---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 08/11/06: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:28 AM - Re: Van's Harness Kit (Kevin Horton) 2. 04:25 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (glen matejcek) 3. 04:25 AM - encoder approval () 4. 04:39 AM - encoder approval () 5. 05:28 AM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton) 6. 06:08 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 06:28 AM - Re: Question for Brian Lloyd (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 06:28 AM - Re: Transponder replacement..... (Bill Denton) 9. 06:28 AM - Re: Re: GPS Antenna Cable... (Christopher Stone) 10. 06:29 AM - New search feature on aeroelectric.com (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 06:40 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Bret Smith) 12. 06:50 AM - source for milspec parts (CardinalNSB@aol.com) 13. 07:12 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Darwin N. Barrie) 14. 07:25 AM - "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 15. 08:02 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) (Dave N6030X) 16. 08:02 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Charlie Kuss) 17. 08:02 AM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Meyette) 18. 08:58 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 09:28 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) (Dave N6030X) 20. 09:47 AM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd) 21. 09:52 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) (Brian Lloyd) 22. 09:57 AM - Re: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) (Brian Lloyd) 23. 10:31 AM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton) 24. 11:17 AM - Special Switch (Carlos Trigo) 25. 11:19 AM - will magnetic screwdriver cause problems (CardinalNSB@aol.com) 26. 11:20 AM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd) 27. 11:33 AM - Re: encoder approval (Charlie Kuss) 28. 12:25 PM - Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems (John W. Cox) 29. 12:26 PM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton) 30. 01:00 PM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd) 31. 01:18 PM - Re: encoder approval (Matt Prather) 32. 01:52 PM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Richard Tasker) 33. 02:20 PM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton) 34. 03:14 PM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd) 35. 04:00 PM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton) 36. 04:17 PM - Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 37. 04:35 PM - Re: Transponder replacement..... (europa flugzeug fabrik) 38. 04:36 PM - Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems (Dave N6030X) 39. 04:47 PM - Re: encoder approval (Brian Lloyd) 40. 05:17 PM - Re: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems (Charlie Kuss) 41. 05:17 PM - Re: Re: Transponder replacement..... (Bruce Bell) 42. 06:04 PM - Re: encoder approval (Kevin Horton) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:28:28 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Van's Harness Kit --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton Van's will sell the plans page for the electrical harness kit. The plans page is useful, as it give you a lot of ideas on places to route wiring harness, and places to cut holes in various bulkheads. It is definitely worth the $5 they charged for it, even if you will do a Bob Nuckolls inspired system. Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 24:33, Terry Watson wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > > > I would agree with Larry on every point. > > Terry > RV-8A finishing > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > LarryRobertHelming > Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 6:08 PM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Van's Harness Kit > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" > > > Sorry I cannot answer all your question. However, I bought the > Van's kit > although I had ever intention of wiring using Bob's schematic. It > gave me > lots of parts I did not have to otherwise have to buy. I got to > see Van's > wiring diagram which helped build my knowledge base. (Needed that > at the > beginning.) But I still bought a lot of stuff cause some things > were not > the same. The Van's wire harness while well done was mostly > worthless using > > the fuse bus rather than the CB bus. I valued the wire and > disassemble most > > of it to use it where I could. If I were doing it again, I would > buy the > parts (connectors, wire, switches) from B&C or your local reputable > electrical supplier or Stein and do the whole wire job terminals > and all > myself. > > The extra and mods needed will depend a lot on the electrical > components of > your plane's design. Larry in Indiana > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jeff Moreau >> >> >> I am curious to find if anyone on the list has started with the Van's >> wiring harness kit as the basic start of their wiring. >> >> What kind of extras or modifications did you include if you used it? >> >> Any help or comments would be welcomed. >> >> Thanks >> >> Jeff >> > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:25:23 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Electric Elevator Trim connector --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" Hi Fred- >I'm interested in knowing what others have done for electrical >connectors for the servo, and where they have located that >connector (i.e., in the tail area or the fuselage). I found a 7 pin annular connector, perhaps at RS, that works well. By leaving the outer most shell off, it has a small enough diameter to fit through the hole. Just make sure that if you use a snap bushing in the butt rib hole it is oriented correctly for removal of the ass'y. I heat shrink the connector into one lump which I then ty wrap to the aft deck between the HS spars. Hope this helps- glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:25:24 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 8/11/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton. Hello Kevin, Time spent in attempting to correct an injustice or an absurdity by governments is never wasted. It is a peculiarity of human nature that once people are placed in a position of authority or officialdom that a percentage of them will abuse that position either out of ignorance or arrogance. Left unchallenged, that abuse never diminishes on its own, but instead tends to grow. The current situation is that every day companies are manufacturing and selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds? thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with. And FAA headquarters currently says: "No, that can't be because it is in violation of FAR 91.217 (b) as we interpret it." I don't know how this situation would eventually resolve itself if we just ignored it, but I don't feel that a head-in-the-sand approach is the best way to go. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. < Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release a policy letter that stops you in your tracks. I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more. Kevin Horton>> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 04:39:36 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 8/11/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brett Ferrell Hello Brett, Thanks for your input. In fact it was the EAA web site wording that caused me to take action on this issue. My reaction was: How can the EAA, which is supposed to be our amateur built proponent, ignore the current situation which is that every day companies are manufacturing and selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds? thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with? When I corresponded with EAA on this issue their response was: "We stand by our position." I could not accept this head-in-the-sand approach and wrote to the FAA. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. < Have you enlisted the help of EAA on this matter? I would think that thier involvement would be helpful. They've already weighed in on this matter, in the other direction, supposedly with FAA input!!.....skip.....>> ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:28:22 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton Hi Owen, Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over the full range of conditions under which it will operate? How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate correctly at temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity, voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full range of conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there. If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly over the full range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for it? The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem with someone's encoder says very little. If there is a problem, it might not show up until another aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet hits it because the encode was in error. Is this acceptable? Note: recent regulatory changes will require more and more aircraft to get TCAS-like systems, so it will become even more important that all encoders be telling the truth. If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you word it to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective? Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 07:23, wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > 8/11/2006 > > Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by > Kevin Horton. > > Hello Kevin, Time spent in attempting to correct an injustice or an > absurdity by governments is never wasted. It is a peculiarity of > human nature that once people are placed in a position of authority > or officialdom that a percentage of them will abuse that position > either out of ignorance or arrogance. Left unchallenged, that abuse > never diminishes on its own, but instead tends to grow. > > The current situation is that every day companies are manufacturing > and selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO > calls for, some builder are buying those encoders or have bought > them in the past, avionics shops are approving those non TSO'd > encoders in accordance with the tests called for in FAR Part 43 > Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds? thousands?) are > flying around with those encoders responding with an altitude > readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with. > > And FAA headquarters currently says: "No, that can't be because it > is in violation of FAR 91.217 (b) as we interpret it." > > I don't know how this situation would eventually resolve itself if > we just ignored it, but I don't feel that a head-in-the-sand > approach is the best way to go. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > < > > Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good > cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't > understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range > of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the > aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out > the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring > testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release > a policy letter that stops you in your tracks. > > I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way > they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a > change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more. > > Kevin Horton>> > > Kevin Horton Ottawa, Canada ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:08:28 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >>>> >>>> I'm about to install my Electric Elevator Trim servo in the new RV-7A. >>>>I'm interested in knowing what others have done for electrical >>>>connectors for the servo, and where they have located that >>>>connector (i.e., in the tail area or the fuselage). >>>> So far, most everything I've seen will not allow the elevator to be >>>>removed as the connector will not fit through the hole in the elevator >>>>or the rear spare of the horizontal stab....This includes DB-9 >>>>connectors...... >>>> >>>>Fred Stucklen >>>>RV-7A N924RV >>> >>>Fred, >>> The best solution to allow elevator removal is to use Bob Nuckoll's >>> suggested method. Use D Sub male and female terminals without the S Sub >>> block. Crimp or solder the male and female terminals to the 5 wires. >>> Slide heat shrink over the wires then connect the terminals. Use heat >>> to shrink the heat shrink tubing over the connected joint. This will >>> hold the connection tight and keep it dry. >>> To remove, simply slice the heat shrink with a razor blade and >>> disconnect the D Sub pins. It will allow the connector pins to be >>> withdrawn through the rather small hole in the elevator spar. Stagger >>> the connectors to ease removal. Bob has or had a photo "how to" page on >>> his site. I looked quickly, but couldn't locate it. Funny thing about that Charlie, I couldn't either. Programming is such a fussy science. I had one quote sign missing in the articles index code and it hosed two lines of the index making a couple of items disappear. The comic book you're remembering is at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/macservo/macservo.html and the code has been repaired. Thanks for bringing it up! Also see last photo at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html or http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/e.jpg Keep in mind that the wires provide on the Ray-Allen servos is (ugh!) 26AWG. The simple female-pin/male-pin splice illustrated is still pretty fragile in tension on the small-wire side of the simple shrink-over-D-sub-pin splice. I'd be a bit more comfortable with the former solution where the tiny wires are supported by the final doping of uckum-yucky. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:24 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Question for Brian Lloyd --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:59 AM 8/11/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > >On Aug 10, 2006, at 10:25 PM, Dennis Johnson wrote: > >>Hi Brian (and others), >> >>A couple of weeks ago you posted a suggestion for connecting a >>stereo IPod-type device to a mono audio panel. You said to insert >>a 100 ohm resistor in series in each of the left and right >>channels, at the stereo jack, before combining the left and right >>channels together. >> >>I'm now wiring my panel and I have a stereo jack that I'll connect >>to my mono audio panel. I was planning to just jumper the left and >>right (high) terminals together at the stereo jack so I can listen >>to my IPod in flight. Can you expand a little on the need for the >>resistors? I actually have two concerns: One is that I'd like to >>understand the issue a little bit, and the other is that I've heard >>that people don't get enough volume from portable entertainment >>devices, and the resistors might make that problem worse. > >Well, it gets to the way solid-state audio amplifier output stages >are built. They are designed to have very low output impedance. This >way they can generate a voltage output that isn't much affected by >the thing receiving the voltage (a speaker or earspeaker in this >case). In addition they use negative feedback, i.e. part of the the >output signal is inverted (flipped over) and fed back to the input in >order to cancel out errors (distortion) generated within the amp >itself. This further reduces the output impedance. So if you tie one >output to the other, the output that is NOT generating the signal you >want will look almost like a dead short to the output that is. > >Now many of you have tied the left and right outputs together and you >get sound. That is because most of the audio is in-phase and a lot of >the signal is identical in both the left and right channels. You hear >sound. The problem comes when there is something on the left channel >that doesn't appear on the right. The right output will then act as >almost a short to that part of the signal. Very little of what is on >the left channel will make it to your audio panel or intercom. > >So we add the 100 ohm resistors. These keep one output from loading >down the other. The two signals, left and right, then mix and you get >the best possible output with less distortion and less load on the >two amplifier outputs. Brian's most lucid explanation is illustrated and further supported in the audio chapter of the 'Connection which one may presently access at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:25 AM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponder replacement..... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" I dunno, but I always tend to be suspicious of people trying to sell me something by bitching about something somebody else is selling... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Baker Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:55 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder replacement..... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" Just wondering if anyone had any comments concerning the following issue with Narco transponder units.. http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm My old AT-50A is complaining and was looking for a direct replacement without re-wiring...til I saw this article. Like to have a 165 but now I'm not so sure.... Thanks. Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:25 AM PST US From: Christopher Stone Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GPS Antenna Cable... --- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found --- A message with no text/plain MIME section was received. The entire body of the message was removed. Please resend the email using Plain Text formatting. HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section in their client's default configuration. If you're using HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text". --- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found --- ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:29:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: New search feature on aeroelectric.com --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" While hosting a birthday party for my web-savy nephew last weekend, we were discussing some enhancements to the aeroelectric.com website. The amount of material is getting large and hard to access. I've been working on new indexing pages, albeit slowly . . . very low priority project. Nephew CJ suggested that I take advantage of a feature in Google that lets you build site-unique search queries. At his suggestion, I've added the code to several top pages on the website. Of course, when you use this "free" tool, one gets a lot of advertising along with the search results . . . but the capabilities and utilitarian value of this tool are indisputable. I'll encourage folks who use this feature to let me know if there are any "glitches" in its behavior. 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 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:40:30 AM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector The REAL problem I see is that the trim servo comes from Ray Allen with 26AWG wires and most connectors, especially Molex, can only accomodate as small as 24AWG. I plan on following Bob's recommendation and using a 9-pin D-Sub connector. Bret ----- Original Message ----- From: Fiveonepw@aol.com To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:06 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector Unbelieveable- I spent over an hour digging through the catalogs & website and never ran across them on Mouser- you da man- and I LOVE a deal ! ! ! 8-) Mark do not archive ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:50:11 AM PST US From: CardinalNSB@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: source for milspec parts Thank you all for the replies on the encoder issue. I have a Cessna, so I'll have to wait on the Rocky Mountain encoder. My ap is ok with a few items I want to do (isolate avionics bus with alternate feed for one, annunciator panel for another, replacing the Cessna erector set flap switch, etc.) but he would feel more comfortable using some sort of "milspec" pieces-switches, led lights, fuse holders, etc. (wire I have). Is there a source for small orders of things like these? I've looked on the internet but no luck. Thanks for your help, Skip ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:52 AM PST US From: "Darwin N. Barrie" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector Hey Fred, I used a Dean's 5 pin connector from the hobby shop. This is a thin connector with VERY tight fitting gold pins. It will fit through the oval shaped hole in the elevator. The hole in the spar was enlarge to accommodate. A rubber grommet was used on the oval hole and works great. I split a grommet for the hole in the spar. As an added measure of protection I protected the wires with heat shrink tubing where the wires pass through the elevator and spar. Very neat, simple and serviceable unit. Sorry don't have any pictures of this. Darwin N. Barrie Chandler AZ RV7 N717EE 130+ hours ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:25:55 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Like many of you on the list, I've had dealings with the government on aviation matters for over 40 years. I've observed a trend within the FAA that is mirrored in the industry. Fewer and fewer individuals of responsibility UNDERSTAND the science of their craft. Those who do understand have less and less authority to exercise their skills free of bureaucratic impediments to progress. I have been a dismayed witness to the decline of both government's ability to "protect us from ourselves" and industry's ability to apply simple-ideas in logical ways to enhance the value of their product. With respect to the "legal" modification of TC aircraft at any level, I crafted this piece about 7 years ago prompted by a thread on some forum . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/major.html In the intervening years, I've observed no situations that would cause me to modify that article in any way. In fact, just last week, I finished a series of hat-dances driven by regulation, policy, and procedures that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a simple, no-brainer mod to a TC aircraft . . . for all the stacks of paper generated and $time$ expended, the "certification" effort proved nothing we didn't already know and prompted no changes in materials or design. I.e, added no value. I've often suggested that if there's a bright star on the horizon for small, personally owned aircraft, it's in the basements and garages of folks here on the List and elsewhere who have taken the initiative to seek divorce from the institutions and philosophies that are presently strangling general aviation. Are we a "force" strong enough to resist the relentless, incremental pressures for which bureaucracies are so famous? Don't know. But if one plots present trends out into the future, it is exceedingly difficult to be optimistic. Enjoy it while you can my friends. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:07 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X What we need is a popular revolt or uprising. A person with knowledge of how to organize people for civil disobedience. A mutiny on a grand scale. But positioned so the average Joe on the street who doesn't know what GA is will be rooting for US. What do we need? IMPROVED SAFETY. When do we need it? NOW! The government is allowing AIRLINERS to CRASH because of RED TAPE. Why? ANTIQUATED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE that impedes the adoption of SAFER SYSTEMS. What do we want? MODERN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. What will happen if we don't get what we want? MORE CRASHES, MORE FIRES. What we need is a Rosa Parks who is NOT WILLING TO GET OFF THE E-BUS! Something along those lines. :) Dave Morris At 09:23 AM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >Like many of you on the list, I've had dealings with the >government on aviation matters for over 40 years. I've observed >a trend within the FAA that is mirrored in the industry. Fewer >and fewer individuals of responsibility UNDERSTAND the science >of their craft. Those who do understand have less and less >authority to exercise their skills free of bureaucratic impediments >to progress. I have been a dismayed witness to the decline of both >government's ability to "protect us from ourselves" and industry's >ability to apply simple-ideas in logical ways to enhance the >value of their product. > >With respect to the "legal" modification of TC aircraft at any >level, I crafted this piece about 7 years ago prompted by >a thread on some forum . . . > >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/major.html > >In the intervening years, I've observed no situations that >would cause me to modify that article in any way. In fact, >just last week, I finished a series of hat-dances driven >by regulation, policy, and procedures that cost hundreds >of thousands of dollars to do a simple, no-brainer mod >to a TC aircraft . . . for all the stacks of paper generated >and $time$ expended, the "certification" effort proved >nothing we didn't already know and prompted no changes >in materials or design. I.e, added no value. > >I've often suggested that if there's a bright star on >the horizon for small, personally owned aircraft, it's in >the basements and garages of folks here on the List and >elsewhere who have taken the initiative to seek divorce >from the institutions and philosophies that are presently >strangling general aviation. > >Are we a "force" strong enough to resist the relentless, >incremental pressures for which bureaucracies are so >famous? Don't know. But if one plots present trends out >into the future, it is exceedingly difficult to be optimistic. > >Enjoy it while you can my friends. > >Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:41 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector Darwin, I suggest you contact Vans regarding enlarging the hole in the left elevator main spar. I did the same thing, but ended up installing a doubler plate to shrink the hole back to the original size. When I spoke to Vans, they said that I should not open that hole, as it will weaken the spar. The elevator has a fair amount of load placed on it. Hence my choice of using D Sub pins and heat shrink per the last photo below. http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html Be sure to stagger the splice connectors, to avoid creating a knot of wire. Charlie Kuss >Hey Fred, > >I used a Dean's 5 pin connector from the hobby shop. This is a thin >connector with VERY tight fitting gold pins. It will fit through the >oval shaped hole in the elevator. The hole in the spar was enlarge >to accommodate. > >A rubber grommet was used on the oval hole and works great. I split >a grommet for the hole in the spar. As an added measure of >protection I protected the wires with heat shrink tubing where the >wires pass through the elevator and spar. > >Very neat, simple and serviceable unit. Sorry don't have any pictures of this. > >Darwin N. Barrie >Chandler AZ >RV7 N717EE >130+ hours ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:02:46 AM PST US From: "Brian Meyette" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" What was the input you were responding to? What position is EAA referring to? I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder. Details beginning here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of bakerocb@cox.net Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 7:39 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 8/11/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brett Ferrell Hello Brett, Thanks for your input. In fact it was the EAA web site wording that caused me to take action on this issue. My reaction was: How can the EAA, which is supposed to be our amateur built proponent, ignore the current situation which is that every day companies are manufacturing and selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds? thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with? When I corresponded with EAA on this issue their response was: "We stand by our position." I could not accept this head-in-the-sand approach and wrote to the FAA. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. < Have you enlisted the help of EAA on this matter? I would think that thier involvement would be helpful. They've already weighed in on this matter, in the other direction, supposedly with FAA input!!.....skip.....>> -- No virus found in this incoming message. -- ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:41 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:59 AM 8/11/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > >What we need is a popular revolt or uprising. A person with knowledge of >how to organize people for civil disobedience. A mutiny on a grand >scale. But positioned so the average Joe on the street who doesn't know >what GA is will be rooting for US. > >What do we need? IMPROVED SAFETY. When do we need it? NOW! >The government is allowing AIRLINERS to CRASH because of RED TAPE. >Why? ANTIQUATED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. >BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE that impedes the adoption of SAFER SYSTEMS. >What do we want? MODERN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. >What will happen if we don't get what we want? MORE CRASHES, MORE FIRES. > >What we need is a Rosa Parks who is NOT WILLING TO GET OFF THE E-BUS! > >Something along those lines. But what changes would we suggest for the "system". Keep in mind that you cannot embarrass a bureaucrat for no-value-added regulation. If the FAA's head-cheese held a big meeting and said, "Were going to clean house. We're going to do a top-to-bottom review of all policies and procedures for the purpose of reducing no-value-added burdens on fellow citizens." The troops would jump to their feet, salute, yell "Sir, yes sir!" and then run in place for a few years until that particular thorn in their side is replaced by the next appointee. Government has zero control over the quality or value of the product of any industry. The best driver for product improvement is for the dissatisfied consumer to switch from Brand X to Brand Y because of a perception of greater value be it for performance, price or safety. The role of law in all this is to punish citizens for their attack upon the liberty of other citizens due to force or fraud. Failure to deliver on claims of safety is fraud. OBAM aviation's safety record is right in line with TC aviation. OBAM aircraft hit the same mountains, fly into the same weather, run off the same runways. If the FAA's oversight of TC aviation were reduced to a level commensurate with OBAM aviation, you would no doubt see a spike in incidents involving technical or management incompetence . . . but those who cannot or choose not to compete in honorable ways will soon be out of business anyhow due to lack of customer support piled on top of lawsuits. There is very little evidence to support the notion that any form of regulation will have a positive influence on losses due lack of quality in production aircraft. I would judge that more than half our engineering $time$ is spent on no-value-added paperwork. If that burden went away, we could spend that $surplus$ on improving our craft. The price of the airplane would go down and the performance and return on investment would go up. There's also little evidence to suggest that form and function of an electrical system has anything at all to do with safety . . . all the more reason to relieve it of virtually all bureaucratic impediments to progress. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:28:55 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X December 17, 2006 - Kitty Hawk Today over 6,000 aircraft owners collectively defied the Federal Aviation Administration by installing a jumper across their avionics master switches. Sven Von Berg, leader of the revolt, stated "The Avionics Master switch is an antiquated concept that provides a single point of failure for the entire radio system. We cannot continue to abide by rules that make our aircraft unsafe, and the FAA won't do anything about it." The Deputy Administrator for Safety of the FAA, Snidely Whiplash, said "We can't allow people to make what are considered Major changes to the design of their certified aircraft. These people are breaking the law." The disagreement seems to hinge on the FAA's use of the term "Major" to describe the 0.1 ounce jumper that the owners are installing. "The affects the weight and balance of the entire aircraft", said Whiplash. "Not only that, but think of the millions of owners' handbooks that will have to be rewritten to take out references to the avionics master switch. That will cost taxpayers millions of dollars!" Von Berg described as "poppycock" the idea that pilots would have to hire an instructor to teach them how to fly the airplane without the avionics master switch. Police who were dispatched to airfields across the country to arrest violators of the FAA regulations were unable to come to grips with the nature of the offense. Only one person was actually arrested, and that was for yelling at the police officer. In an unrelated story, a pilot was prevented from flying his wooden airplane today during celebrations at Kitty Hawk, because his 3rd Class Medical had expired a few days prior. "It's not safe for him to fly today. Last week it would have been safe", said Whiplash. ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:47:40 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > > Hi Owen, > > Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to > require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over > the full range of conditions under which it will operate? How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture. The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude. So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable. Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting. 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 21 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:23 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Dave N6030X wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > > > What we need is a popular revolt or uprising. A person with > knowledge of how to organize people for civil disobedience. A > mutiny on a grand scale. But positioned so the average Joe on the > street who doesn't know what GA is will be rooting for US. > > What do we need? IMPROVED SAFETY. When do we need it? NOW! > The government is allowing AIRLINERS to CRASH because of RED TAPE. > Why? ANTIQUATED ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. > BUREAUCRATIC RED TAPE that impedes the adoption of SAFER SYSTEMS. > What do we want? MODERN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. > What will happen if we don't get what we want? MORE CRASHES, MORE > FIRES. > > What we need is a Rosa Parks who is NOT WILLING TO GET OFF THE E-BUS! I agree. I am right behind you. And those who participate can expect to lose their licenses somehow. (They will be 'Hoovered' by the FAA.) And then you can be involved in the civil disobedience of flying without a ticket, something that is NOT going to sell well with the public. 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 22 ____________________________________ Time: 09:57:53 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Major" vs. "minor" (was: use of toggle switch breakers) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > The troops would jump to their feet, salute, yell > "Sir, yes sir!" and then run in place for a few years > until that particular thorn in their side is replaced > by the next appointee. Ah, you have hit the nail on the head. > Government has zero control over the quality or value > of the product of any industry. The best driver for > product improvement is for the dissatisfied consumer > to switch from Brand X to Brand Y because of a perception > of greater value be it for performance, price or safety. The problem is, there is no competition for the government. It operates outside the laws of economics. I cannot switch my taxes to a competitive government agency that does better work for me as I can with businesses producing products. > The role of law in all this is to punish citizens for > their attack upon the liberty of other citizens due > to force or fraud. Failure to deliver on claims of safety > is fraud. And rain makes applesauce. > There is very little evidence to support the notion > that any form of regulation will have a positive influence > on losses due lack of quality in production aircraft. > I would judge that more than half our engineering $time$ > is spent on no-value-added paperwork. If that burden > went away, we could spend that $surplus$ on improving > our craft. The price of the airplane would go down and > the performance and return on investment would go up. > > There's also little evidence to suggest that form and > function of an electrical system has anything at all to > do with safety . . . all the more reason to relieve it > of virtually all bureaucratic impediments to progress. I agree. I suspect most (all?) here do too. Hmmm. Have you ever read _Unintended_Consequences_, by John Ross? 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 23 ____________________________________ Time: 10:31:12 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Brian Lloyd wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd yak@lloyd.com> > > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >> >> >> Hi Owen, >> >> Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to >> require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, >> over the full range of conditions under which it will operate? > > How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many > encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture. > The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure > altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that > to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following > with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if > you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter > setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your > mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude. > > So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable. > Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting. Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :) Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:17:34 AM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Special Switch --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carlos Trigo" Hi Guys I need a special switch to install in my RV-9A, which is an Illuminated tip Toggle Switch like this ( http://www.nkkswitches.com/pdf/M2100.pdf ), but an SPDT On - Off - (On)(momentary) switch, which NKK seems not to have. Anybody knows a source for this type of switch? TIA Carlos ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:24 AM PST US From: CardinalNSB@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems It would be handy sometimes to use a magnet (hard drive) on my screwdriver, will that cause any permanent problems with avionics / cdi etc.? Thanks, Skip ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 11:20:45 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: >> So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable. >> Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting. > > Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder > output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I > suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder > output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have > the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :) Given the proliferation of TFRs with fires and the mindless wanderings of politicians during mating season with the electorate down here, (ah, I feel another screwing coming on) it is almost necessary to use ATC advisories in the US now. Gone is the time when I used to fly without advisories while listening to my iPod and enjoying the scenery. (There is only one area in my common comings and goings where I don't feel I have to deal with ATC and that is just after leaving Haitian airspace and before reaching the airspace around Nassau. The Bahamian waters are beautiful blue-green; the airplanes nonexistant; and the airspace non-US. The only down side is that there is no one to talk to should I encounter a problem.) Given that more people are going for all-in-one PFDs like Dynon, et al, one is going to want to have a cross-reference for altitude. This means a display for your encoder. By having a second air-data device with a display you can cross check with your PFD. Something to think about. 