AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sat 01/14/06


Total Messages Posted: 47



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:14 AM - Re: alternator b-lead bundled with engine computer wiring (Mickey Coggins)
     2. 05:12 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
     3. 05:12 AM - Re: E-Bus Avionics Switch ? (LarryRobertHelming)
     4. 06:22 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bob C.)
     5. 06:35 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Chuck Jensen)
     6. 06:51 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bruce Gray)
     7. 07:02 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (Dan Beadle)
     8. 07:15 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Chuck Jensen)
     9. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Common Grounding (Bob White)
    10. 07:26 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Alan K. Adamson)
    11. 07:45 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    12. 07:46 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bruce Gray)
    13. 08:20 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bob C.)
    14. 08:32 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Chuck Jensen)
    15. 08:32 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bob C.)
    16. 08:40 AM - Re: Re: Common Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    17. 08:44 AM - Re: E-Bus Avionics Switch ? (sportav8r@aol.com)
    18. 08:45 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    19. 08:55 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (sportav8r@aol.com)
    20. 08:56 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Alan K. Adamson)
    21. 09:03 AM - Re: Solder Station (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    22. 09:06 AM - Re: Z-13 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    23. 09:16 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bruce Gray)
    24. 09:16 AM - Re: Fw: common grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    25. 09:24 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Bruce Gray)
    26. 09:29 AM - Re: Fw: common grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    27. 10:49 AM - Re: Z-13 questions (Ken)
    28. 11:15 AM - Re: alternator b-lead bundled with engine computer wiring (Ken)
    29. 11:24 AM - Wire Conduit (Jim Butcher)
    30. 12:02 PM - Re: Fw: common grounding (Dan Beadle)
    31. 12:14 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (Richard Dudley)
    32. 12:24 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (John Schroeder)
    33. 12:45 PM - Re: ***SPAM*** Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    34. 12:50 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (LarryRobertHelming)
    35. 01:12 PM - Hawker battery failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    36. 01:17 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (Ken)
    37. 01:33 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Alan K. Adamson)
    38. 02:32 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (Ralph E. Capen)
    39. 03:00 PM - KI208/209 not in agreement (rd2@evenlink.com)
    40. 03:12 PM - Re: Solder Station (Stein Bruch)
    41. 03:48 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (bob noffs)
    42. 04:51 PM - need some advice here, guys- alternator for RV (sportav8r@aol.com)
    43. 05:38 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (Kevin And Ann Klinefelter)
    44. 08:25 PM - Re: Wire Conduit (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
    45. 11:03 PM - GPS CDI (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
    46. 11:08 PM - Re: KI208/209 not in agreement (Brian Lloyd)
    47. 11:24 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:14:25 AM PST US
    From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
    Subject: Re: alternator b-lead bundled with engine computer
    wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> > No.6 from the battery to the starter seems a little light for starter > currents, though, but if it works .... I am using No.2 up to a firewall > pass-through. It's a geared starter (auto conversion) so it does not require as much current as an aviation engine starter. I can't get anyone to tell me how much current it will require, for some reason, but they keep telling me that #6 is enough. http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/electrical.htm I'll probably slap a hall effect sensor on there once I'm ready to start the engine, just to satisfy my curiosity. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:12:05 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Bob, Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR? Do you want to execute full ILS approaches? For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed. For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a difference if the aircraft is experimental or normal category. Do you intend to use an autopilot with the GPS? There is no question in my mind as to whether or not the set can be used successfully without a CDI for any and all GPS functions it is capable of performing. Unfortunately, the FAA may not agree with that statement! Let us know precisely how you want to use it and we may be able to offer some help. 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 1/14/2006 2:49:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: I'm pretty sure you can use a GNS430 without a CDI for GPS Enroute and Approach? . . . It has a "CDI" of sorts built in. I plan to use the EHSI function of the BMA Lite for ILS and or VOR CDI function and I believe that is OK too? The GPS in the "Lite" should make a nice backup too. Regards, Bob


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:12:05 AM PST US
    From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
    Subject: Re: E-Bus Avionics Switch ?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net> ----- Original Message ----- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" > <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net> > > Just thinking? On any of the Endurance Bus drawings. Other than the > "don't > really need it" discussion and parts count issue, what would the downsides > be of adding a S704 contactor between the D25 and E-Bus so that you > effectively used the whole E-bus as an Avionics bus. This would assume > that > the E-bus load can be easily carried by the S704 which I think is rated at > 20 amps and has low continuous draw. It would actually save several > switches for EFIS systems like the GRT which are not internally switched. > I don't see any problem other than having a switch that could fail that would stop current from getting to the e-bus. But that problem is covered because you have a switch to energize on the e-bus and bypass the D25 route. I think your idea is a good way to implement the avionics bus capability. I have been running my plane without an avionics bus and switch but have run on occassions when I would like to turn the master on and not have my transponder, encoder, and Dynon power up. I think I will implement your idea. If it turns out to be a problem, I will report back here. Bob N might want to consider this but I doubt that he will due to his thinking that today's instruments/radios do not need the protection of an avionics bus; But it does have some convience. Indiana Larry, RV7 78 hours "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and at your own risk." Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if you can finally enjoy the level after you've reached it. L R Helming > > >


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:22:43 AM PST US
    From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com> Hi Bob, It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what you mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd" piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto pilot. Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and intent of the FARs, etc.? Thanks, Bob On 1/14/06, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > Good Morning Bob, > > Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR? > > Do you want to execute full ILS approaches? > > For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed. > > For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a difference > if > the aircraft is experimental or normal category. > > Do you intend to use an autopilot with the GPS? > > There is no question in my mind as to whether or not the set can be used > successfully without a CDI for any and all GPS functions it is capable of > performing. Unfortunately, the FAA may not agree with that statement! > > Let us know precisely how you want to use it and we may be able to offer > some help. > > 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 1/14/2006 2:49:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, > flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: > > I'm pretty sure you can use a GNS430 without a CDI for GPS Enroute and > Approach? . . . It has a "CDI" of sorts built in. I plan to use the > EHSI > function of the BMA Lite for ILS and or VOR CDI function and I believe > that > is OK too? The GPS in the "Lite" should make a nice backup too. > > Regards, > Bob > >


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:35:09 AM PST US
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> Alan, You are accurate all around, first, that the problem is only on the non-certified Crossbow (which is still likely of greatest interest to most AE posters) and second, other manufacturer and their product often have problems also as they grow and mature. The POINT I was too subtlety (or inartfully) intending to make has not changed, namely that two of the same thing (i.e. AHRS) do not give true redundancy. Ask the guy that hooked two AIs up to the same vacuum system how the flying was when the vacuum pump turned to dust. It's just a system design consideration. For instance (with NO technical basis to support these numbers), two AHRAS from the same manufacturing run, of the same model with the same software from the same bus system may improve reliability/availability 10% to 25%--certainly not 100%. Chuck Do Not Archive --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Yes, but Chuck, let's make sure we have the correct information... The certified version, the Crossbow 500 which ships in the certified Chelton (and others), does *NOT* have the problem. There currently exists *NO* AD, that I'm aware of. The experimental EFIS companies that utilize the 425 series crossbow AHRS, do have a problem, but it only exists as a service letter from crossbow at the moment. Because there are none of these in certified airplanes, there will never be an AD issued. So, this makes the crossbow problem, no different than the "leaning" problem that BMA, Dynon, GRT, etc have at any moments notice. You are advised of the problem, suggested that you use the equipment for VFR only, but not grounded. http://www.d2av.com/news_images/Service_Letter_NAV425_010506.pdf Alan --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" --> <cjensen@dts9000.com> Alan, This was just poking a bit of fun at the idea of two AHRS giving one true redundancy. In the case of the reference to the Crossbow AHRS, right now if you have two....you have none, since the AD has taken them out of service due to an identified deficiency which can make them fail--hence unreliable for IFR work. So, in this instance, having two of the same thing doesn't double your reliability. Note: This was not a slam on the Crossbow. Just recognition that they have a problem right now that they are working to resolve. How they fix it and how they interact with their customers which they have inconvenienced will be more revealing of their character than any flaw that might have been missed despite certification testing and their best design and QA efforts. Stuff happens. To close out these ramblings, two of something, especially of the same thing, does not constitute true redundancy of systems as they may share the same fail-points. Chuck Jensen --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> QUOTE: As an example....if you have two Crossbow AHRS, what do you have? END QUOTE: Not sure what that is suppose to mean.... It means the same thing whether you have two Crossbow, or GRT, or BMI, or XYZ company AHRS.


