Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:38 AM - Hidden till needed annunciator lights? ()
2. 02:05 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 02:45 AM - Re: IFR GPS Display (Kevin Horton)
4. 02:53 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (Kevin Horton)
5. 04:24 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (bob noffs)
6. 04:50 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (Bruce Gray)
7. 05:57 AM - Re: Light IFR (Mark & Lisa)
8. 05:58 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (rv-9a-online)
9. 06:00 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (Bill Denton)
10. 06:04 AM - Re: EFIS Companies (Greg Vouga)
11. 06:11 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (Jim Butcher)
12. 06:17 AM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Vern W.)
13. 06:41 AM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (richard titsworth)
14. 06:44 AM - Re: Jabiru 3300 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 07:17 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Jan de Jong)
16. 07:42 AM - Re: ***SPAM*** Instrument install/annunciator lights (John Schroeder)
17. 07:55 AM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (John Schroeder)
18. 08:11 AM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Dan Beadle)
19. 08:23 AM - Re: EFIS Companies (Bob C.)
20. 08:23 AM - Re: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? (Dan Beadle)
21. 09:43 AM - Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com)
22. 10:13 AM - IFR GPS Display (Bruce McGregor)
23. 11:28 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Kevin Seuferer)
24. 11:29 AM - Battery strength (Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de)
25. 11:41 AM - Re: Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 11:43 AM - Interference between Com and Autopilot (Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de)
27. 01:26 PM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (Dr. Peter Laurence)
28. 01:59 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Kevin Horton)
29. 02:13 PM - Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights (Bruce Gray)
30. 02:23 PM - MicroAir products (Rodney Dunham)
31. 03:12 PM - Re: MicroAir products (Allan Aaron)
32. 03:25 PM - Re: MicroAir products (Dave Morris \)
33. 03:31 PM - Re: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? (Nancy Ghertner)
34. 03:51 PM - Re: MicroAir products (Jim Thorne)
35. 04:12 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (LarryRobertHelming)
36. 04:20 PM - Re: MicroAir products (Larry McFarland)
37. 04:25 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
38. 04:28 PM - Re: MicroAir products (Brian Lloyd)
39. 04:58 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Peter Laurence)
40. 05:05 PM - Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot (Brian Lloyd)
41. 05:16 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Greg Young)
42. 05:21 PM - Re: 'Light' IFR??? (Matt Prather)
43. 05:25 PM - circuit simplification help needed (Mark R. Supinski)
44. 05:50 PM - Re: IFR GPS Display (Brian Lloyd)
45. 06:11 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (John W. Cox)
46. 06:26 PM - PC680 battery (D. Jones)
47. 06:46 PM - D25 Diode voltage variance ?? (Bill Schlatterer)
48. 06:53 PM - Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? (Charlie England)
49. 06:53 PM - Re: PC680 battery (Dave Morris \)
50. 07:09 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
51. 07:12 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
52. 07:16 PM - Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? (Matt Prather)
53. 07:22 PM - Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? (Dave Morris \)
54. 07:29 PM - Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? (Bill Schlatterer)
55. 07:29 PM - Re: PC680 battery (Ed Anderson)
56. 07:35 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Kelly McMullen)
57. 07:45 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (richard titsworth)
58. 08:19 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Jerry Grimmonpre)
59. 08:24 PM - Re: circuit simplification help needed (richard cannella)
60. 08:41 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Brian Lloyd)
61. 08:45 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
62. 08:47 PM - Prescott AZ 2006 Seminar date set (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
63. 08:55 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
64. 09:25 PM - Cheap CDI/ILS indicators (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
65. 09:32 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
66. 09:39 PM - Re: ***SPAM*** 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: | Hidden till needed annunciator lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Anyone know how to make or where to buy hidden till needed annunciator
lights?
My car has a row on the bottom of panel that is black and uniform, until
something is illuminated. Upon turning on ignition switch, all illuminate
as a test.
Better yet if one were to reverse label could it be installed as a heads
up display?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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 Mike,
I recommend the T&B because I think it is a much better back up than the
artificial horizon.
I agree that when it comes to preservation of life, price is a secondary
consideration.
If the T&B cost ten times as much as an artificial horizon, I would still
say it is a better choice.
Obviously, I disagree with most of what you say, but isn't that the nice
thing about experimental aircraft? You get to make your own choices!
One of the tough things about discussing things such as this on a list d
evoted to electrical systems is that a full explanation would take up an awful
lot of bandwidth.
The reason I feel as I do have been stated on this list many times in the
past. If you care, I could send some of the data to you directly.
Here is one place that I think we may agree. If a person has not learned to
fly partial panel to the competency required by the regulations, he or she
should not be flying IFR.
I do have hopes that there will be a solid state device developed that will
be a better backup than the T&B, but I have not yet seen one on which I wish
to stake my future.
You state that most T&Bs are powered by vacuum. That may be true. But then
again, it may not! I'll bet a milk shake that there are more electrically
powered T&Bs in service today than there are vacuum powered ones.
One discussion that is common on, and quite pertinent to, this list,
concerns developing an airplane that meets the operators desire for redundancy
by
providing back up electrical choices.
The all electric airplane.
All facets of life contain risk. For certified airplanes, the FAA has
developed regulations that specify some of the allowable risks. Requiring a
redundant power source for instrumentation was not an FAA requirement until very
recently.
Such redundancy is not required for the vast majority of airplanes flying
today. It is only required for certification of new designs and that
requirement is not retroactive to the majority of the certified fleet.
I have many pilot friends who feel that anyone flying a single engine
airplane without a sophisticated ejection seat is stark raving mad.
Personally, I am glad the FAA does not require such an escape device.
Homebuilders are still allowed to choose the redundancy level they are
comfortable with.
So are we folks who currently fly most certified machines!
When I bought my first Bonanza in 1954, it had all of instrumentation
required by the CAA for IFR flight plus one instrument that was not required.
It had a gyroscopic directional indicator!
There was no requirement for an artificial horizon and my airplane was not
so equipped. Both the T&B and the DG were vacuum driven
By the time I bought that machine, I had been an active flight instructor
for five years and had been flying a lot of actual IFR. I wanted more redundancy
than the CAA required so I installed a back up electric T&B. My choice, not
a requirement!
You mention that you have been flying for twenty-five years. That's great
and I hope you fly safely for many more years, but may I respectfully say that
the years one has flown means very little?
I have a medical doctor friend who makes the following statement concerning
his associates. "Some doctors have one year of experience. Others have twenty
years. Still others have one year of experience twenty times over!"
The same can be said of aviators.
Not everybody gains greater proficiency with greater exposure. Me included!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 1/16/2006 12:24:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mlas@cox.net writes:
I do not agree with what you have to say about the T&B vs. a back up
attitude indicator. Yes it costs more and may weigh a few ounces more,
but what is your life worth. As far as reliability, the back up
attitude indicator isn't the problem with failure.
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: IFR GPS Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
to those who know the US regs better than I.
But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
and terminal phases of flight.
Kevin Horton
On 15 Jan 2006, at 23:35, Mike wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
> incorporated this into your limitations.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> McGregor
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor"
> <bruceflys@comcast.net>
>
> AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
> System
> Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
> Navigation
> Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation
> display(s)
> and
> failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
> Primary
> field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
> Other
> displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
> standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
> right.
>
> One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
> CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
> eliminate
> the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
> gives a
> 12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon
> or GRT
> PFD
> above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
> directly
> in front of the pilot.
>
> Regards, Bruce McGregor
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: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
> Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in
> your
> panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one
> corner?
> For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a
> choice
> and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the
> knob goes
> (big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS
> (VOR/ILS
> indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have
> small posts
> that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were
> removed before
> installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed
> prior to
> installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just
> going to
> have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole?
> Also, what
> exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
I've got an MD200, and the Falcon G meter. Both need a cut out for
the knobs in the corner. The knob on the G meter is closer to the
hole than a screw hold would be, if I recall correctly, so don't
drill the holes until you have the gauge in your hands.
#6 screw = #28 drill bit.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
kevin,
''hog out the corner''. been there last week. if you look careful you will
see the face of the alt. is built up around the shaft you are talking about.
that bit of panel needs to be removed to make it fit.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
>> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>>
>> Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in
>> your
>> panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one
>> corner?
>> For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a
>> choice
>> and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the
>> knob goes
>> (big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS
>> (VOR/ILS
>> indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have
>> small posts
>> that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were
>> removed before
>> installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed
>> prior to
>> installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just
>> going to
>> have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole?
>> Also, what
>> exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
>
> I've got an MD200, and the Falcon G meter. Both need a cut out for
> the knobs in the corner. The knob on the G meter is closer to the
> hole than a screw hold would be, if I recall correctly, so don't
> drill the holes until you have the gauge in your hands.
