Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:18 AM - Re: IFR GPS Display (Kevin Horton)
2. 05:12 AM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (LarryRobertHelming)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: PC680 battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:32 AM - Re: 'Light' IFR??? (Matt Prather)
5. 06:47 AM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Chuck Jensen)
6. 07:01 AM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Tim Olson)
7. 07:26 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mike)
8. 07:27 AM - Re: IFR GPS Display (Mike)
9. 08:11 AM - Re: Battery strength (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:33 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (bobsv35b@aol.com)
11. 08:43 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brinker)
12. 09:03 AM - Re: circuit simplification help needed (bobsv35b@aol.com)
13. 09:03 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (David Lloyd)
14. 09:11 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (bobsv35b@aol.com)
15. 09:23 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Matt Prather)
16. 09:32 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 66 Msgs - 01/16/06 (Tony Cann)
17. 09:41 AM - Re: IFR GPS Display (Brian Lloyd)
18. 09:47 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Lynn Riggs)
19. 10:01 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
20. 10:04 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
21. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 66 Msgs - 01/16/06 (Brian Lloyd)
22. 10:16 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
23. 11:06 AM - Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot (Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de)
24. 11:41 AM - Hawker battery failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 11:41 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Jerry Grimmonpre)
26. 12:44 PM - Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot (Brian Lloyd)
27. 01:39 PM - Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot (Dave Morris \)
28. 03:40 PM - Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (Tim Lewis)
29. 04:06 PM - Re: MicroAir products (czechsix@juno.com)
30. 04:06 PM - Re: MicroAir products (czechsix@juno.com)
31. 04:28 PM - Re: MicroAir products (James Redmon)
32. 06:27 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Larry McFarland)
33. 10:01 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
34. 10:53 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 16 Jan 2006, at 20:49, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-
> yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Kevin Horton wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>> I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
>> to those who know the US regs better than I.
>>
>> But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
>> idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
>> then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
>> approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
>> and terminal phases of flight.
>
> I find this discussion interesting and far more complex than it
> needs to
> be.
>
> How many people have sat in their cockpit and moved across the panel
> pointing to each device and asking the question, "what if this failed
> and I am IFR?" This is a very simple procedure and it will go a
> long way
> toward figuring out whether you need to attach the specified device to
> the e-bus or to add a redundant unit.
I agree with all you wrote, but there is one more thing to consider
too. Anyone considering using a non-TSO'd GPS receiver for IFR
flight needs to also ask the question "what if the GPS receiver
provided false position information and I was flying IFR?". TSO C129
units have functions that look for bad satellite data, and either
exclude it, or stop providing position info. Non-TSO C129 units
almost certain don't have this function, and they will quite happily
use bad satellite data to calculate a bad position. If the position
error is large, you will probably notice it. But, I am aware of one
occurrence that happened to a co-worker. They were flying a practice
GPS approach in VMC conditions. The GPS receiver gave a RAIM warning
prior to the FAF, and refused to go into approach mode. They
continued the approach, curious to see what the GPS was going to do.
It ended up bringing them in on a path over 1 mile offset from the
correct approach path. That could put you into the rocks or
obstacles in some places.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message ----- do not archive
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
> <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
>> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of LarryRobertHelming
>> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 7:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Light" IFR???
>
>> Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or below an
>> overcast
>
>> cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells them on the other side of the
>> layer there are VFR conditions -- with adequate ceiling near the ground,
>> or above a certain level where the overcast top is. Light IFR pilots
>> have
>> not filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for IFR,
>> but
>> they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or down through the
>> clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.
>
> Larry,
>
> I've noted several SERIOUS concerns with the above statements (see below).
> In fact, the statements seem to indicate a significant lack of
> understanding
> of FARs, safety, and risk mgt. The statements above are not boarder-line
> interpretation issues nor sensible risk management approaches, these are
> serious errors/omissions in required knowledge/experience. If the rest of
> your aviation knowledge/understanding is of similar depth/inaccuracy, then
> I
> feel you're likely well below the level of proficiency the most pilots
> expect of each other.
I was defining how the term "light IFR" might differ from the same term for
those with the California coast line weather. I too am concerned with it
because I know of cases where VFR pilots have been on top of a layer and
flew down through it knowing from ASOS/AWOS or ATIS info that the ceiling
and weather below the layer are expected to be above minimums.
>
> 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).
I did not say I believed in doing this myself. Although I am sure I will
always benefit from further education and training. I consider such a
situation to be identified with the "E" word and get ATC involved. I like
your opinions. Right on target without any shots fired.
>
> 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.
I agree. It is a system that works because everyone understands how it
works and the ATC is in control. IFR equipment goes farther than just the
panel.
>
>
> 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).
You are correct. However flight watch can give this many times. I should
have been more clear about tops.
>
> 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.
Thanks. I did not know that. I thought that info was accurate if
broadcast.
>
> 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).
I agree. Better not to allow yourself to be in the air under such
circumstances. Before flying through a layer, one should flying under and
after having filed IFR and be in control and contact with ATC.
>
> No good scenario results in flight in IMC (on the needles) without being
> certified and on an active IFR plan/clearance...
You are correct.
>
> 5. Flying through any IMC (clouds, etc), at any time, without being IFR
> certified and current (pilot and aircraft) is illegal.
