Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:01 AM - Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? ()
2. 12:16 AM - Re: Glass Panel Layout ()
3. 03:21 AM - Re: Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? (Kevin Horton)
4. 05:04 AM - Re: Disorientation. (Rodney Dunham)
5. 05:22 AM - Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 05:45 AM - Re: Re: Disorientation. (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 06:54 AM - Disorientation. (Sid Hausding)
8. 07:31 AM - Re: Disorientation. (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 08:30 AM - Re: IFR backup (T&B or TC) (Dj Merrill)
10. 08:30 AM - Re: Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? (Brian Lloyd)
11. 08:47 AM - Re: Disorientation. (Jerry Grimmonpre)
12. 10:32 AM - Re: Disorientation. (Terry Watson)
13. 10:55 AM - Re: Disorientation. (Brett Ferrell)
14. 12:15 PM - Re: Disorientation. (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 02:20 PM - Re: Disorientation. (Rodney Dunham)
16. 02:28 PM - Ammeter surge problem (Gary Liming)
17. 03:23 PM - Re: Ammeter surge problem (Rick Lindstrom)
18. 04:32 PM - Re: Ammeter surge problem (Kevin Horton)
19. 07:21 PM - Disorientation. (Sid Hausding)
20. 07:40 PM - Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) ()
21. 08:13 PM - Re: Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) (Kelly McMullen)
22. 09:50 PM - CB Size requirements? (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
23. 10:51 PM - Re: Ammeter surge problem (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
I have been following the thread bout the difference between a TC and T+B.
On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with wings
give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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: Glass Panel Layout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Paul
"I know that my thoughts and questions require speculative answers, but I
would appreciate some input from the forum"
For what its worth here is what I am doing for my VFR Europa:
****SIRS Compass
****Winter ASI
****Dynon D10A primarily for AH, Turn rate, DG and VSI (along with Vario)
and ball (along with illuminated mechanical ball)
****Sensitive TSOed Altimeter
****Ilec Vario with 1 second and 3 second switch, and switch for Total
Energy or static
****Illuminated mechanical ball
****Panel mounted Garmin 296 that will probably mutilate and void the
warrenty but get a switch on control stick to allow easy toggle to panel
page
I had a 1948 Cessna 170 with a venturi, and old style AH with no inop
flag, and a electric turn and bank. After owning the plane for 15 years,
flying a good amount at night, not IFR rated and years since practice
partial panel I took off at night from Lebanin NH. Great visibility, high
cloud deck, blackest night I have ever experienced, no lights, no horizon
and at 200 feet I was fighting to keep from rolling upside down. I knew I
had plane trimmed for take off and something was really wrong. I knew
plane well and fooled hard when first got it. Let go of controls, unless
something aerodynamic changed, I knew plane would fly, then according to
AH was past 90 degrees, got worst case of spatial disorientation ever, but
Airspeed and climb was good in free flight mode, and I practiced my plan
long ago just to add right rudder enough to keep ball reasonable centered,
and make sure compass was not turning too fast. After 1000 feet AGL
determined that the AH failed, just when I needed it most. I took it apart
and the bearings decided at that very moment to drag up just a bit. There
is a lot to be said for a airplane that will fly like a big free flight
model, and for planes that are not inherent stable, Bobs idea of making
them that way is a good one.
Good luck
Ron P.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 23 Jun 2006, at 02:55, <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
<rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> I have been following the thread bout the difference between a TC
> and T+B.
>
> On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with
> wings
> give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
>
> On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
> information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
>
I believe the Garmin 296 just looks at the rate of change of the GPS
track, and then if the track is changing it will bank the little
airplane symbol. It would be interesting to see what it showed in a
spin, where the aircraft track was essentially straight down.