>
> #6 screw = #28 drill bit.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
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: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Why don't you lay the panel out in an AutoCAD compatible CAD program, when
everything is the way you want it, send the DFX file to a laser cutter and
be done with it. All 3 of my panel inserts were done that way, cost was
around $100 per panel including 0.090 aluminum sheet. The time saved was
tremendous.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Paul,
For me, one of the important preflight actions for single-pilot IFR is to
ensure that an area with reported VFR conditions is within range. The key
word is REPORTED (not forecast). I learned very early that forecasts are,
like, opinions. And we all know what opinions are like!
My point is that the pilot is relieved of a tremendous amount of stress if
he/she knows, at all times, he/she can get to REPORTED VFR conditions. A
review of the forecast and trend (last several METAR)can help one decide if
the current reported conditions are likely to improve or worsen. As I
continue toward my destination I check AWOS, ATIS and Flight Watch to keep
abreast of the latest reported weather at my destination and my chosen VFR
area. If it appears my destination weather is becoming worse than I can
handle, I'll set down along the way, or go to where I know the weather is
good. In this way, I avoid entirely the situation of going missed at my
destination and getting into my fuel reserves. Of course, a willingness to
abandon the current plan always comes in handy!
BTW, this is my definition of "light IFR." With an appropriately equipped
aircraft and an experienced assistant (another IFR pilot or trained
passenger) I'll accept higher risks on a case by case basis!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <psiegel@fuse.net>
> To be conservative I filed an IFR flight
> plan (with the concept of "light IFR" in
> mind.) Got into the soup over Dayton and
> never saw the ground again until after one
> missed and finally a second successful
> approach close to minimums into Detroit.
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: | Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Dean: See
http://vx-aviation.com/page_2.html
Are these what you're looking for? The lamps are available individually
or as part of integrated controllers.
There are also NKK 'UB' series illuminators availabe from Digi-Key.
They must be panel mounted individually and are harder to install. I
think John Schroeder has used them for his Lancair.
Vern Little
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>...
>Annunciator lights, I'd like to find some square ones with the colored
>plastic and engraved text that shows what subsystem is having a problem
>(commercial airline pilots know them well). I have had some great input
>from an RV-6A pilot who rolled his own. I've perused the web quite a while
>and haven't found much that might work for my application (mostly round
>lampholders with colored lenses but you couldn't really engrave them with
>text like I'm wanting). Any suggestions on this one? ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
A lot of the instrument MANUFACTURERS have mounting templates for their
instruments on their web sites; some of them in .pdf format that can be
printed actual size. It's probably a good idea to only use them for planning
purposes since, due to manufacturing tolerances, actual sizes may vary...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of bob
noffs
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
kevin,
''hog out the corner''. been there last week. if you look careful you will
see the face of the alt. is built up around the shaft you are talking about.
that bit of panel needs to be removed to make it fit.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
>> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>>
>> Those who have been here already...when you put the steam gauges in
>> your
>> panel, how do you fit the ones with the knobs sticking out of one
>> corner?
>> For the (United Instruments) altimeter it looks like I won't have a
>> choice
>> and will have to hog out some of the corner of the panel where the
>> knob goes
>> (big bump in the case under the knob). However, for the MD200 OBS
>> (VOR/ILS
>> indicator) and the 2 inch G meter (Falcon Gauge) the knobs have
>> small posts
>> that would likely fit through the screw hole if the knob were
>> removed before
>> installing the gauge. Can the knobs on these gauges be removed
>> prior to
>> installing the gauge and then re-attached afterwords? Or am I just
>> going to
>> have to make a small slot between the cutout and the screw hole?
>> Also, what
>> exactly is the bit size used to drill these screw holes? #6 screws???
>
> I've got an MD200, and the Falcon G meter. Both need a cut out for
> the knobs in the corner. The knob on the G meter is closer to the
> hole than a screw hold would be, if I recall correctly, so don't
> drill the holes until you have the gauge in your hands.
>
> #6 screw = #28 drill bit.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga@hotmail.com>
Ira,
Thanks for the input. I did get to wander around SnF last year and look at
many of the systems available. I talked directly to avionics install shops
and manufacturers of the individual units. The EFIS that got the most
positive responses from all was GRT. I even went to the BMA booth and asked
them to comment on the bad press their company and service has received.
They seemed to think the bad press was not deserved and offered that most
problems occur due to bad installations by the builder. I was a little
disturbed by this response. Perhaps this is due to the insufficient install
manuals that you mentioned.
However, I have met many people such as yourself that are using BMA systems
and have great things to say about the company and product. I still love
the features that the product offers and would be very happy to have a
working version of the system in my panel. The only question is how many
headaches lie between now and that point...
Greg
>From: irampil@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Companies
>Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:09:39 -0500
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: irampil@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
>
> Greg,
>
>I have been flying with a Blue Mountain E/1 for almost two years.
>In that time the software has received major feature upgrades nearly
>every quarter, all free after purchase. Only recently, and only because
>they switched to Jeppeson who insisted, has BMA begun enforcing the
>subscription payment for database updates.
>
>I have always found the company easy to deal with and very
>straightforward.
>While it seems a few shipped systems had bugs, most of what one see
>complaints
>about on their unmoderated Board concerns builders or installers who have
>trouble with the sometimes telegraphically brief install manuals or with
>poor grounding discipline in their wiring harnesses.
>
>I have a great deal of respect for both Bob N. and Greg R. My A/C wiring
>is a slightly modified version of Bob's All-Electric, including a LVBM
>module controlling the power to the EFIS. In my opinion, Greg made some
>good points in his treatise on electrical system design also. We can all
>learn from looking at both. Like Bob said, you should infer nothing
>about Greg's company business practices from their design flap.
>
>You should probably wander around SnF or Oshkosh and do some of your
>own assessment of the people and equipment involved. Its a very personal
>choice.
>
>Ira N224XS
>
>
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: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net>
Dean,
Yes the knobs can be taken off. There should be a set screw in the knob.
For switches, Tyco makes a nice version. See their Command Series 16mm.
Available from www.Newarkinone.com stock number 46F3130. We used these
switches (164SL and 164SL5) and the same family lighted indicator (164-SZ)
in our install. Rather than engraving there is a plastic lens inside the
switch which can be screen printed. I had this done by Precision Dial Co.
(www.precisiondial.com) (I formerly owned the company).
Jim Butcher
Europa XS N241BW
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com>
I don't think that "light IFR" has as much to do with equipment as it does
with intent.
To fly IFR, you have to be legally equipped to handle whatever equipment the
type of approach you want to shoot requires. Period. Anything else is not
"light IFR", it's just plain suicide.
Light IFR is more to explain a person's intent and how he/she will accept
minimums and alternate minimums. If a "light IFR" pilot gets into heavy
soup, they will still have the equipment they need to land safely if they
are equipped to fly what they filed.
Now, the matter of that pilot being mentally prepared and currently
trained... that's a different issue.
Vern W.
On 1/15/06, Richard Riley <richard@riley.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
>
> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <psiegel@fuse.net>
> >
> >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
> >
> >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
> >is GONE! IMC is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or
> >thunderstorms for this discussion.)
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <psiegel@fuse.net>
>The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>is GONE! ....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
>In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa
>Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa
>Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast." It's a pretty
>thin layer...
My $.02: The comments/posts got me thinking about ADM, Risk Management,
personally minimum, and the "reality" of IFR flight decisions. I'm not a
writer, but thought I'd share my thoughts 1) to help personally crystallize
them and 2) to invite/provoke comment with the desire for additional
learning.
I live in Detroit and agree with psiege. In the Mid-west, we can be IFR
with low ceilings, low vis, multiple layers, sometimes wind/turbulence,
often icing, for days/weeks and 250 miles or more in all directions -
nothing to "play" with. Many experienced pilots have near-miss stories, a
few others were not so lucky, and there are numerous NTSB reports about VFR
into IMC. All IFR in the Midwest (or elsewhere) is IFR. If fact some VMC
is really IFR (over remote areas on a dark night, in the clear over the hazy
great lakes at dusk/dawn, etc).
However, I did my initial instrument training while on an extended work
assignment in SoCal. As rriley states, the LA "sea layer" overcast is
typically "local" and relatively stable/predictable - more so than a Detroit
VFR day. It often implies a different IFR scenario and offers various
bailout options.
In SoCal, if we're going to consider different IFR equipment/currency for
Hard vs Light IFR, then the "need", is to be sure we can tell the difference
and have the discipline to respect it. This is not easy as there is no
real/fixed definition, the Wx briefs aren't necessarily setup to help us
clearly discern it, and many Pilots will occasionally "push" the envelope -
this thread is proof.