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:51:50 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Well then I guess all those Part 121 airplanes flying around out there with dual independent EFIS with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro (tie breaker) are all wrong. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> Alan, You are accurate all around, first, that the problem is only on the non-certified Crossbow (which is still likely of greatest interest to most AE posters) and second, other manufacturer and their product often have problems also as they grow and mature. The POINT I was too subtlety (or inartfully) intending to make has not changed, namely that two of the same thing (i.e. AHRS) do not give true redundancy. Ask the guy that hooked two AIs up to the same vacuum system how the flying was when the vacuum pump turned to dust. It's just a system design consideration. For instance (with NO technical basis to support these numbers), two AHRAS from the same manufacturing run, of the same model with the same software from the same bus system may improve reliability/availability 10% to 25%--certainly not 100%. Chuck Do Not Archive --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Yes, but Chuck, let's make sure we have the correct information... The certified version, the Crossbow 500 which ships in the certified Chelton (and others), does *NOT* have the problem. There currently exists *NO* AD, that I'm aware of. The experimental EFIS companies that utilize the 425 series crossbow AHRS, do have a problem, but it only exists as a service letter from crossbow at the moment. Because there are none of these in certified airplanes, there will never be an AD issued. So, this makes the crossbow problem, no different than the "leaning" problem that BMA, Dynon, GRT, etc have at any moments notice. You are advised of the problem, suggested that you use the equipment for VFR only, but not grounded. http://www.d2av.com/news_images/Service_Letter_NAV425_010506.pdf Alan --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" --> <cjensen@dts9000.com> Alan, This was just poking a bit of fun at the idea of two AHRS giving one true redundancy. In the case of the reference to the Crossbow AHRS, right now if you have two....you have none, since the AD has taken them out of service due to an identified deficiency which can make them fail--hence unreliable for IFR work. So, in this instance, having two of the same thing doesn't double your reliability. Note: This was not a slam on the Crossbow. Just recognition that they have a problem right now that they are working to resolve. How they fix it and how they interact with their customers which they have inconvenienced will be more revealing of their character than any flaw that might have been missed despite certification testing and their best design and QA efforts. Stuff happens. To close out these ramblings, two of something, especially of the same thing, does not constitute true redundancy of systems as they may share the same fail-points. Chuck Jensen --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> QUOTE: As an example....if you have two Crossbow AHRS, what do you have? END QUOTE: Not sure what that is suppose to mean.... It means the same thing whether you have two Crossbow, or GRT, or BMI, or XYZ company AHRS.


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:02:49 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com> The 430 does not have glide slope indicator. Therefore the on-board CDI is not enough to fly the ILS, jus the localizer. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob C. Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:21 AM Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com> Hi Bob, It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what you mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd" piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto pilot. Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and intent of the FARs, etc.? Thanks, Bob On 1/14/06, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > Good Morning Bob, > > Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR? > > Do you want to execute full ILS approaches? > > For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed. > > For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a difference > if > the aircraft is experimental or normal category. > > Do you intend to use an autopilot with the GPS? > > There is no question in my mind as to whether or not the set can be used > successfully without a CDI for any and all GPS functions it is capable of > performing. Unfortunately, the FAA may not agree with that statement! > > Let us know precisely how you want to use it and we may be able to offer > some help. > > 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 1/14/2006 2:49:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, > flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: > > I'm pretty sure you can use a GNS430 without a CDI for GPS Enroute and > Approach? . . . It has a "CDI" of sorts built in. I plan to use the > EHSI > function of the BMA Lite for ILS and or VOR CDI function and I believe > that > is OK too? The GPS in the "Lite" should make a nice backup too. > > Regards, > Bob > >


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:15:10 AM PST US
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> Nope. Not wrong, just expensive. OBAM aircraft are probably somewhat more interested in something a little more pedestrian (and affordable than) than "dual independent EFIS with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro (tie breaker)." Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the nuances of the discussion on wiring the master switch. Our mission profile requires a craft a bit less teched-out than a Part 121 airplane, but for anyone that it trips-their-trigger, then by all means...... Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Well then I guess all those Part 121 airplanes flying around out there with dual independent EFIS with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro (tie breaker) are all wrong. Bruce www.glasair.org


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:26:24 AM PST US
    From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
    Subject: Re: Common Grounding
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 20:38:25 -0800 "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net> wrote: <snip> > > Earlier Charlie Asked: >>I've often wondered if the 'aluminum brazing' products hyped at flyins & available at welding shops could be used to transition from AL bar stock to a copper tab for mechanical connections. They are supposed to work on 'most non-ferrous metals'. This might accomplish Rick's goal of light, cheap, simple, safe. Is that worth exploring? > > Eric Says: The melting points of aluminum and copper are so different that successfully joining the two is not a matter for the amateur. I'm guessing that the required tools are generally outside the range of homebuilders. > > -------- > Eric M. Jones > www.PerihelionDesign.com > 113 Brentwood Drive > Southbridge, MA 01550 > (508) 764-2072 > emjones@charter.net > > Hi Eric, This stuff doesn't operate at the melting point. Brazing is a soldering process rather than welding. I've made a couple of test joinings of aluminum to aluminum but never actually used it for anything yet. (It seemed like I would use it more when I saw it at a trade show.) It takes a little practice, but isn't that hard to do. I think Charlie's suggestion would be worth a try. Bob W. -- http://www.bob-white.com N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06) Custom Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:26:25 AM PST US
    From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Now, that is exactly the point... And I couldn't agree more! Sorry, I just took exception to the dig (what appeared to be) at crossbow. Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:33 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" --> <cjensen@dts9000.com> Alan, You are accurate all around, first, that the problem is only on the non-certified Crossbow (which is still likely of greatest interest to most AE posters) and second, other manufacturer and their product often have problems also as they grow and mature. The POINT I was too subtlety (or inartfully) intending to make has not changed, namely that two of the same thing (i.e. AHRS) do not give true redundancy. Ask the guy that hooked two AIs up to the same vacuum system how the flying was when the vacuum pump turned to dust. It's just a system design consideration. For instance (with NO technical basis to support these numbers), two AHRAS from the same manufacturing run, of the same model with the same software from the same bus system may improve reliability/availability 10% to 25%--certainly not 100%. Chuck Do Not Archive --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Yes, but Chuck, let's make sure we have the correct information... The certified version, the Crossbow 500 which ships in the certified Chelton (and others), does *NOT* have the problem. There currently exists *NO* AD, that I'm aware of. The experimental EFIS companies that utilize the 425 series crossbow AHRS, do have a problem, but it only exists as a service letter from crossbow at the moment. Because there are none of these in certified airplanes, there will never be an AD issued. So, this makes the crossbow problem, no different than the "leaning" problem that BMA, Dynon, GRT, etc have at any moments notice. You are advised of the problem, suggested that you use the equipment for VFR only, but not grounded. http://www.d2av.com/news_images/Service_Letter_NAV425_010506.pdf Alan --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" --> <cjensen@dts9000.com> Alan, This was just poking a bit of fun at the idea of two AHRS giving one true redundancy. In the case of the reference to the Crossbow AHRS, right now if you have two....you have none, since the AD has taken them out of service due to an identified deficiency which can make them fail--hence unreliable for IFR work. So, in this instance, having two of the same thing doesn't double your reliability. Note: This was not a slam on the Crossbow. Just recognition that they have a problem right now that they are working to resolve. How they fix it and how they interact with their customers which they have inconvenienced will be more revealing of their character than any flaw that might have been missed despite certification testing and their best design and QA efforts. Stuff happens. To close out these ramblings, two of something, especially of the same thing, does not constitute true redundancy of systems as they may share the same fail-points. Chuck Jensen --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> QUOTE: As an example....if you have two Crossbow AHRS, what do you have? END QUOTE: Not sure what that is suppose to mean.... It means the same thing whether you have two Crossbow, or GRT, or BMI, or XYZ company AHRS.


