---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 01/16/06: 66 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:38:02 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? From: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:05:02 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:45:55 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton 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" > > 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" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:53:00 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:24:48 AM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" 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" Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:51 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > > On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:50:03 AM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:18 AM PST US From: "Mark & Lisa" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Light IFR --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" 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: > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:58:57 AM PST US From: rv-9a-online Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:00:13 AM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" 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" 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" Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:51 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > > On 16 Jan 2006, at 24:52, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" >> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:35 AM PST US From: "Greg Vouga" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Companies --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Vouga" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:47 AM PST US From: "Jim Butcher" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:17:56 AM PST US From: "Vern W." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." 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 wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley > > At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:23 AM PST US From: "richard titsworth" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth" >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:44:41 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Jabiru 3300 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 12:30 PM 1/15/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:41 AM PST US From: Jan de Jong Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:39 AM PST US Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:55:48 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:11:02 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? From: "Dan Beadle" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" 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" >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >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 >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:01 AM PST US From: "Bob C. " Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Companies --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " 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 wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Vouga" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:26 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? From: "Dan Beadle" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:43:36 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor From: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:13:08 AM PST US From: "Bruce McGregor" Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" 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" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:09 AM PST US From: Kevin Seuferer Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Seuferer 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:29:12 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery strength From: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:49 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" sensor Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery bus location and Hall-effect sensor --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:43:35 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Interference between Com and Autopilot From: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:26:22 PM PST US From: "Dr. Peter Laurence" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dr. Peter Laurence" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:59:08 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 16 Jan 2006, at 10:19, Jan de Jong wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:32 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Instrument install/annunciator lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:23:29 PM PST US From: "Rodney Dunham" Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:02 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products From: "Allan Aaron" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" 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" --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:25:47 PM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" 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" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:31:29 PM PST US From: Nancy Ghertner Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hidden till needed annunciator lights? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Nancy Ghertner West Coast Aviation 425-283-0460. On 1/16/06 3:33 AM, "rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US" wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:08 PM PST US From: "Jim Thorne" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Thorne" 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" Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 4:10 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" > > 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" > --> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:12:49 PM PST US From: "LarryRobertHelming" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" 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." Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:17 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." > > 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 wrote: >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley >> >> >> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote: >> >> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >> > >> >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:13 PM PST US From: Larry McFarland Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:25:49 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:28:02 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Dave Morris "BigD" wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:58:13 PM PST US From: "Peter Laurence" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:05:38 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Interference between Com and Autopilot --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:16:33 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? From: "Greg Young" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:21:35 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 'Light' IFR??? From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" 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" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:25:49 PM PST US From: "Mark R. Supinski" Subject: AeroElectric-List: circuit simplification help needed --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. Supinski" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:50:38 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Kevin Horton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:44 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? From: "John W. Cox" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" Light IFR is the flying done on a computer flight simulator. IFR is not light. John Cox > > > On 1/15/06, Richard Riley wrote: >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley >> >> >> At 08:24 AM 1/15/06, you wrote: >> >> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >> > >> >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:26:48 PM PST US From: "D. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: PC680 battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "D. Jones" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:46:43 PM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:24 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England Bill Schlatterer wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:53:25 PM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC680 battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:09:15 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:30 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:30 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? From: "Matt Prather" Cc: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" 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" > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:22:48 PM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" 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" > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:22 PM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: D25 Diode voltage variance ?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" 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 --> Bill Schlatterer wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" >--> > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:29:23 PM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC680 battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" 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" Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:26 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: PC680 battery > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "D. Jones" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:15 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:04 PM PST US From: "richard titsworth" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth" > -----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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:19:59 PM PST US From: "Jerry Grimmonpre" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" 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: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:28 PM PST US From: richard cannella Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: circuit simplification help needed --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard cannella 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" wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R. > Supinski" > > Hello all- > > I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the > following image: > > http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg > ________________________________ Message 60 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:18 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR??? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd John W. Cox wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John W. Cox" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:52 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:11 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prescott AZ 2006 Seminar date set --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:55:37 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Brinker wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:25:05 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Cheap CDI/ILS indicators (was: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:03 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:52 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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