Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:21 AM - Re: Mag switches-what size? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 07:25 AM - Re: Fig. Z-32 Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:27 AM - Re: Wiring 2 radios w/o audio panel (6440 Auto Parts)
4. 07:31 AM - DC Generators (Wes K)
5. 08:28 AM - Re: R/C Attitude ind. (Gary)
6. 09:48 AM - Re: Re: use of toggle switch breakers (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
7. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: use of toggle switch breakers (OldBob Siegfried)
8. 11:29 AM - Re: Wiring 2 radios w/o audio panel (Brian Lloyd)
9. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: use of toggle switch breakers (Kelly McMullen)
10. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: use of toggle switch breakers (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
11. 03:22 PM - Looking for high quality signal level in-line connector (Gerry Filby)
12. 04:33 PM - Re: Looking for high quality signal level in-line connector (Matt Prather)
13. 04:44 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech (Mike)
14. 06:01 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech (6440 Auto Parts)
15. 06:23 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech (Alan K. Adamson)
16. 08:42 PM - Re: Looking for high quality signal level in-line connector (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
17. 09:12 PM - Re: encoder approval (CardinalNSB@aol.com)
18. 09:55 PM - Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech (Tim Olson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mag switches-what size? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:46 PM 8/8/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>Bob, thanks for the info. I wanted something more specific, so I called
>Unison.They said 3A @ 200V AC is the min rating, for anyone who wants to know.
Which is consistent with what I wrote. Virtually anything you purchase will
be equal to and in most cases better than what Unison calls for.
Bob . . .
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net> nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 01:45 PM 8/3/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >I want to use smaller size switches in place of the normal rotary type mag
> >switch. What is minimum current rating/volt rating for such a switch when
> >used with regular mags? Since these ground the mags, it's not clear to me
> >how to size them... any input is appreciated. Thx, Steve.
>
> Plain vanilla toggle switches are fine. See
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/s700dwg.jpg>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/s700dwg.jpg
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/switch2.jpg
>
> Magnetos are not especially "stressful" to their
> controlling switches. The standard toggle has been
> the ignition switch of choice called out in the z-figures
> since day-one irrespective of the ignition system technology.
>
> Bob . . .
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: Fig. Z-32 Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:00 PM 8/8/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>An asterisk indicates the 14 AWG wire from the Main Battery Bus to the
>E-Bus Alternate Feed Relay needs to be 6 long or less.
>
>Considering that it is protected by a fuse at the bus, why is it necessary
>to keep it short?
Few recommendations are "necessary" . . . obviously, one may
wire stuff up without regard to lengths, location and in many
cases, wire size and the system will "function".
There are recommendations that enhance performance and/or
reduce risks. The relay in question is a mini-battery contactor.
Decades old conventional wisdom suggests that battery contactors
be located as close as practical to the battery so as to minimize
the length of potentially "unprotected" or "uncontrolled, always-hot"
wires.
If you wanted to make it 12" or 12-feet, the system would still
operate as intended . . . the suggestion is that you make it
as short as practical.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 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: Wiring 2 radios w/o audio panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
Makes sense, let's set him up to listen both radio's. No NAV to be
switched.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 6:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring 2 radios w/o audio panel
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 8, 2006, at 6:39 PM, 6440 Auto Parts wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
> Brian he wants to use headphones but no loudspeaker, he will
> only use one radio at a time, and he has a 2 place in panel intercom (he
> thinks it's Sigtronics but not sure without looking)
Hmm. If it were me I would want to be able listen to comm 2 while
using comm 1 to communicate. For example, I would want to listen to
comm 2 to hear ATIS while continuing to monitor and communicate with
ATC on comm 1.
And what about nav? Any of the radios have nav output?
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Wes K <wsknettl@centurytel.net>
Hello,
Thanks for the quick replies. I assumed as much but wanted to be sure I
wasn't overlooking anything. In this case someone in the past installed
the wrong generator. I was sure the 35 amp generator would not work with
50 amp periphials safely but was not 100 percent sure on the 50 amp
generator with 35 amp peripheals.
Thanks agian,
Wes K
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: | R/C Attitude ind. |
Thanks Carl
But are you sure it's not pin A: +14vdc
Pin B: Gnd
Thanks
G
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Morgan
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:50 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: R/C Attitude ind.
Ok - my mistake - I just looked at our non-lighted version rather than
RTFMing....
Pin A: Gnd
Pin B: +14VDC
on the label on the back, and I've just powered it up - noisy!
YMMV...
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carl
Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2006 12:05 p.m.
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: R/C Attitude ind.
Connector: MS3116E8-4S
Pin A: Gnd
Pin B: Gnd lights
Pin C: +14 VDC
Pin D: 0 - +14 VDC Lights
<http://www.kellymfg.com/data/RCA26brochure.pdf>
http://www.kellymfg.com/data/RCA26brochure.pdf
Page 2 - upper right corner. The information is also on a sticker on the
back of my gyro.
HTH,
Carl
--
ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - finishing? - New Zealand
http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gary
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2006 5:05 a.m.
Subject: AeroElectric-List: R/C Attitude ind.
I have an electric r/c allen attitude indicator and there are 4 pins in the
back A,B,C,D Does anyone know how I should wire this up?