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:45:02 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Bob, The reference to "full" ILS was meant to include a glide slope. There is no way that I am aware of to see the glide slope on the 430 control unit face. Consequently a CDI is needed. While I am not very familiar with how the 430 works, I also believe you will need a resolver to input VOR radials for the VHF navigation portion of the 430. Since you do want to fly IFR, I think you will need an approved resolver input device. Is there a resolver function available in the BMA/Lite(G3)? Can it present the glide path indication? Provided the BMA/Lite(G3) provides those capabilities, I think it could work! If all you want from the 430 is IFR GPS functions, a good case can be made for doing it all with the 430 control unit. Since you are the person that has to approve the installation and explain your reasoning at a hearing, it wou ld seem to me that you could support the GPS functions as being in substantial compliance with the applicable GPS TSO even without a separate CDI and resolver. 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 1/14/2006 8:24:39 A.M. Central Standard Time, flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: Hi Bob, It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what you mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd" piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto pilot. Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and intent of the FARs, etc.? Thanks, Bob


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:46:25 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> OK, I can understand that. I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat my drum one more time. These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing down our necks. Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of IFR conditions. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:13 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> Nope. Not wrong, just expensive. OBAM aircraft are probably somewhat more interested in something a little more pedestrian (and affordable than) than "dual independent EFIS with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro (tie breaker)." Heck, I'm still trying to figure out the nuances of the discussion on wiring the master switch. Our mission profile requires a craft a bit less teched-out than a Part 121 airplane, but for anyone that it trips-their-trigger, then by all means...... Chuck Jensen Do Not Archive --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Well then I guess all those Part 121 airplanes flying around out there with dual independent EFIS with an electronic comparator/alerter and a third gyro (tie breaker) are all wrong. Bruce www.glasair.org


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:20:12 AM PST US
    From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com> I understand that . . . the 430 will feed the BMA/Lite for that purpose. Thanks, Bob On 1/14/06, Dan Beadle <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com> wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" < > Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com> > > The 430 does not have glide slope indicator. Therefore the on-board CDI > is not enough to fly the ILS, jus the localizer. > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob > C. > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:21 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " > <flyboy.bob@gmail.com> > > Hi Bob, > > It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what > you > mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute > and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd" > piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto > pilot. > > Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and > intent of the FARs, etc.? > > Thanks, > Bob > > > On 1/14/06, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote: > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > > > > > > Good Morning Bob, > > > > Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR? > > > > Do you want to execute full ILS approaches? > > > > For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed. > > > > For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a > difference > > if > > the aircraft is experimental or normal category. > > > > Do you intend to use an autopilot with the GPS? > > > > There is no question in my mind as to whether or not the set can be > used > > successfully without a CDI for any and all GPS functions it is capable > of > > performing. Unfortunately, the FAA may not agree with that statement! > > > > Let us know precisely how you want to use it and we may be able to > offer > > some help. > > > > 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 1/14/2006 2:49:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, > > flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: > > > > I'm pretty sure you can use a GNS430 without a CDI for GPS Enroute > and > > Approach? . . . It has a "CDI" of sorts built in. I plan to use the > > EHSI > > function of the BMA Lite for ILS and or VOR CDI function and I > believe > > that > > is OK too? The GPS in the "Lite" should make a nice backup too. > > > > Regards, > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:32:44 AM PST US
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> OK, I can understand that. I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat my drum one more time. These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing down our necks. Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of IFR conditions. Bruce At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR is a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give me redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single AHRS. For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass and, most importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery. Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long as the lights are on. So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought out, well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I would make the same admonishment for a certified EFIS! Chuck


    Message 15


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:32:44 AM PST US
    From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com> Bob, Yes the BMA/Lite "has" the resolver capability and does display the ILS "needles" in both the HSI and ADI mode . . . for VOR you would have to be in HSI mode. I'm not flying yet but it is an analog interface with the BMA/Lite sending OBS information back to the 430 . . . I assume the resolving function is done in the 430? and the BMA/Lite displays the to/from and CDI indication. I have an AH, TSO'd Altimeter, and AS and VSI for "back-up" I'm not sure this is all ready for prime time but by the time I'm flying and have my 40 hours flown off I plan to prove the functionality and reliability of what I just said! Thanks for your input! Bob On 1/14/06, BobsV35B@aol.com <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > Good Morning Bob, > > The reference to "full" ILS was meant to include a glide slope. There is > no > way that I am aware of to see the glide slope on the 430 control > unit face. > Consequently a CDI is needed. While I am not very familiar with how the > 430 > works, I also believe you will need a resolver to input VOR radials > for the > VHF navigation portion of the 430. > > Since you do want to fly IFR, I think you will need an approved resolver > input device. > Is there a resolver function available in the BMA/Lite(G3)? Can it present > the glide path indication? > > > Provided the BMA/Lite(G3) provides those capabilities, I think it could > work! > > > If all you want from the 430 is IFR GPS functions, a good case can be made > for doing it all with the 430 control unit. Since you are the person > that has > to approve the installation and explain your reasoning at a hearing, > it wou > ld seem to me that you could support the GPS functions as being > in substantial > compliance with the applicable GPS TSO even without a separate CDI and > resolver. > > 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 1/14/2006 8:24:39 A.M. Central Standard Time, > flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: > > Hi Bob, > > It is a RV8 and I plan to fly some "light" IFR . . . I don't know what > you > mean by "full ILS approaches" but my intent is to fly GPS/VOR enroute > and GPS, VOR and ILS approaches with a GNS430 . . . the only "non TSO'd" > piece of the puzzle is the BMA/Lite(G3). I also have a DigiTrak auto > pilot. > > Anything I've read to date leads me to feel this meets the language and > intent of the FARs, etc.? > > Thanks, > Bob > >


