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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | 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 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> 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 |
|
Subject: | 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 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | 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 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
Subject: | Fw: common grounding |
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: 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 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
--> 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|