Thank you
G.
RV8 Wirrrrrrrrrrring
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: use of toggle switch breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 8/4/06 8:18:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
oldbob@beechowners.com writes:
> Good Morning Barry,
>
> If you don't mind, may I make a small comment?
>
> I will not attempt to make a determination as to
> whether or not the proposed alteration is minor or
> major, but will add that no 337 needs to be filed for
> a minor alteration.
>
> The determination can be made by the appropriately
> certificated technician making the change.
>
> He or she is required to state what has been done by
> making an entry in the appropriate ship's papers.
>
> There is always the possibility that some authorized
> person such as an A&P holding an IA may later decide
> that the installation is not minor and refuse to
> declare the aircraft as airworthy. I would, therefor,
> suggest that whoever is going to annual the airplane
> be consulted. If the A&P who is going to authorize the
> change is also the IA who is going to perform the
> annual inspection, forget the 337!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old bob
======================
Hello Old Bob:
If it is a GA aircraft it would be a MAJOR alteration. Since you are
changing the wiring configuration. It would not match the submitted drawing for
the
plane.
As for 337's, I don't see why people are scared of them. There is a simple
16 question outline that must be followed. And there are provisions where if
you think there may be a problem getting a 337 approved you submit a request.
I really like 337's and use them all the time. They are a GREAT way to keep
track of a plane by showing what was done and it adds to the value when selling.
Just because one A&P/I may accept a 'gray area' alteration does not mean the
next guy will. A simple 337 eliminates the 'gray area'.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: use of toggle switch breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Afternoon Barry,
Once Again, I am not making any decision as to whether
or not the modification in question is major or minor.
That is totally a decision to be made by the
authorized person making the decision.
I gladly defer to his or her judgment.
However, I strongly disagree with the following
statement:
"Just because one A&P/I may accept a 'gray area'
alteration does not mean the next guy will. A simple
337 eliminates the 'gray area'."
Filing a 337 does not change the legality or the
potential for discussion.
There is no 16 step set of directions needed to file a
337. The 16 point guide is for the "Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness" that is to be filed if a
local approval is requested.
A routine 337 is to be filed for many reasons, but the
ICA requirement only applies if a local approval or
multiple time STC is being applied for.
Filing a 337 for a minor alteration is asking the FAA
to make a decision that should be made by the
responsible technician. If you don't know what your
authority is, maybe you should not be making such
decisions?
I do agree with you that applying for a local approval
is a relatively simple procedure, though getting the
approval has become more difficult than it was in the
past. I also agree that if you do intend to ask for a
local approval, it is best to supply a proposed
solution before any "metal is cut".
Happy Skies,
Old "Successful at several local approvals" Bob
--- FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/4/06 8:18:13 AM Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> oldbob@beechowners.com writes:
>
> > Good Morning Barry,
> >
> > If you don't mind, may I make a small comment?
> >
> > I will not attempt to make a determination as to
> > whether or not the proposed alteration is minor
> or
> > major, but will add that no 337 needs to be filed
> for
> > a minor alteration.
> >
> > The determination can be made by the
> appropriately
> > certificated technician making the change.
> >
> > He or she is required to state what has been done
> by
> > making an entry in the appropriate ship's papers.
> >
> > There is always the possibility that some
> authorized
> > person such as an A&P holding an IA may later
> decide
> > that the installation is not minor and refuse to
> > declare the aircraft as airworthy. I would,
> therefor,
> > suggest that whoever is going to annual the
> airplane
> > be consulted. If the A&P who is going to
> authorize the
> > change is also the IA who is going to perform the
> > annual inspection, forget the 337!
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old bob
> ======================
> Hello Old Bob:
>
> If it is a GA aircraft it would be a MAJOR
> alteration. Since you are
> changing the wiring configuration. It would not
> match the submitted drawing for the
> plane.
>
> As for 337's, I don't see why people are scared of
> them. There is a simple
> 16 question outline that must be followed. And
> there are provisions where if
> you think there may be a problem getting a 337
> approved you submit a request.
>
> I really like 337's and use them all the time. They
> are a GREAT way to keep
> track of a plane by showing what was done and it
> adds to the value when selling.
>
> Just because one A&P/I may accept a 'gray area'
> alteration does not mean the
> next guy will. A simple 337 eliminates the 'gray
> area'.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second
> time, kick them the third
> time."
> Yamashiada
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> (was 2MB)
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Wiring 2 radios w/o audio panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:28 AM, 6440 Auto Parts wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
> Makes sense, let's set him up to listen both radio's. No
> NAV to be switched.
Someone else already replied and gave you the answer I would have.
Use a DPDT switch to switch the mic and PTT output of the intercom
between com1 and com2. Take the headphone outputs from com1, com2,
nav1, and nav2 (if they exist) and route them to the intercom input
(the intercom should have a headphone level input that would
ordinarily come from the audio panel headphone output) each through a
100 ohm resistor. Now you can use the individual volume controls on
the radios to select audio source.
