Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:37 AM - Engine grounds (Steve & Denise)
2. 04:37 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (Rodney Dunham)
3. 04:44 AM - More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (Glen Matejcek)
4. 04:48 AM - Audio input to video camera (PGLong@aol.com)
5. 05:40 AM - Re: Engine grounds (Glaeser, Dennis A)
6. 06:34 AM - Not the point (Fergus Kyle)
7. 07:05 AM - Re: Engine grounds (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
8. 07:05 AM - Disorientation. Was: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 07:21 AM - TB/TC/AI stuff (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
10. 08:25 AM - Re: Re: Engine grounds (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
11. 09:23 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) ()
12. 09:59 AM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (OLD GYROS) ()
13. 10:29 AM - Farraday cage for power distribution? (Treff, Arthur)
14. 11:33 AM - Re: Farraday cage for power distribution? (Mickey Coggins)
15. 12:03 PM - IFR backup (T&B or TC) (Carlos Trigo)
16. 01:24 PM - Comant VOR/GS antennas (lee.logan@gulfstream.com)
17. 01:43 PM - Re: IFR backup (T&B or TC) (Terry Watson)
18. 01:44 PM - Re: Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual (Kelly McMullen)
19. 02:07 PM - Re: Disorientation. (Rodney Dunham)
20. 03:51 PM - Re: Comant VOR/GS antennas (Paul McAllister)
21. 04:18 PM - Re: IFR backup (T&B or TC) (Harold)
22. 06:33 PM - Re: Farraday cage for power distribution? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 06:34 PM - Re: Disorientation. (BobsV35B@aol.com)
24. 06:58 PM - Glass Panel Layout (Paul McAllister)
25. 07:00 PM - Re: Farraday cage for power distribution? (sportav8r@aol.com)
26. 07:20 PM - Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to (Emrath)
27. 08:31 PM - Re: Disorientation. (Brian Lloyd)
28. 09:07 PM - Re: Glass Panel Layout (BobsV35B@aol.com)
29. 10:35 PM - Scratched Cad plating? ()
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of the
engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the engine?
Steve
RV7A
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: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
T&B vs TC vs AI,
I'm not IFR certified, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
AND, I'm with George on this one.
There's a real good reason the AI is in the center of the flight instrument
"six pack" and the anchor point of your scan. The information displayed is
intuitive. That is, you can get a whole lot of info in a hurry with little
or no interpretation necessary. You just yank and bank until the little
airplane looks just right and all is well in Neverland. Let's face it, if
either the T&B or the TC were anywhere near as good there wouldn't even BE
an AI in the panel! Is anyone on this forum advocating we fly IFR without
one ON PURPOSE???
As for tie breaker... Well, it's the same ole same ole. ASI, ALT and VSI for
pitch info. TC (or T&B) and DG for bank info. If the lights are out, don't
trust the electric stuff. If the suction gauge says kaplooey, don't trust
the vacuum Stuff. If you've got an electric AND a vacuum AI, you go with the
one that agrees with whichever system is operational and cover up the other
one. This isn't rocket surgery!
I think the tie breakers for this discussion are the NTSB reports. How many
times have we read that the pilot and passengers were killed when the plane
broke up in flight soon after the AI went tits up? That pilot was surely
trained in partial panel ops but when the chips were down, he couldn't
handle the situation and his victims paid the price for his penny pinching
in IMC. If you can afford to fly IFR, you can afford a back-up AI.
Rodney in Tennessee
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: | More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
All-
As I recall it, a T&B or TC can't tumble, as opposed to AH's. There are
aerobatic (360 degree) AH / AI / ADI's, but not sub kilobuck, as I
understand it.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | Audio input to video camera |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PGLong@aol.com
Looking for a small microphone to put in my headset earphone cup to pickup
the audio for my video camera aux microphone input. Or, would it work to use
the rear seat headset jack ear phone portion for the audio to directly input to
the camera? Would there be an impedance matching problem? Anyone done this
that could guide me thru the process?
Thanks, Pat
Pat Long
PGLong@aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Engine grounds |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Steve,
Just getting continuity doesn't mean it will handle the amperage
required - especially for starting. My son (also building a 7A) tried
cranking his engine before installing his grounds, and it barely turned
over. Once he installed the grounds, it spun like a top. Also, without
dedicated grounding, your engine instrumentation could potentially be
intermittent or inaccurate, and difficult to diagnose.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A Fuselage
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise"
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of
the
engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the
engine?
Steve
RV7A
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
indicator. Not the point.
I have good sound reasons to say so and it is not based
on any pilot should be able to fly partial panel. It comes
from many years of giving instruction.
What is needed is RECEIVING instruction.
As Bob and others pointed out a T&B or TC does not tell
if the wings are level. I understand Bob's statement if you
are not yawing you are not turning, BUT you are also not
necessarily wings level. The whole point is, YES they are.
Also on the other hand you can be wings level and be
yawing (turning). ...and the T&B says so. Example, a
skidding turn w/ rudder and opposite aileron. Wings
level but yawing. The point is the T&B and TC do not
tell you if the wings are level. In the aircraft under
discussion, you start a turn with rudder - elementary
aerodynamics. Only jet pilots cruise with their feet on
the floor.
Given the choice I would want a pictorial ATTITUDE
indication, with a direct indication of wing (roll) and
pitch, even though I know I can fly a T&B. Not the topic.