The risks with a SoCal coastal sea layer may be much different than a
typical Midwest "white flight", but are not insignificant. First, there's
lots of traffic, lots of radio congestion, relatively tight/complex complex
airspace, and fewer good off-field options over the congested metropolis -
Little room for less than our full attention. But wait, the AI/DG/CDI/ALT
or PFD also demand our full attention (even if for only 60-90 seconds) -
Thus, the need for not stretching "field of vision" definitions or selecting
equipment which may not be IFR reliable, or unnecessarily increase our IFR
workload.
While the existence of the sea layer itself is often stable/predictable -
what's sometimes "unpredictable" about the sea layer is the ceiling. I've
seen it drop from 1000ft/5mi to 0/0 in 1 min (especially on the fringes
and/or close to the ocean). I've been cleared and landed on a visual
approach at MRY through a (VFR) scattered layer, and then not been able to
see the Ramp/Tower 1 minute later while taxing. I know MRY is technically
NorCal - same point.
Since the SeaLayer if often very local, the ATIS can become more? important
than the TAR/TAF/AreaForecast. Yet, I'm sure we've all had an "ATIS
experience" that was less than accurate - either too high or too low - or
"being updated", etc. Any concept of "light IFR" still demands vigilance to
MDA/MDH and needs to contain the real possibility of missed approaches and
all the workload/discipline that goes with them.
Additionally, SoCal has CummuliousGranite (terrain/mountains). Many
"sealayer" airports are right next to them (TOA, SBA, SMA,...). Mix a night
VFR flight over a scattered/broken sea layer and the dark spots/splotches
(clouds and mountains) can look very similar. This can be very disorienting
- even when technically VFR. Again, no room for IFR error.
ATC is always there to help. But again, I've been cleared to "turn 10'
right and incept the localizer...", when the localizer was 10' left. Yes a
bad clearance and a mistake by ATC, but ultimately the pilot is the guy with
his butt on the line and thus required to be aware of everything - even on a
simple "light IFR" approach.
All said, there might be "SoCal Light IFR" and I might successfully fly
through it multiple times (IFR with minimum equipment/workload). BUT IT CAN
STILL BE TRICKY/DANGEROUS/DEADLY STUFF. I'd never imply anything different
to a student and/or fellow pilot!
For a well trained/skilled/current IFR pilot, a "minimally adequate"
aircraft in "SoCal light IFR" may be technically legal and perhaps within
his/her personal minimums. But, the risks are real, they're still "pushing
the envelope", and adding "some" stress to the entire IFR system.
If we accept that, well ok, we're PIC's, and flying itself is has some risk.
But if we try and convince ourselves (or passengers) of anything less, we're
not being honest.
Perhaps there's another ADM dangerous attitude: "I'm within the letter of
the regulation (or it's ambiguity), so it's ok/acceptable". The anecdotal
thought would be something like: "the regulations/minimum are just that
minimums, and I should treat/respect them as dangerous ground."
The FAM/AIM are decision floors set by the FAA, they are not perfect and
sometimes/often unclear. Sometimes they may be/seem too conservative - but
the NTSB stats indicate that, overall, they still allow pilots (like us) to
get into trouble. It's up to us to take individual responsibility to raise
the bar and set personally honest minimums. As a group we should be
encouraging each other to honestly review/set/raise these as appropriate -
since the common natural tendency is to build skill/experience/capability to
otherwise lower them.
My $.02
Rick
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:30 PM 1/15/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
><mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
>
>Has anyone made up a wirebook which incorporate the wiring for a Jabiru
>3300? Would you be willing to email to me? Looking for some ideas and
>specifically how to handle the built in alternator. The engine comes with a
>"Kubato RP201-53710" voltage reg and I can't find any spec on this regulator
>and not sure if it has OV protection etc. The alternator has two white
>wires coming out it that connects to the voltage reg. Any info on the Kubato
>reg or alternatives would be great.
As near as I can tell, the Kubota regulators for the
PM alternators are pretty much the same as similar devices
by Ducati and John Deere for the same application. They
do not feature OV protection.
You can get the published literature on all the Jabiru
offerings at:
http://www.suncoastjabiru.com/downloads.htm
I've published a power distribution diagram for these
engines as Figure Z-20 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11E.pdf
Bob . . .
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: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
Hi all,
I mostly lurk but sometimes have an opinion itch.
I find the all solid state gyro developments exciting and disappointing.
I agree with Bruce of Glasair - unless you have triple redundancy with
automatic notification of discrepancy you probably don't get an
improvement in safety. Comparison and notification is so easy to do with
digital electronics that it should be a large part of the reason to go
solid state in the first place. It is silly to have various digital
electronics boxes working with the human operator doing the only
cross-checking available. But that seems to be what the manufacturers
expect of us sofar.
I see a lot of features, display options and what have you on the
websites but no output message specifications.
The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S' does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role in a
system. It should not be bought.
If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).
Not holding my breath much longer.
Cheers,
Jan de Jong
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: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dean -
Sending a separate email to you with several files. Let me know if you do
not receive them.
John Schroeder
do not archive
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:52:24 -0500, DEAN PSIROPOULOS
<dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> wrote:
> Annunciator lights, I'd like to find some square ones with the colored
> plastic and engraved text that shows what subsystem is having a problem
> (commercial airline pilots know them well). I have had some great input
> from an RV-6A pilot who rolled his own. I've perused the web quite a
> while
> and haven't found much that might work for my application (mostly round
> lampholders with colored lenses but you couldn't really engrave them with
> text like I'm wanting). Any suggestions on this one?
--
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: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Vern -
Thank you for the reference. I used the LB series lights - rectangular.
The also come in round and square shapes.
Cheers,
John
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 05:57:00 -0800, rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
wrote:
> There are also NKK 'UB' series illuminators availabe from Digi-Key.
> They must be panel mounted individually and are harder to install. I
> think John Schroeder has used them for his Lancair.
> Vern Little
--
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
I think you make a great point about the So-Cal weather.
IFR is dangerous. It is a compromise: increased risk for increased
utility (getting there).
While " CummuliousGranite" provides some additional risk, it also makes
IFR less risky: If you have problems in the June Gloom, you can most
always get to VFR and proceed to a nearby VFR airport. The June Gloom
stratus layer is rarely 2000' thick. Big Bear, at 6700' is always VFR
during these conditions. As are the desert airports.
This makes IFR-LITE a possibility in So-Cal, where it may not be in
areas with low ceilings stretching for hundreds of miles.
Airplanes are inherently dangerous - that is why we train. To fly IFR,
we also need to equip airplanes adequately to survive any system
failure. A single point of failure should not bring down an airplane.
Some planes are designed to tolerate dual failures (ie. Fail the vacuum
and an instrument electrical bus) The design issue is a compromise:
dollars, weight, pilot work load,etc.
For most of us, the most likely single point of failure is the pilot.
Adding a redundant pilot (or two if we want to take a vote) probably
makes more sense than dual AHRS, unless they are part of completely
redundant systems (separate batteries, separate PFDs, etc.).
Me, I am going EFIS, brand TBD, with a separately powered electric gyro.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
richard titsworth
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 6:40 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR???
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
<rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <psiegel@fuse.net>
>The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>is GONE! ....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley
<richard@riley.net>
>In southern California airports close to the coast - like Santa
>Monica, Torrance, Long Beach, Orange County, Palomar, Oxnard, Santa
>Barbara - get "early morning and late night overcast." It's a pretty
>thin layer...
My $.02: The comments/posts got me thinking about ADM, Risk Management,
personally minimum, and the "reality" of IFR flight decisions. I'm not
a
writer, but thought I'd share my thoughts 1) to help personally
crystallize
them and 2) to invite/provoke comment with the desire for additional
learning.
I live in Detroit and agree with psiege. In the Mid-west, we can be IFR
with low ceilings, low vis, multiple layers, sometimes wind/turbulence,
often icing, for days/weeks and 250 miles or more in all directions -
nothing to "play" with. Many experienced pilots have near-miss stories,
a
few others were not so lucky, and there are numerous NTSB reports about
VFR
into IMC. All IFR in the Midwest (or elsewhere) is IFR. If fact some
VMC
is really IFR (over remote areas on a dark night, in the clear over the
hazy
great lakes at dusk/dawn, etc).
However, I did my initial instrument training while on an extended work
assignment in SoCal. As rriley states, the LA "sea layer" overcast is
typically "local" and relatively stable/predictable - more so than a
Detroit
VFR day. It often implies a different IFR scenario and offers various
bailout options.
In SoCal, if we're going to consider different IFR equipment/currency
for
Hard vs Light IFR, then the "need", is to be sure we can tell the
difference
and have the discipline to respect it. This is not easy as there is no
real/fixed definition, the Wx briefs aren't necessarily setup to help us
clearly discern it, and many Pilots will occasionally "push" the
envelope -
this thread is proof.