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 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: use of toggle switch breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
What you say is nice in theory. However, I have yet to work on a TC
aircraft that has 337s with circuit diagrams available, nor does
changing the actual circuitry necessarily constitute a major
alteration unless it fits the definition in Part 43 Appendix A. If the
change is transparent to the pilot and doesn't affect how the plane is
operated, it isn't necessarily major. Will also depend a lot on the
local FSDO. Some would want a 337 if you changed brands of circuit
breaker, while others don't want to even talk to you unless the change
is meaningful in the Appendix A context.
In fact I have worked on a lot of wiring done by FAA certified
avionics repair stations that doesn't come close to meeting the
guidance in 43-13-1B and 2A, with 337s filed, that I would still
reject as unairworthy if I were doing the inspection.
KM
A&P/IA
Quoting FLYaDIVE@aol.com:
> Hello Old Bob:
>
> If it is a GA aircraft it would be a MAJOR alteration. Since you are
> changing the wiring configuration. It would not match the submitted
> drawing for the
> plane.
>
> As for 337's, I don't see why people are scared of them. There is a simple
> 16 question outline that must be followed. And there are provisions where if
> you think there may be a problem getting a 337 approved you submit a request.
>
> I really like 337's and use them all the time. They are a GREAT way to keep
> track of a plane by showing what was done and it adds to the value
> when selling.
>
> Just because one A&P/I may accept a 'gray area' alteration does not mean the
> next guy will. A simple 337 eliminates the 'gray area'.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
> time."
> Yamashiada
>
>
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: use of toggle switch breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 8/9/06 2:39:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
kellym@aviating.com writes:
> In fact I have worked on a lot of wiring done by FAA certified
> avionics repair stations that doesn't come close to meeting the
> guidance in 43-13-1B and 2A, with 337s filed, that I would still
> reject as unairworthy if I were doing the inspection.
>
> KM
> A&P/IA
========================
Kelly:
Good for you ... I have also. How about 4 crimp on splices in a 2 ft run!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: | Looking for high quality signal level in-line connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
I'm installing the LightSpeed Plasma II+ ignition in my RV-9.
The wiring loom from LSE comes pre-fabricated from the crank
sensor in the flywheel all the way to the DB25 that connects to
the ignition module.
I want to put a disconnect in the crank sensor cable forward of
the firewall so that if I ever have to remove the engine, I
don't have to rip up the wiring inside the panel aft of the
firewall which, is where the ignition module will be housed.
Can anyone suggest a good quality in line connector that can
serve ? It needs to have six wires, 2 of which are for the
separate shields on the two separate channels.
I guess the requirement is that the connector should be capable
of resisting the typical heat within the cowling, cable of
mechanically isolating "pin" connections from any vibration in
the cable sheathing, have good shielding capabilities (since
its a sensor cable).
Thanks in advance ...
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
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: Looking for high quality signal level in-line |
connector
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hello Gerry,
This answer may get boos from the gallery, but if you need a connector
inline, I'd consider a regular old low density DB-9 (with the shells).
The specs I see show that it's common for them to be rated to operate up
to 125degC (257degF). Tefzel wire only appears to be rated to 150degC
which is not too much hotter. The ignition wires should be routed
carefully to avoid hot things and eliminate chafing anyway.
As far as dealing with the shields, don't worry about it. Just split the
shields from the centers as close as practical to the connecter on each
side, wire each shield to a seperate connector pin, and that's it (like
each signal pin). The efficiency with which noise can get out of or into
that short a break in the shield will be inconsequential.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
> I'm installing the LightSpeed Plasma II+ ignition in my RV-9.
> The wiring loom from LSE comes pre-fabricated from the crank
> sensor in the flywheel all the way to the DB25 that connects to
> the ignition module.
>
> I want to put a disconnect in the crank sensor cable forward of
> the firewall so that if I ever have to remove the engine, I
> don't have to rip up the wiring inside the panel aft of the
> firewall which, is where the ignition module will be housed.
>
> Can anyone suggest a good quality in line connector that can
> serve ? It needs to have six wires, 2 of which are for the
> separate shields on the two separate channels.
>
> I guess the requirement is that the connector should be capable
> of resisting the typical heat within the cowling, cable of
> mechanically isolating "pin" connections from any vibration in
> the cable sheathing, have good shielding capabilities (since
> its a sensor cable).
>
> Thanks in advance ...
>
> __g__
>
> =========================================================
> Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
> Tel: 415 203 9177
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
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: | EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
Tim,
Well written! I too fly behind the Chelton system and have worked with
the 420/425 and the problems that continue to plaque the unit. One of
the issue is the influence the GPS has over the gyro output. If you get
a map shift with the 420/425 due to a position error or reception error
you also get a gyro shift at the same time. This is not good in IMC.
The 425 had other problems with gyro initialization with low startup
voltage. This caused the unit to fail on initialization. Another
problem is a P-static ground feed back issue that has not been fully and
technically explained to me. The fixes for the units in question only
fix the later two issues, not the first issue. It is my opinion the
design philosophy to allow the GPS position to have influence over the
GYRO platform on the 420/425 unit is unacceptable and unworkable without
a redesign.
Mike Larkin
Lancair Legacy
TS-11 Iskra
Kitfox IV (All Flying!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Olson
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I have just a couple things to add about EFIS Choices.