With a T&B as long as I keep it upright I am good, but
once you've lost it you're in a pretty bad situation and
may not survive. Statistics bare bear this out. I realize some
auto pilots are Yaw based but than they do a better
job keeping it upright than most pilots. I doubt many
yaw only autopilots can recover from an unusual
attitude. ...nor will cigar lighters. Not the point.
Flying with only a T&B you have no direct indication of
the wings being level. If one rudders the ball into the
middle, it will be level. WHY? ... because the rudder pressure
will right the aircraft.
With an attitude indicator you do, which is better, obviously. I
don't think I am going to With get an argument here.
If operating properly, perhaps.
However to recover from unusual attitude with just
altimeter, airspeed, T&B and slip skid ball (needle ball and
airspeed) is a real talent, and most pilots will NOT survive
if faced with this. (because of advocates against training
for it). This is fact based on studies. Many
vacume failures in IMC, leaving just the T&B has resulted
in the loss of aircraft and crew. What makes us think we
can survive, for real, under high stress actual IMC?
I venture to say more lives are lost from failed attitude
indicators than from failed T&Bs. What is the recourse
to failed AIs? Three of them. One will kill you, Two will
confuse you. But three will get you a majority for survival.
But the minute you are confused as to display, get on the
T&B with rudder.
Who last practiced or last attempted an unusual attitude
recovery under the hood or IMC with just Needle Ball &
airspeed? In my day WE ALL DID. Failure to do so was
failure to graduate.
The best and only way to recover from a unusual nose
low dive or graveyard spiral is level the wings first before
applying back pressure. What is the best way to know
if the wings are level? An ATTITUDE indicator. A real
time pictorial depiction of aircraft roll and pitch. For
decades, AIs tumbled after so many degrees of rotation.
I don't remember the amount, but I'll bet old Bob does.
The only recovery from a failed/tumbled AI was via the
T&B! PS: This is true in the Vampire - a jet we flew before
there was a US jet.in squadron service.
So lets say IMC diving with only a T&B you get it to stop
yawing, where are the wings? Levelling as above.
How do you level the wings? Centre the ball with T&B.
If in a hot homebuilt you are way past Vne and dead.
T&B and TC are dampened. (damped ). They should
not be dampened. Too much dampening (damping) they
are useless for recovery because of the lag. If they don't
have enough damping they are useless because they
are flopping around with any yaw or turbulence.
The damping is regulated by the commisioning authority.
Too much damping is like too much TNT.
I appreciate Bob's old school attitude, but I have been
teaching in aviation for over 20 years and I know the
skills of mere mortals, typical pilots. They respond and
consistently perform better with an attitude display not
a yaw display. Many old time pilots have died trying
to fly after the Vac pump failed. - particularly when the AI
is VAC-driven. The history of real partial plane with real
pilots in real IMC is poor.
I appreciates Bob's pride in being able to fly needle ball
and airspeed. I can do it too. However if you have not
done it, for real in turbulence or IMC in a small home
built with natural roll stability, sensitive control and a
low drag configuration that builds speed very fast when
pointed down hill, I think we would all want a back-up
ATTITUDE indicator. Not the point.
Yaw is great but a picture of you wings being level is
more important or priceless as they commercial says.
Wrong. Those of us properly trained can loop your
aircraft without a joystick or wheel.
With the advent of cheap battery powered ATTITUDE
indicators I think the day of T&B or TC only back up
are gone. Wrong. "Which" is the topic......
Now if you want to practice "partial panel" I suggest
you find a good safety pilot who knows their (his/her )
job, safety and looking for traffic. Get a Francis IFR hood,
http://www.ifrhood.com/ ,
not an el-cheepo foggles or plastic visor. Use some
tape and cardboard paper and blank out areas of the
canopy you might cheat, peripheral or straight ahead,
but don't block the safety pilots view. Not the topic.
Best practice is at night over sparsely populated area.
Also a good idea is get ATC flight following for your
practice. Now do partial panel unusual attitude recovery.
Look down at the floor and let the safety pilot roll the
pitch the plane, who than will give it back to you as you
look up to the panel. If you can recover consistently
than good. Most (untrained) will not with just a T&B.
With an attitude indicator everyone will recover with a little
practice. Not the topic. With just a T&B your chance of
getting it level is limited. (by lack of trainung). Never let the
speed get to Vne. The safety pilot should take over early.
There is no need to push it. Of course the safety pilot
must have enough currency in type and visual clues to
recover safely. Is this instruction by website?
I am not talking about training that is so over the top
that no one can survive. I am talking about real training
that is realistic that gives you a real indication of your
ability to fly and recover IMC partial panel. Not the topic.
A Cessna you can almost just let go and it will almost
recover. A hot home built forget it; they have the stability
of a jet fighter. There was a time when more military
fighters where were lost to IFR accidents than lost due to
combat. Still probably so - the first sample is greater.
That is my point. Don't cheat forget the T&B and TC if
you really want a back up. It's 2006; there are many
backup attitude indicators available for less than $1000.
They are all electric but so is a T&B or TC.
These are my opinions after 1000 hours teaching GA
and airline pilots in planes and simulators. Get some
time in.
I am NOT saying you CAN'T fly with just a T&B but that
is ONLY and indirect indication of wing level. I don't think
I will get an argument that an ACTUAL indication of WING
level is better than an old fashion yaw indicator. I do
think it still has a place in the panel, but be realistic
in you ability to save the say with JUST a T&B. Not
the topic.
Cheers George M. RV-4/RV-7 ATP, CFI-CFII-MEI
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Yes but only one not two...You need a strap between the block and the
grounding point on the firewall.