The Dynon Turn rate function is somewhat similar to a T+B. But, if
any of the measured rates (i.e. pitch rate, roll yate or yaw rate) go
high enough the unit senses that the rate gyros may have been
saturated. Then it changes the display to sort of a grey on black to
tell you that it is no longer really sure what the attitude is. The
turn rate bar might be harder to see if this happens, as it might in
a spin.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Old Bob,
With all due respect, the Kennedy and Carnahan crashes have nothing to do
with the topic at hand. These accidents both happened due to COMPLACENCY and
poor CRM and the proof of it is that they both died with functioning
attitude indicators!
Kennedy failed to recognize the insidious onset of IMC and therefore did not
transition to IFR but rather stayed VFR until too late. The classic VFR into
IMC accident. He had functioning gyros and autopilot. It just never occurred
to him that he should use them! That, my esteemed colleague, is the sina qua
non of COMPLACENCY.
Carnahan also exhibited evidence of COMPLACENCY, launching into night IMC in
a complex multiengine aircraft without a competent and proficient copilot
while carrying precious cargo. He also may have suffered from a personality
style not conducive to safe flight. He had a fully functioning gyro that the
right seat pilot could easily have used. He needed to simply say to the
pilot not flying, "You watch the good AI on your side and keep the wings
level." I believe you heavy iron guys call that cockpit resource management,
or CRM. The pilot not flying also had a personality style not conducive to
safe flight. When the feces hit the fan, he was in a position to correct the
situation by keeping the wings level using his functioning AI but he didn't.
Exhibiting what I believe is referred to as inappropriate deference to
authority. A macho "I can handle it" left seater and a passive "You can
handle it better than me 'cause you're the PIC" right seater is a deadly
combo.
Rodney (still wet behind his IFR ears) in Tennessee
do not archive
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: | Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
Good Morning Ron,
The information given on the 296 is strictly yaw in relation to the ground
track, not the heading.
I believe Garmin made a mistake when they made it look like a TC because it
will NOT show roll. Showing a T&B needle would have been closer, but it
would still not be correct. I doubt very much that it would be of any use for
a
recovery from a spin. It may or may not be usable for a recovery from a well
developed grave yard spiral.
I have done flight testing using no other instrumentation other than the
handheld GPS Garmin 196, 295 and 296. the tests were conducted in a late model
Bonanza. All instruments were covered by placing a blanket over my head so that
nothing could be seen except the handheld.
The safety pilot then put the airplane in as extreme attitudes as he felt
were safe. We found that I had little trouble bringing the airplane back to a
designated altitude and heading.
Please recognize that I do maintain reasonable proficiency in normal partial
panel flight and I was flying an airplane with which I am very familiar.
\While I had no skid - slip indication other than the seat of my pants, I
did use that sense as well as I could.
I found the 296 to be the easiest to use. All three were usable, but I have
doubts as to how well I would do if the aircraft was really in trouble and I
had already lost my equilibrium before I went to the handheld. I do believe it
would be fairly easy to handle a situation where I was on top and needed to
descend through an overcast or one where the failure was noted in time to
revert to the backup before control was lost.
I think it would have been better if Garmin had shown a picture of an
airplane being looked down upon. It would turn right or left from straight ahead
when turning and be pointing straight to the top when no yaw of the ground
track existed. That would eliminate any conflict with a false sense of where up
is located and yet would allow the turn to be stopped which is what will save
your life.
I have no knowledge of how the DYNON works. Based on the excellent
information Brian Lloyd gave us, I would say it would be usable as long as no
unusual
roll, pitch or yaw rates had been encountered prior to the loss of other
reference.
I will keep my T&B for a while more!
PS I do wish to emphasize that I think anyone who does not feel completely
comfortable using a T&B for a back up instrument should plan on taking fifteen
to twenty hours of training from an instructor who does champion the
instrument to gain reasonable proficiency.
I also believe that it should be used in the pilot's everyday instrument
scan.
The FARs still tell us that we should be checking the rate of turn for every
turn we make while IFR. When maneuvering in an airspace of restricted
dimension (i.e. during an approach) we are supposed to make standard rate turns
with a limitation on bank that is dependent on whether the airplane is being
hand flown or flown using an autopilot/flight director system. Without checking
the FARs. I believe the maximum angle required to be used is thirty degrees
for hand flown and twenty-seven for most autopilot/flight director systems.