As someone said, make a list of your requirements on paper before you
go shopping. Read as much as you can so you even KNOW all of the
features you may be looking for. Then pick an EFIS that has as
much as possible that's on your list. Everyone's list will be
different.
Fly behind anything you think you might want to buy. It will
be an incredibly valuable experience. I nearly built an RV-6
at one point...but flew one first and that put me into a holding
pattern. An EFIS is a complex piece of equipment. It's worth
a few hundred bucks to find someone and fly behind one.
One thing that people always forget about with their EFIS is
database updates. A GRT or BMA might be a fine EFIS for you,
but if you're going to rely on them to fly approaches, remember
that you're going to need a current database. Or if you're
controlling the approach with a 430/530/480, you will need
a current one there....or at least a current chart in hand
and the ability to keep in close enough touch during the
approach that you don't let your fancy GPS/Com or EFIS fly
you on a non-current approach. I have a Chelton system, with
a database subscription. If you can't get a database update
on a 28 day cycle for whatever your primary navigation gear is,
you're going to be severely limited. That's my main gripe
about the GRT stuff, by the way. You really need to look at
the whole big picture in this much detail.
As far as the AHRS goes, I think someone needs to set the record
straight on the 420/425/500 stuff being flung around. The 420
and 425 are pretty darn close, and I've been seeing lots of
actual data lately showing there are some GPS issues with the
unit that may be causing some of the failures people are having.
I'd be a bit leery until the company has it solved and wouldn't
assume the 420 isn't affected. I've now heard that numerous
425 owners who have "fixed" units are still having problems.
Then, dig in a bit further and ask someone in the know EXACTLY
what is the difference between the real certified 500 system,
and the "500 based" systems that are being touted around. Lots
of people are saying theirs use the 500, but in at least
some cases, it is not truly the same 500....but a 500 with
some of the specialties removed...turning it into a slightly
less ruggedized and non-certified experimental unit. Do some
serious research into this.
Don't forget cost. Nobody should take offense when someone picks
an EFIS that's not their favorite. I personally thought the GRT
stuff looked pretty good for that budget. Things like the
database updates, and the screen quality knocked them out for me,
but for some buyers, it may be their dream panel. Everyone has
a different mission. It's also nice to see people like Deems
try something a little less common in our EFIS world. The OP
stuff hasn't really been as popular with our "budget" kits, so
it'll be interesting to see how it all goes. It is definitely
different than the other offerings.
As far as screen size, having never flown behind the huge
screen systems, but having flown behind my Cheltons, I personally
can't see why a bigger screen is necessarily better. It would
depend on how flexible the information placement is. Certainly
though, numerous smaller screens can be just as effective as
a pair of larger screen. Since our panels are only so big, we
have limited space, and depending on your personal requirements
for backup systems, you may not have the space you want for
big screens. Just rest assured that big or small, you should
be able to get all the functionality you need into your panel,
and from a practical point of view I really don't see that the
size would matter much, as long as you have something in the
neighborhood of the size of the GRT's.
There's just way too much involved in these decisions, and
making them can be quite trying at times. Just make sure you
don't sell yourself short an make a quick and rash decision.
One minor note: For those who demand dual AHRS systems, I know
the GRT already does this, but now with the Pinpoints for
the Cheltons you have that option as well. Not a requirement
for everyone, but just so you know, there is now the option.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Alan K. Adamson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
<aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Um, who said anything about "integrated" as OP does. I'll rephrase
that to
> "faceless". The Cheltons are standalone radios/Transponder that can
be
> integrated into the FMS. I have no idea of price but I understand
they will
> be available in standalone with the funky screws and standalone with
regular
> mounting (for us normal folks). They may also come with a removable
face
> that would let you mount the bulk of the hardware elsewhere.
>
> Also, not sure what you are talking about on the radios. The card
that I
> saw looked normal, and here is the webpage, the displays are 2 digits
past
> the decimal, just like everyone else. The unit on top is a
transponder.
>
> http://www.d2av.com/Radios/
>
> Alan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
> Builder (Michael Sausen)
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:24 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Just talked to Josh and you are correct. They look very nice! About
> the same price as a G900. Just like the OP though, I don't see the
> point of an integrated radios. Lot more money for not much added
> functionality. Personal preference I guess. One thing I thought was
funny
> was the number of digits on the radio display at OSH. Only one digit
past
> the decimal point. Hmmmm.
>
> Michael Sausen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Alan K.
> Adamson
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:09 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> --> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Uh, don't think that's true.... Maybe I got my inches wrong, but D2AV
had a
> handout of the "large display" (could it have been 8.4", I don't
> remember")... Coming soon to an Avionics Shop near your. Not just for
the
> Certified guys, but also for the EX guys...plus new digital radios.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
> Builder (Michael Sausen)
> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:52 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> Sorry, one last thing. The 10" Chelton screen is only available in
the
> certified model. If you need to ask how much you can't afford it.
:-)
>
> Michael Sausen
> RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
--
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
I am not technicly minded but that is the reason I decided on
the GRT they claim their gyro system is indipendant of the GPS.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> Tim,
>
> Well written! I too fly behind the Chelton system and have worked with
> the 420/425 and the problems that continue to plaque the unit. One of
> the issue is the influence the GPS has over the gyro output. If you get
> a map shift with the 420/425 due to a position error or reception error
> you also get a gyro shift at the same time. This is not good in IMC.