Apart from potential (electrical joke ...get it..:)..) of ground loops
making noise on your radios, there is a smal risk of sending high
current though unpleasant places...Like bearings in your engine. It is
possible to arc weld your bearings to the crank!
Needless to say this is not good!
Even though your meter may say you have continuity its really not
sensitive enough for the low volts/high current situation of when you
engage the starter.
A short length of #2 welding cable (nice and flexible) is all that is
required.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
& Denise
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:37 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise"
--> <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of
the engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the
engine?
Steve
RV7A
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: | Disorientation. Was: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual |
attitude)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Rodney,
Since you are not an experienced IFR pilot, may I suggest that you wait a
while before you make a firm decision on what will and what will not work for
you?
As to flight without an attitude gyro, it was done all of the time before
the WWII boys came home from the wars. Up until about 1956 , the CAA would not
allow the use of an attitude gyro or a directional gyro during the conduct of
an instrument check ride.
My first two Bonanzas did not have attitude gyros. They did have directional
gyros and that was a much bigger aid than was the attitude gyro. I was a
chicken even back in those days and I did add an electric T&B to the factory
installed vacuum powered unit.
There is no doubt that it IS easier to fly IFR with an attitude gyro. Such
gyros had been available almost as long as had the rate of turn gyros. However,
they were very expensive and quite unreliable. Even from the very beginning
of IFR flight, the T&B had proven to be extremely reliable.
During WWII, it was decided that the military services would equip all of
their airplanes with a "Full Panel" It was much easier to teach "attitude"
instrument flying that it was to teach "rate" instrument flying. Rate instrument
flying continued to be taught, but only as a back up emergency technique to
be used when attitude instruments failed. It was then titled "Partial Panel".
Many such simplifications of training were used during WWII. It was
necessary to get the pilots over the target in the shortest amount of time possible.
It was also hoped that they would be capable of getting themselves, their
crew and the aircraft home if something went wrong, but the major effort was
directed at getting the pilots adequately trained in the shortest amount of time
possible. Many fine points of aviation were skipped over at the time.
It was called War time Expediency Flight Training.
It worked very well. We did win the war! (Not me, I was only fifteen when it
was over.)
Our industry is still suffering from some of the Old Wives Tales that
developed due to that shortened training period, but I am digressing from the
IFR
discussion.
When those folks who did win the war came home, the ones that had found a
proficiency at, and a love for, aviation became the teachers and the regulators
of the rest of us. It was realized that it had taken much less time to train
IFR pilots using the attitude method. It was also noted that attitude gyro
instruments were becoming more reliable.
By 1956, it was decided that attitude instruments would be required for all
IFR flight. That meant that the training time could be reduced and more pilots
would fly IFR.
I HAD to add an attitude gyro to my Bonanza so that I could continue to fly
it IFR in the manner that I, and many others, had been doing for several
years using rate instruments.
I am not a particularly competent pilot nor have I ever been the Ace of the
Base. I did start as a flight instructor in 1949 and taught many people how to
fly IFR in the manner then required by the regulations. Some found it very
easy, other had to work at it a bit, but I never had a student that did not
eventually pass the test. When the FAA was formed and the full panel became a
requirement, we did manage to bring the applicants up to the new standards
faster than we had been able to do it using the older methods.
To shift gears here a moment. You mention that it is not rocket science to
determine which instrument has failed.
It may be simple for you and others who are blessed with rapid minds and
superior intuition, but many of the rest of us have found it difficult to do.
When our minds are telling us that we are sideways and our instruments are
telling us something else, we find it very difficult to reconcile the
situation.
I have found that many of us who have that problem find it easier to rely on
an instrument that tells us whether or not we are turning as against an
instrument that tells us whether or not our wings are level.
If I center the needle of a T&B, the turn will have been stopped.
If the turn is stopped, I will survive.
There are other instruments that can serve the same purpose, but most of
them will cause a conflict with my mind.
IF I have the needle centered, and, IF I have the ball in the middle, the
wings will be level, but IF my mind still says I am flying sideways and that I
am turning, I can just leave that feeling alone. I do not have to fight it or
try to make it feel that I am level. As long as the needle is in the center
and the ball is in the center, my mind can be telling me anything it wants to
and I do not care. After a few moments of flight in that manner, most of us
will find that our mind accepts the truth.
I do feel that we should be able to build an instrument that will do the job
better and easier with modern technology, but I have not yet found one that
is as cheap and reliable as is the T&B.
There are very few attitude gyros that are completely non tumbling. Most,
even the most modern ones, still tumble during an upset. The ones used by the
airlines as a backup instrument are priced between twenty-five and fifty -five
thousand dollars. Well out of my reach. And I do not know if they can be
tumbled or not! Probably not.
Even then, I am not sure they would help me to recover from a spin if I
should inadvertently get in one. The T&B works great for that purpose. The TC
may
or may not help in spin recovery, it is dependent on the degree of flatness
involved in the spin.
I have very little experience in spin recovery using a TC, but experts have
told me that it does not work as consistently as does the T&B. Fortunately
or unfortunately, we don't do much spin training while IFR anymore!
I recognize that this disjointed discourse has become far too long. I wish
I had the time to get it better organized, but that time is not available
just now.
The main point I hope to get across to you is if you should ever find
yourself in a situation where you may have some confusion as to which way is up,
the choice of instrumentation to trust may be difficult.
JFK Jr and Carnahan both had working attitude gyros and they both died. Both
also had a considerable amount of training using the instrumentation which
they did have available.
One final point.