And I might add it also requires flying an IFR flight plan under control of
ATC.
>
> 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.
I am sure many of us are reading this that will benefit from it.
>
> 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.
You are correct.
>
> 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.
Well, hopefully at least one would not be stupid enough not to have their
transponder on so ATC would know someone is there and at least divert IFR
traffic. Pity any other VFR plane doing the same stupid thing in the same
area. Such are betting on the big sky theory.
>
> 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.
You are right again. There is not enough insurance coverage to pay everyone
off.
>
> Other constructive comments.
Yes, thank you Richard for making very good points. And by the way, you are
not saving my soul because I have never flown through a cloud myself (and
probably never will without ATC help under the "E" scenerio) but I know some
"daredevil types" that have at one time or another. Thank you.
Indiana Larry
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: PC680 battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:52 PM 1/16/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
The battery test suggested in the above article is a
COMPARATIVE test intended to measure degradation of your
used battery as compared with new.
It's not designed for nor capable of offering measured
values of capacity.
What is/was your stored battery's terminal voltage before
you put it on a charger? If above 12.5 volts, it probably
possesses near new capacity. But the only way to know for
sure is to test it with reasonably calibrated equipment.
I'd do a cranking test with an instrument commonly found
in service stations. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/HF91129_4.jpg
for a low cost offering by Harbor Freight. Put a load
on the battery for pulls the voltage down to 9 volts
for 15 seconds. Observe current delivered at the end of 15
seconds. It should be 300A or better.
Recharge the battery and do a capacity test using some
tool like:
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
I've purchased several of these for use in various
jobs and I keep one on the shelf in my shop. If you
don't want to invest in such tools, AND the battery
meets the cranking test at your local battery service
shop, then go ahead and install it. On some nice
VFR clear day, drop to battery-only operations and see
how long the battery will run your endurance loads
without dropping below 11 volts.
Be aware that advertised service life numbers for
batteries are a mixture of lab tests extrapolated
to the real world conditions and/or wishful marketing
hype. The real service life of a battery is strongly
influenced by your battery's real-world experiences
and the phase of the moon when the battery was built
(just kidding . . . slightly. Building batteries
is like baking cakes. The cook can have a bad day
in the most prestigious of battery factories. Hawker
went through a protracted bout of low quality jelly-roll
cells a couple of years ago).
Marketing literature is not a substitute for directly
measuring a battery's performance capabilities.
Bob . . .
>Dave Morris
>
>At 08:26 PM 1/16/2006, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "D. Jones" <dljinia@yahoo.com>
> >
> >Group:
> > I purchased a new PC680 battery a year ago with the
> >intent of replacing the year old (now 2 year old)
> >PC680 in my RV7A. Well, I didn't. I had mounted the
> >ground lug that goes through the firewall too low and
> >it was going to be in the way to replace the battery
> >without moving the lug.
> >
> >Long story shorter, I've pulled my engine and sent
> >back to Aero Sport to get the crankshaft replaced in
> >compliance with SB566. I intend to now replace the
> >battery (and move the ground lug higher).
> >
> >The question, should I use the new battery that has
> >been sitting on the shelf in the hanger for over a
> >year without any attention or do I need to buy another
> >"fresh" one?
> >
> >Is there anything I should check?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Doug -7A 260hrs
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 'Light' IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- do not archive
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "richard titsworth"
>> <rtitsworth@mindspring.com>
>>
>
SNIP
> Well, hopefully at least one would not be stupid enough not to have
> their transponder on so ATC would know someone is there and at least
> divert IFR traffic. Pity any other VFR plane doing the same stupid
> thing in the same area. Such are betting on the big sky theory.
>>
Glad you gents got this all sorted out.. :) Seriously though, good
points expressed.
Keep in mind that transponders are only useful where there is radar
coverage. Many IFR flights are conducted in areas where there isn't
coverage. For instance, departing Boise, ID all of the airways eventually
take you above 10k'MSL. Even flying this high MEA, by the time you are
50mi from Boise, you're off radar. I think you have to be above 14k'MSL
to stay on the screen of the center controller.
Many, many (most?) airports in the US that are served by instrument
approaches (IAP) are in areas lacking radar coverage. "Sneaking" into
such an airport VFR when conditions are below basic VFR is especially
dangerous for anyone in the vicinity..
Regards,
Matt-
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
All violation of FAR are not stupid, all stupid things are not illegal,
but as you pointed out, this is both stupid and illegal. The closet I
am willing admit to stupid and illegal was getting caught above an
overcast a couple times before being rated and requesting an IFR Letdown
from Approach, which they gave. I already knew the cloud cover was
2000'+ agl.
After being rated, on a flight with flight following, I was above a
layer. The request for an IFR Letdown was followed by a quiry if I was
rated-and-equipped, which I was able to answer honestly 'yes'. But
transversing layers while not on and IFR flight plan or in contact with
Approach---no way. That ain't 'light IFR'.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
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 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Greg is saying "illegal" (and I agree with him) because
Larry said "fly up or down through the clouds to the other
side expecting better conditions".
What Larry basically described, is VFR on top, and plain
VFR. The blasting through the layer made it illegal.
IFR flying carries with it some pretty heavy responsibilities
and extreme consequences. It is only through the very high
level of legal procedures that everyone is kept safe.