    Message 16


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:40:55 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Common Grounding
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > >If you choose to use plain aluminum...expect mysterious ground problems >and the retrofit of a real ground at your first annual.... > >Bob N, Said>> > We need to make a distinction between aluminum strip having > the necessary cross section to replace an equal length of other > wire and the classic aluminum wire used by the power distribution > industry. > > A strip of alclad aluminum is no more difficult to work with than > to simply use your aluminum airframe as a ground system. We use > airframe grounds all over the airplanes at RAC and this is not > an automatic recipe for problems. It's really coarse/soft > aluminum in the old wire that make it difficult to achieve > gas tight joints and the coarse stranding is particularly vulnerable > to vibration issues. > >Eric Says: Bob, It's true that metal aircraft use the skin as a conductor, >for lighting and antennas, but I would guess where grounding is a big >concern, like sensors and complex electronics a copper ground is added. >That's also why remote industrial sensors are usually current loops, not >voltage levels. > >The forest of tabs is such a good idea...single point grounds. We're mixing apples, and grapes here. Yes, SENSORS that generate small signals are NEVER locally grounded. They'll wave around on the end of a shielded pair or trio and all outbound power, control and inbound signals and grounds are carried in the wire. This is irrespective of the aircraft's structural materials. The idea of using an embedded strip in a glass/epoxy airplane to carry (+) and (-) the length of the airplane in a canard pusher or between firewall and aft battery in a tractor airplane is no different electrically than using wires of any kind. The technology concerns are only for crafting long lived, gas tight, low resistance joints at the ends. Again, this matters not what the conductor material is, the requirements are the same so methodology has to be adjusted to accommodate characteristics of the materials chosen. In the case of coarse stranded, soft aluminum favored by the power distribution industry, folks were unwilling or unable to develop satisfactory termination techniques so the brief terms of duty at Piper (and briefer at Cessna) were abandoned. Availability of fine aluminum strands that behave pretty much like copper in the joint makes the flexibility, vibration resistance and joining technology issues pretty much go away. I believe we're using copper-clad aluminum in Premier and Horizon. I need to check that. None of the above has anything to do with architecture of the ground system. Appliances other than the small-signal devices described above are quite often grounded locally in metallic airframes. This picture . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/MVC-699X.JPG . . . is but one of many examples of airframe grounding found on all of our aluminum aircraft at RAC/Beech. > >Earlier Charlie Asked: >>I've often wondered if the 'aluminum brazing' >products hyped at flyins & available at welding shops could be used to >transition from AL bar stock to a copper tab for mechanical connections. >They are supposed to work on 'most non-ferrous metals'. This might >accomplish Rick's goal of light, cheap, simple, safe. Is that worth exploring? > >Eric Says: The melting points of aluminum and copper are so different that >successfully joining the two is not a matter for the amateur. I'm guessing >that the required tools are generally outside the range of homebuilders. The "brazing" rods I saw at OSH were a basically a soft solder technique. Joining happens by alloying the surface of joined materials with the thin interface between material and the liquid solder. IF these same materials will alloy with copper too, then they're obviously suited to joining of copper and aluminum. Certainly the joints would be gas tight! That's what solder does best. I used to have some of this stuff, I'll see if I can find it and do some experiments in the shop. If anyone else has some, we'd be pleased to hear the results of your experiments too. But in any case, effective use of these joining technologies is not influenced by the melting temperatures of the materials to be joined. One may join copper to steel with tin/lead solders at temperatures much below the melting points of either copper or steel. See chapter 9 of the 'Connection Bob . . .


    Message 17


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:44:24 AM PST US
    From: sportav8r@aol.com
    Subject: Re: E-Bus Avionics Switch ?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com Exactly what I'm planning, and for the same reasons (keeping GRT EFIS off during cranking, etc.) I will / should have my Excel file finished by tonight, showing this architecture with relay feed for both the primart and backup e-bus feed paths, as well as a way to share one OVP crowbar module automatically between two alternators (main and SD-8). -Bill B -----Original Message----- From: LarryRobertHelming <lhelming@sigecom.net> Sent: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:10:31 -0600 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: E-Bus Avionics Switch ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net> ----- Original Message ----- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" > <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net> > > Just thinking? On any of the Endurance Bus drawings. Other than the > "don't > really need it" discussion and parts count issue, what would the downsides > be of adding a S704 contactor between the D25 and E-Bus so that you > effectively used the whole E-bus as an Avionics bus. This would assume > that > the E-bus load can be easily carried by the S704 which I think is rated at > 20 amps and has low continuous draw. It would actually save several > switches for EFIS systems like the GRT which are not internally switched. > I don't see any problem other than having a switch that could fail that would stop current from getting to the e-bus. But that problem is covered because you have a switch to energize on the e-bus and bypass the D25 route. I think your idea is a good way to implement the avionics bus capability. I have been running my plane without an avionics bus and switch but have run on occassions when I would like to turn the master on and not have my transponder, encoder, and Dynon power up. I think I will implement your idea. If it turns out to be a problem, I will report back here. Bob N might want to consider this but I doubt that he will due to his thinking that today's instruments/radios do not need the protection of an avionics bus; But it does have some convience. Indiana Larry, RV7 78 hours "Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and at your own risk." Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if you can finally enjoy the level after you've reached it. L R Helming > > >


    Message 18


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:45:01 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Bob, Sounds good to me except I would strongly suggest the installation of a classic Turn and Bank Needle. There is no instrument that is more reliable and it weighs very little. When all else fails, the T&B can easily get you safely to Mother Earth. Not only that but it is completely non tumbling and can be used as guidance to recover from a spin. I am all for using modern solid state equipment. But nothing beats the T&B for a back-up! 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 1/14/2006 10:34:25 A.M. Central Standard Time, flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: Bob, Yes the BMA/Lite "has" the resolver capability and does display the ILS "needles" in both the HSI and ADI mode . . . for VOR you would have to be in HSI mode. I'm not flying yet but it is an analog interface with the BMA/Lite sending OBS information back to the 430 . . . I assume the resolving function is done in the 430? and the BMA/Lite displays the to/from and CDI indication. I have an AH, TSO'd Altimeter, and AS and VSI for "back-up" I'm not sure this is all ready for prime time but by the time I'm flying and have my 40 hours flown off I plan to prove the functionality and reliability of what I just said!


    Message 19


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:55:56 AM PST US
    From: sportav8r@aol.com
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com Exactly what I like about the Trio EZ-Pilot: built-in turn needle and mechanical inclinometer ball, plus it could fly the plane better than I could if I got a kidney stone or a case of the greens. It suffers no more from electrical system dependency than the ol' Turn and Bank does, so I'm happy with the substitution. -Bill -----Original Message----- From: BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:44:25 EST Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Bob, Sounds good to me except I would strongly suggest the installation of a classic Turn and Bank Needle. There is no instrument that is more reliable and it weighs very little. When all else fails, the T&B can easily get you safely to Mother Earth. Not only that but it is completely non tumbling and can be used as guidance to recover from a spin. I am all for using modern solid state equipment. But nothing beats the T&B for a back-up! 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 1/14/2006 10:34:25 A.M. Central Standard Time, flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes: Bob, Yes the BMA/Lite "has" the resolver capability and does display the ILS "needles" in both the HSI and ADI mode . . . for VOR you would have to be in HSI mode. I'm not flying yet but it is an analog interface with the BMA/Lite sending OBS information back to the 430 . . . I assume the resolving function is done in the 430? and the BMA/Lite displays the to/from and CDI indication. I have an AH, TSO'd Altimeter, and AS and VSI for "back-up" I'm not sure this is all ready for prime time but by the time I'm flying and have my 40 hours flown off I plan to prove the functionality and reliability of what I just said!