A failure of an altitude gyro is often very insidious, it just starts to get
the leans. If you make a correction for that "lean", it looks perfectly
normal. However, you will find that your rate instruments start to disagree with
the attitude instruments. That is the point at which confusion has it's chance
to take hold.
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 6/22/2006 6:39:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rdunhamtn@hotmail.com writes:
As for tie breaker... Well, it's the same ole same ole. ASI, ALT and VSI for
pitch info. TC (or T&B) and DG for bank info. If the lights are out, don't
trust the electric stuff. If the suction gauge says kaplooey, don't trust
the vacuum Stuff. If you've got an electric AND a vacuum AI, you go with the
one that agrees with whichever system is operational and cover up the other
one. This isn't rocket surgery!
I think the tie breakers for this discussion are the NTSB reports. How many
times have we read that the pilot and passengers were killed when the plane
broke up in flight soon after the AI went tits up? That pilot was surely
trained in partial panel ops but when the chips were down, he couldn't
handle the situation and his victims paid the price for his penny pinching
in IMC. If you can afford to fly IFR, you can afford a back-up AI.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 6/22/06 8:36:18 AM Central Daylight Time, VE3LVO@rac.ca
writes:
> I don't vote for a TC or T&B as back-up, I vote for an attitude
> indicator. Not the point.
>>>>
Interesting debate, but what I'd REALLY like to kwow is how well the current
crop of electonic displays are actually working, i.e. GRT EFIS, Blue Mountain
etc. Any consensus (yeah, right!) out there?
Mark do not archive
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: Engine grounds |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Steve,
I couldn't agree more. Just imagine putting the starter current through
your throttle and mixture cables! That voltage had to be dropped somewhere.
The second ground is to prevent this just in case the first one opens up for
any reason.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 6/22/2006 8:42:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
dennis.glaeser@eds.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A"
<dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
Steve,
Just getting continuity doesn't mean it will handle the amperage
required - especially for starting. My son (also building a 7A) tried
cranking his engine before installing his grounds, and it barely turned
over. Once he installed the grounds, it spun like a top. Also, without
dedicated grounding, your engine instrumentation could potentially be
intermittent or inaccurate, and difficult to diagnose.
Dennis Glaeser
RV7A Fuselage
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise"
If I get continuity between my ground block and all unpainted parts of
the
engine, do I still need to run 2 ground wires specifically for the
engine?
Steve
RV7A
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Bob and Matt:
Good points, I'll address, Bob first.
>posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>JFK Jr and Carnahan both had operative Attitude Indicators available.
>Skill with either an attitude indicator, a T&B or a TC would also have
>saved their lives.
>
>My reason for having the T&Bs in my panel has to do with cost,
>reliability and availability.
>
>I totally disagree with your premise that an attitude indicator is
>"best" or "better".
Bob:
You make good points and each to his own.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think an AI is far
superior to staying alive in IMC than just needle ball, airspeed.
I DID IT ONCE, for real, IMC and it was not fun. I have 100's hrs
practicing partial panel as pilot and instructor. It is one thing to
be VFR under a hood and another to be in the soup with no
attitude/DG gyros. Even a DG would be better than a T&B.
May be your Bonanza V35B is super stable and easy to fly.
A C-182 flys it self. However stats show people don't do so
good (dead) just on a T&B for real. This not only my opinion
but what I observe and what the NTSB stats show. COST is not
a good reason to scrimp on a good back-up. I am just being
realistic.
You may have supreme confidence in your partial panel ability.
You should, because your life and life of your passengers
depend on it as PIC, Captain. As a pilot I owe my passengers
the best I can give them. That is why I don't fly IFR in single
engine planes, single pilot, with vacuum pumps and a sole
T&B for a back up and no autopilot. Just too much can go
wrong.
I flew 100's of hours of solid actual as a CFII with students,
in the foggy, rainy low stratus North West, in basic low tech
C-172's. I also have supreme confidence in my skill, but as
I get older, I see the limitations and CHOOSE not to take the
risk. Why do it? It is your choice as PIC and plane owner to
make your decisions on the level of safety you want to operate.
You can improve your IFR safety with:
-Trainning
-Currency
-Autopilot
- and a good independant back-up AI source.
If outfitting my RV-7 for IFR flight my back-up will be an AI.
You are going with the tried and true T&B back-up, great, but
just because it's the old way of doing it, does not make it good.
We have the technology for relatively cheap electronic gyro
back-ups, ranging in price from $500-$2200.
No ego; no I CAN FLY ANY plane and the crate it came in,
stuff. Just a realistic understanding of the limitation of partial
flight under actual conditions with real GA pilots.
You can deny it, but I challenge you to get real unusual attitude
training under the hood with partial panel. I have seen pilots roll
the plane inverted, over correct an go almost vertical in pitch and
so on. There ARE limitations to that instrument you put your
faith in. IT is not the be all end all, the AI is. Survival almost
is a matter of not only skill but luck. If a pilot can not do
aerobatics VFR, the certainty are unlikely to recover from an
extreme attitude with just a T&B, slip/skid ball, airspeed and
altimeter. It can be done, but it is unlikely.
The T&B. It worked for decades and is a good cross check, but
as a stand alone solo gyro to fly with, it is marginal in practice.
That is my story and I am sticking to it. Good night and good luck.
>posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
>In practice, if the 2 AI's disagree, how does the pilot break
> the tie (an issue Bruce Gray has raised)? With a panel that
> has a T&B and single (AI), if there's conflict, no flag on the
> T&B, and the T&B wiggles, the T&B wins.
