Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:40 AM - Re: Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (Carl Morgan)
2. 05:29 AM - Re: Electric Elevator Trim connector (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:44 AM - Re: Re: encoder approval (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 05:50 AM - Re: Z14 wire size question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:09 AM - Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (mchamberlain@runbox.com)
6. 06:36 AM - Dual Battery/Alternator Question (Tom Gesele)
7. 07:23 AM - Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question (Alan K. Adamson)
8. 07:35 AM - Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:48 AM - encoder approval ()
10. 08:11 AM - encoder approval ()
11. 09:16 AM - Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question (John Schroeder)
12. 09:38 AM - Re: Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (Terry Watson)
13. 11:16 AM - Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! (Charlie England)
14. 11:19 AM - GPS antenna cable (Moore, Warren)
15. 12:53 PM - Re: GPS antenna cable (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
16. 02:26 PM - (Rodney Dunham)
17. 06:04 PM - Problem with Power Sources (Ron Patterson)
18. 06:15 PM - encoder approval ()
19. 07:21 PM - OBAM vs. ABEA ()
20. 08:14 PM - Re: Problem with Power Sources (B Tomm)
21. 10:24 PM - Re: Problem with Power Sources (Ed Holyoke)
22. 10:31 PM - Re: OBAM vs. ABEA (Bob McCallum)
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: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii@rvproject.gen.nz>
Something relatively new that I've been using recently and works as
advertised instead of IntelliCAD / ACAD / TurboCAD is from ProgeCAD
http://www.progecad.com/
ProgCAD LT is a full featured CAD package (the 3d solids command subset are
disabled). Some of the core is IntelliCAD based, just another option.....
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
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:37 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 08:43 AM 8/13/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >I used DesignWorks Lite from Capilano also. It was cheap, easy to learn
> >and created nice looking schematics. It's perfect for someone who wants
> >to get good documentation of their wiring, but doesn't want to spend a
> >week learning new software.
> >
> >Mike Easley
> >Colorado Springs
> >Lancair Super ES
>
> Consider also TurboCAD which will open, edit, save and print
> LOTS of drawings downloadable from:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/PPS
>
>
> It's a lot faster to modify these drawings as needed than
> to start over from scratch.
>
> Anything above V7.0 will work and is REALLY cheap. See
> item 290017312239 on http://ebay.com
>
>
> 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: | Electric Elevator Trim connector |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:39 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
>Bob,
>The measurement on the RV 7 HS is 3/8 inch. Don
Thanks!
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: encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:14 PM 8/14/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Michael Hinchcliff"
><cfi@conwaycorp.net>
>
>OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate
>healthy debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this
>case FAR 91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside,
>91.217 (c) does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the
>TSO standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this:
>How do you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO
>certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is.
. . . and here's where you get the mud stirred up. Folks who
write regulations are never the folks who have to enforce and/or
comply with them. Further, authors are seldom cognizant of how
many ways their words may be interpreted.
I've always operated under the common sense rule. What is the
purpose of this particular regulation? (1) To make sure the guy on
the ATC 'scope is seeing the same numbers you're seeing on your
altimeter and (2) both numbers are reasonably accurate.
The TSO will call out many tests (DO-160 environment, etc)
along with some accuracy requirements. The fact that the
device's label carries a TSO compliance citation says
absolutely NOTHING about your encoder's PRESENT ability to
meet the goals (1) and (2) above.
All the testing, ISO9000, quality assurance tests, inspections,
and citations for NOT having a TSO citation on the sticker
go SERVICE LIFE and says very little about the question:
"Is my encoder working as it should RIGHT NOW?"
Since your personal goals are right in line with the guy
at the 'scope . . . then setting up some protocol for
selection, monitoring and maintenance of your encoder is
the best way to meet those goals. A bureaucrat can only
whack you for a perceived misbehavior. He'd like to believe
that his actions under whatever authority he possesses goes
toward (1) and (2) . . . well . . . 'nuf said.
Bottom line is install whatever encoder rings your chimes
and work with your favorite test equipment operator to
periodically verify performance. Even better, develop
access to your OWN testing abilities with something like
the AirSport display, a hand vacuum pump and a water
manometer. It's simple physics.
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z14 wire size question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:15 PM 8/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>The Z14 (Dual Battery, Dual Bus) schematic in the Aero Electric connection
>depicts a Cross-Feed contactor who's purpose is to connect the 2
>electrical systems together if required/desired. My question is:
>Why is one side of the Cross-Feed contactor wired w/ 10 AWG (Aux Bus) and
>the other 4AWG (Main Bus)?????
