07:33 AM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" 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" --> 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:23 AM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:11:15 AM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> 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 > > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:36:31 AM PST US From: "Steve Sampson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:32 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:45:01 AM PST US From: 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 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:59:03 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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 >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 > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:01:53 PM PST US From: luckymacy@comcast.net (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 > --> 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 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" 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
________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:19:20 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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 > --> 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 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" 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
________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:20:57 PM PST US From: "Mark R. Supinski" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z19 main & engine battery bus --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" On 12/9/05, Dave Morris BigD 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:44:55 PM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:01:11 PM PST US From: AI Nut Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut Paul, do you have any interest in 'rolling your own?' David M. Valovich, Paul wrote: >--> 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 > > > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:08:49 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:26:11 PM PST US 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:32:45 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:36:05 PM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht 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 > >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" >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:39 PM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" 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" --> 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 > --> 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 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" 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
________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 03:07:21 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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" --> 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" --> 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 > --> 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 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" 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
________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 03:07:21 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:17:41 PM PST US 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:39:17 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LEDs --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:56:30 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" 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)" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:37 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:30:56 PM PST US From: Richard Dudley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: LEDs --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:05:35 PM PST US From: "Jim Jewell" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" 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" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Odyssey in engine cmptmt > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:56:45 PM PST US From: Robert Sultzbach Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:17:09 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" 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" --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:22:45 PM PST US From: "Dennis Johnson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:51 PM PST US 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 39 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:39 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:01:01 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:31:41 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" 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 > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:52 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:53 PM PST US 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??? 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:32 PM PST US 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 45 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:27 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:06 PM PST US 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 9:09:21 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:44:31 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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" 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 > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:53:18 PM PST US From: "Craig Payne" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:01 PM PST US 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 9:47:31 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:01 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:07 PM PST US From: "Richard E. Tasker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:13 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss regulator alternators #2 was modern alternators Subject: Fwd: Re: AeroElectric-List: Modern ND external voltage regulator alternators #2 was modern alternators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss regulator alternators #2 was modern alternators >snipped > > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim and Lucy > > > > > > > > > > >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. > > > > > > > > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:55 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:13:00 PM PST US 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:40:45 PM PST US From: "Greg@itmack" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z19 main & engine battery bus --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg@itmack" 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 > >