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:56:01 AM PST US
    From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Which is exactly why there are zero certified EFIS systems that are certified as *primary* (in small single engines anyway). The G1000 in my C182, is specified as secondary, the primary instruments are the AS, AI, ALT - regular old vacuum driven 3.125" steam gauges... :) Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:30 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" --> <cjensen@dts9000.com> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> OK, I can understand that. I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat my drum one more time. These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing down our necks. Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of IFR conditions. Bruce At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR is a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give me redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single AHRS. For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass and, most importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery. Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long as the lights are on. So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought out, well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I would make the same admonishment for a certified EFIS! Chuck


    Message 21


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:03:35 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Solder Station
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:55 PM 1/12/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" ><jschroeder@perigee.net> > >The ones on EBay are most likely from an enterprising set of folks who buy >them from the big electronics mfg's or repair stations and auction/sell >them on eBay. The METCAL soldering tools are the acme of soldering tools. They're only capable of delivering about 30 watts to the tip but the WHOLE 30 watts gets out there. The tips are temperature controlled. Tips are easy to change . . .just seconds even when hot . . . the cold one is ready us use in under a minute. Tip sizes range from about .2" flats to .015" points. I can solder a terminal on a 2AWG wire with the big guy and install .025" pitch surface mount chips with the other one. RAC has used nothing but METCAL for about 20 years. I dumped all of the solder stations in my shop about 6 years ago and went to METCAL's purchased off Ebay. Whole stations with power supply, wand, tips and wand holder will be more expensive. Wands take the most beating so I try to buy orphaned power supplies (picked up one last week for $40). I like to get new wands from a distributor (typically $60) and tips off Ebay (1 to $10 each). This is an excellent way to acquire what is arguably one of the most versatile soldering systems out there for well under $200. I have two on the bench, one in my grab-it-and- run toolkit and I've purchased perhaps another half dozen for family members. I've had a couple of power supplies go TU over the years but they're so inexpensive to replace, I don't bother to repair them. It's not worth the time. The supply I bought last week is a "spare". Bob . . .


    Message 22


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:06:07 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-13 questions
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 11:41 AM 1/12/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com> > >A followup of question (2) from the peanut gallery, Bob... > >Could you oversize the fuse in the fuseblock that feeds the 5A OVP CB to >"guarantee" the breaker pops before the fuse blows? Is there a fuse rating >that'll provide the same level of hard fault protection as the 22 AWG >fuselink while still allowing the 5A OVP CB to pop first? Sure. I did some experiments with the ATC fuses a few years ago. 25A fuses will stay in place upstream of a 5A breaker. 30A wouldn't hurt anything. You might want to upsize the feeder from fuse to breaker to maybe 18AWG. But the fusible link makes so much sense here, I wouldn't recommend it. Bob . . .


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:16:20 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Quite often, in discussions like these, we tend to be hardware orientated and totally overlook the human factors engineering in the systems. With your dual GRT EFIS you're a step ahead of most. Are you cross checking as part of your normal scan? Again, the part of this equation that most worries me is (except in black screen failures) the time it takes the pilot to realize that something is seriously wrong, determine the failed instrument, and take corrective action. In some stages of IFR flight that amount of time will just not be there. If the ADI rolls inverted at 8,000 feet when you're on top, no problem. But if you're 300 AGL on the ILS?? This is the main reason for dual systems/electronic comparator/3rd gyro, to give you a chance to survive when time is of the essence. You're free to fly with whatever you want as long as it fits your comfort level. But when I see builders wanting to charge off into hard IFR with a BMA, T&B, and ASI, I just got to say - Are you sure you want to do this? Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:30 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> OK, I can understand that. I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat my drum one more time. These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing down our necks. Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of IFR conditions. Bruce At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR is a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give me redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single AHRS. For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass and, most importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery. Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long as the lights are on. So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought out, well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I would make the same admonishment for a certified EFIS! Chuck


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:16:26 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Fw: common grounding
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:16 AM 1/12/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" ><Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com> > >It is important to keep high loads, especially noisy loads, like motors, >away from the forest of tabs. The #10 wire has some small resistance; >when you put a noisy high current through it, it will spill over to the >other equipment. (the high current would cause the tabs to momentarily >rise above ground) >I would be comfortable with a 1 foot run of #10 to forest of tabs which >were used to ground avionics and instruments. > >Most noisy loads like motors should ground back at the engine mount. >Alternatively, you could use a separate remote ground point for all the >noisy returns in the cockpit, and ground them back through an >appropriately sized wire to the main ground point. Not so. The forest of tabs ground block is not a potential ingress point for noise into other systems that share the ground. This is what SINGLE POINT GROUNDING is all about. EVERY grounded article shares the same reference. Standing in my front yard talking, we would be unaware of our earth rotation velocity on the order of 1000 mph, our earth orbit velocity on the order of 70,000 mph or the universe expansion velocity of who knows how much . . . because we're standing on the same hunk of turf that carries us along together. Single point electrical system grounds function in the same manner. It's not essential that the ground system not move electrically, it IS essential that all systems sharing the ground be unaware of the movement . . . i.e. no noise coupled from one system to another in spite of a great deal of noise being present. Bob . . .


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:24:27 AM PST US
    From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> Good point. I'm going to check with Garmin, Chelton, and Avidyne and get the certification status of their systems. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alan K. Adamson Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:53 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Which is exactly why there are zero certified EFIS systems that are certified as *primary* (in small single engines anyway). The G1000 in my C182, is specified as secondary, the primary instruments are the AS, AI, ALT - regular old vacuum driven 3.125" steam gauges... :) Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Jensen Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:30 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" --> <cjensen@dts9000.com> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org> OK, I can understand that. I hope you've been following the EFIS discussion on this list. Let me beat my drum one more time. These low cost EFIS displays (Pick your favorite) are hypnotic and compelling, if cross checks start to disagree, the pilot is going to want to keep on flying that pretty EFIS unless you hit him over the head. We don't know all their failure modes and their software (with the exception of Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing down our necks. Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of IFR conditions. Bruce At the risk of further pounding on this dead horse whose meat is already well-tenderized, the admonishment to avoid the noncertified EFIS for IFR is a bit broad (IMHO). I fly with a dual GRT EFIS (this does not give me redundancy, just contemporary PFD and EIS display) driven by a single AHRS. For redundancy, I rely on old round AS, Alt and vertical compass and, most importantly, a Mid-Continent AI with its own internal battery. Secondary redundancy (but reliant on the same electrical system as the AHRS/EFIS is a TruTrak A/P which will take me where I want to go as long as the lights are on. So, I would concede your proposition with just a bit of technical modification, "low cost, noncertified EFIS systems are okay for VFR airplanes but stay out of IFR conditions unless you have a well thought out, well designed redundant primary flight system." But of course, I would make the same admonishment for a certified EFIS! Chuck


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 09:29:01 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Fw: common grounding
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:48 AM 1/12/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net> > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: bob noffs >To: aeroelectric list >Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:33 AM >Subject: common grounding > > >hi all, > did i miss the answer to the original question because i am also > interested...''will a 300 mm run of #10 wire to the forest of tabs from > the grounded firewall create a groundloop? thanks all, GROUND LOOPS happen for one and one reason only. Two systems, one a potential victim and one a potential antagonist share multiple grounds that are NOT tied to each other with sufficiently low resistance. Noise currents in the antagonist system influence the victim. The act of spreading the ground system out as illustrated in Z-15 does not violate the single point ground concept as long as all grounds for any one appliance are gathered together at the same point in the ground system. For example, we added a panel ground bus to the architecture at Revision 11. ALL electrowhizzies on panel ground at this bus for convenience and the bus gets extended to the firewall on fewer, easier to connect/disconnect wires. Where do you want to mount the forest of tabs ground block? What kind of aircraft. Would a panel ground block as illustrated in chapter 18 http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf be a better choice for remote locating a number of grounds for convenience while leaving the forest of tabs on the firewall? We need to know a bit more about your project and what conditions prompted the idea of moving the ground block off the firewall. Bob . . .