> The 425 had other problems with gyro initialization with low startup
> voltage. This caused the unit to fail on initialization. Another
> problem is a P-static ground feed back issue that has not been fully and
> technically explained to me. The fixes for the units in question only
> fix the later two issues, not the first issue. It is my opinion the
> design philosophy to allow the GPS position to have influence over the
> GYRO platform on the 420/425 unit is unacceptable and unworkable without
> a redesign.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> Lancair Legacy
> TS-11 Iskra
> Kitfox IV (All Flying!)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:57 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I have just a couple things to add about EFIS Choices.
>
> As someone said, make a list of your requirements on paper before you
> go shopping. Read as much as you can so you even KNOW all of the
> features you may be looking for. Then pick an EFIS that has as
> much as possible that's on your list. Everyone's list will be
> different.
>
> Fly behind anything you think you might want to buy. It will
> be an incredibly valuable experience. I nearly built an RV-6
> at one point...but flew one first and that put me into a holding
> pattern. An EFIS is a complex piece of equipment. It's worth
> a few hundred bucks to find someone and fly behind one.
>
> One thing that people always forget about with their EFIS is
> database updates. A GRT or BMA might be a fine EFIS for you,
> but if you're going to rely on them to fly approaches, remember
> that you're going to need a current database. Or if you're
> controlling the approach with a 430/530/480, you will need
> a current one there....or at least a current chart in hand
> and the ability to keep in close enough touch during the
> approach that you don't let your fancy GPS/Com or EFIS fly
> you on a non-current approach. I have a Chelton system, with
> a database subscription. If you can't get a database update
> on a 28 day cycle for whatever your primary navigation gear is,
> you're going to be severely limited. That's my main gripe
> about the GRT stuff, by the way. You really need to look at
> the whole big picture in this much detail.
>
> As far as the AHRS goes, I think someone needs to set the record
> straight on the 420/425/500 stuff being flung around. The 420
> and 425 are pretty darn close, and I've been seeing lots of
> actual data lately showing there are some GPS issues with the
> unit that may be causing some of the failures people are having.
> I'd be a bit leery until the company has it solved and wouldn't
> assume the 420 isn't affected. I've now heard that numerous
> 425 owners who have "fixed" units are still having problems.
> Then, dig in a bit further and ask someone in the know EXACTLY
> what is the difference between the real certified 500 system,
> and the "500 based" systems that are being touted around. Lots
> of people are saying theirs use the 500, but in at least
> some cases, it is not truly the same 500....but a 500 with
> some of the specialties removed...turning it into a slightly
> less ruggedized and non-certified experimental unit. Do some
> serious research into this.
>
> Don't forget cost. Nobody should take offense when someone picks
> an EFIS that's not their favorite. I personally thought the GRT
> stuff looked pretty good for that budget. Things like the
> database updates, and the screen quality knocked them out for me,
> but for some buyers, it may be their dream panel. Everyone has
> a different mission. It's also nice to see people like Deems
> try something a little less common in our EFIS world. The OP
> stuff hasn't really been as popular with our "budget" kits, so
> it'll be interesting to see how it all goes. It is definitely
> different than the other offerings.
>
> As far as screen size, having never flown behind the huge
> screen systems, but having flown behind my Cheltons, I personally
> can't see why a bigger screen is necessarily better. It would
> depend on how flexible the information placement is. Certainly
> though, numerous smaller screens can be just as effective as
> a pair of larger screen. Since our panels are only so big, we
> have limited space, and depending on your personal requirements
> for backup systems, you may not have the space you want for
> big screens. Just rest assured that big or small, you should
> be able to get all the functionality you need into your panel,
> and from a practical point of view I really don't see that the
> size would matter much, as long as you have something in the
> neighborhood of the size of the GRT's.
>
> There's just way too much involved in these decisions, and
> making them can be quite trying at times. Just make sure you
> don't sell yourself short an make a quick and rash decision.
>
> One minor note: For those who demand dual AHRS systems, I know
> the GRT already does this, but now with the Pinpoints for
> the Cheltons you have that option as well. Not a requirement
> for everyone, but just so you know, there is now the option.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Alan K. Adamson wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Um, who said anything about "integrated" as OP does. I'll rephrase
> that to
>> "faceless". The Cheltons are standalone radios/Transponder that can
> be
>> integrated into the FMS. I have no idea of price but I understand
> they will
>> be available in standalone with the funky screws and standalone with
> regular
>> mounting (for us normal folks). They may also come with a removable
> face
>> that would let you mount the bulk of the hardware elsewhere.
>>
>> Also, not sure what you are talking about on the radios. The card
> that I
>> saw looked normal, and here is the webpage, the displays are 2 digits
> past
>> the decimal, just like everyone else. The unit on top is a
> transponder.
>>
>> http://www.d2av.com/Radios/
>>
>> Alan
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
>> Builder (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:24 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
>> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Just talked to Josh and you are correct. They look very nice! About
>> the same price as a G900. Just like the OP though, I don't see the
>> point of an integrated radios. Lot more money for not much added
>> functionality. Personal preference I guess. One thing I thought was
> funny
>> was the number of digits on the radio display at OSH. Only one digit
> past
>> the decimal point. Hmmmm.