Matt the answer is the fundamentals of instrument scan:
- Cross Check
- Interpret
- Control
If one AI says right turn and climbing
The other, second AI, says nose low left turn
The airspeed is increasing
The DG or heading shows a left turn
The second wins
If the opposite is happening,
the first (AI) wins.
Remember primary secondary instruments
or Controlling and monitoring. It is not a big deal.
There is no substitute for a good scan, understanding what it
means (rate, change, direction) and control.
My point is an Attitude Indication (AI) is better than a T&B or TC.
I agree for the cheap a T&B / TC is useful. However if choosing
an independant backup to my EFIS, which is what started this
whole thing, I want a second AI and don't want to just count on
a T&B. Cost is not a driving factor, if I am going to take on the
serious business of flying IFR.
Here are some suggestions:
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7439
read the sales pitch but they do have a point
http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?&did=19&product_id=7439#desc
There are a dozen of these electronic Attitude indicators that
would make excellent back-ups ($500-$2200)
http://www.flynavgps.com/egyro.htm
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/pcefis.html
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/products.html
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/egyro.html
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/elitesupport.php
http://www.dynondevelopment.com/docs/EFIS_intro.html
http://www.xbow.com/General_info/gyro_guide.htm#display
http://www.aveousa.com/avionics/instruments/aveoMax/assets/HRS-3,4.jpg
http://www.aveousa.com/avionics/instruments/aveoMax/index.php
(5th item from bottom)
Mechanical gyros wear out, need repair. Do aerobatics with
your mech gyros, vacume or electric, does not matter, do you
think it's wise to fly IMC with those same mechanical gyros
you have just been ringing out doing acro?
A NEW TC with plug is about $600! Are you going to get
a bargain basement WWII T&B or some Chinese made one
to save your life? Get a solid state AI with battery power.
Cheers George
---------------------------------
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (OLD GYROS) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I forgot, here is a good alternative to a T&B or TC.
http://www.trutrakflightsystems.com/ttfsinstruments.html
-Bank angle is instantaneous gyro data.
-Pitch is gyro enhanced vertical speed.
-Direction is an electronic DG showing track.
-Solid state rate for gyros for pitch and roll
-Built in GPS (optional)
-Backup battery (optional) 12-28 volts
-Extreme bank angle flashing red arrows indicate required stick-motion to correct
unusual attitude.
-Low airspeed warning is enunciated by
flashing A-S on the display.
$1100 (add $250 for self contained GPS and battery options)
Now consider this from the junk bin at the airshow
http://www.astory.com/aircraft/instrument/3696.JPG
I am being a little toung in cheek, but if you want a NEW
modern TC or T&B from a good manufacture you need to
shell out almost $800.
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/turnbankindicators.html
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/in/turncoordinators.html
The Falcon for $352 will last how long..................?
---------------------------------
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: | Farraday cage for power distribution? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff@smartm.com>
I've got a wire routing question for the list.
Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
firewall:
1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
panel.
The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK? Would it be
OK if I constructed some sort of Farraday shield out of copper pipe and
a ground wire? I did a google search and searched the Matronics
archives, but can't see if anyone's covered this. Thanks for your help.
Art Treff
Asheville, NC
N666AT RV-8
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: Farraday cage for power distribution? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
> firewall:
>
> 1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
> 2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
> 3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
> panel.
Wow - that's a lot of umpf for the fuse block. I think I'm using maybe
AWG#10 for my fuse blocks.
> The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
> cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
> route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
> cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
> the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK?
I don't recall reading anything in Bob's book that indicates that
this would be a problem. Hopefully some of the gurus will chime in.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: | IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
Will you please stop discussing this off topic (remember - aeroelectric
list) which has gone far beyond any reasonable length.
Yeah, I know, I can always hit the DEL key, but I'm getting tired doing it,
and everybody's point are now very much clear
Thanks
Carlos
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: | Comant VOR/GS antennas |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: lee.logan@gulfstream.com
Is it possible to mount blade antennas under the fiberglass wingtips on an
otherwise all aluminum aircraft and get good electronic performance? They
would be separated by the wingspan of the aircraft which would be a wider
distance than is typical on a vertical fin installation, for example, but
otherwise could/would be horizontal and in the same plane. Could be
mounted on a plate against the outboard rib and oriented fore and aft, aft
of the nav/strobe/landing light complex.
Gotta be something here I don't know about?!!
Lee...
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: | IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
I strongly disagree! I find it very appropriate and informative.
This is exactly how we silence the people who know what they are talking
about. Asking people to quit posting is how to destroy a list. Considerate
people think you are speaking for everyone and clam up; the less thoughtful
ignore you and plow right ahead. The quality of the posts suffers.
When you subscribe to a newspaper or a magazine, do you complain when some
of the articles are not of interest to you, or do you pass them up for the
ones you subscribed for?
Terry
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo"
<trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
Will you please stop discussing this off topic (remember - aeroelectric
list) which has gone far beyond any reasonable length.
Yeah, I know, I can always hit the DEL key, but I'm getting tired doing it,
and everybody's point are now very much clear
Thanks
Carlos
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: RE: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
I've been mostly observing this discussion resisting commenting.
However, for a non-instrument rated pilot to make assumptions, based
on modern instrument placement, just doesn't add much to the discussion.
Anyone that has ever been in a spin under the hood or in actual will
tell you that unless you have an expensive non-tumbling AI, that it
is useless in a spin, and probably in any other unusual attitude
likely to cause it to tumble. Yes, I did my very first spin under the
hood, many years ago, not having a clue it was coming, as my CFII
apparently felt I wasn't challenged enough by the usual unusual
attitudes.