I think it would be nuts to blast through the cloud
layer without an IFR clearnace. Why? Because the only
way you're going to get separation from other IFR traffic
that might be IN that same cloud, is if everyone is
following the rules and in communication with ATC.
Here's a question for you.... Why does the VFR standard
cloud clearance call for only 500 below, 1000 above,
but it looks for a whole 2000 laterally? 2000' isn't
even nearly enough in clear skies to have a 200mph
plane come blasting out the side of a cloud at you.
Being IN the cloud without the clearance does make
it stupid.
VFR is VFR, IFR is IFR. The worst problems happen
when people try to allow themselves to get caught
where the 2 mix.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
Greg Young wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> My god, I hope there's another definition that doesn't involve being
> both stupid and illegal... With emphasis on the stupid.
>
> Greg Young
>
>
>
>>Light IFR: defined in the Midwest as being on top of or
>>below an overcast cloud layer with AWOS/ASOS info that tells
>>them on the other side of the layer there are VFR conditions
>>-- with adequate ceiling near the ground, or above a certain
>>level where the overcast top is. Light IFR pilots have not
>>filed IFR or may not be IFR qualified or legally equipped for
>>IFR, but they go on the instruments long enough to fly up or
>>down through the clouds to the other side expecting better conditions.
>>
>>Is there another definition of light ifr? do not archive
>>
>>Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
>>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
Bob,
Actually I stated that the artificial horizon was vacuum powered not the
T&B. The only T&B that was vacuum powered as a normal course was on the
Mooneys, most were electric. I think you need to read thing a little
more carefully.
As far as meeting the requirement of being able to fly a T&B, most IFR
pilots could do this when licensed but never practice this task again.
You tell me how good you would be 10 years down the road without
spending more then the 5 minutes or so work with the T&B on your BFR in
great weather. Unless youre the one pilot in general aviation that
does go out every 90 days and maintains proficiency at this task. I
think your hiding behind the lack of data showing that pilots do not
practice what they do not like or are not very good at. I'm just being
realistic about the data I have collected about real world proficiency.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:00 AM
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.
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
Question, how do you know it doesn't match up? Think about your answer.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
<khorton01@rogers.com>
I'll leave the question as to whether AC 20-138A is regulatory or not
to those who know the US regs better than I.
But, just because something may be legal doesn't mean it is a good
idea. If your installation does not match up against AC 20-138A,
then I strongly recommend you should not fly IMC based on the GPS, on
approach, or lower than 1000 ft above any obstacles in the enroute
and terminal phases of flight.
Kevin Horton
On 15 Jan 2006, at 23:35, Mike wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> AC 20-138A is not regulatory for experimental aircraft unless You
> incorporated this into your limitations.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> McGregor
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 11:05 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR GPS Display
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor"
> <bruceflys@comcast.net>
>
> AC 20-138A, Airworthiness Approval Of Global Navigation Satellite
> System
> Equipment, sets the requirements for IFR GPS units. Para 18d ,
> Navigation
> Display,. requires that the horizontal and vertical deviation
> display(s)
> and
> failure annunciation be within the pilot's primary field of view.
> Primary
> field is defined as within 15 degrees of straight ahead of the pilot.
> Other
> displays may be anywhere from the airspeed indicator on the left in a
> standard six pack to and including an avionics center stack on the
> right.
>
> One method of compliance is to place an IFR GPS receiver that displays
> CDI/VDI, such as the GNS 480, within the primary field of view and
> eliminate
> the requirement for an external display. The geometry of my GlaStar
> gives a
> 12" wide zone in the panel for the GPS' display. Placing a Dynon
> or GRT
> PFD
> above or below the GPS would result in a lot of flight/navigation info
> directly
> in front of the pilot.
>
> Regards, Bruce McGregor
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery strength |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:25 PM 1/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>--> 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.
If it's a permanent magnet starter, it's probably not a good idea.
The earliest automotive derivatives were series wound and fairly
tolerant of short duration overloads . . . it will certainly crank
the engine faster thus reducing total abuse time of the starter.
What are your options? Take the starter off and replace it with
an newer, lighter machine or run the existing starter 'til it
croaks. Who knows, you may get considerable service life from
the existing starter and the risks are low.
>- 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.
Battery size is driven more by what your no-alternator
endurance goals are. Have you conducted a load analysis
for alternator-out operations and selected a minimum endurance
time? See Chapter 17 of the 'Connection.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bobsv35b@aol.com
Good Morning Brian,
You ask: "Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI."
Many reasons.
I would need to repeat long treatises on why I prefer the T&B over the TC along
with thoughts on how MY mind works. What works for me may not work for others.
On top of that, the T&B is lighter, cheaper and, in my opinion, more reliable.
Incidentally, I have never disassembled either a T&B or a TC, but my local instrument
guru tells me that the TC has one more fulcrum point to transfer the data
from the canted gyro to the instrument face. Thus a slightly higher parts
count and an ever so slightly higher chance of failure.
There is no doubt that, with proper training, either a TC or a T&B can be used
successfully for partial panel flight and as a device for recovery from an unusual
attitude.
On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.
My love for the T&B is based on it being so much different in appearance from the
TC or attitude gyro and the fact that it will show only yaw where the TC shows
both roll and yaw.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:44:49 -0800
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
> light and reliable as an instrument can be.