>In my plane the batteries (and contactors)are of necessity mounted in the
>rear, the respective distribution buses will be mounted forward
>(panel/firewall). If not absolutely necessary I would like to avoid the
>4AWG run from the crossfeed contactor in the rear to the main distribution
>buss (forward), and replace this with--- say 10AWG? (I have limited space
>for wire pulls).
Crossfeed contactor goes on the firewall and becomes a power
distribution point for the two systems. Battery contactors and
battery busses are back next to the batteries.
Wires are sized according to the current they're asked to
carry. Since the battery path is used during cranking, 4AWG
wire is used between battery, battery contactor and crossfeed
contactor. All other paths are commensurate with the size of
the aux alternator . . . in this case the SD-20 so 10AWG
is sufficient.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi folks,
Thanks for all the great suggestions. Unfortunately still no solution. The EI probes
don't work with the Dynon, they use a different frequency (or something
like that), the ACS converter is supplied by Princeton but unfortunately again
does not supply the correct signal for the Dynon (it is the "S2" model, apparently
I need the S1 model). If I could just get in touch with Princeton my problem
would be sold. I wonder if they have gone out of business or something. It's
not often that I find companies that DON'T want to take my money!
Thanks again for the help guys.
Mark
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54912#54912
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: | Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Gesele <tgesele@optonline.net>
I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
could help with my battery selection.
I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
the following battery options:
1) Dual Odyssey 680.
2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
4) Dual Odyssey 545
My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
- Tom Gesele
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: | Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Probably the first thing you need to do it figure out the rest of your
avionics. Then your "no alternator - battery only" current needs and
emergency profiles. Then you'll know better what you need out of a battery.
Cranking amps is only 1/10 of the equation, altho used all the time :)...
Alan
Ps. There are a number of guys on this list that have RV10's and similar
setups, hopefully one will chime in with their specifics. For a starting
point go look at Tim Olson's - www.myrv10.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Gesele
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Battery/Alternator Question
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Gesele
--> <tgesele@optonline.net>
I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
could help with my battery selection.
I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
the following battery options:
1) Dual Odyssey 680.
2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
4) Dual Odyssey 545
My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
- Tom Gesele
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: Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:34 AM 8/15/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tom Gesele <tgesele@optonline.net>
>
>I'm planning a dual battery/dual alternator electrical system for my
>all-electric day/night IFR RV-10 behind an IO-540 and was hoping someone
>could help with my battery selection.
>
>I'll be installing the B&C 40 amp & 20 amp alternators and was considering
>the following battery options:
>
>1) Dual Odyssey 680.
>2) Dual B&C 12 AH.
>3) Single Odyssey 680 + B&C 7AH
>4) Dual Odyssey 545
>
>My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
>weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want to
>do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to compromise
>on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire family.
>
>Thanks in advance for any insights into the selection and, if there are
>other alternatives that I should be considering, please let me know.
I presume you're talking about Z-14. This system would function
nicely on two light batteries . . . but they tend to be expensive
due to low-volumes of production.
Have you considered Z-13/8? What are your alternator-out system loads?
Z-13/8 with one 17 a.h. battery gives you a total hardware weight on
the order of 25 pounds. What's driving you toward a dual battery
installation?
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 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: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/14/2006
Responding to an email and posting by Michael Hinchcliff
Hello Michael, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I am not happy
dabbling in the arena of semantics and legalese, but it appears that the
regulations and the FAA's interpretation of the regulations force us in that
direction.
1) You wrote: "Everything else aside, 91.217 (c) does not say the equipment
must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO standards."
Correct.
2) You wrote: "TSO certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is."
Meeting all of the TSO standards for an altitude encoder is not mandatory or
required.
In my opinion there are three ways to have legal automatic pressure altitude
reporting equipment in an aircraft:
A) Go through the process of obtaining FAA TSO compliant approval for the
manufacturing process, testing, performance, and all related documentation
of your equipment. You will then be authorized to mark the equipment as
meeting the requirements of TSO-C88a. By virtue of this marking your
equipment is presumed to meet the requirement of 91.217 9(c) for equipment
that meets the minimum performance standards in TSO-C88a.
B) Design, build, and test your equipment. Then request a deviation from the
TSO standards from the FAA in accordance with FAR 21.609. See the TSO to
read what those
standards are:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/7F3CE81AFC742A4B86256DC70067B087?OpenDocument
More recent editions of TSO's include an FAA policy statement like this that
head you in the deviation direction:
"Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of
compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these
provisions, show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of
safety. Apply for a deviation under 14 CFR 21.609."