In a spin, neither the DG nor the AI will tell you anything. Using
turn coordinator and airspeed recovery was rather easy...easier than
having a spinning earth out the windshield.
I can also tell you from experience, partial panel difficulty varies
greatly with day or night condition, turbulence or lack thereof, and
presence or lack of icing, as well as how stable and fast your
aircraft is.
A partial panel "survivor"
Do Not Archive
Quoting Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
> <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
> T&B vs TC vs AI,
>
> I'm not IFR certified, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last
> night! AND, I'm with George on this one.
>
> There's a real good reason the AI is in the center of the flight
> instrument "six pack" and the anchor point of your scan. The
> information displayed is intuitive. That is, you can get a whole lot of
> info in a hurry with little or no interpretation necessary. You just
> yank and bank until the little airplane looks just right and all is
> well in Neverland. Let's face it, if either the T&B or the TC were
> anywhere near as good there wouldn't even BE an AI in the panel! Is
> anyone on this forum advocating we fly IFR without one ON PURPOSE???
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Old Bob,
The Holiday Inn Express and Rocket surgery comments were designed to alert
the unsuspecting reader of my lack of true experience and knowledge in this
area. I wouldn't want to be misunderestimated ya know. Besides, I was
agreeing with George! That shoulda tipped ya off. Take what I say for what
it's worth.
I especially like to read your posts. You bring a depth and bredth of
knowledge to the discussion which should remind us all of the great strides
made in aviation, due in no small part to the efforts of men such as
yourself. I do not take that lightly, sir. It has been said that we stand on
the shoulders of giants. I agree 100% with that sentiment.
However :o), may I respectfully submit that this IS the 21st century and a
gyro is not necessarily a gyro anymore! Modern avionics include devices
traditionally called gyro's that contain not even one moving part. Nothing
to spin. Nothing to break. They are very reliable. Glass panels are selling
like hotcakes. The DA-40 sports such a "technologically advanced" getup. Her
backup instruments consist only of AI (imagine that), ASI, ALT and wet
compass. No T&B and no TC. That's right, neither one! Why use EITHER a T&B
OR a TC if you could have an AI? Better yet... a vacuum powered AI, an
electric AI and an electronic AI. Now, just how many failure senarios can
one imagine in which all three would go down simultaneously???
You mentioned training and proficiency. I submit that that is indeed the
weak link in the NTSB reports scenario and the number 1 reason to backup
with an AI. We simply must take into account the human factor. If we can
design in a better backup, why on Earth wouldn't we??? It simply is not
reasonable to expect human males to stay proficient at partial panel flying
when they all just KNOW that they'll never need that skill. So much easier
to slip an EFIS into that extra 3.25" hole and everybody lives long and
prospers :o)
Rodney (wet behind the ears whipper snapper) in Tennessee
do not archive
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: | Comant VOR/GS antennas |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: lee.logan@gulfstream.com
>Is it possible to mount blade antennas under the fiberglass wingtips on an
>otherwise all aluminum aircraft and get good electronic performance?
If I understand your question correctly then yes, I believe that Bob Archer
used to offer a Nav antenna for this exact configuration.
Paul
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: IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
This may be off topic, but the discussion I believe, invaluable for
inexperienced folk like me.
I'm starting to think about my panel, and tho' I'm a VFR pilot, this
discussion has preved helpful has given me much to ponder during my
planning. I have the option to read,use or discard what doesn't work for
me....but it is helpful, and thanks to all the contributors.
Harold, RV-9 fuselage
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: Farraday cage for power distribution? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:25 AM 6/22/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Treff, Arthur"
><Arthur.Treff@smartm.com>
>
>I've got a wire routing question for the list.
>
>Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
>firewall:
>
>1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
plenty big . . .
>2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
plenty big too . . .
>3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
>panel.
A bit too much. Consider that full load on the fuse block
will not exceed rating of alternator and is generally limited
by design to something on the order of 75 to 80 percent of
rating. If you have a 40A alternator, #8 is good, a 60A alternator
would prompt a #6 bus feeder.
>
>The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
>cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
>route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
>cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
>the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK?
Beats me. Many a high current, fat wire has been run along side
potential victims with no observable effects . . .but then
there are fat wires that DO couple alternator noise into
vulnerable wires when given the opportunity.
The rule of thumb is not to have fat power wires and
small signal wires share spaces. There's no guarantee
that it's necessary but I prefer to eliminate the
possibility of problems by observing the rules.
> Would it be
>OK if I constructed some sort of Farraday shield out of copper pipe and
>a ground wire? I did a google search and searched the Matronics
>archives, but can't see if anyone's covered this. Thanks for your help.
Why not drop the feeder to 6 or 8 awg and re route it? Save
weight and hassles to boot while eliminating the potential
for problems by design.
Bob . . .
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: Disorientation. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 6/22/2006 6:35:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rdunhamtn@hotmail.com writes:
You mentioned training and proficiency. I submit that that is indeed the
weak link in the NTSB reports scenario and the number 1 reason to backup
with an AI. We simply must take into account the human factor. If we can
design in a better backup, why on Earth wouldn't we??? It simply is not
reasonable to expect human males to stay proficient at partial panel flying
when they all just KNOW that they'll never need that skill. So much easier
to slip an EFIS into that extra 3.25" hole and everybody lives long and
prospers :o)
Rodney (wet behind the ears whipper snapper) in Tennessee
Good Evening Rodney,
If you will check back on what I have written, you will note that I often
mention that we should be getting something better than the T&B. The problem
is, so far, nothing has been approved.
