---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 06/13/06: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:44 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Kevin Horton) 2. 05:21 AM - BB Battery Company model BP17-12. (Bill Bradburry) 3. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 (Larry Mac Donald) 4. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 5. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 6. 07:57 AM - IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 7. 07:57 AM - Re: BB Battery Company model BP17-12. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 9. 07:57 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Robert Sultzbach) 10. 07:57 AM - IFR Requirements (OldBob Siegfried) 11. 09:36 AM - Re: E-BUS (Brinker) 12. 10:06 AM - IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 13. 10:06 AM - IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 14. 10:46 AM - Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (N601RT) 15. 10:46 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend) 16. 11:32 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Terry Watson) 17. 11:48 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Dan Beadle) 18. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 19. 11:55 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (Tim Dawson-Townsend) 20. 12:23 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) () 21. 12:44 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 22. 01:16 PM - Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified () 23. 01:19 PM - Re: E-BUS (Robert Sultzbach) 24. 01:22 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Bruce Gray) 25. 01:57 PM - Re: E-BUS (Kevin Horton) 26. 03:25 PM - IFR Requirements () 27. 05:41 PM - Re: IFR Requirements () 28. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Brinker) 29. 06:36 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com) 30. 08:46 PM - Antenna on old aircraft . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 31. 09:08 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (richard titsworth) 32. 09:37 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Kelly McMullen) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:44:21 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton It doesn't matter why the EFIS fails - it could be EFIS failure, it could be electrical failure. It could be a lightening strike, etc. You have to assume it could fail someday, and you should have sufficient other equipment to get back on the ground. My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton On 12 Jun 2006, at 23:10, Robert Sultzbach wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach > > > Hi Bruce, This was not an EFIS failure but an > electrical failure that you have quoted. Furthermore, > having over 6000 odd hours in this aircraft I can tell > you where to start looking for this kind of failure in > the DC buses. It is a "Fate IS the Hunter" scenario > but the DC buses have a row of circuit breakers just > to the aft and right side of the copilot's > seat...right where he slides his flight kit into > position next to his seat. I have seen this row of > breakers blown out by an errant flight kit and guess > what, all hell breaks loose in the DC buses when this > row of breakers is damaged. So to sum it up, if you > interrupt power to an efis it will cease to operate > but it did not fail. It was an electrical failure and > I'll bet a beer a copilot's flight kit caused it. > Cheers, Bob Sultzbach > > --- Bruce Gray wrote: > >> Here's one. >> >> > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ > ComAndRep/Martin >> Air/martinair-summary.html >> >> >> >> Bruce >> www.glasair.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] >> On Behalf Of Brinker >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 2:01 PM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> >> I would like to read the reports. Not trying >> to be a smart alex just >> out of curiosity. >> >> Randy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Bruce Gray >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:55 AM >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this >> subject that I don't want >> another one. Do whatever floats your boat. >> >> Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this >> issue for years and >> mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS >> airliners going dark in IFR >> where the only thing left was a flashlight and a >> vacuum ADI. >> >> I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I >> wonder why? >> >> >> Bruce >> www.glasair.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] >> On Behalf Of Tim >> Dawson-Townsend >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:28 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> >> >> "Need" is an interesting word. There are hundreds >> of IFR Cessnas with only >> one Attitude Indicator, with a turn coordinator for >> backup. And they've got >> zero backup altimeters or ASIs. >> >> >> >> FAA requirements for "backups" or "tiebreakers" of >> any sort are on an >> individual aircraft model installation basis for TC >> or STC. Since >> experimental aircraft don't have TCs, it's up to you >> how many or what kind >> of backups you have. >> >> >> >> TDT >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _____ >> >> >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] >> On Behalf Of Bruce >> Gray >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:16 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> >> >> I suggest you read my posts on the GRT forum before >> they kicked me off. You >> need at least an Artificial Horizon (preferably >> vacuum), Altimeter, and ASI. >> Even with another separate EFIS you'll still need >> the steam gauges. If the >> EFIS's disagree, you'll need a tie breaker. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruce >> www.glasair.