By including the T&B in normal IFR flight to check whether or not a standard
rate is being used, the instrument is constantly being monitored and any
failure of either the T&B or the attitude instrument will be readily apparent.
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 6/23/2006 3:48:27 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with wings
give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
In a message dated 6/23/2006 7:10:25 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rdunhamtn@hotmail.com writes:
Rodney (still wet behind his IFR ears) in Tennessee
Good Morning Rodney,
I really do appreciate your efforts at analyzing the problems, but I do not
believe you fully comprehend the trouble some of us get into when orientation
is lost.
My knowledge of almost everything is limited, but I do know how it feels
when I get the wrong idea as to where up is located.
My contention is that we need to emphasize that the turn needs to be
stopped. The rest can be sorted out later when the mind is back to normal. Your
mind is probably much more competent than is mine.
I know how confused I can get.
By concentrating on nothing other than stopping the turn, I have been able
to survive.
It is my non scientifically analyzed firm belief that JFK Jr and Carnahan
were both very intelligent and well rounded personalities. If you have knowledge
of their human frailties, you have knowledge beyond any that I have now or
will ever attain.
Had they gone to a last ditch mode of stopping the turn until their minds
settled down, I THINK they would have survived, but there is no doubt that I
could be very wrong!
I totally disagree with your analysis that Complacency played a part in
either situation.
Lack of PROPER training and practice played a MAJOR role.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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 |
|
Old Bob,
I do believe you have missed the point here..........with all due respect, Rod
has put the situation into perspective, and may actually be relating some of
his own experience(s)!
No one will ever know what those two pilots were going through, but the known
facts and with radars tapes to show the 'classic' symtoms.....its quite easy
to see how the 'accidents' came to happen. Not nice to see, but clearly something
we all must learn and remember as ever evolving and learning pilots.
Not trying to out vote you here, but we have to stick to the criteria for judging
these cases..........staying alert to the changing environment as we fly
is the training and learned lessons for all of us, complacency allows us to forget,
ignore, or just overrule our best intentions and training.
Believe your instruments, not the seat of your pants, if, by chance, you should
find yourself in something like they did.
Can I get a ride in your Stearman?
Sid
Alpena, Mi
N204S
--------------------------------
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/23/2006 7:10:25 A.M. Central Standard Time, rdunhamtn@hotmail.com
writes:
Rodney (still wet behind his IFR ears) in Tennessee
Good Morning Rodney,
I really do appreciate your efforts at analyzing the problems, but I do not believe
you fully comprehend the trouble some of us get into when orientation is
lost.
My knowledge of almost everything is limited, but I do know how it feels when
I get the wrong idea as to where up is located.
My contention is that we need to emphasize that the turn needs to be stopped.
The rest can be sorted out later when the mind is back to normal. Your mind
is probably much more competent than is mine.
I know how confused I can get.
By concentrating on nothing other than stopping the turn, I have been able to
survive.
It is my non scientifically analyzed firm belief that JFK Jr and Carnahan were
both very intelligent and well rounded personalities. If you have knowledge
of their human frailties, you have knowledge beyond any that I have now or will
ever attain.
Had they gone to a last ditch mode of stopping the turn until their minds settled
down, I THINK they would have survived, but there is no doubt that I could
be very wrong!
I totally disagree with your analysis that Complacency played a part in either
situation.
Lack of PROPER training and practice played a MAJOR role.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
"Why can't we all just get along?"
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football 06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
In a message dated 6/23/2006 8:59:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
avidsid@yahoo.com writes:
I do believe you have missed the point here..........
Here I must disagree. What has happened is that I have failed to make my
point.