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 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:33:33 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval At 01:28 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > >On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Brian Lloyd wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd >> >> >>On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote: >> >>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >>> >>> >>>Hi Owen, >>> >>>Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to >>>require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, >>>over the full range of conditions under which it will operate? >> >>How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many >>encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture. >>The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure >>altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that >>to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following >>with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if >>you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter >>setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your >>mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude. >> >>So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable. >>Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting. > >Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder >output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I >suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder >output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have >the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :) > >Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >Ottawa, Canada >http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 Kevin, One of the really neat features of the RMI uEncoder is that it's OAT sensor and internal circuitry allow it to display not only indicated altitude, but also density altitude,pressure altitude, true altitude AND reported (encoder) altitude. See the link below to go to the uEncoder features link once on the main page for more info. http://www.rkymtn.com/ With a separate altimeter to check against, it's very easy to determine if the encoder develops an error. I suspect that most of the EFISs also have this feature. Charlie Kuss ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:25:59 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems From: "John W. Cox" In A & P school we used to throw fasteners into automotive style bowls with the magnet in the bottom. Our instructor required we demonstrate that no magnetism had affected the required fasteners. To our surprise, all had slight magnetism and had to be discarded when attached to turbine powerplants. Electronics techs have their own set of plastic (non metallic) drivers. Deguss meters were used to confirm the transfer of force field to the fasteners. John Cox ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of CardinalNSB@aol.com Sent: Friday, August 11, 2006 11:15 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems It would be handy sometimes to use a magnet (hard drive) on my screwdriver, will that cause any permanent problems with avionics / cdi etc.? Thanks, Skip ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:26:22 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 14:16, Brian Lloyd wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd yak@lloyd.com> > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 1:28 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: > >>> So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable. >>> Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting. >> >> Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder >> output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I >> suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder >> output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't >> have the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :) > > Given that more people are going for all-in-one PFDs like Dynon, et > al, one is going to want to have a cross-reference for altitude. > This means a display for your encoder. By having a second air-data > device with a display you can cross check with your PFD. Something > to think about. > The Dynon EFIS is capable of acting as an encoder, and I would bet you a case of beer that there are aircraft flying with the Dynon EFIS acting as an encoder, with no other altimeter on the aircraft. Now there is absolutely nothing to cross check against. Now even flight following won't help, as the pilot would be trying to fly to the same possibly erroneous altitude source that ATC would be looking at. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 01:00:14 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 3:24 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: > The Dynon EFIS is capable of acting as an encoder, and I would bet > you a case of beer that there are aircraft flying with the Dynon > EFIS acting as an encoder, with no other altimeter on the > aircraft. Now there is absolutely nothing to cross check against. > Now even flight following won't help, as the pilot would be trying > to fly to the same possibly erroneous altitude source that ATC > would be looking at. Bingo. I rather like the Rocky Mountain microencoder. 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 31 ____________________________________ Time: 01:18:07 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval From: "Matt Prather" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" I'll chime in here too... I also like WAAS enhanced GPS altitude. My little Garmin backpacker handheld displays it, and it has only once been off more than 100ft or so.. And that was when the altimeter in the airplane I was flying got seriously stuck... I was climbing to get over some terrain that I am fairly familiar with, and realized that the sight picture didn't make sense compared to what I was used to seeing (at the altitude I thought I was climbing through). I was trying to resolve that when I happened to glance at the GPS which I often wedge between the glareshield and the windshield and noticed that there was almost exactly 2000ft of discrepancy between the GPS altitude and the baro instrument (I was at that time at about 10.5k' MSL, not the planned 8.5kMSL). ??? So, I touched the adjust knob on the baro instrument, and almost instantly the hands wound around to match up with the GPS reading. ??? Gives you a very funny feeling. I am certainly glad nothing like that has happened IFR. The above said, a baro encoder with an extra display is a nice thing. The T2000 txp in my Varieze displays encoder altitude, and has an adjustment which allows correction for barometric pressure. While certainly not as slick as the micro encoder, it does the job. Regards, Matt- > At 01:28 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >> >> >>On 11 Aug 2006, at 12:45, Brian Lloyd wrote: >> >>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd >> yak@lloyd.com> >>> >>> >>>On Aug 11, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Kevin Horton wrote: >>> >>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >>>> >>>> >>>>Hi Owen, >>>> >>>>Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to >>>>require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, >>>>over the full range of conditions under which it will operate? >>> >>>How do you know that a TSO'd encoder will do the same? Many >>>encoders fail, even those meeting TSO at teh time of manufacture. >>>The best cross check is to have a transponder that reports pressure >>>altitude from the encoder (my SL-70 does) and cross-reference that >>>to the mechanical altimeter. Also, if you are on flight following >>>with ATC and deviate from your altitude by more than 300', even if >>>you are VFR, the will most likely ask you to check your altimeter >>>setting. At that point you know that something is amiss if your >>>mechanical altimeter says you are on your chosen altitude. >>> >>>So I don't see TSO or type acceptance as being all that valuable. >>>Cross checking the instruments strikes me as far more interesting. >> >>Interesting point. I agree that regular monitoring of the encoder >>output and/or flight following might address the issue. But I >>suspect that many pilots wouldn't regularly monitor the encoder >>output, and a lot of folks don't like flight following. Can't have >>the UN know what you are doing all the time you know :) >> >>Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >>Ottawa, Canada >>http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 > > Kevin, > One of the really neat features of the RMI uEncoder is that it's > OAT sensor and internal circuitry allow it to display not only > indicated altitude, but also density altitude,pressure altitude, true > altitude AND reported (encoder) altitude. See the link below to go to > the uEncoder features link once on the main page for more info. > > http://www.rkymtn.com/ > > With a separate altimeter to check against, it's very easy to > determine if the encoder develops an error. I suspect that most of > the EFISs also have this feature. > Charlie Kuss ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 01:52:27 PM PST US From: Richard Tasker Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker Actually if you want to use 26 AWG they do sell pins for these connectors that work with 24-30 AWG. Mouser part number 538-02-06-1132 for the female pins and 538-02-06-2132 for the male pins. I have used some of these and they do work down to 26 AWG without any trouble (except for the fact that the wire is pretty small). Use good external strain relief. Dick Tasker Bret Smith wrote: > The REAL problem I see is that the trim servo comes from Ray Allen > with 26AWG wires and most connectors, especially Molex, can only > accomodate as small as 24AWG. I plan on following Bob's > recommendation and using a 9-pin D-Sub connector. > > Bret > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Fiveonepw@aol.com > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > > *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:06 PM > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Electric Elevator Trim connector > > Unbelieveable- I spent over an hour digging through the catalogs & > website and never ran across them on Mouser- you da man- and > I LOVE a deal ! ! ! 