The risks with a SoCal coastal sea layer may be much different than a
typical Midwest "white flight", but are not insignificant. First,
there's
lots of traffic, lots of radio congestion, relatively tight/complex
complex
airspace, and fewer good off-field options over the congested metropolis
-
Little room for less than our full attention. But wait, the
AI/DG/CDI/ALT
or PFD also demand our full attention (even if for only 60-90 seconds) -
Thus, the need for not stretching "field of vision" definitions or
selecting
equipment which may not be IFR reliable, or unnecessarily increase our
IFR
workload.
While the existence of the sea layer itself is often stable/predictable
-
what's sometimes "unpredictable" about the sea layer is the ceiling.
I've
seen it drop from 1000ft/5mi to 0/0 in 1 min (especially on the fringes
and/or close to the ocean). I've been cleared and landed on a visual
approach at MRY through a (VFR) scattered layer, and then not been able
to
see the Ramp/Tower 1 minute later while taxing. I know MRY is
technically
NorCal - same point.
Since the SeaLayer if often very local, the ATIS can become more?
important
than the TAR/TAF/AreaForecast. Yet, I'm sure we've all had an "ATIS
experience" that was less than accurate - either too high or too low -
or
"being updated", etc. Any concept of "light IFR" still demands
vigilance to
MDA/MDH and needs to contain the real possibility of missed approaches
and
all the workload/discipline that goes with them.
Additionally, SoCal has CummuliousGranite (terrain/mountains). Many
"sealayer" airports are right next to them (TOA, SBA, SMA,...). Mix a
night
VFR flight over a scattered/broken sea layer and the dark
spots/splotches
(clouds and mountains) can look very similar. This can be very
disorienting
- even when technically VFR. Again, no room for IFR error.
ATC is always there to help. But again, I've been cleared to "turn 10'
right and incept the localizer...", when the localizer was 10' left.
Yes a
bad clearance and a mistake by ATC, but ultimately the pilot is the guy
with
his butt on the line and thus required to be aware of everything - even
on a
simple "light IFR" approach.
All said, there might be "SoCal Light IFR" and I might successfully fly
through it multiple times (IFR with minimum equipment/workload). BUT IT
CAN
STILL BE TRICKY/DANGEROUS/DEADLY STUFF. I'd never imply anything
different
to a student and/or fellow pilot!
For a well trained/skilled/current IFR pilot, a "minimally adequate"
aircraft in "SoCal light IFR" may be technically legal and perhaps
within
his/her personal minimums. But, the risks are real, they're still
"pushing
the envelope", and adding "some" stress to the entire IFR system.
If we accept that, well ok, we're PIC's, and flying itself is has some
risk.
But if we try and convince ourselves (or passengers) of anything less,
we're
not being honest.
Perhaps there's another ADM dangerous attitude: "I'm within the letter
of
the regulation (or it's ambiguity), so it's ok/acceptable". The
anecdotal
thought would be something like: "the regulations/minimum are just that
minimums, and I should treat/respect them as dangerous ground."
The FAM/AIM are decision floors set by the FAA, they are not perfect and
sometimes/often unclear. Sometimes they may be/seem too conservative -
but
the NTSB stats indicate that, overall, they still allow pilots (like us)
to
get into trouble. It's up to us to take individual responsibility to
raise
the bar and set personally honest minimums. As a group we should be
encouraging each other to honestly review/set/raise these as appropriate
-
since the common natural tendency is to build
skill/experience/capability to
otherwise lower them.
My $.02
Rick
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 Companies |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
BMA has "leading edge" products and they make a big effort to make there
customers happy.
That being said their install and operations manuals are not very good (I'm
being kind!) therefore no doubt builders have a high rate of installation
errors . . . I've been trying to figure out the GNS430 to BMA/Lite interface
for two month and received better help from Treasure Coast Avionics (I'm
not their customer) than Blue Mountain! The last response I received was
"are you sure the wiring is right?" NO I'm not sure, but its wired per the
manual!! Obviously Greg and staff are working on "more important issues" .
. . but for me there are none more important.
The good news is that I do believe the Greg can and will solve most any
problem . . . but IMHO sometimes it takes longer than is should and problems
come up that shouldn't because of limited manuals and support!
Good Luck,
Bob
On 1/16/06, Greg Vouga <gmvouga@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga@hotmail.com
> >
>
> Ira,
>
> Thanks for the input. I did get to wander around SnF last year and look
> at
> many of the systems available. I talked directly to avionics install
> shops
> and manufacturers of the individual units. The EFIS that got the most
> positive responses from all was GRT. I even went to the BMA booth and
> asked
> them to comment on the bad press their company and service has received.
> They seemed to think the bad press was not deserved and offered that most
> problems occur due to bad installations by the builder. I was a little
> disturbed by this response. Perhaps this is due to the insufficient
> install
> manuals that you mentioned.
>
> However, I have met many people such as yourself that are using BMA
> systems
> and have great things to say about the company and product. I still love
> the features that the product offers and would be very happy to have a
> working version of the system in my panel. The only question is how many
> headaches lie between now and that point...
>
> Greg
>
> >From: irampil@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Companies
> >Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:09:39 -0500
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: irampil@notes.cc.sunysb.edu
> >
> > Greg,
> >
> >I have been flying with a Blue Mountain E/1 for almost two years.
> >In that time the software has received major feature upgrades nearly
> >every quarter, all free after purchase. Only recently, and only because
> >they switched to Jeppeson who insisted, has BMA begun enforcing the
> >subscription payment for database updates.
> >
> >I have always found the company easy to deal with and very
> >straightforward.
> >While it seems a few shipped systems had bugs, most of what one see
> >complaints
> >about on their unmoderated Board concerns builders or installers who have
> >trouble with the sometimes telegraphically brief install manuals or with
> >poor grounding discipline in their wiring harnesses.
> >
> >I have a great deal of respect for both Bob N. and Greg R. My A/C wiring
> >is a slightly modified version of Bob's All-Electric, including a LVBM
> >module controlling the power to the EFIS. In my opinion, Greg made some
> >good points in his treatise on electrical system design also. We can all
> >learn from looking at both. Like Bob said, you should infer nothing
> >about Greg's company business practices from their design flap.
> >
> >You should probably wander around SnF or Oshkosh and do some of your
> >own assessment of the people and equipment involved. Its a very personal
> >choice.
> >
> >Ira N224XS
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Hidden till needed annunciator lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle@hq.InclineSoftworks.com>
This is fairly simple with a black background. You can simply flush
mount your lights in the panel, then put a mylar in front of them with
the lettering clear on black. Without back-lighting on, the letters
disappear, looking black also. Turn on the lamp, and bingo.
The black-out feature works best with a satin textured mylar.
A simple way to do this and avoid custom work is with a laser printer
and some overhead transparency stock. Make up your labels with
Publisher or some similar tool. Then print them. The quality of the
laser is important to getting a uniform coverage. Also, you may have to
scale the spacing up/down a little - there can be a couple of percent of
size variation when printed.
Finish off the system with a piece of smoked mylar or Lucite panel.
This will give you a finished look. The surface will be hard. The smoky
appearance will help mask any minor imperfections in the printing
process, yet will still let enough light through.
We used to use this kind of process in prototyping electronic units.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hidden till needed annunciator lights?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Anyone know how to make or where to buy hidden till needed annunciator
lights?
My car has a row on the bottom of panel that is black and uniform, until
something is illuminated. Upon turning on ignition switch, all
illuminate
as a test.
Better yet if one were to reverse label could it be installed as a heads
up display?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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: | Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
OK, staring at Z-13 for hours has diminished the fog somewhat, but a few
questions remain
(1)For my RV-7A, I was planning on putting my main and e-bus fuse panels on
the right hand side of the subpanel. But what about the battery bus? Z-13
suggests that the battery bus be located within six inches of the battery
contactor, which in my case, is on the firewall. This appears to limit my
battery bus location to the firewall as well, no? Guess I could live with
that, except that its my understanding that fuses necessary for flight
safety be accessible during flight. Since electronic ignition and e-bus
alt feed come from the battery bus, wouldnt the firewall location be a
no-no?
(2) Im using a GRT EFIS, which comes with one Hall-effect sensor. I
believe this can replace the shunt for the main alternator B-lead on Z-13.
Is is possible and practical that the same sensor can also go around the
lead for the backup SD-8 PM alternator, since both alternators wont be
operating at the same time, or do I need two separate Hall-effect sensors?
thanks guys
Erich Weaver
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys@comcast.net>
The EAA disagrees. See
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/faq/Equipping%20a%20Homebuilt%20for%20IFR%20operations.html
Bruce
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
incorporated this into your limitations.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
McGregor
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor"
<bruceflys@comcast.net>
AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
System
Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
Navigation
Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation display(s)
and
failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
Primary
field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
Other
displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
right.