MPS means Minimum Performance Standards. Note that there is a lot more to a
TSO than just the minimum performance standards.
FAR 21.609 reads as follows: "Approval for deviation.
(a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any performance
standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation is
requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an
equivalent level of safety.
(b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data,
must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office for
the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article is
manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate,
together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil
aviation authority in that country to the FAA."
C) Design, build, test, and sell equipment that you are confident meets the
testing requirements of 91.217 (b) when installed in an aircraft. What are
the intended testing requirements of 91.217 (b)? That is the issue at hand.
I think that meeting the appropriate testing requirements of FAR Part 43
Appendicies E and F fulfills the intent of 91.217 (b). HQ FAA currently says
not so. I hope to change that position.
Complicating the situation is the existence of hundreds of non TSO'd
encoders already in satisfactory use for years and more being manufactured,
sold to, and installed by amateur builders in their aircraft.
3) You wrote: "Part (b) just references how the equipment is to be tested
and does not necessarily prove compliance with the required TSO."
Agreed -- see paragraph 2 C above.
4) You wrote: "My simpleton answer would be to either A.) formally prove the
non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide the paperwork that goes
with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by purchasing equipment that's
already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying.
Two questions:
aa) If such a policy as A.) above had been in effect for the last 10 years
what would be
the current status of EFIS development in our community?
bb) How does B.) above deal with all the non TSO'd equipment already
installed and flying,
being installed, and being manufactured?
5) You wrote: "Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp."
See 2) B) above.
You wrote: " Have you barked up that tree yet?"
No. To date I am only pursuing a more rational interpretation of FAR 91.217
(b) by HQ FAA.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate
healthy
debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this case FAR
91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside, 91.217 (c)
does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO
standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this: How do
you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO
certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is. Part (b) just
references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove
compliance with the required TSO. My simpleton answer would be to either
A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide
the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by
purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying. Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp. Have you
barked up that tree yet? Michael H.>>
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: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Doug
Windhorn"
Hello Doug,
1) You wrote: "Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper
equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane."
The ONLY privileges that a Repairman's Certificate for a specific amateur
built experimental aircraft grants are for the holder of that certificate to
perform and sign off the condition inspection for that aircraft that is
required every 12 calendar months.
2) If you really want to squeeze through a transponder testing loophole
yourself take a look at FAR 91.413(c) (3). I don't recommend it.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn"
<N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Kevin,
Thought of that after Brian's reply and reading the FAR 43 App F.
Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane. Doug>>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dual Battery/Alternator Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Tom -
We have Z-14 and a continental IO-550N in a Lancair ES. We put two 20 AH
Panasonic VRLA (AGM) batteries. WE plan to use just one for cranking. So
far, it cranks it like a champ. We can crossfeed if necessary, but will
have to leave the avionics off. The second system is basically our
"avionics" buss.
The batteries are very reasonably priced. We got two (LC-X1220P) from
DigiKey. We did not pay attention to the weight because we needed it in
the aft compartment for W&B purposes. Besides, if you go IFR in an all
electric aircraft, weight for batteries should be lower on the priority
list than reliable electricals. YMMV, IMHO, my .02 cents.
John
> My only reason for not going with the dual odyssey 680 solution is the
> weight penalty - I'm very concerned that the -10 will be heavy and want
> to
> do anything reasonable to save weight. However, I don't want to
> compromise
> on system reliability/safety since I'll be traveling with my entire
> family.
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: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Mark,
This might not help either, but I bought a couple of converters for my
Bluemountain EFIS/one from Bluemountain to convert the capacitive senders in
my tanks.
Terry
RV-8A
Still building
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com"
<mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi folks,
Thanks for all the great suggestions. Unfortunately still no solution. The
EI probes don't work with the Dynon, they use a different frequency (or
something like that), the ACS converter is supplied by Princeton but
unfortunately again does not supply the correct signal for the Dynon (it is
the "S2" model, apparently I need the S1 model). If I could just get in
touch with Princeton my problem would be sold. I wonder if they have gone
out of business or something. It's not often that I find companies that
DON'T want to take my money!
Thanks again for the help guys.
Mark
--------
Rv-7 (234C Res)
Engine
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54912#54912
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: | Re: Van's Capacitive Fuel Senders - Need Help! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
mchamberlain@runbox.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mchamberlain@runbox.com" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
>
>Hi Folks,
>
>When I built my wings I installed the Van's capacitive fuel senders in my fuel
tanks. I recently installed a Dynon Flightdeck 180 in my panel which needs a
signal from 0 to 5 volts from the senders. I heard that a company called Princeton
electronics makes a converter, I send them an email a couple of weeks ago
about the senders and got a reply saying that they make them, I wrote back and
asked where I can buy them, since then I can't get a reply back form them, sent
several emails and called a few times.