If either of those unfortunate souls had stopped the turn, they would have
survived.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR backup (T&B or TC) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@deej.net>
Harold wrote:
> --> 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
>
>
I agree completely. I've found the discussion very useful, and does
indirectly factor into how I will be wiring my panel, so is even
somewhat on-topic. Based on this discussion, my current thoughts are to
have one glass EFIS, and TWO electric AI indicators as backup, each
having their respective battery backups if possible. If any two are
showing the same thing, the third is the one to ignore. I'll also have
a mechanical airspeed and altimeter. Although I'll concede the merits
of both the T&B and the TC, I also realize my limitations and am far
more comfortable flying with the AI.
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: Garmin 296 - Dynon D10A T+B (or TC)? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Jun 23, 2006, at 2:55 AM, <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
<rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> I have been following the thread bout the difference between a TC
> and T+B.
>
> On the panel page of a Garmin 296, does the little aeroplane with
> wings
> give information close to a T+B (or TC)?
>
> On a Dynon D10A they have a Primary function called Turn Rate, is the
> information given close to a T+B (or TC)?
It is going to be rate-of-turn, just like a T&B. The only problem is,
it is not a separate function from the vertical gyro function (AI).
If any one of the three rate gyros fail or any one of the
accelerometers fail, *all* of the gyro functions fail. So if
something goes wrong with your Dynon you have to expect to lose *all*
of the gyro functions. You are going to want some sort of backup gyro
or perhaps a second D-10 on the other side of the panel.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brianl at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
"Five percent of the people think.
Ten percent of the people think they think.
Eighty-five percent of the people would rather die than think."
---Thomas A. Edison
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 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: Disorientation. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Do Not Archive
Hi Bob ...
I've enjoyed this discussion and of course it has ignited my imagination as
to what is the solution to what seems to be a an insurmountable problem.
That problem seems to be ... positive aircraft control without visual
ground contact and with one instrument that's nearly 100% reliable. I say
nearly 100% reliable because pilots are known to hit the ground using the
MK-1 Eyeball in severe clear visual conditions. How does this happen while
using what is supposedly the most reliable gage around. The problem with
the eyeball is it has to go through the brain to get to the muscle reaction
for correction. So maybe the brain is really the fault producer in the
uninterrupted chain of events leading to the scene of the accident. The
brain can solve many problems associated with flight but it gets fooled by a
few things. Some of which are the ear, the ego and the pride. They are so
closely linked it's difficult to separate out which one got to the accident
scene first. I urge you to continue your discussion. I write this with no
intent to harm or inflame.
Someday, we'll have an situational display showing what the human eye would
see while visual. It will be generated with GPS signals and others as well,
showing a moving horizon, multicolored fields, streams and highways. Then
we can do spins in the wx and even low level high speed passes. Ooops there
goes my ego and pride showing again! Down boy!!
Respectfully submitted to my colleague and mentor, Old Bob ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Flying RV4
RV8A Electrical
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:30 PM
> --> 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
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Brain,
Something that I think needs to be mentioned here is that, according to my
understanding my Bluemountain EFIS/one and some other solid state AHRS
systems use GPS as an input to in a sense keep the AHRS honest. I looked for
but couldn't find the discussions about how this works.
Terry
RV-8A with BMA efis/one finishing
Seattle
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
<snip>
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brett Ferrell <bferrell@123mail.net>
Terry,
This has been true with the BMA products, but apparently the latest generation
does not do this.
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/showpost.php?p=9447&postcount=10
Brett
Quoting Terry Watson <terry@tcwatson.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Brain,
>
> Something that I think needs to be mentioned here is that, according to my
> understanding my Bluemountain EFIS/one and some other solid state AHRS
> systems use GPS as an input to in a sense keep the AHRS honest. I looked for
> but couldn't find the discussions about how this works.
>
> Terry
> RV-8A with BMA efis/one finishing
> Seattle
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> <snip>
>
> 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 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: Disorientation. |
Good Afternoon Jerry,
Great to hear from you. I trust your project is progressing well?
I believe we are on the same page.
I keep hoping some device will be invented that has suitable reliability,
will be usable in all flight attitudes, and that will require no special
training.