One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
eliminate
the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
gives a
12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon or GRT
PFD
above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
directly
in front of the pilot.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Seuferer <kjsifer@gmail.com>
Jan,
Can you repeat that in English? :>)
You sound like you know what you are talking about, but us
non-electrical engineers do not.
Kevin
--
Kevin Seuferer -- http://www.bearhawkin.com -- Bearhawk Serial #774 -- N774KD
The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S' does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role in a
system. It should not be bought.
If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).
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: | Battery strength |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
Hello all,
as I am new on this list - this is my first try to get some needed information.
So what I have is a 24 Volt system with a 12 Volt starter on an O360 F1A6. I was
told that it should not be a problem to use the 12 Volt starter with 24 Volt
as the voltage will drop anyhow to about 18 Volt and the starting process itself
will not take more than 20 seconds which the starter should be capable to
handle.
- what is the opinion of the group on this ?
- The second issue is that I need a figure of the battery strength (Ah) which is
needed to start my engine. I know that this is depending on many issues and
this should not be the only consideration for the strength but there must be a
general idea of whether 17 Ah should do the job easily or should one go for 24
Ah or 7 Ah.
Thanks for your recomendations
Peter (Lancair 360 MKII, 85%)
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
sensor
At 12:41 PM 1/16/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com
>
>OK, staring at Z-13 for hours has diminished the fog somewhat, but a few
>questions remain
>
>(1)For my RV-7A, I was planning on putting my main and e-bus fuse panels on
>the right hand side of the subpanel. But what about the battery bus? Z-13
>suggests that the battery bus be located within six inches of the battery
>contactor, which in my case, is on the firewall. This appears to limit my
>battery bus location to the firewall as well, no? Guess I could live with
>that, except that its my understanding that fuses necessary for flight
>safety be accessible during flight.
Which of your fuses need access for "flight safety" reasons?
> Since electronic ignition and e-bus
>alt feed come from the battery bus, wouldnt the firewall location be a
>no-no?
Review chapter 17. The numbers of failures that render
a system unusable and DO NOT blow a fuse outnumber the things
that DO blow fuses by several orders of magnitude. Further, if
you DO open a fuse in some necessary system, what is the likelihood
that you'll get that system back by replacing the fuse? The fault
that opened the fuse is still going to be there waiting for your
new fuse. Bottom line is that if you have any system that's necessary
for comfortable completion of flight, then you'd better have
a backup for it and being able to access breakers or fuses for
those systems is wishful thinking.
>(2) Im using a GRT EFIS, which comes with one Hall-effect sensor. I
>believe this can replace the shunt for the main alternator B-lead on Z-13.
>Is is possible and practical that the same sensor can also go around the
>lead for the backup SD-8 PM alternator, since both alternators wont be
>operating at the same time, or do I need two separate Hall-effect sensors?
No, one sensor will work nicely for both systems.
Bob . . .
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: | Interference between Com and Autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
Hello all,
I am building my panel with a TruTrak DF II autopilot and 2 Becker AR3202 Coms.
I have discovered that transmitting during engaged autopilot has influence on
the AP in the form that the elevator goues up and the ailerons make a right turn.
As the details on the up and down is second, the influence itself is of cause
the problem. I have made the connections between the - high quality - HF
cables and the BNCs myself (i.e. they should be OK) and use 2 standard - not self
made - antennae.
The question is now - what can I do to avoid this interference? more shielding,
replacing the autopilot, ...
BTW, the antennae are in the baggage compartment
Thanks
Peter Lancair 360 MKII 85%
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: Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dr. Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence@mbdi.org>
Bruce,
Who did tou use?
Peter
-----
> Why don't you lay the panel out in an AutoCAD compatible CAD program, when
> everything is the way you want it, send the DFX file to a laser cutter and
> be done with it. All 3 of my panel inserts were done that way, cost was
> around $100 per panel including 0.090 aluminum sheet. The time saved was
> tremendous.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
>
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: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 16 Jan 2006, at 10:19, Jan de Jong wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong
> <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
>
> The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
> their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
> standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S'
> does not
> mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an
> electronic
> box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
> serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role
> in a
> system. It should not be bought.
>
> If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
> real
> time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
> would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
> results (have a backup for this too).
The Dynon D-10/D-100 series EFISs output attitude, airspeed,
altitude, heading, etc in text format on a serial data bus at 64
Hz.The data format is described in the operator's manual, which is
publicly available on Dynon's web site. The format is bog standard
ASCII data on an RS-232 serial bus. No propriatary stuff at all. It
would theoretically be possible to decode that data and use it to
feed an instrument comparator.
But, how do we know there aren't failure modes that freezes the
display (or has it display bad data), yet keeps spitting the correct
data out the serial bus? We can't expect to get iron clad assurances
for the amount of money we pay for the Dynon (or any other of the non-
TSO'd EFIS systems).
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Instrument install/annunciator lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Aircraft Engravers, www.engravers.net, ask for Wayne.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dr. Peter
Laurence
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dr. Peter Laurence"
<Dr.Laurence@mbdi.org>
Bruce,
Who did tou use?
Peter
-----
> Why don't you lay the panel out in an AutoCAD compatible CAD program, when
> everything is the way you want it, send the DFX file to a laser cutter and
> be done with it. All 3 of my panel inserts were done that way, cost was
> around $100 per panel including 0.090 aluminum sheet. The time saved was
> tremendous.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
>
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: | MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the small
MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer is here in
Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer feedback about them
(or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined with the Jabiru 3300. Also
feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be appreciated.
Rodney
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: | MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
--> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
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: MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
See this comparison chart:
http://www.mcp.com.au/microair/comparison/comparison.html
Dave Morris
At 04:22 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
><rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
>I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the small
>MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer is here in
>Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer feedback about them
>(or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined with the Jabiru 3300. Also
>feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be appreciated.
>
>Rodney
>
>
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: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Nancy Ghertner <nghertner@verizon.net>
West Coast Aviation 425-283-0460.
On 1/16/06 3:33 AM, "rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US"
<rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Anyone know how to make or where to buy hidden till needed annunciator
> lights?
>
> My car has a row on the bottom of panel that is black and uniform, until
> something is illuminated. Upon turning on ignition switch, all illuminate
> as a test.
>
> Better yet if one were to reverse label could it be installed as a heads
> up display?
>
> Thx.
> Ron Parigoris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Thorne" <rv7a@cox.net>
FWIW I have a MicroAir in my Nieuport replica and it works fine with the
open cockpit noise etc. A friend is also using one in his Stearman. He had
a lot of problems initially but it was an early serial number radio. They
took care of it and things are great. No complaints and may move mine to my
RV as a secondary radio.
Jim Thorne
RV7A QB CHD
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
>
> I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
> three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
> the service was quick and free.
> Allan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Rodney Dunham
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
> --> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
> I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
> small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
> is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
> feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
> with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
> appreciated.
>
> Rodney
>
>
>
Message 35
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an overcast
cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other side of the
layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or
above a certain level where the overcast top is. Light IFR pilots have not
filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for IFR, but they
go on the instruments long enough to fly up or down through the clouds to
the other side expecting better conditions.
Is there another definition of light ifr? do not archive
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR???
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <highflight1@gmail.com>
>
> I don't think that "light IFR" has as much to do with equipment as it does
> with intent.
> To fly IFR, you have to be legally equipped to handle whatever equipment
> the
> type of approach you want to shoot requires. Period. Anything else is not
> "light IFR", it's just plain suicide.
>
> Light IFR is more to explain a person's intent and how he/she will accept
> minimums and alternate minimums. If a "light IFR" pilot gets into heavy
> soup, they will still have the equipment they need to land safely if they
> are equipped to fly what they filed.
>
> Now, the matter of that pilot being mentally prepared and currently
> trained... that's a different issue.
>
> Vern W.
>
>
> On 1/15/06, Richard Riley <richard@riley.net> wrote:
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley
>> <richard@riley.net>
>>
>> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:
>>
>> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <psiegel@fuse.net>
>> >
>> >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>> >
>> >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>> >is GONE! IMC is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or
>> >thunderstorms for this discussion.)
>>
>
>
>
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: MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Rodney,
I'm using a Becker Transponder and I found the install extremely easy,
operation is bulletproof.
Never have any trouble with it, setup was intuitive and the human
interface is very natural.
Larry McFarland - 601 HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Rodney Dunham wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
>I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the small
>MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer is here in
>Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer feedback about them
>(or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined with the Jabiru 3300. Also
>feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be appreciated.