>
>Anyway, assuming I am unable to contact these guys is there any other way anybody
knows to get this signal to the Dynon? If I can't figure this out it looks
like the only other option is to open up the tanks and change the senders to
the resistive type.
>
>Any help or suggestions will be very much appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Mark - N234C res
>RV-7 Finishing up wiring.
>
Jim Weir did an article several years ago about building your own cap.
sensors & I believe that it included a 0-5v output to drive a standard
gauge.
Wups, found the link:
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/articles/KP89SEP.pdf
(more than a few years ago....)
If you know the capacitance of the probes, you can tweak the circuit to
get the correct output. Jim frequents rec.aviation.homebuilt & will
quickly answer questions if you give him good info to work from.
Charlie
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: | GPS antenna cable |
I have a Lowrance Airmap 2000c GPS, which came with a RAA-4 remote amplified
antenna. I want to mount the antenna on the rear deck under the canopy of
my RV-4. Is there any problem splicing into the existing cable and adding
about 4ft? Also would like to run the cable thru a conduit which contains
wiring for MAC servo and Position light....will this cause any interference
with the GPS?
Thanks,
Warren Moore
RV-4, Cable Airport, Ca.
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GPS antenna cable |
In a message dated 8/15/2006 2:29:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Warren.Moore@tidelandsoil.com writes:
I have a Lowrance Airmap 2000c GPS, which came with a RAA-4 remote amplified
antenna. I want to mount the antenna on the rear deck under the canopy of my
RV-4. Is there any problem splicing into the existing cable and adding about
4ft? Also would like to run the cable thru a conduit which contains wiring
for MAC servo and Position light....will this cause any interference with the
GPS?
Thanks,
Warren Moore
RV-4, Cable Airport, Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren:
The only way to correctly splice a coax is to use connectors.
Adding the extra 4 ft will not be a problem as long as connectors are used.
Running it through the tubing, there you will have to experiment. More than
likely you should NOT have any problems. Strobes like to spread their signal
around ... You did say position lights, not strobes.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Listers,
I'm installing an XCOM760 and want to know a few things.
1) Can I just leave the intercom in the "always on" configuration by tying
the ON (pin 5) to ground??
If so, can I then disable it by using the F/CH knob???
2) Also, if I omit the switch in the backlight lead (pin 8) will the light
go out when I turn the radio off??
In other words, backlight always on but only IF the radio is on???
Same last question for Becker XPDR.
Rodney in Tennessee
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: | Problem with Power Sources |
I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main Bus and
E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the Master, the
E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus to feed the
E Bus without turning it on.
At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that and
still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work, but I wonder
what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole system in jeopardy
by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate any troubleshooting
ideas.
Ron
RV-4 - 10 hours
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: | encoder approval |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd
Hello Brian,
1) You wrote: "ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out."
Please do not tear your hair out or rend your garments on my behalf. Life is
too short for that.
2) At 10:36 AM EST on 8/10/2006 I wrote: "I wanted to avoid much
controversial and distracting communications pending the, hopefully
favorable, eventual ruling by FAA on this subject."
At 01:23:44 PM PST on 8/14/2006 You wrote: "Now, if you don't cease and
desist trying to confuse this issue, I am going to come over there and beat
your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)"
Sigh
3) You wrote: "YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:.....skip.....
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working."
It is more than a bit ironic that you and I are complete agreement on this
point. The problem lies in the fact that HQ FAA (and the EAA) currently do
not agree with you and me. Also neither did the avionics shop and FSDO that
Brian Meyette was dealing with (see his posting). Is there trouble brewing
in River City?
4) You wrote: "OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are
insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were."
You will recall that this thread was started by Skip Simpson who posted: "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"
I think that it would have been rude of me, and counter to the precepts of
this list, to ignore his request for information / help. I think that it
would have been unfair of me to give him just my opinion alone when I knew
the issue was unresolved. So I responded with the facts as they existed at
that time. Subsequently I have responded to all questions that were posed
directly to me as factually as possible. It would have been rude of me if I
had ignored those postings. If I have left anyone's water muddied or
anyone's cake pissed upon I apologize.
5) You wrote: "This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA.
You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you."
I asked FAA HQ for clarification of 91.217 (b) because of a doubtful encoder
situation that arose between a local builder who installed an EFIS, his FAA
inspector, another individual at the local FSDO, and the manufacturer of the
EFIS. I would have preferred to have not gotten a response from "some boob
who hasn't got a clue" on my first try, but I wasn't offered that option. So
I am trying again.