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] >> On Behalf Of Dan >> Beadle >> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:47 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements >> >> There has been a lot on TSO129. I get that. >> >> >> >> What are the requirements for IFR flight in the EFIS >> age? We are planning a >> Grand Rapids EFIS with an engine monitor. So far, >> all eggs in one basket. >> If not illegal, at least this is not safe enough for >> me. >> >> >> >> Certificated A/C use an AI, Altimeter, Tach, MP >> steam gage for redundancy. >> >> >> >> Would it be legal to put in a second EFIS with an >> independent AHRS on a >> separate essential buss and delete the steam gages? >> >> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:21:13 AM PST US From: "Bill Bradburry" Subject: AeroElectric-List: BB Battery Company model BP17-12. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry" The battery I'm looking at is the BB Battery Company model BP17-12. Through Digikey www.digikey.com they are $24.69 each and weigh 13.56 lbs Does anyone have any knowledge of this battery and battery company? This seems really cheap, which always worries me. The battery is almost a direct replacement of the Odyssey 680 that goes for about $100???? Bill Bradburry ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:22 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 06/11/06 From: Larry Mac Donald --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald Paul, You can go to "cnet" or direct to "openoffice.org" and download open office for free. It's just like office for windows. Why is it free ? Knowing that it's made by Sun micro systems helps answer that. Larry Mac Donald lm4@juno.com Rochester N.Y. Do not achcive On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:22:22 -0500 "Paul Quarberg" writes: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Quarberg" > > > Rob, > > Eau Claire Noon Lions Club > P.O. Box 42 > Eau Claire, Wi. 54702 > > eclionsfoundation@yahoo.com > > Also, I can't open your spreadsheet file - I probably need to > purchase > Microsoft office or something like it. Could you possibly send the > budget > in Word format or PDF file? > > Thanks, Paul > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:53 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Good Morning Kent, It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!) 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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, kcorr@charter.net writes: To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator? Kent ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:53 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Good Morning Kent, It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!) 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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, kcorr@charter.net writes: To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator? Kent ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:54 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton Good Morning Kevin, You have precisely what I would want. While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven. Just in case! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:54 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: BB Battery Company model BP17-12. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:10 AM 6/13/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry" > > >The battery I'm looking at is the BB Battery Company model BP17-12. >Through Digikey www.digikey.com they are $24.69 each and weigh 13.56 >lbs > >Does anyone have any knowledge of this battery and battery company? >This seems really cheap, which always worries me. The battery is almost >a direct replacement of the Odyssey 680 that goes for about $100???? > >Bill Bradburry Assuming anything about a battery based on brand and marketing is not good science. As I noted in an article several years ago . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf . . . there didn't seem to be much one can do to the recipe for a battery without severely altering the capability of the product. In the article, I found that no matter what price/brand AA-alkaline you purchased, there was very little difference in capabilities. Digikey is a pretty upstanding supplier of stuff to industry. They're not going to stock a battery that's causing a lot of grief for their customers. BB battery has a website and publishes a data sheet for this product at: http://www.bb-battery.com/bp17-12.pdf The batteries appear to be made in China, hence the lower than average cost. Cut corners? Yes, many manufacturer's have tried to compete by recipe/process adjustment on many products over the years and they're all gone now. Call the Hawker folks up and they'll give you an extensive data dump on why you should favor their product over the BB battery. But they're not prepared to give you data on tests that show the return on investment for purchasing the Odyssey over a BB is there. A battery can become unavailable for a number of reasons other than absolutely quality of the battery. I've suggested many times that one should be both outfitted and skilled to fly any airplane in the "J-3 mode". When I walk up to a rental airplane, I have no knowledge of that airplane's electrical system history and I'm not particularly inclined to go research it before every rental. That's why the flight bag has enough hardware in it to let me continue flight to intended destination with the panel completely black should the need arise. Now, if for some reason you do have problems with this battery, YOU can become the source of information that will in answering future questions about BB's product. Bottom line is that the risks for trying the BB product are low from square one. If you also sign up to the philosophy of maintaining the battery so that you KNOW what its capacity is -AND- you're equally prepared to fly in the J-3 mode then risks for trying this product are exceedingly small. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:54 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton Good Morning Kevin, You have precisely what I would want. While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven. Just in case! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:55 AM PST US From: Robert Sultzbach Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach Hi Kevin, I agree. I would go even further to say we should plan for redundant back up of ANY system that is vital for flight safety. I.E. electric fuel pump as a backup to the engine driven. The gist of my prior post was to point out this was not an EFIS failure since the incident was being used to vilify EFIS systems. If you read the incident report, the efis did not even stop working on the Captain's side. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach P.S. As an aside, I have experienced two pitot static system failures in my many years of flying so yes, anything can fail, even steam gauges. --- __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:55 AM PST US From: OldBob Siegfried Subject: AeroElectric-List:IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton Good Morning Kevin, You have precisely what I would want. While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven. Just in case! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:36:00 AM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" Bob there will be no flaming from me. I am sure you are much more knowledgable than I on these matters. I only commented since it seems odd there was no way for the pilot to go to a secondary dc power system and put the essentials back on line. Also causing braking problems, which accually looks like it was a bigger problem than loosing the efis. I would almost wager that since this incidence there has been a change in the electrical architechure. Also since this was back in 1996 I am almost certain that the technology has advanced since then and also figure most airline pilots keep a 396 or equivilent in their flight bag just in case these days. I am low time pilot and have already had a vacuum pump go out on my 1968 cherokee which put a sour taste in my mouth for steam gauges. It is interesting to see the ideas and responses to redundancy. Opinions are like noses everybody has one. My motto is "redundancy redundancy redundancy ohhhh my and more redundancy" LOL. If ones loses the engine on a SEL all the gauges in the world won't help. I am not making light of the situation but there has to be a maximum point somewhere. Sorry for the rant. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sultzbach" Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:26 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach > > > Hi Randy, I just reread your message about the > importance of the E-Bus. I agree 100%. It is > important. I went on to editorialize about the evils > of overdoing the E-Bus and I realize it was not a > valid response to the message you posted. Sorry about > that. I stand by the importance of keeping the E-Bus > limited to only items essential for endurance. > But that was a thought of my own separate from your > post. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach > > > __________________________________________________ > > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:21 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Good Morning Kent, It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!) 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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, kcorr@charter.net writes: To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator? Kent ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 10:06:22 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton Good Morning Kevin, You have precisely what I would want. While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven. Just in case! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:35 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B From: "N601RT" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "N601RT" Randy, The avionics shop that built my panel did not want to wire my iCom A23 to the Garmin audio panel. I've since moved my panel mounted nav/com to com2 and wired the A23 to com1. The A23 has a seperate antenna and works fine. Why com1? If I have complete electrical failure (or if for some reasons I lose power to the audio panel) com1 will default connect to the pilot headset with the PTT working. Additional, possibly useful information: The connector for the A23 (and A5) is a 30-701 which I got from http://www.svideodotcom.com/. $2.55 each in 2003. Pictures of this at http://www.calrad.com/calrad/cat-59page2.html near the bottom of the page. Using an ohm meter with the headset adapter cable I found: - The tip end of the connector goes to the headset speaker - The contact closest to the tip goes to the "Ring", mike audio. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html. - The contact two away from the tip goes to the "Tip" PTT. Again see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html. - The contact closest to the black housing and wires (farthest from the end) is ground (or common, or audio low) Regards, Roy N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, Arplast PV-50, All electric, IFR equipped, 535hrs, 640 landings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40740#40740 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:36 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" Bob: Does Kevin have precisely what you want? This is the fourth or fifth message from you . . . TDT do not archive ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton Good Morning Kevin, You have precisely what I would want. While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven. Just in case! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:51 AM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Something is re-sending Bob Sigfried's emails. Bob is one of the true gentlemen on this list and deserves to be treated as such. Terry _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:43 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Bob: Does Kevin have precisely what you want? This is the fourth or fifth message from you . . . TDT do not archive _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 1:04 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/13/2006 4:58:44 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01@rogers.com writes: My EFIS is backed up by round-dial ASI, altimeter and VSI, a turn and bank and a wing leveler. Kevin Horton Good Morning Kevin, You have precisely what I would want. While my Stearman is NOT IFR legal, I have the same installed except that I have two T&Bs, one electric and one venturi driven. Just in case! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:48:48 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements From: "Dan Beadle" After a lot of thought, we seem close to deciding on this system: Buss A * GNS430 (Approach Certified) * Transponder * Autopilot (TruTrak DigiFlight with independent gyros) * Grand Rapids Engine Monitor with altitude... * Angle of Attack Buss B * Grand Rapids EFIS-1 with separate GPS * Misc. Avionics The thought is we can survive failure of either buss or any component on it: Buss B Fails: * Switch to autopilot for wings level, attitude control * Altimeter from GRT Engine Monitor Option & Garmin * Course from Garmin * AOA gives us backup A/S surrogate. Buss A Fails: * Fly EFIS - have all air and attitude data we need, spare GPS. * Engine Monitor by ear. Seems like a reasonable risk level without any steam gages. Comments? _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:28 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/12/2006 12:57:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, bferrell@123mail.net writes: Dan - And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional inspector who will do my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my self-certifying that my dual BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all, no round gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do so from a position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly established what is "required". Brett Good Evening All, May I add another small comment? The FAA has only recently started to interject a need for redundancy in IFR aircraft. Anything approved before the FAA got on this kick is not required to have ANY redundancy. Personally, I don't think they should be able to make such a requirement. It is my opinion that it is up to the operator to decide what level he/she is comfortable with. If you talked to ALPA they would tell you that no airplane should be allowed in the sky unless it had a minimum of two engines and two pilots. I think one engine, one pilot, one generator, one battery, one radio and one gyro instrument is all the regulations should require. If I want more, I will add it. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:12 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: WIRING HANDHELD TO PMA800B From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Great minds think alike Roy...On the RV7 I had my Icom A200 wired as com1 because the standby alternator will not run the GNS430, fuel pump and transponder (EFIS is battery backed up). That way I can also switch off the audio panel to save power and hand fly through the soup and bang everything back on for the approach. Cheers Frank 601 HDS soon to be sold this time I think Do not archive Randy, The avionics shop that built my panel did not want to wire my iCom A23 to the Garmin audio panel. I've since moved my panel mounted nav/com to com2 and wired the A23 to com1. The A23 has a seperate antenna and works fine. Why com1? If I have complete electrical failure (or if for some reasons I lose power to the audio panel) com1 will default connect to the pilot headset with the PTT working. Additional, possibly useful information: The connector for the A23 (and A5) is a 30-701 which I got from http://www.svideodotcom.com/. $2.55 each in 2003. Pictures of this at http://www.calrad.com/calrad/cat-59page2.html near the bottom of the page. Using an ohm meter with the headset adapter cable I found: - The tip end of the connector goes to the headset speaker - The contact closest to the tip goes to the "Ring", mike audio. See http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html. - The contact two away from the tip goes to the "Tip" PTT. Again see http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/mj3.jpg from http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html. - The contact closest to the black housing and wires (farthest from the end) is ground (or common, or audio low) Regards, Roy N601RT: CH601HDS, nose gear, Rotax 912ULS, Arplast PV-50, All electric, IFR equipped, 535hrs, 640 landings Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=40740#40740 ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:55:48 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" We were thinking of adding a diode-protected feed from a second bus to our GRT EIS, so one would have engine data regardless of a single bus failure . . . TDT ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 2:44 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements After a lot of thought, we seem close to deciding on this system: Buss A * GNS430 (Approach Certified) * Transponder * Autopilot (TruTrak DigiFlight with independent gyros) * Grand Rapids Engine Monitor with altitude... * Angle of Attack Buss B * Grand Rapids EFIS-1 with separate GPS * Misc. Avionics The thought is we can survive failure of either buss or any component on it: Buss B Fails: * Switch to autopilot for wings level, attitude control * Altimeter from GRT Engine Monitor Option & Garmin * Course from Garmin * AOA gives us backup A/S surrogate. Buss A Fails: * Fly EFIS - have all air and attitude data we need, spare GPS. * Engine Monitor by ear. Seems like a reasonable risk level without any steam gages. Comments? ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 4:28 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/12/2006 12:57:56 P.M. Central Standard Time, bferrell@123mail.net writes: Dan - And to add another datapoint, my FAA (Cincinnati) regional inspector who will do my op limits stated that he had no concerns with my self-certifying that my dual BMA EFIS system met these requirements (no vacuum system at all, no round gauges). Folks need to do what they're comfortable with, and do so from a position of knowledge, but I agree that it's pretty clearly established what is "required". Brett Good Evening All, May I add another small comment? The FAA has only recently started to interject a need for redundancy in IFR aircraft. Anything approved before the FAA got on this kick is not required to have ANY redundancy. Personally, I don't think they should be able to make such a requirement. It is my opinion that it is up to the operator to decide what level he/she is comfortable with. If you talked to ALPA they would tell you that no airplane should be allowed in the sky unless it had a minimum of two engines and two pilots. I think one engine, one pilot, one generator, one battery, one radio and one gyro instrument is all the regulations should require. If I want more, I will add it. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:23:08 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices. Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree with you, an independant standby is a good idea. Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up (either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply, e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR. Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off. Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway. George ATP/CFII >From: "Bruce Gray" > >OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't >wantanother one. Do whatever floats your boat. > >Just remember, the big iron guys have studied this issue for years and >mega-bucks. I've seen reports of 5 tube EFIS airliners going dark in >IFRwhere the only thing left was a flashlight and a vacuum ADI. > >I have a 75k panel in my Glasair III and no EFIS. I wonder why? > >Bruce >www.glasair.org __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:44:29 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Nice one george... iagree vacuum systems do suck (but not all the time)....:) For me I went with an Dynon EFIS (with a couple of steam guage backups) for primary flight and a truetrack Pictorial Pilot as the backup when everything goes mental. the EFIS is battery backed up and my reduced power mode (SD-8 alternator) wll run a fuel pump, radio (to scream "HELP" on) and the transponder. As you say if the prop falls off your dead anyway in IFR. Frank Zenair Zodiac 400 hours soon to be sold RV7a paining. ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 12:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices. Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree with you, an independant standby is a good idea. Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up (either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply, e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR. Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off. Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway. George ATP/CFII >From: "Bruce Gray" > >OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't >wantanother ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:04 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Experimental IFR w/o a certified >From: "richard titsworth" > >George, >I do not have a horse in this race, but I believe you've missed the >point of the original article. Thanks Rick for the correction. I don't have a horse is this race and apparently if I did it would be lame. (ha ha) I agree I was not dead on point. Call it a Non sequitur, neither right or wrong but not on point. However I think I do make some relevant points. As far as Direct2/Freeflight and Chelton, I did not get we where talking about this brand spacifically. I am sure they're awesome units. However if it can meet the FAR's/TSO it should be sold as such. If they make two models that are physically and functionally the same and you want or NEED IFR equip, buy the TSO'ed equip. Done deal. For the doctor to say you/we can evaluate that a NON TSO model is the same as the TSO'ed model is debatable. I would call the FAA. As the article states there is even confusion with the FAA, but if you really want the answer you have to ask the right people. Of course if you only want to hear and believe the non-TSO'ed unit is OK, don't bother asking. Just do it and take the PhD CFII word on it. I would not. I am sure there are pilots shooting GPS approaches with GPS handheld's because some rocket scientist told them it was OK. We are talking about the legal nuance and not what you can get away with. The good Doctor may be right, but in my experience the FAA is the only one that counts. I suggest anyone contact EAA legal and ask this question first than go to the FSDO. Often you need to contact the FSDO that's in the region that does avionics. You have to talk to right person. In the end it comes down to what is written down and how it is interpreted. I could be wrong, but I am conservative and would opt to CYA and use the TSO'ed equip. Of course if you can afford this many 10's of thousand dollar equipment why pinch pennies. There is a TSO'ed designation for reason, even for Com radios. The ICOM A-200 com has a TSO'ed version and a non-TSO'ed version for about $100 less. Of course there no need for a TSO'ed Com in an experimental. So one might say that applies to IFR GPS navigation. Well some things need to be TSO'ed even in an experimental, like the Transponder and ELT. I am going add IFR GPS. If you want IFR GPS navigation get a TSO'ed device, either a: $2000 early Gen IFR GPS w/ CDI ** -OR- $6,000-$12,000 later Gen IFR GPS (e.g., Garmin GNS/GNC) -OR- $40,000(?) TSO'ed IFR EFIS. ** As far as small monochrome small GPS displays vs. large color displays, when I fly an approach all I want is what I have used for over 20 years, two needles, the azimuth and glide path. All the color stuff is great situational awareness, but when it comes to an approach the thing that counts are those two needles. For me, give me a good VOR/LOV/GS receiver (which can typ get you 200 and 1/2) for IFR and a good handheld GPS for refrence only. I prefer using cheaper paper charts and plates that I update when I need it and for the region I want to fly verses expensive electronic updates. Of course with the newer WAAS / RAIM receivers you will be able to get lower GPS mins, but the VOR ILS back bone will be around for decades to come. Bottom line for me I think you need the pedigree, paper work, TSO good housekeeping seal of approval to make it you GPS legal for IFR flight, regardless of make/model and similarity to other models. Clearly the future is EFIS/IFR GPS WAAS but we are a ways off. Cheers Geroge ATP/CFII __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 01:19:33 PM PST US From: Robert Sultzbach Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach Hi Randy, I know about the circuit breaker situation on the 757/767 because of an experience I had luckily with accepting an inbound aircraft. Everything was going haywire and I looked