I also feel our biggest problem is how hard it is to convince those who have
not been there of the tricks that can be visited upon the minds of most of
us.
So far, the T&B, with suitable training, has been my instrument of choice.
It does seem that, with all that has been done in the roughly eighty years
since it was first used, we should be able to come up with something that is
better!
The fact that we are losing airplanes that are equipped with working
attitude gyros tells me that the current attitude gyro is NOT the answer.
Do you recall the Itzahk Jacoby accident? His attitude gyro was working just
fine. It appears that it was his directional indicator and TC that had
failed. Following Itzahk's accident, I added a second T&B to my panel. That put
me
back to the same setup I had in my first Bonanza over fifty years ago!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 6/23/2006 10:53:01 A.M. Central Standard Time,
jerry@mc.net writes:
Do Not Archive
Hi Bob ...
I've enjoyed this discussion and of course it has ignited my imagination as
to what is the solution to what seems to be a an insurmountable problem.
That problem seems to be ... positive aircraft control without visual
ground contact and with one instrument that's nearly 100% reliable. I say
nearly 100% reliable because pilots are known to hit the ground using the
MK-1 Eyeball in severe clear visual conditions. How does this happen while
using what is supposedly the most reliable gage around. The problem with
the eyeball is it has to go through the brain to get to the muscle reaction
for correction. So maybe the brain is really the fault producer in the
uninterrupted chain of events leading to the scene of the accident. The
brain can solve many problems associated with flight but it gets fooled by a
few things. Some of which are the ear, the ego and the pride. They are so
closely linked it's difficult to separate out which one got to the accident
scene first. I urge you to continue your discussion. I write this with no
intent to harm or inflame.
Someday, we'll have an situational display showing what the human eye would
see while visual. It will be generated with GPS signals and others as well,
showing a moving horizon, multicolored fields, streams and highways. Then
we can do spins in the wx and even low level high speed passes. Ooops there
goes my ego and pride showing again! Down boy!!
Respectfully submitted to my colleague and mentor, Old Bob ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Flying RV4
RV8A Electrical
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Disorientation. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Dear Old Bob,
It would be an honor to have you seated next to me showing me the ropes. I
know I'm a smart-a$$ kid wet behind the ears in such matters. I yield to
your experience and knowledge.
Rodney in Tennessee
dio not archive
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: | Ammeter surge problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Liming <gary@liming.org>
I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange problem.
When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a 30
amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
Here are some relevant facts:
1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the antenna
is installed and hooked up properly.
2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring -
all other components (like various lights) are showing a normal
current load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3 amp
load or so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load rating.
3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a voltage
range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It is not used
for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The shunt appears
to be installed ok.
4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other things
like strobes, pos lights, etc.
5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
and alternator are not operating yet.
I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
are stumped.
Any ideas?
TIA,
Gary Liming
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter surge problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Lindstrom <tigerrick@mindspring.com>
Hi, Gary!
Sounds to me like the sensitive ammeter is being swamped by the RF from
the transmitter, and that the RF carrier is somehow getting rectified
enough to create a small DC voltage across the shunt (which shows up as
a surge on the ammeter). Is there a solid state rectifier or regulator
somewhere in the RV's electrical system? It could be happening there.
I suppose there's a couple of things that might "fix" it.
1). You could trying relocating the offending antenna.
2). A small filter capacitor between the DC buss and ground might be
enough to kill the induced RF.
3). You could add a small label to the "Amps" one that says "and
Carrier Output". <grin>
Rick Lindstrom
Gary Liming wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Liming <gary@liming.org>
>
>
> I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange
> problem.
>
> When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a 30
> amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
>
> Here are some relevant facts:
>
> 1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the antenna
> is installed and hooked up properly.
>
> 2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
> cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring - all
> other components (like various lights) are showing a normal current
> load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3 amp load or
> so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load rating.