>
>Rodney
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Kevin Horton wrote:
Go away for a couple of days and you drown in messages.
>>If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
>>real
>>time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
>>would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
>>results (have a backup for this too).
There is such a standard. It is ARINC-429.
> The Dynon D-10/D-100 series EFISs output attitude, airspeed,
> altitude, heading, etc in text format on a serial data bus at 64
> Hz.The data format is described in the operator's manual, which is
> publicly available on Dynon's web site. The format is bog standard
> ASCII data on an RS-232 serial bus. No propriatary stuff at all. It
> would theoretically be possible to decode that data and use it to
> feed an instrument comparator.
There is no such thing as "bog standard ASCII data on an RS-232 serial
bus" in an aircraft (or anywhere else for that matter which is why we
created SLIP and PPP in the internet world many moon back). The closest
thing to something like that is ARINC-429. There you have a standard
electrical bus, similar to RS-422, and a standard set of sentences
and/or messages which transfer various bits of status information. I
believe that just about everything your AHARS would output has an
ARINC-429 message associated with it. (And it is the AHRS data whose
integrity that you are interested in ensuring.)
> But, how do we know there aren't failure modes that freezes the
> display (or has it display bad data), yet keeps spitting the correct
> data out the serial bus? We can't expect to get iron clad assurances
> for the amount of money we pay for the Dynon (or any other of the non-
> TSO'd EFIS systems).
I know I am coming at this backward as there are a *bunch* of messages
on this subject going back a couple of days that I haven't read yet but
I am going to go ahead from here anyway.
These are systems badly done (from a systems perspective) as are most
things in the cockpit of most aircraft. Boeing and Airbus are only just
recently starting to adopt the advantages learned in building large
computer networks. Airbus has adopted switched 100Mbps ethernet as its
data bus of choice (a very sensible move IMHO). ARINC-429 works but, boy
is that ancient technology.
The key point is that you have sensors that output standard messages on
the bus, e.g. AHRS, air data sensors, engine data sensors, etc.; you
have processing units; and you have display/control units. Virtually all
of the systems out there have adopted an "all-in-one" approach because
it is cheaper rather than better. But because they are "all-in-one" they
don't have to try to be interoperable with other devices. At least with
ARINC-429 there is some semblance of consistency and interoperability
even if it is ancient, ugly technology.
If it speaks ARINC-429 there is some semblance of hope. If it speaks
some kind of proprietary garbage (even if it is "bog standard ASCII
messages documented in the manual") it isn't going to be supported by
anyone else so it is less than useful.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
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 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: MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Dave Morris "BigD" wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> See this comparison chart:
> http://www.mcp.com.au/microair/comparison/comparison.html
Microair radios suffer from front-end overload. Don't expect them to
perform well near other airplanes. That is why we were talking about
antenna attenuators a couple weeks back -- to deal with a deficiency in
the Microair Comm transceivers. This becomes a real problem if you plan
to fly formation with other aircraft.
--
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 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: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
Bob,
I have to agree on your take.
I learned to fly partial panel with a turn coordinator ( along with the
other compliments of instruments) which in my opinion is as proficient as a
T&B. However, my guess is that a lot of newer pilots flying today have not
developed this skill.
I recommend the T&B because I think it is a much better back up than the
artificial horizon.
I agree
You state that most T&Bs are powered by vacuum. That may be true. But
then
again, it may not! I'll bet a milk shake that there are more electrically
powered T&Bs in service today than there are vacuum powered ones.
I agree. However, there are probably more turn coordinators installed than
turn and banks.
Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?
Peter Laurence
Message 40
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
>
> Hello all,
> I am building my panel with a TruTrak DF II autopilot and 2 Becker AR3202 Coms.
I have discovered that transmitting during engaged autopilot has influence
on the AP in the form that the elevator goues up and the ailerons make a right
turn. As the details on the up and down is second, the influence itself is of
cause the problem. I have made the connections between the - high quality - HF
cables and the BNCs myself (i.e. they should be OK) and use 2 standard - not
self made - antennae.
> The question is now - what can I do to avoid this interference? more shielding,
replacing the autopilot, ...
> BTW, the antennae are in the baggage compartment
What are you using for a ground plane for your antennas?
Isn't the fuselage in the Lancair primarily carbon fiber? If that is the
case you are going to want to get the antennas outside the fuselage.
How does the TruTrak autopilot talk to its servos? Is is an analog
voltage or a digital message?
Frankly, I would talk with the folks from TruTrak. They can help you
with RF getting into their servos and/or the control head. Given the
digital nature of the TruTrak autopilot and if I understand their system
properly I would suspect that the problem is occurring at the one analog
point, where the analog rate-gyro signal is digitized.
But TruTrak is your best bet for assistance.
--
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
My god, I hope there's another definition that doesn't involve being
both stupid and illegal... With emphasis on the stupid.
Greg Young
> Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or
> below an overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells
> them on the other side of the layer there are VFR conditions
> -- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or above a certain
> level where the overcast top is. Light IFR pilots have not
> filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for
> IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or
> down through the clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.
>
> Is there another definition of light ifr? do not archive
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
>
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: | Re: 'Light' IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I sort of agree with your definition, but would add that for it to be
light IFR, there shouldn't be any real chance of convective vertical cloud
development, nor any real chance of ice.. Also, I would say that light
IFR implies that you won't have to be on the needles for a whole flight.
Before departing into a layer, I'd want recent tops reports with clear
sunshine above.
I think it rare to be able to call night IFR ops as ever being 'light'. A
possible scenario would be the aforementioned flight to or from a coastal
California location - you'd better know that it's clear and starry on top,
and clear and starry at the desert airports to the east.
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an
> overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other
> side of the layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling
> near the ground, or above a certain level where the overcast top is.
> Light IFR pilots have not filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or
> legally equipped for IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to
> fly up or down through the clouds to the other side expecting better
> conditions.
>
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: | circuit simplification help needed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
Hello all-
I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the following image:
http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg
As you can see in the image, the circuit calls for 2 DPST switches. What
I'd like to do, is implement this using only a single switch such that it
ends up being (Primary only) - (Both) - (Secondary Only).
Can anyone tell me how to do this? Note that when in either the (Primary
only) position or the (Secondary Only) position, the cold-start terminal
must be grounded.
I think this can be accomplished using the 4TL1-10 microswitch Bob calls out
in the wigwag article. However this part is now horrendously expensive
($69) and tough to find -- I am reluctant to buy it since I don't know if it
can fit in the same spot as on of the more common switches found in AEC.
Obviously a solution using a more "common" switch from B and C would be
preferred...
Thanks very much for any help!
Mark Supinski
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: IFR GPS Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Kevin Horton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
> to those who know the US regs better than I.
>
> But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
> idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
> then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
> approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
> and terminal phases of flight.
I find this discussion interesting and far more complex than it needs to
be.
How many people have sat in their cockpit and moved across the panel
pointing to each device and asking the question, "what if this failed
and I am IFR?" This is a very simple procedure and it will go a long way
toward figuring out whether you need to attach the specified device to
the e-bus or to add a redundant unit.
For instance, I can think of only one engine instrument I need to safely
complete a flight -- CHT, and that only if the aircraft has cowl flaps.
I can guess a MAP and RPM by sound and aircraft performance. If the
engine is running then oil-P and oil-T are OK. To me, engine instruments
are not critical to safe completion of a flight.
And I don't need an airspeed indicator. If I know my airplane then I
know that a certain power setting, MAP and RPM, is going to give me
known performance.
I do need an altimeter -- but only for IFR flight. If you can't get into
the pattern and safely land the airplane without an altimeter, you need
to go back to school. But if you have a transponder with an altitude
display you have your backup altimeter for IFR flight, at least insofar
as flying an ILS is concerned. (Intercept the glideslope at
approximately the proper altitude and then fly the GS to the
middle-marker and miss if you can't see the runway environment. You
don't need an altimeter for that. And I know that some ILS's don't have
markers but you get to pick one that does.)
If I have a working HI (DG) and a TC or T&SI, I can probably survive
loss of my AI while on instruments. I cannot survive loss of all three.
That means if I have something like one of the current crop of PFDs, I
need some sort of backup.
And I would want my backup to be different as I wouldn't want a common
failure mode. That means that if I have a BMA EFIS-1 I will probably opt
for a 3-pack (ASI, alt, and AI) or a Dynon rather than an EFIS-light.
Why? Well, I bet that the EFIS-1 and EFIS-light share common AHRS and
software technology. That which causes one to fail might take out the
other as well. I would probably backup a BMA unit with a GRT or a Dynon
just so there is less commonality.
But it is pretty hard to beat a 3-pack for simplicity.