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:49:17 AM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-13 questions
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net> FWIW if the alternator is internally regulated and the b lead goes through a contactor, then the CB can be downsized as it only has to power the contactor coil instead of supply the field current. I happened to have a 2 1/2 amp (2.5 amp) CB on hand and it works just fine when fed off the fuse block through a 10 amp fuse. After many crowbar OVP test trips, the fuse has never failed. Being picky, I used 18awg wire downstream of the fuse to insure that the wire doesn't overheat if shorted, and I'd go to larger wire in accordance with normal practice if using a larger fuse and a 5 amp breaker. While I used a few fuse links in other places, it was just very convenient and simple to feed the OV breaker off a fuse in my bird. A fuse link quickly starts to make more sense if one is comparing a fuse link and 22 awg wire to a 25 or 30 amp fuse and substantially heavier wire. Ken Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > >At 11:41 AM 1/12/2006 -0600, you wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com> >> >>A followup of question (2) from the peanut gallery, Bob... >> >>Could you oversize the fuse in the fuseblock that feeds the 5A OVP CB to >>"guarantee" the breaker pops before the fuse blows? Is there a fuse rating >>that'll provide the same level of hard fault protection as the 22 AWG >>fuselink while still allowing the 5A OVP CB to pop first? >> >> > > Sure. I did some experiments with the ATC fuses a few years ago. > 25A fuses will stay in place upstream of a 5A breaker. 30A > wouldn't hurt anything. You might want to upsize the feeder from > fuse to breaker to maybe 18AWG. But the fusible link makes > so much sense here, I wouldn't recommend it. > > Bob . . . > >


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:15:07 AM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    Subject: Re: alternator b-lead bundled with engine computer
    wiring --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net> Hi Mickey Well the 1992 Soob manual says the small starter is 1.0 kw and the large is 1.4 kw and that the small draws 90 amps no load at 11 volts, up to 280 amps while cranking at 8 volts, and up to 800 amps stalled at 5 volts. So I figure 200+ is in the ballpark and since 4awg is a common welding cable size, that is what I used even though my battery is reasonably close to the starter. The car used metric gauge wires that might have been a bit lighter than 4 awg. The larger starter off the automatic transmission draws up to 380 amps during cranking but you almost for sure have the smaller one I think. Ken Mickey Coggins wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> > > > >>No.6 from the battery to the starter seems a little light for starter >>currents, though, but if it works .... I am using No.2 up to a firewall >>pass-through. >> >> > >It's a geared starter (auto conversion) so it does not require >as much current as an aviation engine starter. I can't get >anyone to tell me how much current it will require, for some >reason, but they keep telling me that #6 is enough. > > http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/electrical.htm > >I'll probably slap a hall effect sensor on there once I'm >ready to start the engine, just to satisfy my curiosity. > > >


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:24:33 AM PST US
    From: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net>
    Subject: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions? Jim Butcher Europa XS N241BW


    Message 30


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:02:04 PM PST US
    Subject: Fw: common grounding
    From: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.inclinesoftworks.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com> I guess I disagree with Bob a little on this. As an analog engineer, I have designed a lot of low-signal systems. The key to good analog performance is keeping noise out of the analog system. The way we do that is actually to split the grounds - a quiet ground where it matters and a noisy (digital) ground where it doesn't. The key is to keep high currents out of the analog ground, where a high current will actually create a voltage drop from one end of the ground to the other. The digital and analog grounds are considered separate sub-systems which are then tied together at a common grounding point. So Bob and I are saying the same thing, but different things.... Extending this to airplanes, I plane to keep all my avionics and instrumentation on a separate forest of tabs. That ground will tie back to a common point at the battery main lead. Other grounds, like for starter and servo motors will tie not to the forest of tabs, but to the main battery single point ground. High currents will not flow over the 1" or so from the forest of tabs to the battery single point. (I am sure Bob agrees with this too; I doubt he proposes grounding the starter to the single point forest of tabs.) Any current in the 1" ground from the forest will cause a voltage rise V=IR. Given, R is very low. But some analog signals out of sensors are only 15mV, so any significant current over even a small R can cause sensor errors. The avionics and instruments going to the field of tabs will have few amps flowing, keeping the V=IR rise very low. And, other than keying the transmitter, they will be very stable. I won't have to deal with a high current motor feeding back and injecting noise into my ground bus. For what its worth... Dan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 9:16 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Fw: common grounding --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:16 AM 1/12/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" ><Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com> > >It is important to keep high loads, especially noisy loads, like motors, >away from the forest of tabs. The #10 wire has some small resistance; >when you put a noisy high current through it, it will spill over to the >other equipment. (the high current would cause the tabs to momentarily >rise above ground) >I would be comfortable with a 1 foot run of #10 to forest of tabs which >were used to ground avionics and instruments. > >Most noisy loads like motors should ground back at the engine mount. >Alternatively, you could use a separate remote ground point for all the >noisy returns in the cockpit, and ground them back through an >appropriately sized wire to the main ground point. Not so. The forest of tabs ground block is not a potential ingress point for noise into other systems that share the ground. This is what SINGLE POINT GROUNDING is all about. EVERY grounded article shares the same reference. Standing in my front yard talking, we would be unaware of our earth rotation velocity on the order of 1000 mph, our earth orbit velocity on the order of 70,000 mph or the universe expansion velocity of who knows how much . . . because we're standing on the same hunk of turf that carries us along together. Single point electrical system grounds function in the same manner. It's not essential that the ground system not move electrically, it IS essential that all systems sharing the ground be unaware of the movement . . . i.e. no noise coupled from one system to another in spite of a great deal of noise being present. Bob . . .


    Message 31


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:14:07 PM PST US
    From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net>
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net> Jim, CPVC water piping. Inexpensive and light. Richard Dudley RV-6A flying Jim Butcher wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> > >I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions? > >Jim Butcher >Europa XS N241BW > > > > > > > > >


    Message 32


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:24:10 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net> Alan - Try this link on the BMA board: http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=127 It has the ref and cite for the EAA paper. As I understand it, you can legally do an IFR ILS or VOR approach using external VOR/ILS inputs connected to the EFIS/ONE. However, as I read this thread and understand the BMA EFIS, you cannot use the GPS for anything other than navigation assistance. Thus, if one wants to navigate and do approaches IFR using GPS, the box has to meet more stringent criteria. I have not found the reference yet, but I believe that a WAAS approach using a GNS 480 has to have an OBS/CDI. We wired our 480 to an MD200-306(?). The EFIS/ONE cannot provide this because it cannot communicate fully with the 480. The EFIS/ONE is a wonderful piece of equipment and we look forward to using it. But it is not, in my opinion, a box into which I want to put all the eggs. I can't comment on the uncertified Chelton line because I have not followed or worked with them. John > <aadamson@highrf.com> > > John, I might be wrong and just went to look on the BMA site. I didn't > find > anything specifically, nor did I find it on or searching around the EAA > site. > > Can you post a link? You sure you aren't confusing the issue of using > the > BMA with a CNX-480 and the fact that you can't get all the nav signals > that > are needed, some most are using an external head? > > The link to specifics would help if you could please? I'm curious as > well > as I'm going down the road to a chelton panel for a Legacy and want to > make > sure I don't mess up. Guys at D2AV say I don't need and external CDI... > > Alan