The internal construction of the TC and the T&SI (T&B) are the same. The
only difference is that the axis of the gyro in the TC is canted so that
the gyro responds to both yaw and roll rather than yaw only as in the T&SI.
> I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
> airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I
believe
> that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
$1100 is for the EIS only for a 6cyl but I plan to install a dual EFIS
which interfaces to the EIS
I think if you wanted a dedicated graphic display it would be a
little over $3000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> Brinker wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker"
>> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>>
>> The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
>> SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display
>> your
>> engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
>> engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
>> probes.
>
> I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.
>
>> GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
>> I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
>> they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and toes
>> crossed.
>
> The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
> compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
> CDI, VDI, flags, etc.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: circuit simplification help needed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bobsv35b@aol.com
Good Morning Ric,
Welcome aboard!
Stick with it and keep us advised as to how things are going. Just remember that
flying is fun. If your first instructor does not make it fun, shop around
until you find one that does. Getting good flight instruction is not easy these
days, but it can be done!
Enjoy.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
630 985-8502
-----Original Message-----
From: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
Sent: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: circuit simplification help needed
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard cannella <ric52md@yahoo.com>
It seems to me that you could use a 2 pole 3 position
rotary switch to do this. The attached file is a
terrible drawing, but it's the best I could do at
home. I found some switches made by ITT, C&K M series
that are 6 amps continous, 28 VDC. Hope this helps,
been out of doing this for a while. Loose the design
edge quick when only doing tech support. You have my
disclaimer... I'm not a builder or a pilot. I hope to
start lessons in the spring and build in the fall.
Ric
--- "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R.
> Supinski" <mark.supinski@gmail.com>
>
> Hello all-
>
> I'd like to 'simplify' the circuit shown in the
> following image:
>
> http://supinski.net:8080/injectors.jpg
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
....be sure to review and compare the JPI engine monitor if you have not
made a decision yet.
D
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker"
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> $1100 is for the EIS only for a 6cyl but I plan to install a dual EFIS
> which interfaces to the EIS
> I think if you wanted a dedicated graphic display it would be a
> little over $3000
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:54 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
>> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brinker wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker"
>>> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>>>
>>> The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
>>> SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display
>>> your
>>> engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
>>> engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
>>> probes.
>>
>> I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.
>>
>>> GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
>>> I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
>>> they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and
>>> toes
>>> crossed.
>>
>> The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
>> compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
>> CDI, VDI, flags, etc.
>>
>> --
>> Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
>> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>>
>> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bobsv35b@aol.com
Good Morning Jerry,
They are available, but I am not aware of any good source. If I find one , I will
let you know.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Grimmonpre <jerry@mc.net>
Sent: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:19:15 -0600
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Do Not Archive
Hi Bob ...
Do you know if a 12v electric 2 1/4" needle and ball instrument is
available?
Jerry Grimmonpre'
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Evening Peter,
>
> I have a fairly long missive concerning why I like the T&B better than
> the
> Turn Coordinator, but either one is lighter, cheaper and more reliable
> than
> the attitude indicator. If you are interested in reading my rambling
> thoughts,
> let me know and I will send it off list.
>
> Spin recovery is possible with a T&B. I haven't tried to recover from a
> spin
> with a TC, but have been told that it may or may not work depending on the
> type of spin.
>
> Proficiency with either one will save your bacon and both instruments are
> non-tumbling.
>
> The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as
> simple,
> light and reliable as an instrument can be.
>
> I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
> airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I
> believe
> that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!
>
> Thank you for the comment!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> Do Not Archive
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Comment below..
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> Bob,
>
snip
>
> As far as meeting the requirement of being able to fly a T&B, most IFR
> pilots could do this when licensed but never practice this task again.
> You tell me how good you would be 10 years down the road without
> spending more then the 5 minutes or so work with the T&B on your BFR in
> great weather. Unless youre the one pilot in general aviation that does
> go out every 90 days and maintains proficiency at this task. I think
> your hiding behind the lack of data showing that pilots do not practice
> what they do not like or are not very good at. I'm just being realistic
> about the data I have collected about real world proficiency.
>
> Mike
>
Given the chances that you will have a vacuum pump failure, I propose that
it's good policy to perform the majority of your proficiency work with the
AI covered. And, fly more than one "no gyro" approach each time you go
out (DG and AI covered). They aren't really that hard. In fact, when you
ask for that from ATC, they are generally very accomodating (in a radar
environment anyway). They give you the "start turn, stop turn
instructions" and the only hard part is intercepting the final approach
course. It helps if you practice keeping the ball centered in all
maneuvers. And I don't think flying the "no gyro" procedure reduces your
effectiveness at full-panel ops. I suppose the hardest thing partial
panel is doing a precise holding pattern without the DG - especially on a
windy/bumpy day. Break out the handheld GPS to give you course
information - makes it almost too easy.
Matt-
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 66 Msgs - 01/16/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Cann" <tonycann@pacbell.net>
1) Now that the CAN-Aerospace bus definition has been around a while, will
it become an accepted standard? It did achieve some success in the CAPSTONE
projects.
2) Has Boeing published their message formats for Ethernet to try to
establish a standard?
Tony Cann
916-988-4043
Time: 04:25:49 PM PST US
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> Subject:
Re: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
<brian-yak@lloyd.com>
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.