But if I had my 3-pack and an SL-30, I could afford to lose my whole
EFIS-1. I can use the built-in CDI display on the SL-30 to fly a VOR or
LOC approach. If I lose my SL-30 I can fly a VOR or NDB approach using
the GPS. It may be non-certified but it will get me safely on the ground
and with probably more accuracy than the VOR or ADF receiver would.
And if all else fails, fly the 3-pack and holler on your handheld for a
PAR at the nearest military airfield.
This isn't rocket science; this is common sense. You don't need an
engineering degree to sit in front of your panel (or in front of the
picture of your panel) to do this.
--
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Light IFR is the flying done on a computer flight simulator. IFR is not
light.
John Cox
>
>
> On 1/15/06, Richard Riley <richard@riley.net> wrote:
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley
>> <richard@riley.net>
>>
>> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote:
>>
>> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <psiegel@fuse.net>
>> >
>> >The concept of "light IFR" should be put to rest once and for all.
>> >
>> >Once you fly into the clouds, the distinction of light or heavy IFR
>> >is GONE! IMC is IMC! (Let's not even consider ice and/or
>> >thunderstorms for this discussion.)
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "D. Jones" <dljinia@yahoo.com>
Group:
I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
without moving the lug.
Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
battery (and move the ground lug higher).
The question, should I use the new battery that has
been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
year without any attention or do I need to buy another
"fresh" one?
Is there anything I should check?
Thanks,
Doug -7A 260hrs
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: | D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking voltage
at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6 inches of
14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts. This seemed
like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it read an even 12.0
volts for a loss of .3.
Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is acceptable
loss between the buses?
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark
Message 48
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
>Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
>installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking voltage
>at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6 inches of
>14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts. This seemed
>like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it read an even 12.0
>volts for a loss of .3.
>
>Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is acceptable
>loss between the buses?
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark
>
Normal voltage drop across a forward biased silicon diode is ~.6 volts.
Message 49
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: PC680 battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
Dave Morris
At 08:26 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "D. Jones" <dljinia@yahoo.com>
>
>Group:
> I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
>intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
>PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
>ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
>it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
>without moving the lug.
>
>Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
>back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
>compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
>battery (and move the ground lug higher).
>
>The question, should I use the new battery that has
>been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
>year without any attention or do I need to buy another
>"fresh" one?
>
>Is there anything I should check?
>
>Thanks,
>Doug -7A 260hrs
>
>
Message 50
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Evening Peter,
I have a fairly long missive concerning why I like the T&B better than the
Turn Coordinator, but either one is lighter, cheaper and more reliable than
the attitude indicator. If you are interested in reading my rambling thoughts,
let me know and I will send it off list.
Spin recovery is possible with a T&B. I haven't tried to recover from a spin
with a TC, but have been told that it may or may not work depending on the
type of spin.
Proficiency with either one will save your bacon and both instruments are
non-tumbling.
The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
light and reliable as an instrument can be.
I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I believe
that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
Thank you for the comment!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
PLaurence@the-beach.net writes:
Bob,
I have to agree on your take.
I learned to fly partial panel with a turn coordinator ( along with the
other compliments of instruments) which in my opinion is as proficient as a
T&B. However, my guess is that a lot of newer pilots flying today have not
developed this skill.
Message 51
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
PLaurence@the-beach.net writes:
Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?
Sorry, I forgot to answer this.
There has been.
Brittain had one that they also used as the sensor for their low cost
autopilot. I do not recall seeing one that was not associated with an autopilot
or
wing leveler. Doesn't mean there isn't one though!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
Message 52
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
Cc: <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
While the voltage drop across vs. current through a diode is not linear,
certain places within the "I-V" curve are nearly so...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rectifier_vi_curve.GIF
- In this application, we are forward biased.
When you say that you measured the voltage drop across each diode, I
assume you were checking this while it was installed in the circuit, and
while the diode was conducting current.. Roughly, was the current through
the diode the same in each case (same number of items connected to the
e-bus)?
To answer your question, 0.3V sounds a little low for a regular Si
rectifier, while 0.6V sounds pretty typical (actually, still a little
low). I would guess that the diode which showed a 0.3V drop wasn't
carrying much (any) current at the time of the test.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
> Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
> installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking
> voltage at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6
> inches of 14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts.
> This seemed like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it
> read an even 12.0 volts for a loss of .3.
>
> Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is
> acceptable loss between the buses?
>
> Thanks Bill S
> 7a Ark
>
>
Message 53
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
The 0.6V is normal. Remember when the diode is in the circuit, you're
running on alternator with something higher than 12.3V, so even with the
voltage drop, it will be within tolerable limits. When the alternator is
offline and you need maximum voltage, you are powering the E-bus through
the switch, not through the diode, so there will be no voltage drop.
Dave Morris
At 08:45 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
>Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
>installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking voltage
>at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6 inches of
>14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts. This seemed
>like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it read an even 12.0
>volts for a loss of .3.
>
>Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is acceptable
>loss between the buses?
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark
>
>
Message 54
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | D25 Diode voltage variance ?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Thanks for the reply! Seemed like a lot but I guess this isn't really
important because in normal ops, the active system keeps it up and in a low
voltage situation, the Main and D25 are out of action anyway and the E-Bus
circuit gets remaining battery power to the E-Bus with little or no loss.
Thanks Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
England
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ??
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
--> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
>--> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
>Anyone? Wiring per Z13 with Main Bus and E-Bus. I have the D25 diode
>installed between them per diagrams. Just for fun, I was checking
>voltage at the Main Bus which was 12.3 but on the E-Bus (one D25 and 6
>inches of 14ga away), it was down to 11.7 volts for a loss of .6 volts.
>This seemed like a lot of voltage loss so I tried another D25 and it
>read an even 12.0 volts for a loss of .3.
>
>Now I'm wondering if either of these is normal and if so what is
>acceptable loss between the buses?
>
>Thanks Bill S
>7a Ark
>
Normal voltage drop across a forward biased silicon diode is ~.6 volts.
Message 55
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: PC680 battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Doug,
The website on odyssey batteries state that if it was fully charged when
stored it has a shelf life of two years. See note off their website below:
Guaranteed longer service life - The ODYSSEY battery, with a ten year
design life and a three-to-eight year service life, saves you time and money
because you do not have to replace your battery as often. It is also the
ONLY battery that is capable of delivering a large number of deep cycles -
up to 400 when fully discharged or up to 500 when discharged to 80%. Plus,
the battery is specially designed for high vibration applications.
Longer storage life - Unlike conventional batteries that need to be
recharged every six to twelve weeks, the ODYSSEY battery, when fully
charged , can be stored for up to 2 years at room temperature (25C, 77F).
At lower temperatures, storage times will be even longer.
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From: "D. Jones" <dljinia@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PC680 battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "D. Jones" <dljinia@yahoo.com>
>
> Group:
> I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
> intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
> PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
> ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
> it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
> without moving the lug.
>
> Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
> back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
> compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
> battery (and move the ground lug higher).
>
> The question, should I use the new battery that has
> been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
> year without any attention or do I need to buy another
> "fresh" one?
>
> Is there anything I should check?
>
> Thanks,
> Doug -7A 260hrs
>
>
Message 56
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: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
Bob, the Brittain TC-100 you are refering to is both vacuum and electric
powered, and will continue to function as long as either power source is
present. I have one in my Mooney. As for recovering from a spin, while
prepping for my instrument ride 26 years ago my CFI put me in an unusual
attitude under the hood, and gave me the plane. The AH and DG were
tumbled, so I knew I had to level the wings with the TC, and control the
airspeed. Only afterwards, did I find out he put me in a spin...which I
had never done at that point. Much easier recovery if you don't see the
spinning earth out the window.
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> PLaurence@the-beach.net writes:
>
> Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?
>
>
>
> Sorry, I forgot to answer this.
>
> There has been.
>
> Brittain had one that they also used as the sensor for their low cost
> autopilot. I do not recall seeing one that was not associated with an autopilot
or
> wing leveler. Doesn't mean there isn't one though!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 57
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth" <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR???
> Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an overcast
> cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other side of the
> layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling near the ground,
> or above a certain level where the overcast top is. Light IFR pilots have
> not filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for IFR, but
> they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or down through the
> clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.
Larry,
I've noted several SERIOUS concerns with the above statements (see below).
In fact, the statements seem to indicate a significant lack of understanding
of FARs, safety, and risk mgt. The statements above are not boarder-line
interpretation issues nor sensible risk management approaches, these are
serious errors/omissions in required knowledge/experience. If the rest of
your aviation knowledge/understanding is of similar depth/inaccuracy, then I
feel you're likely well below the level of proficiency the most pilots
expect of each other.