    Message 33


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:45:08 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Afternoon Bill. I hope you are correct, but I have heard rumors that the current crop of solid state accelerometer based rate sensors do not do well during violent maneuvering. Supposedly, that is one of the reasons there have been so few approved for certified use. It is my feeling that I would sooner have a tried and true instrument like the T&B for my last ditch backup. I would hope that some day I will have the confidence to use newer designs, but meanwhile, I will keep my gyroscopic turn needle. In my current spam can, I have one electric T&B and one vacuum powered T&B. However, I guess that is why we call the OBAM aircraft experimental. We are all free to experiment as we see fit! 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 1/14/2006 10:57:18 A.M. Central Standard Time, sportav8r@aol.com writes: Exactly what I like about the Trio EZ-Pilot: built-in turn needle and mechanical inclinometer ball, plus it could fly the plane better than I could if I got a kidney stone or a case of the greens. It suffers no more from electrical system dependency than the ol' Turn and Bank does, so I'm happy with the substitution. -Bill


    Message 34


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:50:49 PM PST US
    From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net> ----- Original Message ----- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> > > I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot > static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main > purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. > Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone > got better suggestions? > > Jim Butcher > Europa XS N241BW > Check Vans aircraft. That is what RV builders use. Indiana Larry, RV7 >


    Message 35


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:12:07 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Hawker battery failure
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> I have some preliminary feedback from a teardown inspection that's being done on the battery we received here last year. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV There was zero moisture in the battery although the vent caps were intact meaning that all water had been converted to steam and exited the cells via the over-pressure vents. The swelling on the side suggests that the inter-cell walls became detached from the outside battery wall or that they stretched. Given that internal pressures are limited to the cracking value of the valves. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_5.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_6.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_7.jpg It appears that the cell walls are intact but stretched. I'm going to see if we can run some tests on those caps (and on a new battery that hasn't been hot). This battery was subject to an OV condition for considerable time and it may be that this damage took several flight cycles to go this far. Watch this space. Bob . . .


    Message 36


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:17:39 PM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net> I used that very cheap milky white semirigid water pipe from the hardware store. Think it was high density polyethylene. Very easy to push wires through compared to corrogated stuff. Also more resistant to vibration as the corrogated stuff is intended to be somewhat flexible. I was advised to avoid any of the PVC's as they emit nasty toxic fumes and acids when they get hot or are exposed to flame... Ken Jim Butcher wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> > >I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions? > >Jim Butcher >Europa XS N241BW > >


    Message 37


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:33:19 PM PST US
    From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
    Subject: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com> Ah, ok, now that helps... Ok, so here is some help. The chelton fully interfaces with the SL-30 (notice I didn't say 480 yet) for resolver info and GS, LOC signals. Actually it does this via a serial interface. The problem is the 480, which supposedly uses the same engine as the SL-30, didn't implement the serial interface the same as the SL-30 and so you can't get all the data to drive the BMA interface. You don't technically need an external display, you just need a display that can give GS and LOC information in an displayable format (could be HSI, could be HITS, could be up/down, left/right). Notice I've left alone the conversation about GPS approaches for the moment. So on an ILS or LOC/VOR approach, the BMA or Chelton can be the only display if talking to an SL-30. If there is a 480 involved, it most likely needs an external display due to the limitations of the 480 and it's inability to provide the signals that the eFIS wants. You actually can do it on the Chelton, but it requires an expensive ARINC 429 to serial converter. I'm not going to get into the GPS approach topic. There are a whole set of issues there. However, if you have a GPS which delivers the right outputs for either the Chelton or the BMA and it's Approach certified, you don't technically need the external CDI. There is no requirement that I'm aware of that specifically requires a TSO'd (don't even think there is a TSO for a CDI anyway) indicator or switch panel for that matter. As you can tell, this gets all complicated, and even more so depending on what radio the EFIS is trying to talk to... But then this isn't an Avionics forum and I'm not an expert :) Thanks tho and I'll go read the links you provided. Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Schroeder Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 3:23 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" --> <jschroeder@perigee.net> Alan - Try this link on the BMA board: http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showthread.php?t=127 It has the ref and cite for the EAA paper. As I understand it, you can legally do an IFR ILS or VOR approach using external VOR/ILS inputs connected to the EFIS/ONE. However, as I read this thread and understand the BMA EFIS, you cannot use the GPS for anything other than navigation assistance. Thus, if one wants to navigate and do approaches IFR using GPS, the box has to meet more stringent criteria. I have not found the reference yet, but I believe that a WAAS approach using a GNS 480 has to have an OBS/CDI. We wired our 480 to an MD200-306(?). The EFIS/ONE cannot provide this because it cannot communicate fully with the 480. The EFIS/ONE is a wonderful piece of equipment and we look forward to using it. But it is not, in my opinion, a box into which I want to put all the eggs. I can't comment on the uncertified Chelton line because I have not followed or worked with them. John > <aadamson@highrf.com> > > John, I might be wrong and just went to look on the BMA site. I > didn't find anything specifically, nor did I find it on or searching > around the EAA site. > > Can you post a link? You sure you aren't confusing the issue of using > the BMA with a CNX-480 and the fact that you can't get all the nav > signals that are needed, some most are using an external head? > > The link to specifics would help if you could please? I'm curious as > well as I'm going down the road to a chelton panel for a Legacy and > want to make sure I don't mess up. Guys at D2AV say I don't need and > external CDI... > > Alan


    Message 38


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:32:53 PM PST US
    From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> The aviation department at your local home depot or lowes has plain tubing that I have used for everything from wiring conduit in the wings to pitot/static plumbing. It's the milky colored stuff....... Ralph Capen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 1:29 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Conduit > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> > > I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot > static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main > purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. > Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone > got better suggestions? > > Jim Butcher > Europa XS N241BW > > >


    Message 39


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:00:48 PM PST US
    From: rd2@evenlink.com
    Subject: KI208/209 not in agreement
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com Hi all, I have 2 indicators - KI209 and KI208. Sometimes the CDI difference between the two, when set on the same OBS, is more than 4 degrees. Does anyone know how to get them to agree? Is this done from the radios or the indicator? Rumen


    Message 40


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:12:48 PM PST US
    From: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
    Subject: Solder Station
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com> Ditton on the Metcals. That's all we use in our shop as well - and we learned this from the airline days. The R&E shops at the airlines had these and we liked them, so we procured some for our own use when I set up my own shop. They are lightning fast to heat up, will work on everything from hair thin wires to larger gauges and multiples. After you use one you'll never go back! Ours too mostly come off of Ebay! Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:03 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder Station --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:55 PM 1/12/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" ><jschroeder@perigee.net> > >The ones on EBay are most likely from an enterprising set of folks who buy >them from the big electronics mfg's or repair stations and auction/sell >them on eBay. The METCAL soldering tools are the acme of soldering tools. They're only capable of delivering about 30 watts to the tip but the WHOLE 30 watts gets out there. The tips are temperature controlled. Tips are easy to change . . .just seconds even when hot . . . the cold one is ready us use in under a minute. Tip sizes range from about .2" flats to .015" points. I can solder a terminal on a 2AWG wire with the big guy and install .025" pitch surface mount chips with the other one. RAC has used nothing but METCAL for about 20 years. I dumped all of the solder stations in my shop about 6 years ago and went to METCAL's purchased off Ebay. Whole stations with power supply, wand, tips and wand holder will be more expensive. Wands take the most beating so I try to buy orphaned power supplies (picked up one last week for $40). I like to get new wands from a distributor (typically $60) and tips off Ebay (1 to $10 each). This is an excellent way to acquire what is arguably one of the most versatile soldering systems out there for well under $200. I have two on the bench, one in my grab-it-and- run toolkit and I've purchased perhaps another half dozen for family members. I've had a couple of power supplies go TU over the years but they're so inexpensive to replace, I don't bother to repair them. It's not worth the time. The supply I bought last week is a "spare". Bob . . .