(clipped)
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS Display |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Kevin Horton wrote:
> I agree with all you wrote, but there is one more thing to consider
> too. Anyone considering using a non-TSO'd GPS receiver for IFR
> flight needs to also ask the question "what if the GPS receiver
> provided false position information and I was flying IFR?". TSO C129
> units have functions that look for bad satellite data, and either
> exclude it, or stop providing position info.
Which they do wonderfully well as I have discovered. I have had GPS stop
working for me on several flights, including one over water flight.
Fortunately I had an ADF as a backup. Planning for loss of your primary
navigation is part and parcel of flying.
Heck, on one of my Atlantic crossings my LORAN packed it in. I planned
for this and had a recent LORAN fix to use as a jumping-off point for
DR. I had also been checking the winds aloft using the LORAN so I had a
good wind set too. I navigated this way until I could get a good ADF
bearing and used that as a check until I got in range of a VOR. It
happens and it is not the end of the world.
> Non-TSO C129 units
> almost certain don't have this function, and they will quite happily
> use bad satellite data to calculate a bad position.
So you are going to bet your life on the RAIM feature of your GPS? You
aren't going to cross check? I have had GPS fail just too often to trust
GPS as my sole source of navigation, RAIM or no RAIM.
In fact, it has happened to me so many times with so many different GPS
receivers (which mysteriously get better later all by themselves) that I
have stopped flying GPS direct for the most part. I now find that I fly
most of my cross-country flights by Victor airway again. I do this
because it makes transition back to VOR much, much easier and the cost
in terms of time is almost always negligible. It also means that I can
cross check my GPS with the VOR/DME/RNAV. I know the GPS is more
accurate but I trust VOR/DME more in the long run.
So if the VOR/DME and GPS are telling me the same thing, I am happy. If
they start telling me different things, I am not happy but I know I have
to figure out who is lying. And usually the GPS just goes toes-up with a
RAIM error followed by loss of navigation information about 20 seconds
later.
> If the position
> error is large, you will probably notice it. But, I am aware of one
> occurrence that happened to a co-worker. They were flying a practice
> GPS approach in VMC conditions. The GPS receiver gave a RAIM warning
> prior to the FAF, and refused to go into approach mode. They
> continued the approach, curious to see what the GPS was going to do.
> It ended up bringing them in on a path over 1 mile offset from the
> correct approach path. That could put you into the rocks or
> obstacles in some places.
Sure it will. It breaks like everything else. Actually it breaks more
often as the USAF is still "experimenting" with degrading GPS in some
areas. Most of the time it gets NOTAM'd but sometimes ...
TSO C129 is not a panacea. RAIM helps but it doesn't solve the problem
that GPS has a number of interesting failure modes. You cannot count on
your GPS to always give you accurate information all the time. You need
something else or you need to be VFR so you can fall back on pilotage.
> 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 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lynn Riggs <riggs_la@yahoo.com>
Try Aircraft Spruce:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/turnbankindicators.html
Do not archive.
bobsv35b@aol.com wrote: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bobsv35b@aol.com
Good Morning Jerry,
They are available, but I am not aware of any good source. If I find one , I will
let you know.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Grimmonpre
Sent: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:19:15 -0600
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
Lynn A. Riggs
riggs_la@yahoo.com
St. Paul, MN
BH #656 Kit #22
http://home.comcast.net/~lariggs/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
"Men, to act with vigour and effect, must have time to mature
measures, and judgment and experience, as to the best method of
applying them. They must not be hurried on to their conclusions by
the passions, or the fears of the multitude. They must deliberate,
as well as resolve." -- Joseph Story
---------------------------------
Got holiday prints? See all the ways to get quality prints in your hands ASAP.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
bobsv35b@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bobsv35b@aol.com
>
> Good Morning Brian,
>
> You ask: "Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
> better than a second T&SI."
>
> Many reasons.
>
> I would need to repeat long treatises on why I prefer the T&B over the TC along
with thoughts on how MY mind works.
I do not disagree with you over your choice of T&SI vs. TC.
> What works for me may not work for others.
>
> On top of that, the T&B is lighter, cheaper and, in my opinion, more reliable.
That is true.
> Incidentally, I have never disassembled either a T&B or a TC, but my local instrument
guru tells me that the TC has one more fulcrum point to transfer the
data from the canted gyro to the instrument face.
Ah, yes. There is a linkage there but it is pretty darned simple. It is
not likely to be a source of failure. The motor is a much, much higher
probability of failure.
> Thus a slightly higher parts count and an ever so slightly higher chance of failure.
You are splitting hairs here.
> There is no doubt that, with proper training, either a TC or a T&B can be used
successfully for partial panel flight and as a device for recovery from an unusual
attitude.
So can an attitude gyro that is non-tumbling in both pitch and roll.
> On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.
But in order to be used as a replacement for a T&SI or a TC the AI must
be non-tumbling. If it has stops on the gimbals it may not be used to
replace the turn instrument. There are a number of non-tumbling AIs out
there. Sporty's has a nice one for $1600. It also has an inclinometer
(ball).
> My love for the T&B is based on it being so much different in appearance from
the TC or attitude gyro and the fact that it will show only yaw where the TC
shows both roll and yaw.
I know. And it is easier to learn to fly partial-panel with a TC as you
get feedback as soon as you start to roll the airplane, long before the
T&SI starts to show a turn. Still I like that the T&SI is less "twitchy"
in turbulence.
But if the main AI packs it in it is one heck of a lot easier to proceed
using a second AI than it is to transition to partial panel. Sure we all
maintain currency and proficiency but who is ever so proficient that
they can fly partial panel as well as they can with an AI? Not me no
matter how hard I try. To me partial panel, whether it is with a TC or a
T&SI, is a serious event and probably qualifies as an emergency. Having
a second self-contained AI changes that dynamic tremendously.
YMMV
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
--
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 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
David Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
>
> ....be sure to review and compare the JPI engine monitor if you have not
> made a decision yet.
I will but they have a couple of strikes against them:
1. JPI is expensive.
2. JPI screwed Matt Dralle over the name "fuel scan".
3. JPI changed the data format for their engine data storage without
telling the customers so that they could not continue processing their
data as they had in the past.
I do not think JPI is customer oriented.
They do have good engineering and good products but if all the other
things are equal, I will go with a different company.
--
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 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 66 Msgs - 01/16/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Tony Cann wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Cann" <tonycann@pacbell.net>
>
> 1) Now that the CAN-Aerospace bus definition has been around a while, will
> it become an accepted standard? It did achieve some success in the CAPSTONE
> projects.
CAN-aerospace is a good start. I would like to see it flushed out a bit
more with more standardization in the messages transported.
> 2) Has Boeing published their message formats for Ethernet to try to
> establish a standard?
Not that I am aware of but I haven't looked for a year. There is
supposed to be a new ARINC standard to address this issue. A day late
and a dollar short it seems to me.
--
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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/17/2006 12:06:22 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brian-yak@lloyd.com writes:
They do have good engineering and good products but if all the other
things are equal, I will go with a different company.
For all the same reasons given:
Me Too!!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
Hello Brian,
thanks for your response - please see my answers for simplicity reasons below between
your mail. Problem still exists, today I have moved the cables a bit and
the reactions changed. I will buy some ferit and try to put it on the servo
cables. Will report results.
Peter
"Brian Lloyd" <mailto:brian-yak@lloyd.com> schrieb:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <mailto:brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
> mailto:Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mailto: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?
45 x 45 cm glass fibre with copper on it
>
> 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.
not necessarily, there are 2 models. mine is made from glass
>
> How does the TruTrak autopilot talk to its servos? Is is an analog
> voltage or a digital message?
Honestly I do not know - I assume analog
>
> 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.
Already done - that is one of the reason I asked the group. They have no solution
- beside unbalanced antennae what I exclude.
>
> 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 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Hawker battery failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Further investigation into the puffed up battery confirmed
that the inter-cell walls got so hot that the plastic
stretched under pressure and after all the smoke (or should
I say steam?) cleared, the walls between cells was still
intact. They're running some cracking pressure tests on
the vent valves.
It's the opinion of those who've tested a lot more batteries
than I that the event probably didn't take more than 20-30 minutes
under an over-charge current that a 40 to 60A alternator
would be capable of.
There's a new battery qualification document (DO-293) that
calls for 3v per cell at up to 8C amps be applied until
all the steaming is over. No fire allowed, no breaches
of battery case. I'm told that within 10 minutes of
application, RG batteries are steaming vigorously and
that the high energy activity is pretty well over in
30-40 minutes.
Looks like the Hawker would have passed this test okay
and that regulator failure was the proximate cause
of the event with outcome exacerbated by lack of active
notification of an OV condition and/or automatic termination
of the OV event.
Bob . . .
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
PTAB Pictorial Turn & Bank from TruTrak Systems
This display is like a horizon in roll and actually moves in unison
with the horizon. This makes the transition from viewing the horizon much
easier than the reverse display of a standard turn coordinator. For much
greater life and reliability it uses a solid state gyro instead of a
spinning disc (or solid gyro wheel).
AVAILABLE in 2 1/4 or 3 1/8 for additional $50.00. $425.00
Each
Hi Bob ... here's the present day version. About half the price of a new 2
1/4" T&B with a spinning gyro. I'm not affiliated with Stein Air, just a
shopper. Do Not Archive
Regards ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
>
> Hello Brian,
> thanks for your response - please see my answers for simplicity reasons below
between your mail. Problem still exists, today I have moved the cables a bit
and the reactions changed. I will buy some ferit and try to put it on the servo
cables. Will report results.
It is always very annoying to troubleshoot RF getting into devices that
are not RF devices. EMI in telephones, stereos, and burglar alarms are
always a pain to troubleshoot.
Here are some things to try:
1. Try a ferrite bead over the entire servo wire at both ends.
2. Try ferrite beads over each individual wire in the cable at both ends.
3. Bypass the power wiring to ground at the head and at the servo using
.01 ufd disc ceramic capacitors.
4. Bypass the control signal lead at both the head and servo using a
.001 ufd disc ceramic capacitors.
5. Wrap several turns of the power wire around a ferrite toroid core
where it enters the control head and again at the servo.
I would try them in the order I have listed them. When working with the
disc ceramic caps you need to keep the leads as short as possible.
[sigh] RF in plastic airplanes is always a pain. I had a plastic car
once and tried to mount an antenna on it with a window-screen ground
plane. It never did work right.
Oh, something else to consider. You could try building a coaxial dipole
and mount that instead of using an aircraft antenna. The standard
aircraft antenna insists on a good ground plane. A coaxial dipole does
not need one but is twice as long.
--
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 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Interference between Com and Autopilot |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
This may not cure your RFI problem, but it might be an interesting
alternative antenna in your fiberglass tailcone, as it eliminates the need
for a ground plane and whip antennas, and conforms to the fuselage sides,
leaving the interior open:
http://www.DaveMorris.com/MorrisComLoop
Dave Morris
At 01:05 PM 1/17/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
>
>Hello Brian,
>thanks for your response - please see my answers for simplicity reasons
>below between your mail. Problem still exists, today I have moved the
>cables a bit and the reactions changed. I will buy some ferit and try to
>put it on the servo cables. Will report results.
>Peter
> "Brian Lloyd" <mailto:brian-yak@lloyd.com> schrieb:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
> <mailto:brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > mailto:Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de wrote:
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> mailto: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?
>45 x 45 cm glass fibre with copper on it
> >
> > 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.
>not necessarily, there are 2 models. mine is made from glass
> >
> > How does the TruTrak autopilot talk to its servos? Is is an analog
> > voltage or a digital message?
>Honestly I do not know - I assume analog
> >
> > 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.
>Already done - that is one of the reason I asked the group. They have no
>solution - beside unbalanced antennae what I exclude.
> >
> > 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 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu>
Bob,
Which "George" were you referring to in your email (attached)? I've
searched the Aeroelectric list back emails without success. Can you
share where you are headed with this effort (general architecture)?
Thanks,
Tim Lewis
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 09:49 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>>
>>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon
>>to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with
>>minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
>
>
>>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
>
>
> Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
> The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
> The "mod" will all under the cowl.
>
>
>
>>(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks
>>walkiong into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's
>>for, as you know.)
>
>
> George has published several recommendations
> that are part number specific. Check back into
> the recent archives.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Cc: aaaron@tvp.com.au
| Subject: | MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com" <czechsix@juno.com>
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Time: 03:12:02 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
--> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Time: 03:12:02 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" aaaron@tvp.com.au
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" aaaron@tvp.com.au
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
-- rdunhamtn@hotmail.com
I'm about to order transceiver transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Cc: aaaron@tvp.com.au
| Subject: | MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com" <czechsix@juno.com>
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Time: 03:12:02 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
--> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
I'm about to order transceiver & transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have some fundamental
design problems that they can't seem to understand or resolve. A buddy
of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen iterations of their
transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new antenna, relocated it, new coax,
etc. Nothing resolved the problem which is intermittent operation (replies
to ATC interrogations) in our local Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally
figured out that the ASR-9 radar here is a very powerful analog system (it may
be the most powerful system in operation). The newer radars are digital and
less powerful. Anyway there are other transmitters like the one here located around
the U.S. but there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these
Class C facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year ago) into
our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as Systems Engineers.
We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use all the time with Collins
equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest and greatest--failed all
the tests. We know the test sets are good, calibrated units. We sent the results
to Microair but at that point we gave up and asked for a refund.
I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the sense than
they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would have kept exchanging
and updating their units indefinitely if we had that much patience. But
their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and they don't have a real
certified transponder test set (which is a very expensive piece of equipment
and they are a small company), so they may never figure it out without access
to proper test equipment. In the end they gave us a good refund and we put in
Garmin units which work flawlessly.
I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S. that have
had the same problems with intermittent operation near major Class C facilities
around the country (depends on the radar system in use), so it's not just
a local thing at our airport.
By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact, light
weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major pain to have
to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor Garmin (messed up
my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder that works!!
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D
Time: 03:12:02 PM PST US
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
From: "Allan Aaron" aaaron@tvp.com.au
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" aaaron@tvp.com.au
I have a microair transponder. Its worked fine for me over the past
three years. I did have to send it back once for a software update but
the service was quick and free.
Allan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rodney Dunham
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 09:23
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MicroAir products
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
-- rdunhamtn@hotmail.com
I'm about to order transceiver transponder for my Sonex. I like the
small MicroAir radios and they're the cheapest so far. Also, the dealer
is here in Tennessee which makes it convenient. Can anyone offer
feedback about them (or Becker or XCOM) ??? especially when combined
with the Jabiru 3300. Also feedback on the dealer, Jabiru USA would be
appreciated.
Rodney
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir products |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Thanks for saving me alot of typing. ;-)
I also had the same transponder experience (as did another Berkut builder in
LA) - intermittent xponder operation in dense/active ATC, several exchanges
of the unit with MicroAir without success, etc. And since I fly out of a
towered airport under the DFW Class B, transponder ops are not optional. I
replaced the unit with a Becker and have not had a single issue thus far. A
more detailed account is on my website.
I'll also echo the kudos to MicroAir customer support. My issues were over
a year ago now, so it is possible that MicroAir has redesigned around the
problem...any "alpha testers" out there? ;-)
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "czechsix@juno.com"
> <czechsix@juno.com>
>
> I wouldn't get the Microair comm if you're flying in the U.S. They have
> some fundamental design problems that they can't seem to understand or
> resolve. A buddy of mine, Alan Kritzman, went through about half a dozen
> iterations of their transponder with his RV-8...he also tried a new
> antenna, relocated it, new coax, etc. Nothing resolved the problem which
> is intermittent operation (replies to ATC interrogations) in our local
> Class C airspace here at KCID. We finally figured out that the ASR-9 radar
> here is a very powerful analog system (it may be the most powerful system
> in operation). The newer radars are digital and less powerful. Anyway
> there are other transmitters like the one here located around the U.S. but
> there are none in Australia and if you don't go near these Class C
> facilities you probably won't see the problem. So, there are some users
> here in the U.S. who have no complaints.
> We finally took the latest two versions of the transponder (about a year
> ago) into our avionics lab here at Rockwell Collins where we work as
> Systems Engineers. We hooked both of them up to the ATC test sets we use
> all the time with Collins equipment. Both the Microair units--the latest
> and greatest--failed all the tests. We know the test sets are good,
> calibrated units. We sent the results to Microair but at that point we
> gave up and asked for a refund.
> I must add that Microair's customer service has been outstanding in the
> sense than they are eager to resolve the problem and I'm sure they would
> have kept exchanging and updating their units indefinitely if we had that
> much patience. But their engineer(s) don't understand how to fix it and
> they don't have a real certified transponder test set (which is a very
> expensive piece of equipment and they are a small company), so they may
> never figure it out without access to proper test equipment. In the end
> they gave us a good refund and we put in Garmin units which work
> flawlessly.
> I might also add that we've heard from half a dozen others in the U.S.
> that have had the same problems with intermittent operation near major
> Class C facilities around the country (depends on the radar system in
> use), so it's not just a local thing at our airport.
> By the way the microair comm radios seem to work just fine.
> I hope Microair finds a fix for their transponder...I loved the compact,
> light weight/low power consumption of their design, and it was a major
> pain to have to cut a new rectangular hole in my panel for the boat-anchor
> Garmin (messed up my panel layout), but you've gotta have a transponder
> that works!!
> --Mark Navratil
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry McFarland <larrymc@qconline.com>
Tim,
I must agree that flying between layers is dangerous if you've not got
flight following
going, even if the legal access and clearances are maintained. My son
and I were flying
to southern Illinois in a Cessna near Peoria with an overcast we
wouldn't climb thru and
a broken layer below us heading south east when we noticed very briefly,
a C-130 emerging
from the lower layer crossing our path only 100 feet beneath us. Its
right wing was not visible
as it passed essentially below us. There weren't 10 seconds between the
time we saw it and
the football sized aircraft crossed and disappeared into the white
overcast on our right.
I don't know if they knew we were there, but since, I've felt uneasy
about flying "VFR"
between layers of overcast.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
do not archive
>
>
>VFR is VFR, IFR is IFR. The worst problems happen
>when people try to allow themselves to get caught
>where the 2 mix.
>
>
>Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
David,
Can I suggest you take a look at a better Engine Management System.
Research Zerionavionix.com Great Company, and a very well thought
out Engine system, Soon to be certed. These guys are very customer
oriented.
Mitchell Goodrich
Varieze Tampa, FL
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
--> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
David Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Lloyd"
> --> <skywagon@charter.net>
>
> ....be sure to review and compare the JPI engine monitor if you have
> not
> made a decision yet.
I will but they have a couple of strikes against them:
1. JPI is expensive.
2. JPI screwed Matt Dralle over the name "fuel scan".
3. JPI changed the data format for their engine data storage without
telling the customers so that they could not continue processing their
data as they had in the past.
I do not think JPI is customer oriented.
They do have good engineering and good products but if all the other
things are equal, I will go with a different company.
--
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 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Jerry,
One of the reasons I am so enthusiastic about the T&B is because it is so
different looking.
It is too bad they didn't make the PTAB Pictorial Turn & Bank with a
needle.
The way it works is much closer to the classic T&B than it is to the TC.
The TC responds to roll and yaw. The T&B responds to yaw only. As I read the
brochure, the unit also responds only to yaw and I do not have any idea how it
would respond when in a spin.
It is not clear to me that the one listed will perform at high roll rates
and unusual attitudes in the same manner as does a classic T&B.
I am going to take the liberty of sending you something off list that tries
to explain why I think we should be teaching people to stop the turn instead
of leveling the wings.
The short version is that when we get vertigo, it takes a lot of discipline
to believe the attitude style presentation of the TC and/or the attitude
indicator.
With the turn needle, there is no need to believe the instrument over what
your senses are telling you. All that is needed is to stop the turn! Since
the turn needle tells you nothing directly about your attitude, there is no
confusion. Stop the turn by centering the needle and you will survive. It
makes no difference at all whether you think you are sideways or whether you
think you are right side up.
I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/17/2006 1:47:45 P.M. Central Standard Time,
jerry@mc.net writes:
PTAB Pictorial Turn & Bank from TruTrak Systems
This display is like a horizon in roll and actually moves in unison
with the horizon. This makes the transition from viewing the horizon much
easier than the reverse display of a standard turn coordinator. For much
greater life and reliability it uses a solid state gyro instead of a
spinning disc (or solid gyro wheel).
AVAILABLE in 2 1/4 or 3 1/8 for additional $50.00. $425.00
Each
Hi Bob ... here's the present day version. About half the price of a new 2
1/4" T&B with a spinning gyro. I'm not affiliated with Stein Air, just a
shopper. Do Not Archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|