8-) > > Mark > do not archive > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 02:20:44 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton Yes, WAAS enhanced GPS altitude can save you from large errors, as happened to you. But, everyone needs to understand that barometric altitude, as seen on an altimeter is not at all the same thing as GPS altitude. They can be differ by many hundreds of feet if the temperature is significantly different from standard. In cold temperatures the altimeter will read high than the GPS, and in warm temperatures it will read lower. The difference will be about 4% for every 10 deg C that the temperature differs from standard. The difference will be zero on the ground at the airport where the altimeter setting came from, and will count up from there. E.g, if you were at 5500 ft, with an altimeter setting that came from an airport at 500 ft, and the temperature was 25 deg C colder than standard, the altimeter would read about 500 ft higher than the GPS. The air traffic system is built on the premise that people will fly specific barometric altitudes (i.e. based on a barometric altimeter). If you use GPS altitude, you may be negating the altitude separation that is assumed. In the example above, a guy flying VFR who wanted to be at 5500 ft, and decided to use his GPS as the altitude reference, would actually be at about 6000 ft barometric altitude, right at an IFR altitude. Not good. If you see a significant difference between your altimeter and your GPS, please continue to fly the altimeter, unless you are in cloud, at an altitude where obstacle clearance is a concern. In this case, declare an emergency, tell ATC you really don't know what your altitude is, and use which ever one is indicating lower as your reference. Get your altimeter checked by an avionics shop before the next flight. Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 16:16, Matt Prather wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > > > I'll chime in here too... > > I also like WAAS enhanced GPS altitude. My little Garmin backpacker > handheld displays it, and it has only once been off more than 100ft or > so.. And that was when the altimeter in the airplane I was flying got > seriously stuck... I was climbing to get over some terrain that I am > fairly familiar with, and realized that the sight picture didn't make > sense compared to what I was used to seeing (at the altitude I > thought I > was climbing through). I was trying to resolve that when I > happened to > glance at the GPS which I often wedge between the glareshield and the > windshield and noticed that there was almost exactly 2000ft of > discrepancy > between the GPS altitude and the baro instrument (I was at that > time at > about 10.5k' MSL, not the planned 8.5kMSL). ??? So, I touched the > adjust > knob on the baro instrument, and almost instantly the hands wound > around > to match up with the GPS reading. ??? Gives you a very funny > feeling. I > am certainly glad nothing like that has happened IFR. > > The above said, a baro encoder with an extra display is a nice > thing. The > T2000 txp in my Varieze displays encoder altitude, and has an > adjustment > which allows correction for barometric pressure. While certainly > not as > slick as the micro encoder, it does the job. > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 03:14:22 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > > > Yes, WAAS enhanced GPS altitude can save you from large errors, as > happened to you. But, everyone needs to understand that barometric > altitude, as seen on an altimeter is not at all the same thing as > GPS altitude. They can be differ by many hundreds of feet if the > temperature is significantly different from standard. When flying at 14,000' or so in the dead of winter I have seen errors as much as 2000'. (This is another reason MEAs have lots of margin built into them.) > > The air traffic system is built on the premise that people will fly > specific barometric altitudes (i.e. based on a barometric > altimeter). If you use GPS altitude, you may be negating the > altitude separation that is assumed. In the example above, a guy > flying VFR who wanted to be at 5500 ft, and decided to use his GPS > as the altitude reference, would actually be at about 6000 ft > barometric altitude, right at an IFR altitude. Not good. This is what the altitude correction section on your E6B is for. Play with it. Plug in temp and pressure altitude and see what the correction factor is. If you correct the barometric altimeter for pressure and temperature you will find it will compare favorably with what your GPS reads out. > If you see a significant difference between your altimeter and your > GPS, please continue to fly the altimeter, unless you are in cloud, > at an altitude where obstacle clearance is a concern. In this > case, declare an emergency, tell ATC you really don't know what > your altitude is, and use which ever one is indicating lower as > your reference. Get your altimeter checked by an avionics shop > before the next flight. Good advice but try your E6B first. Most of us never spend any time with this feature when learning to fly but it can make a big difference when you are in a marginal climb condition and wondering if you are going to be 100' above or 100' below the ridgeline you are thinking of crossing. Believe me, 100' can make a big difference between having a good hair day and a bad hair day. I have been flying for a lot of years (38 now) and, believe it or not, I still use my E6B on almost *every* flight (even if for nothing more than TAS conversion). It is still the same old aluminum Sanderson E6B my father gave me when I was 15 and getting ready to take ground school. It still works and the batteries still haven't worn out. 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 35 ____________________________________ Time: 04:00:44 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 18:10, Brian Lloyd wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd yak@lloyd.com> > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 5:17 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton >> >> >> Yes, WAAS enhanced GPS altitude can save you from large errors, as >> happened to you. But, everyone needs to understand that >> barometric altitude, as seen on an altimeter is not at all the >> same thing as GPS altitude. They can be differ by many hundreds >> of feet if the temperature is significantly different from standard. > > Good advice but try your E6B first. Most of us never spend any time > with this feature when learning to fly but it can make a big > difference when you are in a marginal climb condition and wondering > if you are going to be 100' above or 100' below the ridgeline you > are thinking of crossing. Believe me, 100' can make a big > difference between having a good hair day and a bad hair day. To be honest, I had completely forgotten that an E6B had this feature. Now I have to try to find mine :) I wouldn't really on any calculation if you only have a few hundred feet of obstacle clearance, if you are at altitude. The calculation is only accurate if you can account for the temperature difference from ISA at every point from the airport to altitude. The rule of thumb (and the E6B) use a single number for the temperature difference, rather than try to use the varying temperature errors at various altitudes. That is a bit of a long way to say that the correction factors are only approximate in any real world case. If you calculate 100 ft of obstacle clearance, turn back, please. I'd want to calculate at least 1000 ft of clearance, ideally even more. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 04:17:58 PM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 8/11/06 2:23:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, CardinalNSB@aol.com writes: > It would be handy sometimes to use a magnet (hard drive) on my screwdriver, > will that cause any permanent problems with avionics / cdi etc.? Thanks, > Skip ---------------------------------------------------- Skip: I'm not sure what you mean by HARD DRIVE??? As for using a screwdriver with a magnetic tip on instruments ... WHERE on the instrument? Even as an EXPERIMENTAL plane you are not allowed to go inside avionics. Unless they are experimental avionics but you would probably void the warranty if you did. As for the MOUNTING SCREWS, they should be nonmagnetic, either brass or S/S. So, as you might guess a magnetic screw driver won't help. If you have analog CDIs I would keep magnets away from them as well as any electrical analog gage/meter; just as a common practices. Barry "Chop'd Liver" "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third time." Yamashiada ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 04:35:08 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder replacement..... From: "europa flugzeug fabrik" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik" Jim Baker wrote: > Just wondering if anyone had any comments concerning the > following issue with Narco transponder units.. > > http://www.gtwn.net/~keith.peshak/NarcoProblems.htm Ive had no problems with my AT-165. If Narco says their transponders work, as they must, and they pass the biennial check, we can use them. Keith Peshak doesnt make the rules, and hes been raging about the P4 problem for years to no apparent avail. FAA ignores. I had an AT-150 covered by the AD (apparent P4 problem), but never did it. ATC never said anything. Perhaps a problem in isolated instances (re TCAS, I think). Fred F. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54262#54262 ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 04:36:22 PM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X Rocky Mountain MicroEncoder is a kit you solder together yourself. Dave Morris At 06:15 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >Even as an EXPERIMENTAL plane you are not allowed to go inside >avionics. Unless they are experimental avionics but you would probably void >the warranty if you did. ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 04:47:22 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: > To be honest, I had completely forgotten that an E6B had this > feature. Now I have to try to find mine :) I was completely blown away at the cool stuff I could do with my E6B back when I was a kid. I still am. > > I wouldn't really on any calculation if you only have a few hundred > feet of obstacle clearance, if you are at altitude. The > calculation is only accurate if you can account for the temperature > difference from ISA at every point from the airport to altitude. > The rule of thumb (and the E6B) use a single number for the > temperature difference, rather than try to use the varying > temperature errors at various altitudes. That is a bit of a long > way to say that the correction factors are only approximate in any > real world case. If you calculate 100 ft of obstacle clearance, > turn back, please. I'd want to calculate at least 1000 ft of > clearance, ideally even more. Some people just get too literal. ;-) The point I think we both were making was that the altimeter lies. It always lies except when you are on the ground and you turn the kollsman knob to make it read airport elevation. (Have you ever noticed that sometimes when you do that it doesn't match the altimeter setting from the nearby airport with an ATIS that happens to be at a different altitude?) But all kidding aside, there really are significant errors and they get worse as you go up and the temp differs from ISA. But you do only need OAT and p-alt to get the correction factor. Does the Rocky Mountain uEncoder provide true altitude? Ah, I see that it does. Seems like a good thing. 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 40 ____________________________________ Time: 05:17:16 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: will magnetic screwdriver cause problems Dave, You can also buy the uEncoder fully assembled. It just costs more. I suggest buying a used one. You can find them used for about $500. Parts are cheap. I bought mine from Jerry Carter. I got it with the optional compass module. I paid $500. Jerry accidently scratched the screen during a removal. I purchased a replacement screen from RMI. What do you think it cost???? $100? Try $24.95! What a deal. I haven't even installed it yet, because the scratch is barely noticeable. One is for sale on Doug Reeves site. See http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t-16 Charlie Kuss >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > >Rocky Mountain MicroEncoder is a kit you solder together yourself. > >Dave Morris > >At 06:15 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote: >>Even as an EXPERIMENTAL plane you are not allowed to go inside >>avionics. Unless they are experimental avionics but you would probably void >>the warranty if you did. > > ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 05:17:17 PM PST US From: "Bruce Bell" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder replacement..... --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Bell" I just sent my AT165 back because it did not transmit. You would think that the quality control people at NARCO would get on this problem. I switch the AT150 from my old A35 Bonanza to my new RV-4 for test flights. Let you know when I get the AT165 back from NARCO. Bruce Bell Lubbock, Texas RV-4 N23BB (Flying!) DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 06:04:39 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: encoder approval --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 11 Aug 2006, at 19:44, Brian Lloyd wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd yak@lloyd.com> > > On Aug 11, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Kevin Horton wrote: >> >> I wouldn't really on any calculation if you only have a few >> hundred feet of obstacle clearance, if you are at altitude. The >> calculation is only accurate if you can account for the >> temperature difference from ISA at every point from the airport to >> altitude. The rule of thumb (and the E6B) use a single number for >> the temperature difference, rather than try to use the varying >> temperature errors at various altitudes. That is a bit of a long >> way to say that the correction factors are only approximate in any >> real world case. If you calculate 100 ft of obstacle clearance, >> turn back, please. I'd want to calculate at least 1000 ft of >> clearance, ideally even more. > > Some people just get too literal. ;-) Well, I figured you probably knew that the calculation wasn't accurate enough to go with a 100 ft margin, but some other people on the list might not know that. > But all kidding aside, there really are significant errors and they > get worse as you go up and the temp differs from ISA. But you do > only need OAT and p-alt to get the correction factor. Does the > Rocky Mountain uEncoder provide true altitude? Ah, I see that it > does. Seems like a good thing. Yes, you can get an approximate correction factor (emphasis on the word approximate) with one OAT and a pressure altitude. But, the temperature ratio to standard temperature is never a constant value over the altitude band from the airport to the aircraft. When it is very cold, there is often a temperature inversion in the lower few hundred feet, with the temperature increasing with altitude. This sort of thing really fouls up any correction that is based on a single OAT difference from ISA. I agree that the uEncoder's "true altitude" function is a nice touch, but I wish they had chosen a different name. The uEncoder "true altitude" will still be in error by several hundred feet in many real world situations. A whole bunch more info on why corrections using a single OAT value are only an approximation: http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/altitude/AviationAltiudeScales.html Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8