    Message 41


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:48:22 PM PST US
    From: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net> hi jim, i know you wont get lighter than this. the 8' plastic tubes that make fluorescent tubes explosion proof. they even have a plastic fitting on each end that makes mounting slick. i used one in my plane. they cut easy and can be spliced with pieces cut from an unused tube. they may not be stiff enough for your needs but were perfect for me. bob noffs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley@att.net> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 2:13 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Conduit > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net> > > Jim, > CPVC water piping. Inexpensive and light. > > Richard Dudley > RV-6A flying > > Jim Butcher wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> >> >>I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot >>static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main >>purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. >>Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone >>got better suggestions? >> >>Jim Butcher >>Europa XS N241BW >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >


    Message 42


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:51:17 PM PST US
    From: sportav8r@aol.com
    Subject: need some advice here, guys- alternator for RV
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com Armed with info gleaned from the AeroElectric list and elsewhere on the web, I went alternator-shopping at the local auto parts stores today, to see how close I could get to the recommended 70 A machine that goes by part number Lester 13353 or NipponDenso 121000-346. If I had not had the additional tidbit that it fits a '93 Dodge Ramcharger 5.2 liter pickup, I think the parts counter clerks would have been helpless to assist me. The choices that came up "in stock" were limited to one: the Dodge's optional 90 amp externally-regulated machine (reman) with a serpentine pulley, in a 125mm case. My quest for a VR-166 Ford regulator also ended with a substitute, the Sorensen VR-301. The alternator comes with its own computer-generated test output graph and data table, indicating it is capable of 126 amps at 6000 rpm, and draws 5.72 amps of field current at that output. It seems to weigh about 11 lbs on the bathroom scales. Already I'm thinking this might be more of a fire-breathing machine than I should bolt to my RV, even if it's a physical fit, which I think it will be. I'm not sure the electronic regulator will necessarily "handle" it, but not sure why it wouldn't. I don't need anywhere near the output this alternator is capable of, and I don't want my 5 amp field breaker nuisance-tripping because the field happens to want near that amount (no idea how linear the field current vs output curve might be, so no way to know field current at closer to 50-60 amps, for example.) Finally, I'm unsure how easily the V-pulley from my original Van's 35 A machine will slip onto the shaft of the new alternator. Any takers on that one? When I make the swap, I'd like to have everything go smoothly with a minimum of downtime. Basically, I'd like some reassurance that this is worth trying. I can always take it back and order the Dodge 70 amp alternator; same physical size, and ironically more money. Advice appreciated, friends. Thanks. -Bill Boyd RV-6A O-320 FP


    Message 43


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:38:58 PM PST US
    From: Kevin And Ann Klinefelter <kevann@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin And Ann Klinefelter <kevann@verizon.net> check out drip irrigation tubing. lightweight, black plastic. cheap too Kevin Jim Butcher wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net> > >I'm looking for a lightweight conduit for use in the wing to carry pitot static tubing and wing tip light wiring - probably 1/2 inch ID. Main purpose is to allow for future wire replacement after the wing is closed. Best I've seen is the slit convoluted stuff used in some autos. Anyone got better suggestions? > >Jim Butcher >Europa XS N241BW > > > > > > > > >


    Message 44


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:25:46 PM PST US
    From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Wire Conduit
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com In a message dated 01/14/2006 1:26:13 PM Central Standard Time, europa@triton.net writes: Anyone got better suggestions? >>> Hi Jim- I used 5/8" CPVC on my RV through holes in the wing ribs- very happy with it and simple to add/remove wiring. Not sure how it would work in a Europa though... Mark Phillips - do not archive


    Message 45


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:03:09 PM PST US
    From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
    Subject: GPS CDI (was: EFIS Comparisons)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > Good Morning Bob, > > Do you intend to use the 430 IFR or VFR? > > Do you want to execute full ILS approaches? A set of ILS needles is required for this. This does not need to be a TSO display tho. You do not need TSO on any of the avionics except for the IFR-certified GPS. > For VFR, there is no question that a CDI is not needed. > > For IFR, things get a bit stickier. Beyond that, it makes a difference if > the aircraft is experimental or normal category. As I interpret TSO-129.whatever (for IFR GPS), the doc states that there must be a CDI in the normal visual scan of the pilot. I would consider the CDI display on the unit when mounted in a center-stack for radios to be within the pilot's normal visual scan. This therefore does not require a separate CDI. OTOH, some inspectors at the FSDO did insist on one. I don't think that TSO for it is required so something like the BM EFIS-1 should suffice. Again, my interpretation. Also, as I recall, didn't they change the requirements for installing an IFR GPS such that it no longer requires a sign-off by and inspector at the FSDO? -- Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr. brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery


    Message 46


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:08:26 PM PST US
    From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
    Subject: Re: KI208/209 not in agreement
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> rd2@evenlink.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > > Hi all, > I have 2 indicators - KI209 and KI208. Sometimes the CDI difference between > the two, when set on the same OBS, is more than 4 degrees. Does anyone know > how to get them to agree? Is this done from the radios or the indicator? The KI-208 and KI-209 contain the VOR/LOC converter. Adjustments are accomplished inside the indicator, not in the radio. GS adjustments are inside the radio as the GS converter is part of the GS module in the radio. The KX-165 has the internal VOR/LOC converter. The KX-155 does not. -- Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr. brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery


    Message 47


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:24:22 PM PST US
    From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
    Subject: Re: EFIS Comparisons
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> Bruce Gray wrote: > problem. But if you're 300 AGL on the ILS?? This is the main reason for dual > systems/electronic comparator/3rd gyro, to give you a chance to survive when > time is of the essence. > > You're free to fly with whatever you want as long as it fits your comfort > level. But when I see builders wanting to charge off into hard IFR with a > BMA, T&B, and ASI, I just got to say - Are you sure you want to do this? I regularly fly to 200' with a vacuum-powered AI, HI, and an electric T&SI. OK, I have a standby vacuum source. Frankly, a backup AI makes a lot more sense to me than a T&SI but that is not the way most GA aircraft are equipped. The current crop of electronic PFDs should be more reliable than iron gyros. And as for visually/mentally comparing two displays, you should know what the airplane is doing and can tell which display makes sense and which doesn't. You probably don't need to immediately react if you don't have an airspeed trend or a VSI trend. Also remember that without a third AHRS your comparator doesn't know which one is bad and which is good. It only knows they disagree. BTW, most AI's fail slowly. You know they are going long before they finally fail. I did experience one catastrophic failure of an AI tho'. I had one where the bearings failed and allowed the rotor to depart the gimbals. The "bang" was so loud I thought the engine had thrown a rod. But the engine kept running and the AI display began a very interesting 'dance of death'. Fortunately I was VFR at the time. -- Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr. brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --