Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
2. 04:57 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Harley)
3. 05:43 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (James Clark)
4. 05:47 AM - Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs (Pete Howell)
5. 06:21 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
6. 06:30 AM - Re: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:07 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Fergus Kyle)
8. 07:14 AM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 08:10 AM - Re: Battery strength (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR)
10. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: Battery strength (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 11:07 AM - T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
12. 11:18 AM - Thank You Old Bob (Kenneth Ward)
13. 11:43 AM - Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 11:46 AM - Re: Thank You Old Bob (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 01:05 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (John Tvedte)
16. 01:23 PM - FW: Re: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs (Pete Howell)
17. 02:16 PM - Re: "Light" IFR??? (Eric M. Jones)
18. 02:20 PM - Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
19. 02:30 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
20. 02:31 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Randall Richter)
21. 02:43 PM - Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
22. 02:45 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Harley)
23. 02:54 PM - Re: Dynon fuel flow/pressure sensor placement (Frank Stringham)
24. 02:56 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Randall Richter)
25. 03:11 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
26. 03:25 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Harley)
27. 03:27 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Alan K. Adamson)
28. 04:08 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
29. 04:16 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Kevin Horton)
30. 05:05 PM - Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
31. 05:11 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
32. 05:11 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Harley)
33. 05:34 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
34. 05:37 PM - Re: Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Mitchell Goodrich)
35. 05:38 PM - Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Gordon or Marge Comfort)
36. 05:40 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
37. 05:44 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
38. 05:50 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
39. 06:01 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (D Wysong)
40. 06:22 PM - Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) (Brian Lloyd)
41. 06:31 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
42. 06:37 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
43. 07:04 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Mitchell Goodrich)
44. 07:12 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (D Wysong)
45. 09:13 PM - Lite IFR--one more time (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
46. 10:23 PM - Re: EFIS Comparisons (Brian Lloyd)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Morning All,
Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
apologies.
Mitchell Goodrich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Morning, Mitch...
Better go grab another cup of coffee...and don't try writing emails
until you've finished it! <VBG>
One more time now..
http://xerionavionix.com/
And this one IS the correct address (I checked it in my browser <G>)
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
...Right down the tarmac from Xerion, at the Canandaigua, NY airport (D38).
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
>Morning All,
>
>Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
>for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
>apologies.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>BobsV35B@aol.com
>Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:06 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com>
Well Mitchell, I think maybe you goofed twice! :-)
They might want to try: http://www.xerionavionics.com/
Seems you left out a "c". I know, it's too early ... no coffee yet. Right?
:-)
James
On 1/18/06, Mitchell Goodrich <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <
> mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
> Morning All,
>
> Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
> for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
> apologies.
>
> Mitchell Goodrich
>
>
> <<<SNIP>>>
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: | Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Hello,
I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
to add another stereo input?
Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
that way they will be unmuted.
They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Pete
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
An Early Good Morning,
Well for all of you that tried my link to the Engine Management System
Comparison, I goofed twice. Too bad spell check doesn't pick up
URL mistakes also. I'd better get another cup of coffee and my glasses
on.
www.xerionavionix.com
Check it out
Mitchell Goodrich
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: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:45 AM 1/18/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell"
><pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
>Hello,
>
>I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
>mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
>403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
>except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
>to add another stereo input?
>
>Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
>response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
>Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
>that way they will be unmuted.
>
>They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
Are you going to listen to both at the same time? A DPDT
switch would let you select which source was being
fed to the amplifier. Alternatively, you add second input
networks of a 150 ohm resistor, 10uF cap to pin 2 of amplifier
for each channel. Loaded of course as appropriate (R98/99).
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Old Bob,
I have followed the latest T&B discussions, and after having
flown since 1948, must agree with everything you say. In thuh old days we
called limited panel flying, "needle, ball and airspeed". Is that the dial
you're referring to?
Nothing, nothing, has impressed me over 58 different machines
(from dusters to transports, water and snow) more than those magic minutes
when I was taught NB&A. Anyone who has missed this phase during training and
after should take a Cnote to the best oldtimer instructor in the area and
demand to be let into the 'club'. (I also admit to failing to practice from
timne to time).
I'm pretty certain you have the same experience and just want to
say how closely to my appreciation your comments are. As our Ottawa friend
said, a turn co-ordinator won't work in an inverted spin (ah well) but a
'T&B' will. It must be obvious that any less critical upset in cloud can be
swiftly dealt with if you get the 'picture' a T&B gives.
Keep on truckin'.
Cheers, Ferg
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Thank You Ferg,
It is nice to know that I am not alone out there while twisting in the wind!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 1/18/2006 9:09:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
VE3LVO@rac.ca writes:
I'm pretty certain you have the same experience and just want to
say how closely to my appreciation your comments are. As our Ottawa friend
said, a turn co-ordinator won't work in an inverted spin (ah well) but a
'T&B' will. It must be obvious that any less critical upset in cloud can be
swiftly dealt with if you get the 'picture' a T&B gives.
Keep on truckin'.
Cheers, Ferg
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: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@utcfuelcells.com>
Bob,
Another important issue might also be the speed at which the starter turns
the engine. Most impulse mags will not operate properly if the engine spins
too
fast. This was a typical issue with the C-152 after they went to a 24 Volt
system.
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
nuckollsr@cox.net <mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net> >
At 07:25 PM 1/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
<mailto: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: Battery strength |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:01 AM 1/18/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR"
><Fred.Stucklen@utcfuelcells.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> Another important issue might also be the speed at which the starter turns
>the engine. Most impulse mags will not operate properly if the engine spins
>too
>fast. This was a typical issue with the C-152 after they went to a 24 Volt
>system.
Hmmm . . . good point. Peter, did you catch this?
Bob . . .
>Fred Stucklen
>
>RV-6A N926RV
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
>nuckollsr@cox.net <mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net> >
>
> At 07:25 PM 1/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter.Sokolowski@t-online.de
><mailto: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 . . .
>
>
>--
>
>
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it devine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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: | T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
telling us the right thing.
> 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!
If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to level the
wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to
turn. The only time this might not be true is when the wing is stalled
or partially stalled as in a spin where you could be in a relatively
flat attitude. Certainly the ailerons are not going to work in a spin
and they are only going to make things worse. This is where the T&SI
becomes critical along with your rudders.
Also, older aircraft had much more effective rudders. You really could
pull a wing up just with the rudder. Modern airplanes tend to have much
less rudder effectiveness and you might have to unstall the wing to make
the ailerons effective again in order to really stop the turn.
Bob, you have a V35B (I am guessing from your email address). How
effective is the ruddervator in stopping the turn? My guess is that you
really need to break the stall in order to recover with that airplane.
When flying partial panel (needle-ball and airspeed for us old-timers)
we infer attitude from the behavior of other things, that is, airspeed
and altitude give us clues as to whether the nose is up or down relative
to the horizon. We infer that the wings are not level by the fact that
the airplane is yawing. But none of these instruments actually tell us
the airplane's attitude. Only an AI can do that directly.
But I do agree with you on one thing: if the airplane departs normal
flight, I want a Turn and Slip Indicator (T&SI) because it will tell me
what to do with the rudder and I need to know that to stop or prevent a
spin.
But since I spend a lot more time in a clag with the wing flying and not
stalled/spinning, I want a second AI to help me stay that way. So give
me both an extra AI and a T&SI. Belt and suspenders.
--
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: | Thank You Old Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Ward <kennethward@peoplepc.com>
Old Bob wrote:
"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"
I thank you very much for that gold nugget of knowledge.
I love it when somebody who actually knows what they're talking about can, in a
single sentence, take scattered facts bouncing about my brain and turn it into
knowledge.
Ken Ward
Do Not Archive
PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com
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: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/18/2006 1:09:15 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brian-yak@lloyd.com writes:
"But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
telling us the right thing."
Good Afternoon Brian,
I agree that we were all taught to do that, but Carnahan and his son were
both experienced pilots and they still lost the airplane. John Kennedy had a
whole lot of modern training, but he lost it as well. He had more flying time
when he was killed than I had when I was teaching instrument flight.
My premise is that we should not worry about which way is up. Just stop the
turn.
> I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive! <
You said: "If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to
level the
wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to turn."
No argument here either. Doing it my way will actually get the wings level.
I also teach using coordinated control to stop the turn, not to just boot
the rudder.
The idea is that I don't care if the pilot knows which way is up or not. If
the turn is stopped and the ball is in the middle, the wings will be level
whether we know it or not. If the ball is not in the center and the needle is,
we will still survive.
I have no access to good data, but I have been an active pilot since 1946
and an active flight instructor since 1949. (Darn, I hate it when people tell
me how long they have been flying, but it seems to fit here!) During the first
twenty or so years, I recall very few instances of any IFR rated pilot
losing the airplane while on instruments.
As I noted in my 'off list' message, it wasn't until after we had been using
the TC for IFR training that I started to notice a loss in partial panel
proficiency during flight checks given to pilots who had been trained using the
TC.
We also started to read about IFR rated pilots who were losing control after
a failure of attitude instrumentation.
Over the next ten years I decided to go back to the T&B in all of my own
airplanes and for any trainer I was associated with.
The longer I championed and trained with the T&B, the more I became
convinced that part of the problem (There is more, but I am getting boring!) was
our
insistence that the student must disregard his/her feelings and just believe
the instruments. I now feel, totally unsupported by any scientific data,
that what we really should be doing is just train the pilot to stop the turn and
stop telling them to believe the instruments instead of their senses. If
they stop the turn and have the ball in the center, the wings will be level
unless there is something else wrong with the airplane.
Forget about trying to figure out whether or not the wings are level.
Just stop the turn and you WILL survive!
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 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: Thank You Old Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/18/2006 1:20:18 P.M. Central Standard Time,
kennethward@peoplepc.com writes:
I thank you very much for that gold nugget of knowledge.
I love it when somebody who actually knows what they're talking about can,
in a single sentence, take scattered facts bouncing about my brain and turn it
into knowledge.
Ken Ward
Good Afternoon Ken,
Thank you for the VERY kind words!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Tvedte" <JohnT@comp-sol.com>
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
<snip>
> 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).
I am interested in the Sporty's AI - so I asked customer service about the non-tumbling....
Janet Jones wrote "The unit is not a non-tumbling instrument." <emphasis added>
I'll probably call Castleberry @ 512-251-5322 and ask them...thought someone more
knowledgable might be able to help?
This is referenced by Sporty's - AC91-75: http://www.sportys.com/terryc/images/ac91-75.pdf
John
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: | FW: RE: Iso Amp - 2 stereo - 3 mono inputs |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
Hi Bob - thanks for quick response - great question - I will not
listen to music from both at the same time, but the 396 has terrain
warnings I would want to hear when listening to the Ipod when the Xm
radio audio is off.
I picked up a mini DPDT on-on switch today as it is the simple/easy
way to go. I'll just turn the Ipod off over the mountains!!!
Pete
====================================================================
Are you going to listen to both at the same time? A DPDT
switch would let you select which source was being
fed to the amplifier. Alternatively, you add second input
networks of a 150 ohm resistor, 10uF cap to pin 2 of amplifier
for each channel. Loaded of course as appropriate (R98/99).
Bob . . .
=====================================================================
I am looking to integrate 2 stereo (Garmin 396 and Ipod) and 3
mono(EIS, Traffic, 1 extra) sources into my Flightcom
403. I have studied the design of Bob's Iso Amp and like it all
except that it only accepts one stereo input. Is there a clever way
to add another stereo input?
Also, I contacted Flightcom and they suggested (good service - 3hr
response to an e-mail) just adding 1:1 Isolation transformers (Radio
Shack 273-1374) to the mono inputs and running all lines to Pin 21 -
that way they will be unmuted.
They did not have an answer for the twin stereo inputs.
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: "Light" IFR??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
"Light IFR" is flying through a storm that doesn't have a name.
(do not archive)
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=5095#5095
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: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> "But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
> are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
> telling us the right thing."
>
> Good Afternoon Brian,
Before I reply I want to add that I think we are probably saying the
same things different ways. I happen to agree with you but think it may
be just a bit simplistic. This is why people need to add upset recovery
to their repitoire.
So, things we already agree upon:
1. the T
2. stopping the turn is critical to all recovery.
I think we diverge elsewhere but only slightly.
> I agree that we were all taught to do that, but Carnahan and his son were
> both experienced pilots and they still lost the airplane. John Kennedy had a
> whole lot of modern training, but he lost it as well. He had more flying time
> when he was killed than I had when I was teaching instrument flight.
And he made bad decisions that cost him his life. Not exactly the
example I would choose. I can think of many ways that JFK jr could have
saved his life and that of his passengers but we digress.
> My premise is that we should not worry about which way is up. Just stop the
> turn.
>
>
>>I repeat -- Stop the turn and you will survive! <
>
>
> You said: "If the wing is flying the only way you can stop the turn is to
> level the
> wings. When the lift vector is not vertical, the aircraft is going to turn."
>
> No argument here either. Doing it my way will actually get the wings level.
> I also teach using coordinated control to stop the turn, not to just boot
> the rudder.
And if the wing isn't flying the ailerons aren't going to work anyway.
Just "boot the rudder" is the right thing to do in that case.
But if the wing is flying you want to unload the airframe and roll
right-side-up. Coordinated flight is good in this case. If you are
making a coordinated movement of the controls, both rudder and aileron,
and you stop the turn you have, in fact, rolled to wings level. I think
we are saying the same thing.
> The idea is that I don't care if the pilot knows which way is up or not. If
> the turn is stopped and the ball is in the middle, the wings will be level
> whether we know it or not. If the ball is not in the center and the needle is,
> we will still survive.
Well, you can be in that state with the aircraft inverted and the nose
60 degrees down. If the ball and the needle are centered and you happen
to recover inverted then you are going to end up pulling through a
vertical down-line and grossly exceed the aircraft's Vne so up is a
significant concept here.
> I have no access to good data, but I have been an active pilot since 1946
> and an active flight instructor since 1949. (Darn, I hate it when people tell
> me how long they have been flying, but it seems to fit here!)
You have me beaten by two decades. I have only been flying since 1968
and only have amassed about 7000 hours.
> During the first
> twenty or so years, I recall very few instances of any IFR rated pilot
> losing the airplane while on instruments.
In general I think you are right. Training then required more
understanding and less rote. In the FAA's attempt to standardize
training I think that fewer pilots now really understand how their
airplanes fly. But the accident statistics have shown a steady downward
trend so I guess they got something right.
> As I noted in my 'off list' message, it wasn't until after we had been using
> the TC for IFR training that I started to notice a loss in partial panel
> proficiency during flight checks given to pilots who had been trained using
the
> TC.
I don't think you sent that one to me.
> We also started to read about IFR rated pilots who were losing control after
> a failure of attitude instrumentation.
We have become far more dependent on the AI. There are people who used
to fly IFR using only needle-ball and airspeed and were very proficient.
That is less the case now.
> Over the next ten years I decided to go back to the T&B in all of my own
> airplanes and for any trainer I was associated with.
>
> The longer I championed and trained with the T&B, the more I became
> convinced that part of the problem (There is more, but I am getting boring!)
was our
> insistence that the student must disregard his/her feelings and just believe
> the instruments. I now feel, totally unsupported by any scientific data,
> that what we really should be doing is just train the pilot to stop the turn
and
> stop telling them to believe the instruments instead of their senses. If
> they stop the turn and have the ball in the center, the wings will be level
> unless there is something else wrong with the airplane.
We agree. But if I read you correctly, you *ARE* telling them to believe
the instruments. You are telling them to believe the T&SI over all other
instruments. They must believe that over what their senses are telling
them. You will not stay alive by trusting your senses over your instruments.
The problem with "believe the instruments" is that the instruments *can*
lie. A tumbled AI will definitely lead you astray. President Reagan
actually had it right when he said, "Trust but verify." That applies
here in spades. Trust your instruments but verify that they are telling
you the right thing. The great thing about the T&SI is that it is so
simple that it is unlikely to fail. If it doesn't agree with your AI,
you should serious consider what your AI is telling you. Your cross
check is that the HI (DG) should be telling you the same thing your T&SI
is even if it has tumbled. Sure the HI can tumble and tell you the wrong
heading but it will recover almost immediately and at least show you the
way you are rotating. This works well with your T&SI as a cross check.
> Forget about trying to figure out whether or not the wings are level.
>
> Just stop the turn and you WILL survive!
If you stop the turn by a coordinated application of aileron and rudder,
I agree -- mostly. :-)
--
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 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>
John Tvedte wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Tvedte" <JohnT@comp-sol.com>
>
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
> <snip>
>
>>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).
>
> I am interested in the Sporty's AI - so I asked customer service about the non-tumbling....
>
> Janet Jones wrote "The unit is not a non-tumbling instrument." <emphasis added>
Wow. I thought that the FAA requirement for an STC to replace a T&SI or
a TC with a second attitude gyro is that it be good for 360 degrees in
both pitch and roll. You have to be able to use the instrument to
recover from an upset which you can't do with an AI that has tumbled.
>
> I'll probably call Castleberry @ 512-251-5322 and ask them...thought someone
more knowledgable might be able to help?
>
> This is referenced by Sporty's - AC91-75: http://www.sportys.com/terryc/images/ac91-75.pdf
You are right. It doesn't say "non-tumbling". Seems like a serious
oversight to me. If I somehow manage to cause my primary AI to tumble my
backup is likely to tumble too. If you have replaced the T&SI or TC with
an AI you might not be able to recover. I guess you would then have to
rely on the HI (DG) to give you turn information so you can "stop the turn".
But I sure as heck would want a non-tumbling gyro in this application.
--
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: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter" <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
"experimental" version of this system.
Randy Richter
-7QB coming along VERY slowly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell
Goodrich
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich"
<mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Morning All,
Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
apologies.
Mitchell Goodrich
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: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>>"But we are trained to ignore vertigo and to go with the instruments. We
>>are also trained to cross-check the instruments to ensure that they are
>>telling us the right thing."
>>
>>Good Afternoon Brian,
>
>
> Before I reply I want to add that I think we are probably saying the
> same things different ways. I happen to agree with you but think it may
> be just a bit simplistic. This is why people need to add upset recovery
> to their repitoire.
>
> So, things we already agree upon:
>
> 1. the T
(wow, a whole line disappeared. It used to read "the T and SI or TandB
is a better instrument than the TC.")
>
> 2. stopping the turn is critical to all recovery.
>
> I think we diverge elsewhere but only slightly.
And after a further private exchange with Bob I think we agree 100%. We
were only disagreeing on how to get there.
--
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: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Randy...
They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
the non certified version.
And, from their website:
"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
it into your */AuRACLE
(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
The USB drive is included with the unit.
Harley Dixon
Randall Richter wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter" <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
>product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
>will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
>send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
>provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>
>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>"experimental" version of this system.
>
>Randy Richter
>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell
>Goodrich
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:36 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich"
><mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>
>Morning All,
>
>Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website
>for comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My
>apologies.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: ectric-List:Dynon fuel flow/pressure sensor placement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
I am installing the Dynon fuel monitor and am presently doing the fuel
system plumbing in the cabin area.
Need tutoring from the group on the why and the where of the fuel flow/
pressure sensors.
TIA
Frank @ SGU @ SLC RV7A fuse/finish
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: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter" <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Harley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Randy...
They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
the non certified version.
And, from their website:
"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
it into your */AuRACLE
(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
The USB drive is included with the unit.
Harley Dixon
Randall Richter wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
<richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
>product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
>will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
>send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
>provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>
>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>"experimental" version of this system.
>
>Randy Richter
>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>
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: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Randall Richter wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter" <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
> I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
> product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
> will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
> send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
> provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>
> He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
> allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
> "experimental" version of this system.
That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same was
true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
upgrades to the software in the box.
--
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 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: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
See my previous reply, Brian...
Harley
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>Randall Richter wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter" <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>>
>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
>>product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
>>will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
>>send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
>>provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
>>
>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>
>>
>
>That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
>Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
>using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same was
>true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
>
>So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
>upgrades to the software in the box.
>
>
>
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: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Actually, if you want complete flexibility and STC application, the MVP-50
from EI is more configurable with all the bells and whistles. It's also has
support for the Chelton box.
www.buy-ei.com
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Randall
Richter
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
--> <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very good
product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the software
will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the unit and
send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the others
provide updated software via removable card or something similar, right?
He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
"experimental" version of this system.
Randy Richter
-7QB coming along VERY slowly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mitchell
Goodrich
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich"
<mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Morning All,
Well I really goofed this time. The engine Management System website for
comparrison is Xerionavionis.com not Zerionavionix. My apologies.
Mitchell Goodrich
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: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Hey Randy & Harley,
The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
the senders
are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data aquisition
unit mounted
in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
unit.
Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and ease
of install.
Both units have the same exact functionality.
Mitchell Goodrich
VariEze Tampa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Randall Richter
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
--> <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
--> <harley@agelesswings.com>
Randy...
They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
the non certified version.
And, from their website:
"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
it into your */AuRACLE
(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
The USB drive is included with the unit.
Harley Dixon
Randall Richter wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
<richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most
>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>similar, right?
>
>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>"experimental" version of this system.
>
>Randy Richter
>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 18 Jan 2006, at 18:10, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-
> yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Randall Richter wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
>> <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a
>> very good
>> product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>> software
>> will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the
>> unit and
>> send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the
>> others
>> provide updated software via removable card or something similar,
>> right?
>>
>> He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>> allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>> "experimental" version of this system.
>
> That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
> Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
> using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same
> was
> true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
>
> So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
> upgrades to the software in the box.
We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
job.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
> the senders
> are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data aquisition
> unit mounted
> in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
> unit.
> Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
> I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and ease
> of install.
> Both units have the same exact functionality.
It appears they are using a data bus. This means that they could support
multiple data collection boxes. This is a *very* good idea.
--
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 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: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Kevin Horton wrote:
>>So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
>>upgrades to the software in the box.
>
>
> We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
> devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
> this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
> interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
> firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
> wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
> money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
> job.
<sigh> Firmware updates in hex format over an RS-232 connection is just
about as ugly as you can get. I can't imagine any way you could do a
worse job of providing this function. (This is how both Sandel and
Apollo/UPSAT/Garmin do it.) Therefore almost any other method makes more
sense. The Xerion Auricle has USB bus master capability to write to a
flash disk in order to write out stored engine data. This means they
could also do updates this way too.
I don't get it.
--
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 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Evening, Mitch...
Their website is a bit confusing then...I didn't see where it mentions
that one or two box option (but I think that I have noticed that at
least one other brand does the same thing), but it does say that the
Auracle I is for non-certified applications, and the Auracle II at $1500
more is for certified.
Of course, the way it is phrased may simply mean that Auracle II is
ready for immediate certification where the Auracle I is not expected to
be certified in the near future.
If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
witnessed by our conversations here today.
I won't be getting down there for awhile...it's snowing again here
<G>...and I've been finishing the parts I brought back here in my
cellar...I'm all camped out in my warm cave until spring! <G>
Harley
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>Hey Randy & Harley,
>
>The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
>the senders
>are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data aquisition
>unit mounted
>in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
>unit.
>Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
>I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and ease
>of install.
>Both units have the same exact functionality.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>VariEze Tampa
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Randall Richter
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
>--> <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
>
>Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Harley
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
>--> <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
>Randy...
>
>They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and the
>
>Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
>the non certified version.
>
>And, from their website:
>
>"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
>(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
>visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
>data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then plugging
>
>it into your */AuRACLE
>(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
>
>The USB drive is included with the unit.
>
>Harley Dixon
>
>
>Randall Richter wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
>>
>>
><richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>
>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>>similar, right?
>>
>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>
>>Randy Richter
>>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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>
Evening All,
In response to the field changes of the Auracle:
Keep in mind this is an "Engine Management System, not an EFIS/Guidance
system.
Engine functionality doesn't change, the parameteres are what they are.
What "field changes" would apply to an engine system? Is there
additional functionality
that you expect to gain from software upgrades?? Remember engine
parameters.
If Xerion for some reason makes a change or fixes a bug in the software,
the will, at
their expense pay for shipping and complete the upgrades. Remember
Xerion has a 3 year
warranty.
All the systems are certified. Experimental guys have the total
flexability with the
configuration of the unit, scales, alarms, and warnings (certified
owners do not have
this capability due the FAA restrictions) for the same price we have the
benefits of a certified
system that has been through the rigors of enviromental & software
certification. Yes the
software has to be Certified too. No blue screens of death here!!!
Remember, the Auracle is field configurable, but not field upgradable,
and never will be
upgradable due to certification.
If I am not wrong Xerion has an onstaff a FAA Der
Last but not least the USB doggle (Memory Stick) that plugs into the
front of the unit,
copies your custom configuraton. If you send the unit back for whatever
reason, just plug
the doggle in and its back to original state. A big PLUS is the data
recorder that keeps
track of past engine functions for approx 500 hours. Plug in the memory
stick, copy it,
take it home and see how the engine has been performing( or how bad the
operator has abused
your engine?) Great for corporate, or rental situations. I can use it
for diagnostics when I race.
All in all its a well thought out system and the owners provide
fantastic customer service.
Give the office a call if you want to get answers directly. They will
talk to you!!!
Mitchell Goodrich
Varieze Tampa
Soon to be Flying a 2 box AuRacle
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Horton
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
--> <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 18 Jan 2006, at 18:10, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-
> yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Randall Richter wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
>> <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a
>> very good
>> product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>> software
>> will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove the
>> unit and
>> send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken, most of the
>> others
>> provide updated software via removable card or something similar,
>> right?
>>
>> He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>> allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>> "experimental" version of this system.
>
> That actually doesn't make complete sense. The Sandel 3308 EHSI in my
> Aztec allows firmware upgrade in the field. I can upgrade the firmware
> using the same cable that is used to upgrade the database. The same
> was
> true for my SL-60 GPS/comm.
>
> So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
> upgrades to the software in the box.
We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
job.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: | Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Brian,
yes they are actually using a proprietary com/data or can buss.
In the near future you will see a complete line of instrumentaion
that utilizes the can-bus.
Mitchell Goodrich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Xerion EIS (was: EFIS Comparisons)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
--> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
> the senders are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data
> aquisition unit mounted
> in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
> unit.
> Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
> I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and
ease
> of install.
> Both units have the same exact functionality.
It appears they are using a data bus. This means that they could support
multiple data collection boxes. This is a *very* good idea.
--
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 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gordon or Marge Comfort" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons)
Well, you can be in that state with the aircraft inverted and the nose 60
degrees down. If the ball and the needle are centered and you happen to
recover inverted then you are going to end up pulling through a vertical
down-line and grossly exceed the aircraft's Vne so up is a significant
concept here.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
Brian: Can the ball be centered in the above scenario except if the
aircraft is in positive "G" flight? If that is the case, it seems you will
soon be past the vertical down line. If in negative "G" flight and the ball
is not centered, what is the correct pilot response?
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Hey Harley,
yeah they have a bit of work on the site to do.
If you look again, you'll see that the 4 cyl is
without sensors and the other is with sensors.
The actual diff between the1 and 2 box is bout 700.00
Mitchell Goodrich
Modular Electric LLC
Managing Partner
813-356-9758
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Harley
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
--> <harley@agelesswings.com>
Evening, Mitch...
Their website is a bit confusing then...I didn't see where it mentions
that one or two box option (but I think that I have noticed that at
least one other brand does the same thing), but it does say that the
Auracle I is for non-certified applications, and the Auracle II at $1500
more is for certified.
Of course, the way it is phrased may simply mean that Auracle II is
ready for immediate certification where the Auracle I is not expected to
be certified in the near future.
If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
witnessed by our conversations here today.
I won't be getting down there for awhile...it's snowing again here
<G>...and I've been finishing the parts I brought back here in my
cellar...I'm all camped out in my warm cave until spring! <G>
Harley
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich"
>--> <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>Hey Randy & Harley,
>
>The Auracle does come 2 different ways. A single box, which means all
>the senders are wired directly to the head unit, and a 2 box. The data
>aquisition unit mounted
>in the engine compartment and a supplied data cable run up to the head
>unit.
>Do believe that both units are/will be certified.
>I vote for the 2 box. Only because of my limited wireway space, and
ease
>of install.
>Both units have the same exact functionality.
>
>Mitchell Goodrich
>VariEze Tampa
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Randall Richter
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:56 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
>--> <richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>Glad to hear they have listened to the masses!
>
>Randy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Harley
>Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 5:45 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
>--> <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
>Randy...
>
>They have TWO versions...the Auracle I is for non-certified use, and
>the
>
>Auracle II is for either certified or not...it is about $1500 more than
>the non certified version.
>
>And, from their website:
>
>"Programming the Xerion */AuRACLE
>(TM)/* is made quick and easy by
>visiting www.xerionavionix.com and requesting your aircraft specific
>data, downloading the file to your portable USB drive, and then
plugging
>
>it into your */AuRACLE
>(TM)/*. It's that simple!"
>
>The USB drive is included with the unit.
>
>Harley Dixon
>
>
>Randall Richter wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Randall Richter"
>>
>>
><richterrbb@earthlink.net>
>
>
>>I spoke to the rep at Oshkosh this summer and this seems like a very
>>good product. The one thing that gives me pause is the fact that the
>>software will not be user upgradeable. They will require you to remove
>>the unit and send it in to them for upgrades. If I'm not mistaken,
most
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>of the others provide updated software via removable card or something
>>similar, right?
>>
>>He said this was because they're seeking certification and that's not
>>allowed for certified products. Which tells me they won't have an
>>"experimental" version of this system.
>>
>>Randy Richter
>>-7QB coming along VERY slowly
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Harley wrote:
> If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
> witnessed by our conversations here today.
I sent them a number of queries. If anybody else is interested I will
post the responses. Much of what I asked had to do with using it with a
9-cyl radial engine however.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Kevin,
I will check again, but in my discussions with the FAA,
Certed Engine Management Systems CANNOT be field upgradable,
well unless its by the factory. So in reality they are,
just not by the owner. Think about it, letting anyone
change the funtionality of your planes critical engine instrument.
The units are field configurable!!
The software has to be Certified, and is intro'd into the
field with no allowed changes. Each Cert'd AC and engine
combo has its own parameters, no changes!
Mitchell Goodrich
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
--> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Kevin Horton wrote:
>>So we know that the FAA will certify devices that will allow field
>>upgrades to the software in the box.
>
>
> We know that some FAA Aircraft Certification Offices will certify
> devices that will allow field upgrades to software in the box. Maybe
> this is yet another area where different ACOs have different
> interpretations. Or, maybe the way that the company wanted to handle
> firmware upgrades didn't pass muster with the FAA (rightly or
> wrongly), and they decided to drop that feature rather than spend the
> money on a redesign. I've seen that scenario often enough in my day
> job.
<sigh> Firmware updates in hex format over an RS-232 connection is just
about as ugly as you can get. I can't imagine any way you could do a
worse job of providing this function. (This is how both Sandel and
Apollo/UPSAT/Garmin do it.) Therefore almost any other method makes more
sense. The Xerion Auricle has USB bus master capability to write to a
flash disk in order to write out stored engine data. This means they
could also do updates this way too.
I don't get it.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Brian -
I'm interested in how 'proprietary' the data pipe between their two
boxes (or coming out of one box) is. Standard CAN, RS-XXX, or something
wacky? In other words, will their datastream be available for external
products to 'sniff' for data?
If you asked about that in/amongst your questions about your MOOSE of an
engine (Russian?), I'd appreciate hearing the response(s).
D
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Harley wrote:
>
>
>>If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion, as
>>witnessed by our conversations here today.
>
>
> I sent them a number of queries. If anybody else is interested I will
> post the responses. Much of what I asked had to do with using it with a
> 9-cyl radial engine however.
>
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: T&SI vs. TC (was: EFIS Comparisons) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Gordon or Marge Comfort wrote:
> Brian: Can the ball be centered in the above scenario except if the
> aircraft is in positive "G" flight?
The aircraft must be in positive G flight for the ball to be centered.
That does not mean it isn't inverted.
> If that is the case, it seems you will
> soon be past the vertical down line.
Yes, but you might put the airframe well outside the envelope if you
aren't careful.
> If in negative "G" flight and the ball
> is not centered, what is the correct pilot response?
I was imagining an upset where the pilot "stops the turn" inverted and
possibly nose pointed "down", i.e. toward the earth. In that case he/she
will be positive G and accelerating.
Imagine you are at the top of a loop. At that point you are wings level,
inverted, and pulling positive G. As you pull through you remain
positive G with increasing airspeed. Your airspeed will not decelerate
until after you pulled through the bottom of the loop and the nose rises
above the horizon. Regardless you will be positive G the whole way but
you will gain lots of airspeed and lose a lot of altitude.
But you asked about what to do if in negative G flight. Here is the
recommendation for upset recovery. It works for an aircraft that has
ended up either positive or negative G, upright or inverted.
Upset recovery has the pilot getting the aircraft upright as quickly as
possible. Standard upset recovery has the pilot pushing or pulling as
necessary to "unload" the airframe so it is not pulling any significant
G, either positive or negative, regardless of orientation, i.e. inverted
or upright. The next response is to execute a roll to wings level. The
last response is to execute a smooth pull-out without overstressing the
airframe.
One other thing: if the airspeed is increasing it is a good idea to
reduce power/thrust to delay the arrival at Vne as long as possible.
It turns out that the load limit of the airframe is for acceleration on
one axis only. You can be pulling +3.8G (normal category aircraft) but
you can't be rolling at the same time. The goal here is to avoid
overstressing the airframe by pulling and rolling at the same time. So
you unload, roll, and pull to nose level (or even nose up if you are
going too fast).
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> Kevin,
>
> I will check again, but in my discussions with the FAA,
> Certed Engine Management Systems CANNOT be field upgradable,
> well unless its by the factory. So in reality they are,
> just not by the owner. Think about it, letting anyone
> change the funtionality of your planes critical engine instrument.
> The units are field configurable!!
That is funny. There is no such thing as a critical engine instrument.
Our airplanes will fly safely without any engine instruments at all,
except maybe a CHT indicator so we don't burn up the engine by keeping
the cowl flaps closed. I would bet that I could fly any piston-powered
aircraft to a safe landing without any engine damage after a loss of all
engine instruments. I couldn't fly to a safe landing without my gyros (IFR).
OTOH, I can update the software in my flight display instruments (Sandel
in my case) or my navigation instruments (Apollo GPS/comm). What are
they thinking?
> The software has to be Certified, and is intro'd into the
> field with no allowed changes. Each Cert'd AC and engine
> combo has its own parameters, no changes!
Again, that certainly is a chuckle. We use the same engine instruments
without change on many different aircraft and engine combinations. I
wonder what their justification is.
--
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 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
D Wysong wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
> Brian -
>
> I'm interested in how 'proprietary' the data pipe between their two
> boxes (or coming out of one box) is. Standard CAN, RS-XXX, or something
> wacky?
I hope it is CAN bus.
> In other words, will their datastream be available for external
> products to 'sniff' for data?
I didn't ask but I am sure I will get around to it. It will probably be
better for me to just call them and talk. I am sure that each answer
will probably generate yet another question.
> If you asked about that in/amongst your questions about your MOOSE of an
> engine (Russian?), I'd appreciate hearing the response(s).
No, I am not building a Moose. I have a Nanchang CJ6A trainer. The stock
Chinese engine is a 9-cyl radial made by Huosai. We also like to replace
the Chinese motor with a Vendenyev M14P which delivers 360hp instead of
285hp. The aircraft designer, Bushi Cheng, told us that the airframe was
designed for a 400hp engine.
Regardless, both engines are 9-cyl radials and need the same
instrumentation. The only difference is that the M14P doesn't have a
mixture control. It has an aneroid that adjusts the mixture in flight.
The Huosai has a mixture control.
--
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 43
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mitchell Goodrich" <mgoodrich@tampabay.rr.com>
Brian,
in actuality Xerion's instrumentation is using Can-Aerospace Protocol.
The system uses a dual-redundant CAN Network. Its their beleif that the
CAN protocol is versatile and robust in high-noise enviroments which is
why
it is starting to be used more often in avionics, and is the choice in
the
auto industry...........
Mitchell
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D
Wysong
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS Comparisons
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Brian -
I'm interested in how 'proprietary' the data pipe between their two
boxes (or coming out of one box) is. Standard CAN, RS-XXX, or something
wacky? In other words, will their datastream be available for external
products to 'sniff' for data?
If you asked about that in/amongst your questions about your MOOSE of an
engine (Russian?), I'd appreciate hearing the response(s).
D
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
> --> <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Harley wrote:
>
>
>>If you talk to them, you might mention that there is some confusion,
>>as
>>witnessed by our conversations here today.
>
>
> I sent them a number of queries. If anybody else is interested I will
> post the responses. Much of what I asked had to do with using it with
> a 9-cyl radial engine however.
>
Message 44
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Nah... I was just poking fun with the "MOOSE" comment because I have
"engine envy." 400HP!?? That'd be one helluva ride!
Thanks for passing on what you find out about their datastream.
D
do not archive
------------------
Brian Lloyd wrote:
> No, I am not building a Moose. I have a Nanchang CJ6A trainer. The stock
> Chinese engine is a 9-cyl radial made by Huosai. We also like to replace
> the Chinese motor with a Vendenyev M14P which delivers 360hp instead of
> 285hp. The aircraft designer, Bushi Cheng, told us that the airframe was
> designed for a 400hp engine.
>
> Regardless, both engines are 9-cyl radials and need the same
> instrumentation. The only difference is that the M14P doesn't have a
> mixture control. It has an aneroid that adjusts the mixture in flight.
> The Huosai has a mixture control.
>
Message 45
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Lite IFR--one more time |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
While I agree wholeheartedly with Greg, I can understand what Indiana Larry
is saying. I grew up in South Dakota, where the entire population of the
STATE is less than the metro area of Minneapolis, Minnesota (700,000).
And... where the two largest cities (100,000 and 50,000 people respectively)
are 400 miles apart. Needless to say there is a LOT of unoccupied space
both on the ground and in the air. When I started flying in the southeast
corner of the state we had a large chunk of UNCONTROLLED airspace as our
practice area. So....for those who have always lived near the big city,
Greg's reaction is understandable. But, for those of us who grew up in the
tiny towns and wide open spaces of Midwest farmland it's a LITTLE more
plausible. Note I said a "LITTLE"!! Please don't fly in the clouds unless
you have an IFR rating and clearance and are under ATC control, your life
depends on it.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
IFR rated and equipped
do not archive
----------original messages----------------------
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.
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
>
Message 46
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Mitchell Goodrich wrote:
> in actuality Xerion's instrumentation is using Can-Aerospace Protocol.
> The system uses a dual-redundant CAN Network. Its their beleif that the
> CAN protocol is versatile and robust in high-noise enviroments which is
> why
> it is starting to be used more often in avionics, and is the choice in
> the
> auto industry...........
No need to tell me that. A couple of us started to design an cockpit
instrumentation suite using a CAN bus running CAN-aerospace as an
interconnect. CAN-bus is pretty slick.
--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|