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Alan K.
>> Adamson
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:09 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
>> --> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Uh, don't think that's true.... Maybe I got my inches wrong, but D2AV
> had a
>> handout of the "large display" (could it have been 8.4", I don't
>> remember")... Coming soon to an Avionics Shop near your. Not just for
> the
>> Certified guys, but also for the EX guys...plus new digital radios.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
>> Builder (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:52 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
>> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Sorry, one last thing. The 10" Chelton screen is only available in
> the
>> certified model. If you need to ask how much you can't afford it.
> :-)
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>> RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Easy to figure out if true... Unplug one or the other and see what happens.
Make sure you wait awhile after and then turn things thru their motions.
Most items that "self erect" after power loss do so via GPS aiding.
I suppose that terms needs to be mentioned as well. There is totally
separate, GPS aided, but still can function in a basic fashion if either
fail, then there it totally integrated. Luckily, I know of none of the
later. Most fall into the middle, but a few can function if one or the
other fail.
Even the G1000 is GPS aided btw, that's how they can "quick" erect in
flight. Its not a bad thing, it can be a good thing if done correctly.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 6440 Auto
Parts
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
--> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
I am not technicly minded but that is the reason I decided on
the GRT they claim their gyro system is indipendant of the GPS.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> Tim,
>
> Well written! I too fly behind the Chelton system and have worked with
> the 420/425 and the problems that continue to plaque the unit. One of
> the issue is the influence the GPS has over the gyro output. If you get
> a map shift with the 420/425 due to a position error or reception error
> you also get a gyro shift at the same time. This is not good in IMC.
> The 425 had other problems with gyro initialization with low startup
> voltage. This caused the unit to fail on initialization. Another
> problem is a P-static ground feed back issue that has not been fully and
> technically explained to me. The fixes for the units in question only
> fix the later two issues, not the first issue. It is my opinion the
> design philosophy to allow the GPS position to have influence over the
> GYRO platform on the 420/425 unit is unacceptable and unworkable without
> a redesign.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> Lancair Legacy
> TS-11 Iskra
> Kitfox IV (All Flying!)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:57 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I have just a couple things to add about EFIS Choices.
>
> As someone said, make a list of your requirements on paper before you
> go shopping. Read as much as you can so you even KNOW all of the
> features you may be looking for. Then pick an EFIS that has as
> much as possible that's on your list. Everyone's list will be
> different.
>
> Fly behind anything you think you might want to buy. It will
> be an incredibly valuable experience. I nearly built an RV-6
> at one point...but flew one first and that put me into a holding
> pattern. An EFIS is a complex piece of equipment. It's worth
> a few hundred bucks to find someone and fly behind one.
>
> One thing that people always forget about with their EFIS is
> database updates. A GRT or BMA might be a fine EFIS for you,
> but if you're going to rely on them to fly approaches, remember
> that you're going to need a current database. Or if you're
> controlling the approach with a 430/530/480, you will need
> a current one there....or at least a current chart in hand
> and the ability to keep in close enough touch during the
> approach that you don't let your fancy GPS/Com or EFIS fly
> you on a non-current approach. I have a Chelton system, with
> a database subscription. If you can't get a database update
> on a 28 day cycle for whatever your primary navigation gear is,
> you're going to be severely limited. That's my main gripe
> about the GRT stuff, by the way. You really need to look at
> the whole big picture in this much detail.
>
> As far as the AHRS goes, I think someone needs to set the record
> straight on the 420/425/500 stuff being flung around. The 420
> and 425 are pretty darn close, and I've been seeing lots of
> actual data lately showing there are some GPS issues with the
> unit that may be causing some of the failures people are having.
> I'd be a bit leery until the company has it solved and wouldn't
> assume the 420 isn't affected. I've now heard that numerous
> 425 owners who have "fixed" units are still having problems.
> Then, dig in a bit further and ask someone in the know EXACTLY
> what is the difference between the real certified 500 system,
> and the "500 based" systems that are being touted around. Lots
> of people are saying theirs use the 500, but in at least
> some cases, it is not truly the same 500....but a 500 with
> some of the specialties removed...turning it into a slightly
> less ruggedized and non-certified experimental unit. Do some
> serious research into this.
>
> Don't forget cost. Nobody should take offense when someone picks
> an EFIS that's not their favorite. I personally thought the GRT
> stuff looked pretty good for that budget. Things like the
> database updates, and the screen quality knocked them out for me,
> but for some buyers, it may be their dream panel. Everyone has
> a different mission. It's also nice to see people like Deems
> try something a little less common in our EFIS world. The OP
> stuff hasn't really been as popular with our "budget" kits, so
> it'll be interesting to see how it all goes. It is definitely
> different than the other offerings.
>
> As far as screen size, having never flown behind the huge
> screen systems, but having flown behind my Cheltons, I personally
> can't see why a bigger screen is necessarily better. It would
> depend on how flexible the information placement is. Certainly
> though, numerous smaller screens can be just as effective as
> a pair of larger screen. Since our panels are only so big, we
> have limited space, and depending on your personal requirements
> for backup systems, you may not have the space you want for
> big screens. Just rest assured that big or small, you should
> be able to get all the functionality you need into your panel,
> and from a practical point of view I really don't see that the
> size would matter much, as long as you have something in the
> neighborhood of the size of the GRT's.
>
> There's just way too much involved in these decisions, and
> making them can be quite trying at times. Just make sure you
> don't sell yourself short an make a quick and rash decision.
>
> One minor note: For those who demand dual AHRS systems, I know
> the GRT already does this, but now with the Pinpoints for
> the Cheltons you have that option as well. Not a requirement
> for everyone, but just so you know, there is now the option.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Alan K. Adamson wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Um, who said anything about "integrated" as OP does. I'll rephrase
> that to
>> "faceless". The Cheltons are standalone radios/Transponder that can
> be
>> integrated into the FMS. I have no idea of price but I understand
> they will
>> be available in standalone with the funky screws and standalone with
> regular
>> mounting (for us normal folks). They may also come with a removable
> face
>> that would let you mount the bulk of the hardware elsewhere.
>>
>> Also, not sure what you are talking about on the radios. The card
> that I
>> saw looked normal, and here is the webpage, the displays are 2 digits
> past
>> the decimal, just like everyone else. The unit on top is a
> transponder.
>>
>> http://www.d2av.com/Radios/
>>
>> Alan
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
>> Builder (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:24 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
>> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Just talked to Josh and you are correct. They look very nice! About
>> the same price as a G900. Just like the OP though, I don't see the
>> point of an integrated radios. Lot more money for not much added
>> functionality. Personal preference I guess. One thing I thought was
> funny
>> was the number of digits on the radio display at OSH. Only one digit
> past
>> the decimal point. Hmmmm.
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Alan K.
>> Adamson
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:09 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
>> --> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Uh, don't think that's true.... Maybe I got my inches wrong, but D2AV
> had a
>> handout of the "large display" (could it have been 8.4", I don't
>> remember")... Coming soon to an Avionics Shop near your. Not just for
> the
>> Certified guys, but also for the EX guys...plus new digital radios.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
>> Builder (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:52 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
>> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Sorry, one last thing. The 10" Chelton screen is only available in
> the
>> certified model. If you need to ask how much you can't afford it.
> :-)
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>> RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Looking for high quality signal level in-line connector |
In a message dated 8/9/2006 6:26:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gerf@gerf.com writes:
Can anyone suggest a good quality in line connector that can
serve ? It needs to have six wires, 2 of which are for the
separate shields on the two separate channels.
Gerry,
The DE-9 (usually called DB-9) is a good choice. Some do come with Teflon
insulation, but I can't give you a part number. Those should be good for
under cowl temperatures. If any of the wires carry significant average current,
I would parallel 2 or more pins. Whatever is done in the DB-25 should work
going thru the firewall too. FWIW I have used these connectors for 70 amps
peak on a single pin in CD ignition systems with no problems. This was a
prototype of an Indy car system.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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: encoder approval |
Is the Rocky Mountain encoder approved for certificated aircraft, the
factory says that "it conforms to c88a", is that enough, or is there more needed.
Any opinions on the unit. Thanks, Skip Simpson
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
I believe your spot on, Mike, with the link between the GPS
and some of these issues. I saw a graph recently of the
TAS, IAS, and GS logged by a 425, during a time when it went
nuts. The GPS readout was whacked, with spikes well above
any TAS and IAS value. The interesting thing was that the
unit did not throw an error bit that the GPS was unreliable,
and it apparently thought the GPS was fine. To the pilot,
the GPS was still locked on. So the unit didn't deal with
something right in regards to the GPS, either the signal, or
some calculation....but something hosed that 425, and it
was a "fixed" model. I've heard some interesting stories
regarding case design, and anodization and other things that
have caused some strange effects too.
Flying a Pinpoint today. Just got my production unit
this evening and should be flying it this weekend.
Had an engineering unit for the past few weeks. It's
looking like the people who get them will be pleasantly
surprised. It is very smooth in-flight.
Tim Olson
do not archive
Mike wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
> Tim,
>
> Well written! I too fly behind the Chelton system and have worked with
> the 420/425 and the problems that continue to plaque the unit. One of
> the issue is the influence the GPS has over the gyro output. If you get
> a map shift with the 420/425 due to a position error or reception error
> you also get a gyro shift at the same time. This is not good in IMC.
> The 425 had other problems with gyro initialization with low startup
> voltage. This caused the unit to fail on initialization. Another
> problem is a P-static ground feed back issue that has not been fully and
> technically explained to me. The fixes for the units in question only
> fix the later two issues, not the first issue. It is my opinion the
> design philosophy to allow the GPS position to have influence over the
> GYRO platform on the 420/425 unit is unacceptable and unworkable without
> a redesign.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> Lancair Legacy
> TS-11 Iskra
> Kitfox IV (All Flying!)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
> Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 10:57 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> I have just a couple things to add about EFIS Choices.
>
> As someone said, make a list of your requirements on paper before you
> go shopping. Read as much as you can so you even KNOW all of the
> features you may be looking for. Then pick an EFIS that has as
> much as possible that's on your list. Everyone's list will be
> different.
>
> Fly behind anything you think you might want to buy. It will
> be an incredibly valuable experience. I nearly built an RV-6
> at one point...but flew one first and that put me into a holding
> pattern. An EFIS is a complex piece of equipment. It's worth
> a few hundred bucks to find someone and fly behind one.
>
> One thing that people always forget about with their EFIS is
> database updates. A GRT or BMA might be a fine EFIS for you,
> but if you're going to rely on them to fly approaches, remember
> that you're going to need a current database. Or if you're
> controlling the approach with a 430/530/480, you will need
> a current one there....or at least a current chart in hand
> and the ability to keep in close enough touch during the
> approach that you don't let your fancy GPS/Com or EFIS fly
> you on a non-current approach. I have a Chelton system, with
> a database subscription. If you can't get a database update
> on a 28 day cycle for whatever your primary navigation gear is,
> you're going to be severely limited. That's my main gripe
> about the GRT stuff, by the way. You really need to look at
> the whole big picture in this much detail.
>
> As far as the AHRS goes, I think someone needs to set the record
> straight on the 420/425/500 stuff being flung around. The 420
> and 425 are pretty darn close, and I've been seeing lots of
> actual data lately showing there are some GPS issues with the
> unit that may be causing some of the failures people are having.
> I'd be a bit leery until the company has it solved and wouldn't
> assume the 420 isn't affected. I've now heard that numerous
> 425 owners who have "fixed" units are still having problems.
> Then, dig in a bit further and ask someone in the know EXACTLY
> what is the difference between the real certified 500 system,
> and the "500 based" systems that are being touted around. Lots
> of people are saying theirs use the 500, but in at least
> some cases, it is not truly the same 500....but a 500 with
> some of the specialties removed...turning it into a slightly
> less ruggedized and non-certified experimental unit. Do some
> serious research into this.
>
> Don't forget cost. Nobody should take offense when someone picks
> an EFIS that's not their favorite. I personally thought the GRT
> stuff looked pretty good for that budget. Things like the
> database updates, and the screen quality knocked them out for me,
> but for some buyers, it may be their dream panel. Everyone has
> a different mission. It's also nice to see people like Deems
> try something a little less common in our EFIS world. The OP
> stuff hasn't really been as popular with our "budget" kits, so
> it'll be interesting to see how it all goes. It is definitely
> different than the other offerings.
>
> As far as screen size, having never flown behind the huge
> screen systems, but having flown behind my Cheltons, I personally
> can't see why a bigger screen is necessarily better. It would
> depend on how flexible the information placement is. Certainly
> though, numerous smaller screens can be just as effective as
> a pair of larger screen. Since our panels are only so big, we
> have limited space, and depending on your personal requirements
> for backup systems, you may not have the space you want for
> big screens. Just rest assured that big or small, you should
> be able to get all the functionality you need into your panel,
> and from a practical point of view I really don't see that the
> size would matter much, as long as you have something in the
> neighborhood of the size of the GRT's.
>
> There's just way too much involved in these decisions, and
> making them can be quite trying at times. Just make sure you
> don't sell yourself short an make a quick and rash decision.
>
> One minor note: For those who demand dual AHRS systems, I know
> the GRT already does this, but now with the Pinpoints for
> the Cheltons you have that option as well. Not a requirement
> for everyone, but just so you know, there is now the option.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Alan K. Adamson wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>> Um, who said anything about "integrated" as OP does. I'll rephrase
> that to
>> "faceless". The Cheltons are standalone radios/Transponder that can
> be
>> integrated into the FMS. I have no idea of price but I understand
> they will
>> be available in standalone with the funky screws and standalone with
> regular
>> mounting (for us normal folks). They may also come with a removable
> face
>> that would let you mount the bulk of the hardware elsewhere.
>>
>> Also, not sure what you are talking about on the radios. The card
> that I
>> saw looked normal, and here is the webpage, the displays are 2 digits
> past
>> the decimal, just like everyone else. The unit on top is a
> transponder.
>> http://www.d2av.com/Radios/
>>
>> Alan
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
>> Builder (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 7:24 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
>> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Just talked to Josh and you are correct. They look very nice! About
>> the same price as a G900. Just like the OP though, I don't see the
>> point of an integrated radios. Lot more money for not much added
>> functionality. Personal preference I guess. One thing I thought was
> funny
>> was the number of digits on the radio display at OSH. Only one digit
> past
>> the decimal point. Hmmmm.
>>
>> Michael Sausen
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Alan K.
>> Adamson
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:09 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
>> --> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Uh, don't think that's true.... Maybe I got my inches wrong, but D2AV
> had a
>> handout of the "large display" (could it have been 8.4", I don't
>> remember")... Coming soon to an Avionics Shop near your. Not just for
> the
>> Certified guys, but also for the EX guys...plus new digital radios.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
>> Builder (Michael Sausen)
>> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 5:52 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: EFIS - BMA or GRT? Op Tech
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
>
>> --> <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>>
>> Sorry, one last thing. The 10" Chelton screen is only available in
> the
>> certified model. If you need to ask how much you can't afford it.
> :-)
>> Michael Sausen
>> RV-10 #352 Buildus Interuptus due to moving
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|