>
> 3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
> sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
> guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a voltage
> range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It is not used
> for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The shunt appears to
> be installed ok.
>
> 4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other things
> like strobes, pos lights, etc.
>
> 5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
> and alternator are not operating yet.
>
> I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
> are stumped.
>
> Any ideas?
>
>
> TIA,
>
> Gary Liming
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
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: Ammeter surge problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 23 Jun 2006, at 17:25, Gary Liming wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gary Liming <gary@liming.org>
>
>
> I am helping a friend with his RV and he is experiencing a strange
> problem.
>
> When he hits the PTT button with the radio on, the ammeter shows a
> 30 amp surge! We are trying to figure out why.
>
> Here are some relevant facts:
>
> 1. The radio works ok - transmission is clear and normal, the
> antenna is installed and hooked up properly.
>
> 2. We put a hand held ammeter in series from the battery positive
> cable to the battery post, and no such real surge is occurring -
> all other components (like various lights) are showing a normal
> current load. The radio shows a 1.3 amp load on receive, and a 3
> amp load or so on transmit - consistent with it's specified load
> rating.
>
> 3. The ammeter itself is a shunt type, the standard one that Van's
> sells. It requires a separate power input to run the meter - I am
> guessing that there is a circuit in there to compensate for a
> voltage range across the shunt, but I am guessing about that. (It
> is not used for internal lighting, that is yet another lead.) The
> shunt appears to be installed ok.
>
> 4. The same ammeter shows normal current consumption for other
> things like strobes, pos lights, etc.
>
> 5. All of this is done using only the aircraft battery. The engine
> and alternator are not operating yet.
>
> I kind of find it hard to believe that the RF is causing it, but we
> are stumped.
>
> Any ideas?
Since you have satisfied yourself that it is not a real current
spike, only a false indication, and it only happens when you
transmit, perhaps the best solution is simply to not look at the
ammeter when you transmit.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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 |
|
they augered in, how does this have anything to do with turning...........wings
level you can still die, straight down.
shee................
Sid
write to me personally avidsid@yahoo.com I'm interested in your thought
process on this one.
------------------------------------enough, unless its more to the point of homebuilt
electrics.
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 6/23/2006 8:59:26 A.M. Central Standard Time, avidsid@yahoo.com
writes:
I do believe you have missed the point here..........
Here I must disagree. What has happened is that I have failed to make my point.
If either of those unfortunate souls had stopped the turn, they would have survived.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
"Why can't we all just get along?"
---------------------------------
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
>posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
>
>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.
It has been fun debating. The T&B / TC camp has made a
great case for the T&B and I have a renewed respect for this
instrument. However it is fading from modern instrument
panels for better or worse. Clearly in the early days it was
a main stay and saving grace for the original unreliable
Artificial Horizon as they where called.
T&B is very reliable device and does tell you which way you
are yawing or turning. It is also a great cross check for the
AI when all is well or not. No doubt. However a T&B as a
stand alone back-up instrument to a EFIS, I am not a big fan.
(Look at certified Cirrus and Lancair's)
Yes the T&B or TC does give you the initial direction to recover
for a unusual attitude or spin, but I always taught and found the
subsequent final recovery is by AI. I never found the AI tumble
w/ just a single spin in one direction. Yes a basic vacuum AI
found in a Cessna has limits and hits the stops but still it is
effective as long as you are not doing aerobatics.
As some one said the AI needs no interpolation and you can
correct quickly and accurately, once you got it off the stops.
Of course modern EFIS attitude indicators are AEROBATIC
if you will.
When you where doing your spin recovery, whether you knew
it or not you where likely getting info from the AI and outside.
The fundamental of any attitude instrument flying is to cross
check, LOOK at all the instruments and interpret. Initial scan
on T&B yes, but than use all instruments.
T&B (TC) does not tumble or is less likely because it's a single
axis gimble and they are centered by a centering force (springs
or similar). The T&B (TC) stays centered when not powered.
More stable but less sensitive. A T&B is very limited but that's
it's charm. So what makes it reliable makes it less usable as
a stand alone attitude instrument.
Notice a mechanical gyro (AI) dies and flops over to the side
when you shut the power off (elect or vac). This is what makes
it more sensitive. There are centering forces (pendulum vanes),
that are more complicated than a T&B, but also allows it to tumble.
However we have progressed in technology. They early 50's
mechanical gyros where HORRIBLE and failed daily. Later
and more modern mechanical gyros, Vac or Elect since the
70's or 80's where much much better, not perfect but good.
The weak link has been for some time the dry vacuum pump.
The elect mechanical AI's are good but expensive. Now
today's EFIS with no moving parts as eclipsed the mechanical
gyro for reliability and cost are coming down. My $2000 Dynon
is an amazing piece of equipment. Not perfect but good.
Here is a good article
http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/183240-1.html
You CAN'T buy a new airliner or business plane w/ mechanical
gyros anymore. My guess is GA planes also will stop coming
w/ mech gyros and yes T&B's. Already all top end GA planes
have EFIS and no T&B. Cirrus / Lancair all EFIS and no T&B.
These top of line EIFS GA planes do come with backup
mechanical airspeed, altimeter and attitude indicator (AI)
but no T&B.
Here is the clincher, I'm NOT saying T&B /TC have NO
current use. They are required! REQUIRED by the FAR's.
If you have a regular AI you must have a T&B or TC (rate
of turn indicator). However EFIS have the RATE a turn
indication. My Dynon does.
Also the Regs allow you to omit a rate of turn indicator
altogether if you have AI's at each pilot station and one
back-up AI with independent power source. So you don't
see T&B's on Cirrus, Lancair or Jets but you will see two
or three AI's.
I bring this up because this is what the FAA says. If no
T&B is good for airliners than may be we can live with
out them, provide we have acceptable AI back-ups.
As T&B and TC become less popular with EFIS panels
the T&B price goes up. To buy an old WWII T&B is a bad
idea in my opinon. No matter if you get it rebuilt, it will
not be a safe reliable accurate instrument. (I know)
T&B and TC are not bad and have a use but it was from the
limitations of technology and the first (AI's) in the old days.
As far as inverted IFR IMC spin recovery, you are seriously
screwed at that point. The idea is an (AI) is less likely going
to allow you to get to that point, but as Bob pointed an AI
is no guarantee of success. However I say you got a better
chance with a (AI) than JUST a T&B. However the training
to read the T&B and AI (cross check) may save your tail.
I just say I never want to spin IMC. I also never want to fly
partial panel IMC (AGAIN)!
>Posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>
>Modern avionics include device traditionally called gyro's that
>contain not even one moving part. Nothing
You make good points, an electronic AI (EFIS) should keep
up with the any gyration and not tumble like an old mechanical
gyro. My Dynon EFIS is aerobatic and has a rate of turn bar.
To be fair to Bob O. back in the day old T&B where the most
reliable gyro, because the state of the art AI gyro where terrible.
My 1958 Apache came with a BIG old black and white AN job.
I did lots of partial panel.
Just flying along the ancient AI would just ROLL over and die
on occasion. It would come to life. I just ignored it and used
the DG. Thankfully I replaced the DG with a modern vertical
card, verses the old barrel window type it had. After a little while
the AI would erect again with a little LEAN. You could re-cage
and it would be fine for a while. I replaced it needless to say
with a modern AI.
Of course the Apache (a twin) had dual generators and Vac
pumps. Please no twin wars.
Again T&B or Rate of turn is still required, BUT the regs do
require it, provided you have a AI at each pilot station and
an independent AI back-up. You will not find rate of turn,
T&B or TC in jets anymore. THEY ARE GONE.
Now with a GPS hdg / track we don't use the compass much,
do we?
Do the Cirrus or Lancair Columbia have T&B's? No
(for better or worse?)
>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.
I feel your pain that is why I am making another post. (kidding)
Chill man we are having fun and learning.
I did not know you became the Post Police. May I suggest
instruments, back-up inst., redundancy and electrical
systems are very relevant.
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting
at 1/min.
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: More on the TC vs T&B (unusual attitude) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
A few points. The gyros of the 50s and sixties were actually WWII
manufacture AN gyros, and they were very good, if properly overhauled. I
flew behind them for 25 years. Only overhauled once. Only partial panel
was due to loss of vacuum. If your experience is different, you were
getting mishandled, crappy overhauls.
As for spin recovery...in a plane with the more modern 3 1/8
instruments...AH was useless throughout the recovery, still tumbled, and
once the turn was stopped, no need for AH, just ease the yoke back to
pull out of dive, still ensuring no turn.
AI or AH are still the same as made in the '70s and just as crappy.
Rarely last 5 years without overhaul, because the bearings and rotor are
much smaller than AN gyros. Only when you move up to HSI and flight
director do you get some quality bearings and long life.
Jury is still out on solid state sensors, and in the GA price range I
don't think any are approved for certified aircraft.
Rate of turn instruments can now be legally replaced with Art. Horizon
as Hal Sheevers(Sportys) prevailed with the FAA and there is advisory
circular approving same, as long as you still maintain redundant power
between the gyros.
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> It has been fun debating. The T&B / TC camp has made a
> great case for the T&B and I have a renewed respect for this
> instrument. However it is fading from modern instrument
> panels for better or worse. Clearly in the early days it was
> a main stay and saving grace for the original unreliable
> Artificial Horizon as they where called.
>
>
> When you where doing your spin recovery, whether you knew
> it or not you where likely getting info from the AI and outside.
>
> The fundamental of any attitude instrument flying is to cross
> check, LOOK at all the instruments and interpret. Initial scan
> on T&B yes, but than use all instruments.
>
>
> However we have progressed in technology. They early 50's
> mechanical gyros where HORRIBLE and failed daily. Later
> and more modern mechanical gyros, Vac or Elect since the
> 70's or 80's where much much better, not perfect but good.
>
> The weak link has been for some time the dry vacuum pump.
> The elect mechanical AI's are good but expensive. Now
> today's EFIS with no moving parts as eclipsed the mechanical
> gyro for reliability and cost are coming down. My $2000 Dynon
> is an amazing piece of equipment. Not perfect but good.
>
>
> Here is a good article
> http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/183240-1.html
>
>
> You CAN'T buy a new airliner or business plane w/ mechanical
> gyros anymore. My guess is GA planes also will stop coming
> w/ mech gyros and yes T&B's. Already all top end GA planes
> have EFIS and no T&B. Cirrus / Lancair all EFIS and no T&B.
> These top of line EIFS GA planes do come with backup
> mechanical airspeed, altimeter and attitude indicator (AI)
> but no T&B.
>
>
> Here is the clincher, I'm NOT saying T&B /TC have NO
> current use. They are required! REQUIRED by the FAR's.
> If you have a regular AI you must have a T&B or TC (rate
> of turn indicator). However EFIS have the RATE a turn
> indication. My Dynon does.
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: | CB Size requirements? |
Hello Group:
I have searched the web without any luck ... I'm looking for the CB
requirements for a King KX 125, would anyone have info on this?
Thank you for your assistance,
Barry
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: Ammeter surge problem |
In a message dated 06/23/2006 5:28:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
tigerrick@mindspring.com writes:
3). You could add a small label to the "Amps" one that says "and
Carrier Output". <grin>
>>>
Good one! I'll suggest toss the ammeter and substitute something useful like
a G-meter- problem solved! But seriously now- having heard many such reports
regarding Van's gauges, my suspicion is that the plastic case does nothing to
prevent stray xmit emf from doing its natural thing on the windings in the
meter movement. If ya gotta have an ammeter, maybe a wrap of steel flashing
material around the case might help? But then again, I built a nosedragger, so
what do I know?
Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW Mojo do not archive
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|