I also realize that an experimental airplane may not require an approved
unit. Nevertheless, if I am going to hang my life on the instrumentation, I want
it to be quite reliable. I do not have any experience with any of the GA
style EFIS units. I did fly the glass cockpit in the 767 when it first came on
the scene. I am strongly in favor of all such improvements.
I particularly like the Dynon unit, but I have been told that it does not,
as yet, meet the requirements of a certified set. Something about high rates of
rotation making it lose a signal? That may be way off base.
I do have an idea for a unit that I feel will be better than the T&B.
Unfortunately, I have neither the expertise or the financial capability to make
any
appropriate tests.
However, a bigger concern is determining the failure of a standard attitude
instrument. What will happen to a solid state unit is beyond my knowledge.
If you have two attitude instruments, choosing the one that is failing is not
as simple as it may seem. Even if you have three of them and the one that
fails is the one you are using, it is quite likely that your mind will be
somewhat out of synch before you discover the failure. If control of the aircraft
is
to be maintained, the pilot must make a very rapid decision and take action
that will eliminate the offending instrument from use. The more experienced
pilot has a tougher job disregarding the failed instruments indication than
does a low time pilot. The problem has to do with our habit patterns. If we are
devoting all of our attention to keeping the airplane right side up, things
work quite well. However, as soon as we try to tune a radio or make any other
manipulation, our habits take over and a correction is likely to be made
based on what the failed unit is telling us. The easiest answer is to cover the
offending instrument. That gets rid of the unit that is providing false
information.
It is easiest to fly strictly needle, ball, and airspeed if there is no
other attitude instrumentation in the airplane. I have never flown an attitude
gyro that would not tumble. If there is such a thing, I suppose it would be
acceptable. I imagine the solid state units currently used as backup by the
aircarriers are non tumbling, but the ones we had when I was gainfully employed
would tumble. In any case, you really do need a backup in which you have
absolute confidence.
There is not time to make evaluations and choices. Both JFK Jr and Carnahan
went from somewhere around seven thousand feet to dead within forty-five
seconds. Both had fully operative attitude indications available. Carnahan had
an
instrument rating and a knowledgeable, though not IFR current, copilot.
If you have an autopilot to fly the airplane, that is obviously the best,
but you will have very little time to make a decision to engage it. For complete
safety, it would have to be used as is the stability unit in an airbus. It
needs to be controlling the airplane full time.
Whatever unit you decide to use as your last ditch survival capability, you
must know how to use it and be able to immediately have full confidence that
what it is telling you is correct.
I have had the pleasure of using a T&B for recoveries when I was inverted,
in spins, in grave yard spirals and in fully stalled configurations. If the
needle is wiggling, I trust it. Whatever you choose must instill as much trust
in you as to your ability to recover the aircraft by it's use as I have
developed trust in the T&B.
I hope for a modern replacement, I just have not yet seen one.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: | Glass Panel Layout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
Reading the posting on T&B's vs. TC has prompted me to seek a bit of input
on my panel. I have a Europa with a vacuum powered standard 6 pack. It had
always been my intention to upgrade to a glass panel once I thought that the
technology was mature. Well at 450 hours my vacuum pump is making sad
noises so I have to think about doing something soon.
My current setup has a vacuum warning light and a Navaids in place of a TC.
My initial thought was to purchase either a Grand Rapids or Dynon EFIS D100
and add to my panel a T&B, ASI, Altimeter and a TruTrack wing leveler, but
now I am starting to think of being a bit more conventional.
My current thinking is to have a standard 6 pac layout with a Dynon D10 in
the place of the AH, a 2.25 T&B, a Digitrack in the place of the DG. The
ASI, altimeter, and VSI's would be in the conventional places.
Design thoughts:
- Ebus feeding the D10 & T&B
- Dynon battery back up in case a total power failure
- TruTrack in case of a D10 failure
- T&B, compass in case of failure of the TruTrack
- Conventional /familiar panel layout for IMC work
Open items:
- Is there any failure modes of the D10 that other than "blank screen"
- Same for the TruTrack
- Is there a failure mode that would force me to arbitrate who is "telling
the truth"
I know that my thoughts and questions require speculative answers, but I
would appreciate some input from the forum
Paul
do not archive
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: Farraday cage for power distribution? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Each of those avionics boxes you are worried about is inside its own Farraday cage
(called a chassis), so I don't think it's an issue, really.
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:28:33 +0200
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> Three connections are on the battery side of the starter solenoid on the
> firewall:
> > 1) 2AWG from the battery solenoid in the rear of the aircraft.
> 2) 4AWG from the primary alternator output.
> 3) 2AWG going aft to power the fuse blocks located behind the instrument
> panel.
Wow - that's a lot of umpf for the fuse block. I think I'm using maybe
AWG#10 for my fuse blocks.
> The whole ship has been wired, fuse blocks, single point ground, battery
> cable, etc. I need to run the fuse block supply (#3 above) and the best
> route to the fuse blocks behind the instrument panel will put the supply
> cable right behind the avionics stack, running parallel to the rear of
> the radio trays, specifically the Garmin 430. Is this OK?
I don't recall reading anything in Bob's book that indicates that
this would be a problem. Hopefully some of the gurus will chime in.
-- Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________
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: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
There was an "incident" a while back at my home plate where a Glasair ground
looped and ran off the runway into the grass. The right gear collapsed and
took out the right wing panel, gear, fuel tank, part of the fuselage and
firewall. Was not pretty. The plane was salvaged and there were some local
quys that thought they could rebuild it. I have no idea if that is possible,
but I don't think a ground loop on a RV would have been damaged as serious.
Just my 2 Cents.
Marty
Time: 07:30:25 AM PST US
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell
--> <bferrell@123mail.net>
Folks,
Regarding the wings coming off, I really don't think this is something that
you need to worry about - they're coming off if you hit something big.
Although I'm not familiar with the Glasair, I doubt it's substantially
stronger than the spar in a Cozy or Velocity, and I've gathered a fair
amount of accident data (and pictures) on my website
(http://www.velocityxl.com/downloads.htm), and getting the wings off isn't a
big deal. Also, having read Pappy Boyington's "Baa Baa Blacksheep", which
included a story of a Corsair strafing a runway pulling out too late and
colliding with trees on both wings (and continuing to
fly) - both wings failed at the impact point, and I suspect it was designed
for some negative Gs. Not definitive, but some data to consider.
Brett
Quoting Mike <mlas@cox.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> John,
>
> It sounds like you have given this issue some thought. What is your
> alternative plan when facing a stand of trees or a field of rock? I
> too have thought about the same issue and have not been able to come
> up with a better idea. One thing to remember is my primary point was
> that you still has to be a landing and then you stop the plane. My
> thoughts are to think of a formula 1 car which is strong like the
> Glassair. From my direct examination of composite aircraft crashes at
> the site, the impact into the ground is what seems to kill most of the
> pilots and not the stop after the landing. Most of the crashes in
> composite airplanes are burners, lots of little pieces, or almost no
> breakup damage. The burners are strait forward and mixed, but the
> airplanes that breakup are all high velocity impacts.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> John Burnaby
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:25 AM
> to have)
>
> Do not archive
>
> Mike,
>
> You have repeated what an experienced 4 engine water bomber pilot, in
> the Pacific northwest, told me when I asked him, as a newly minted
> pilot in 1980, "What do you do when forced down in a forest?" He said
> to land between two trees to shear off the wings to absorb and
> diminish a lot of the energy involved in the landing.
>
> I filed that away on my brain's essential bus, hoping that I never
> have to access it. However, since I began building my Glasair, with
> its one piece wing that would be housing my valuable (at least to me)
> bottom at an inhospitable landing site, I have wondered if the aiming
> between two solid objects is a prudent idea. From a lay person
> perspective, the Glasair wing is built hell-for-stout, and its fuelage
> anchor points seem less so, as their function is mainly to keep the
> wing attached during negative G. I have visions of landing between two
> trees still sitting in the wing and the inertia of the empennage,
> still moving at 70 kts, ruining any chance of smugness to which I
> might be entitled.
>
> Hopefully, I am over estimating the strength of that spar.
>
> Cheers,
> John
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jun 22, 2006, at 9:30 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> I particularly like the Dynon unit, but I have been told that it
> does not,
> as yet, meet the requirements of a certified set. Something about
> high rates of
> rotation making it lose a signal? That may be way off base.
Not so far off-base Bob. All of the AHRS being used in various PFDs
use solid-state rate gyros. Since these are rate gyros like the T&B,
they cannot tumble.
Each AHRS has three rate gyros for pitch, roll, and yaw. Since a rate
gyro cannot tell its initial position, i.e. which way is up, the AHRS
incorporates three accelerometers. If the airplane is not
accelerating at all, then there will be 1G sensed by the
accelerometers. If the vector sum of the accelerations in all three
axes has a magnitude of 1G then the "brain" knows that the airplane
is not accelerating and the direction of the acceleration must be
"up". That is then used to "erect" the gyro.
Once "up" has been determined the rate information will let you
determine a new attitude. For instance, if the roll gyro senses a 10
degree/sec rate of roll for three seconds then the airplane must be
in a 30 degree bank.
But like all rate gyros, there is a maximum rate which may be sensed.
Even the TC and T&B have this problem. Eventually the rate of yaw can
get high enough that the needle is "pinned". An increase in yaw rate
is not displayed on the T&C because the needle cannot move any
farther. Solid state rate gyros have this same problem. If the rate
is too high the gyro will indicate maximum rate even though that is
not the correct rate. The "brain" does not sense the correct rate so
it gets more and more behind. Now it no longer knows which way is
"up". Since roll rates usually can exceed pitch or yaw rates, roll is
usually the limiting factor.
Note that if, at any time, the airplane stops accelerating, even for
a fraction of a second, the "brain" can use the accelerometer data to
"reset" and "erect" the gyro.
Does this help?
BTW, I am going to try to talk my FSDO into letting me install a
Dynon D-10 in the panel of my Aztec as an "extra" instrument without
removing any of the stanard "six-pack". It strikes me as it would
make a dandy backup to the iron gyros.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
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-Exupry
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass Panel Layout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 6/22/2006 11:00:54 P.M. Central Standard Time,
paul.mcallister@qia.net writes:
My current thinking is to have a standard 6 pac layout with a Dynon D10 in
the place of the AH, a 2.25 T&B, a Digitrack in the place of the DG. The
ASI, altimeter, and VSI's would be in the conventional places.
Sounds Good To Me!
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 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: | Scratched Cad plating? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
I hope not too off List topic.
When you scratch or mar Cad plating on steel hardware and parts, any
suggestions how to get back some or all protection once assembled?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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! --
|