Please note, I've taken the time to reply in an objective/constructive
manner (not abusive/flippant) in the hope that you seriously seek further
education/training. If you don't like my opinion, might I suggest that you
get a few more from others and take them to heart (don't shoot the
messengers).
Additionally, while these comments may seem a bit off point for this list,
the underlying theme is to think twice before short-cutting an IFR panel.
Short cut your paint, interior, etc if need be, or short-cut your oil
changes, bald tires, prop balancing, old mags, TBO, whatever, if that's how
you value your safety/life. But when it comes to IFR equipment - you're
extending your risk decisions to the rest of us. It's not just separation,
even an unnecessary missed approach can stress the IFR system when others
may be in an IFR hold somewhere with minimal fuel waiting for you. IFR is
not only about us individually, its about the entire collective system.
My concerns/feedback with comments above.
If your point was that having the best available weather helps lower some of
the risks associated with IFR flight, I certainly agree. However...
1. I've never heard an AWOS/ASOS that will tell you what's on the top of an
overcast. They don't (someone please correct me if some do).
2. AWOS/ASOS = "automatic", means not checked/verified. Prone to all kinds
of errors. Usually directional correct information, but not something you
can bank on. One of the reasons instrument approaches have missed
procedures is because actual conditions are not always the same as reports,
especially AWOS/ASOS.
3. Good/accurate information on tops is often hard to come by. Best (only)
source is often pilot reports (or ATC chatter). It's not always available
nor current, nor accurate. Furthermore tops (and intermediate layers) often
change, due to heating through the day, fronts, terrain, etc.
If your point was that being VFR (VMC) above an overcast layer with some
knowledge/expectation of high ceilings below (and a VFR descent opportunity
before your expected destination) is better than being in the same with no
knowledge of conditions below, I agree. Being "above a layer" in VMC
without IFR capability is also legal. However...
4. Being "above a layer" without IFR capability (pilot and/or aircraft) even
with knowledge of conditions below its a false sense of security at best.
If you're lucky, the ceiling below is 1,000ft+ above all obstacles/terrain
(well above 1000ft AGL). If not, an engine out, alt out, etc carries the
very real risk of a blind approach/landing (a serious crash) - typically
fatal. Worse case: fire, total power loss, radio/txpnd out, etc, = no ATC
assistance = you're playing roulette (with bad odds).
No good scenario results in flight in IMC (on the needles) without being
certified and on an active IFR plan/clearance...
5. Flying through any IMC (clouds, etc), at any time, without being IFR
certified and current (pilot and aircraft) is illegal.
6. VFR flight into IMC is one of the top causes of fatal accidents. It has
been for decades (nothing new here - same issues/fatalities every year).
I'm guessing the pilots who tried and died, were all relatively confident
they could do it (wrong, they died). While I'm sure there are some (many?)
who have made it and lived, thinking (guessing) you can do it does not
correlate with success. A few hours under the hood (on the needles) during
private pilot training and/or with friends might be marginally helpful, but
is also not correlated with success. Those who've died have proved it.
Training, testing, certification, and currency have proven much better
indicators of success. I suggest you ascribe to them and suggest any/all
your friends do the same.
7. Flying through any IMC (clouds, etc) in controlled airspace (Class E and
above - virtually all airspace east of the Rockies above 1500 AGL) without
an active IFR flight plan and clearance is illegal.
8. If you're in IMC without ATC positive control (and active IFR flight plan
and clearance), what's to keep you from running into other aircraft? The
big sky theory is a risk that other IFR pilots (and commercial passengers)
choose not to bank on. Perhaps you're a risk taker/gambler with your life.
Most of us aren't. Anyone in IMC and not on an IFR clearance is putting
many other at needless risk - it's very, very, very selfish. (I'm being
kind!). If you find yourself thinking you can survive IMC without training
and/or ATC clearance/control, the safest thing for the rest of us, is for
you to roll it over, point it straight down, and expedite your destiny.
This minimizes the risk you extend to otherwise innocent folks working
together to keep everyone safe.
9. Additionally, if you're in IMC without a clearance and you run into
someone, everyone's dead and you're clearly at fault, their
family/dependents will likely sue your family/estate for more than you have
- regardless of how much you have. Flight and life insurance is not likely
to even come close to the costs/suits and will never cover the hardships.
Quite a legacy you leave for others.
Other constructive comments.
Message 58
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: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Do Not Archive
Hi Bob ...
Do you know if a 12v electric 2 1/4" needle and ball instrument is
available?
Jerry Grimmonpre'
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening Peter,
>
> I have a fairly long missive concerning why I like the T&B better than
> the
> Turn Coordinator, but either one is lighter, cheaper and more reliable
> than
> the attitude indicator. If you are interested in reading my rambling
> thoughts,
> let me know and I will send it off list.
>
> Spin recovery is possible with a T&B. I haven't tried to recover from a
> spin
> with a TC, but have been told that it may or may not work depending on the
> type of spin.
>
> Proficiency with either one will save your bacon and both instruments are
> non-tumbling.
>
> The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as
> simple,
> light and reliable as an instrument can be.
>
> I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
> airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I
> believe
> that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
>
> Thank you for the comment!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> Do Not Archive
Message 59
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: circuit simplification help needed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
It seems to me that you could use a 2 pole 3 position
rotary switch to do this. The attached file is a
terrible drawing, but it's the best I could do at
home. I found some switches made by ITT, C&K M series
that are 6 amps continous, 28 VDC. Hope this helps,
been out of doing this for a while. Loose the design
edge quick when only doing tech support. You have my
disclaimer... I'm not a builder or a pilot. I hope to
start lessons in the spring and build in the fall.
Ric
--- "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R.
> Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
>
> Hello all-
>
> I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the
> following image:
>
> http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg
>
Message 60
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: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
John W. Cox wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
>
> IFR is not light.
There are different levels of difficulty in flying IFR. The skill level
to penetrate a cloud layer and then break out 1000' above the ground
with 2-3 mi visibility is not the same as flying in known ice,
turbulence, avoiding embedded CBs, and then shooting a tricky approach
breaking out at minimums. The former will permit a greater degree of
inaccuracy without endangering the aircraft or passengers.
I know that, depending on how I am feeling and my recent practice, I
will change my go/no-go decision point. I will accept "light" IFR when I
might not be willing to launch into something heavier.
We can be pedantic if we choose to but the bottom line is that there are
degrees of IFR difficulty.
--
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 61
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>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
> light and reliable as an instrument can be.
The internal construction of the TC and the T&SI (T&B) are the same. The
only difference is that the axis of the gyro in the TC is canted so that
the gyro responds to both yaw and roll rather than yaw only as in the T&SI.
> I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
> airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I believe
> that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI.
--
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 62
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: | Prescott AZ 2006 Seminar date set |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Plans and dates have been finalized for an AeroElectric
Connection seminar in Prescott, AZ on May 20/21, 2006.
Details at:
http://aeroelectric.com/seminars/Prescott.html
Bob . . .
Message 63
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>
Brinker wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
> SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display your
> engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
> engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
> probes.
I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.
> GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
> I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
> they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and toes
> crossed.
The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
CDI, VDI, flags, etc.
--
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 64
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: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
Most Nav radios that have built-in VOR/LOC converters output signals
intended to drive meter movements. There is even an ARINC standard for
these types of signal. (I forget the ARINC number for these analog meter
movement signals.)
There are a lot of older ILS display heads that have the deviation
indicators (CDI/VDI), the flags, and an OBS resolver. I have been able
to pick these up for next to nothing. (I got one free for the asking at
an old shop once.) This type of display may be used with your GPS or nav
with a built-in VOR/LOC converter. No need to buy a brand-new expensive
unit.
--
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 65
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:
> 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, there are a lot of airplanes flying IFR with the gyros powered by
a dry vacuum pump and you are worried about how dangerous the current
crop of non-certified PFDs are?
Instrument-rated pilots are supposed to be able to cross check their
gyros and reject those that do not agree. That is part of the standard
skill set.
When things go wrong and you start to chase a dying AI, you know it.
*EVERYTHING* feels wrong and your airspeed and altitude start to move.
You *KNOW* you have a problem. It will pretty quickly become apparent
which instrument(s) are providing you with valid information.
--
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 66
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>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
All of the solid state rate gyros and accelerometers have maximum rates.
For the rate gyros they are in degrees per second and for the
accelerometers they are in Gs. If the AHRS has 160 degree/sec rate gyros
then it is going to lose track if you roll the airplane too fast. (It
won't really tumble but it won't indicate a roll as fast as you are
actually achieving.) You can get devices that support higher rates at
the expense of lower resolution and accuracy.
Most aircraft do not have pitch, yaw, or roll rates great enough to
reach the limits. OTOH, some OBAM aircraft do and that should be a
consideration when selecting a PFD/AHRS.
--
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! --
|