for the circuit breakers on the DC battery bus panel. Lo and behold, c/b's were popped and some were bent. We replaced the c/b's and all the problems went away. When you mess with a 767/757 by popping cb's and try to operate that way God only knows what logic is going to get fouled up. It is impressive to have all the bells, lights, and whistles going off at once and not being able to make them stop. I can't fault the crew of that 767 but I'll bet the copilot snagged the cb's on the way in or out of that seat and when they got on the ground the popped breakers were reset. Problem solved and no one the wiser at that. __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 01:22:15 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus to buy one. What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly hard IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You might think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is very reliable and it works when everything else goes dark. Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying lots of other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog flying checks in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it fail. It's all taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust your life to one piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out. And there is no shame in canceling a flight. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices. Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree with you, an independant standby is a good idea. Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up (either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply, e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR. Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off. Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway. George ATP/CFII >From: "Bruce Gray" > >OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't >wantanother ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:58 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton The NTSB report says that the ground cable for the main battery was not positively secured to the main battery shunt. This may have been a failure mode that was not considered by Boeing. But, the ground testing could not duplicate the original failure, so there was another variable that they couldn't track down. I suspect many electrical systems would be put in a very bad state if the main battery ground cable became disconnected. With my aircraft, the whole electrical system would become unusable, and I'd be down to the internal battery on my EFIS (advertised as 3 hr duration), plus handheld COM and GPS. This should allow me to get on the ground somewhere. Kevin Horton On 13 Jun 2006, at 12:30, Brinker wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" internet.com> > > Bob there will be no flaming from me. I am sure you are > much more knowledgable than I on these matters. I only commented > since it seems odd there was no way for the pilot to go to a > secondary dc power system and put the essentials back on line. Also > causing braking problems, which accually looks like it was a bigger > problem than loosing the efis. I would almost wager that since this > incidence there has been a change in the electrical architechure. > Also since this was back in 1996 I am almost certain that the > technology has advanced since then and also figure most airline > pilots keep a 396 or equivilent in their flight bag just in case > these days. I am low time pilot and have already had a vacuum pump > go out on my 1968 cherokee which put a sour taste in my mouth for > steam gauges. It is interesting to see the ideas and responses to > redundancy. Opinions are like noses everybody has one. My motto is > "redundancy redundancy redundancy ohhhh my and more redundancy" > LOL. If ones loses the engine on a SEL all the gauges in the world > won't help. I am not making light of the situation but there has to > be a maximum point somewhere. Sorry for the rant. > > Randy > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Sultzbach" > > To: > Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 10:26 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-BUS > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach >> >> >> Hi Randy, I just reread your message about the >> importance of the E-Bus. I agree 100%. It is >> important. I went on to editorialize about the evils >> of overdoing the E-Bus and I realize it was not a >> valid response to the message you posted. Sorry about >> that. I stand by the importance of keeping the E-Bus >> limited to only items essential for endurance. >> But that was a thought of my own separate from your >> post. Safe flying, Bob Sultzbach >> >> >> ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 03:25:50 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 6/13/2006 Responding to a previous posting (partially copied below) by John Erickson on this subject. Hello John, Thank you for the labor that you invested to create your posting for the benefit of other pilots and builders. I'd like to note that this information is also available in a condensed tabular form from me upon direct e mail request. Also see pages 49 and 50 of the June 2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine for a published version of this table and the introduction. OC < Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements Dan, A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard. Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits issued for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics. Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section. "4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR." OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e says......skip...>> ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 05:41:59 PM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hi Bob, This is something I am considering down the road for my airplane. Please keep us posted how things work out for you. best regards, Kent Orr do not archive ---- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > > > Good Morning Kent, > > It is built by a good company and is very low priced. Time will tell us if > it is a good buy or not. Reliability and durability are difficult to determine > since the product is so new. (I have one on order, so I may be prejudiced!) > > 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 6/12/2006 9:54:48 P.M. Central Standard Time, > kcorr@charter.net writes: > > To take this thread in a little different direction, what is everyone's > thoughts on Sporty's electric backup attitude indicator? > > Kent > > > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:33 PM PST US From: "Brinker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Message Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading so I don't get lost. And I think most pilots these days carry something similar. I also think most put their auto pilot as I will on the e-bus which should keep us out of a nose dive long enough to regroup. Insofar as a 2 1/4" T&B check Trutraks, around $450,which is the only round gauge I plan on, or spend a little more and get an electric ADI from them. A few years ago these items we're unheard of or at least too expensive for most light aircraft. We now have redundancy in a flight bag along with some neat comparatively inexpensive items in dash. I'm not sure what hard IFR is, I'm not yet rated but am working on it, but I for one will cancel any flight I don't feel comfortable with and will hopefully not be flying into any wing breaking weather with the help of xm and an old outdated wx8. Randy opinions ARE like noses and I hope mine is'nt sticking out so far as to get knocked off ----- Original Message ----- From: Bruce Gray To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) OK, yea those standby 2.5 ADI's are nice but I'd have to sell my Lexus to buy one. What I don't understand is the willingness of some to go out and fly hard IFR with only a BMI/Dynon/whatever and a plumb bob as a backup. You might think that vacuum sucks but a properly maintained vacuum system is very reliable and it works when everything else goes dark. Though I've never flown part 121 aircraft, I've paid my dues flying lots of other part 135 junk including a 2 year stint as a freight dog flying checks in D18's at night in Kansas. If it could fail, I've had it fail. It's all taught me several important lessons. Never, NEVER trust your life to one piece of equipment. Always leave yourself a way out. And there is no shame in canceling a flight. Bruce www.glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 3:19 PM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Bruce I am an airline guy and two things. Don't get a little GA plane's mixed up with a large turbojet air transport category aircraft. The backup ADI is required for part 121 and they are always electric. Now even the standby ADI's are also solid state, tube devices, no mechanical gyro at all. Mechanical gyros are going away, even for standby devices. Your recommendation is a good one, but it is NOT a requirement. The EAA hashed this out with the FAA, and if the EFIS has the function of a Gyro it is acceptable. There is no regulation for experimentals that REQUIRES the use of a mechanical vacume back-up, although I agree with you, an independant standby is a good idea. Vacuum gyros SUCKS (pun intended). Therefore an electric back-up (either mechanical or solid state gyro) with a isolated power supply, e.g., a secondary battery, is a great idea for IFR. Bruce it is not a Pee match, just a conversation and we can agree to disagree. Just want to clarify the difference between an air transport where EVERYTHING has triple redundancy and our little pee-shooter single engine birds. Don't fool yourself into thinking you achieve any where near air transport system redundancy and fail-safe architecture ever. All the standby instruments in the world will not help when the the single engine stops or the crankshaft cracks and the prop falls off. Single engine, single pilot IFR is a little risky anyway. George ATP/CFII >From: "Bruce Gray" > >OK, I've been in enough pissing contests on this subject that I don't >wantanother ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:02 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements In a message dated 6/13/2006 7:36:09 P.M. Central Standard Time, kcorr@charter.net writes: Hi Bob, This is something I am considering down the road for my airplane. Please keep us posted how things work out for you. best regards, Kent Orr do not archive Good Evening Kent, I will certainly do so! Sorry for the multiple posts earlier today. Things seem to have settled down for the evening. (At least, I hope so!) Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 08:46:09 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antenna on old aircraft . . . --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >Comments/Questions: Seeking best way to put an external antenna for a >handheld comm radio on an old non electric Champ >thanks Have you tried the hand-held with just the rubber-duck antenna? How bad is the ignition noise? Many of these older, non-electric aircraft have terrible magneto noise making ANY radio installation useless irrespective of how good your antenna is. 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 divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:02 PM PST US From: "richard titsworth" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) One small pet peeve of mine - the 196 shows GROUND SPEED (not airspeed). A simple point - but add some tailwind and/or density altitude and the differences can be disastrous - especially in an emergency when mental workload is high. Do yourself a favor and repeat it ten times so you don't forget. It shows ground speed not IAS. _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:25 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) Being a low time pilot excuse me if I seem to be talking out my wazoo here. But it seems like most experimental builders including myself are installing an angle of attack mine the AFS can operate off of a 9v battery, so it will not be affected by loss of the planes bus power. The AOA takes the place of the ASI and VSI so two steam gauges gone out of precouis panel space, not to mention that my backup 196 also shows airspeed, vsi, altitude, and of course heading . ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:13 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---