6) You wrote: "The key point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs
no interpretation."
Again, I agree, and if this is indeed the case then sooner or later we will
find some rational person at FAA HQ who agrees with your statement and the
issue will be resolved properly. In the meantime I hope that we can deal
with facts and not emotion, adamant statements of our opinions, or name
calling that might turn out to be counter productive.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:19 PM, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Brian Lloyd
>
> Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
>
> You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It
> doesn't have to be TSO'd.
> You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
> yourself."
>
> I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR
> 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as
> called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests
> required by FAR 91.217 (b).
ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out.
OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were.
YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the
altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that
altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft;
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working.
> Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has
> described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that
> is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous
> posting.
This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you. The key
point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation.
The transponder certification test is where you test and calibrate
your encoder to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125' of
the indicated or calibrated data of the altimeter normally used to
maintain flight attitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92"Hg
for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft.
Notice just how similar my words are to 91.217(b)?
Now, if you don't cease and desist trying to confuse this issue, I am
going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)
(BTW, if you use the same pressure sensor to generate your altitude
readout AND drive your transponder, the altitude sent by the
transponder absolutely MUST be the same indicated since they are both
the same data.) Brian Lloyd>>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L.
Nuckolls, III"
Hello Bob, I appear to aroused and aggravated two of our most senior gurus
on this list (you and Brian) at the same time -- I feel like I have hit the
quinella.
You wrote: "Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
I fully appreciate, understand, and accept your motivation for eschewing the
two dread words, "experimental" and "amateur", under certain circumstances.
I have the following comments:
A) When we call the same thing by two different names or two different
things by the same name sooner or later we sow confusion.
B) Many people, even in our community, do not know that OBAM stands for
Owner Built And Maintained. Maybe a spell out of the acronym the first time
it is used in a document would help.
B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that it is
indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain the aircraft.
This is misleading and needs to be clarified every once in a while, in fact
just recently on this list.
C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every aircraft in
our community must have been Built by the current Owner. But ownership by
individuals subsequent to the builder is very common in our community. There
are some significant issues involved with subsequent ownership.
D) When we are attempting to clarify some regulatory point among ourselves
and start to use terms like "registration", "certification",
"airworthiness", "special", "standard", "category", "Operating Limitations",
and "instrument and equipment requirements", it is helpful if we all use the
same terms to mean the same thing and that these are the terms also found in
the regulations.
These are just some of the reasons that I use the term ABEA (Amateur Built
Experimental Aircraft) from time to time when communicating within the
community. The next time that I am in a courtroom I'll fuzzy it up a bit.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<< AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
>
>As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
>above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
>experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built
>Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it
>has not received wide spread use.
Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
The average Joe on the street thinks getting into any little airplane
is foolhardy. Pasting an "experimental" label on the "amateur" built
machine only serves to elevate the listener/reader's level of
tension/apprehension.
Back when I gave depositions in accident investigations and
analysis we took pains to avoid words like "impact", "crash",
"shattered", etc in favor of equally accurate but less exciting words
like "contact", "event", "failed", etc. When attempting to
explain the finer details of an accident where 90% of the energy
is expended in the first few hundred milliseconds of an event,
it's challenging but useful to downplay the violence while
focusing on the science.
It's easier to keep the listener's attention to facts and
logic if you avoid the kind of words one hears in abundance
on the 6 o-clock news. It worked well in the courtroom and
many of our aviation-ignorant fellow citizens are considered
ideal jury material.
Further, in many venues the owner of a TC aircraft has accomplished
some pretty heavy maintenance and repairs albeit under the watchful
eye of a "certified" individual who ultimately accepts responsibility
for the work.
Bob . . .>>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Problem with Power Sources |
Ron,
I doubt that you have blown the diode. I'm no expert but have studied Bob's
drawings and have them in front of me. I must assume that when you say "but
I can't get the Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it on", "it "
refers to the master switch. If this is the case, it is working correctly.
The master switch activates the main contactor which supplies power to the
main buss and then the e-buss via the diode. If the e-buss is not powering
up in this scenario, I would check the orientation of the diode. Having it
reversed is not going to hurt it, but it just won't pass current to the
e-buss components.
When the master switch is turned on and the e-buss alternate feed switch is
turned off, use your voltmeter to look for 12V at the diode, and then at the
e-buss. When taking these readings, the negative lead of the voltmeter
should be touching ground. You should have 12V (give or take) at the diode
and the e-buss.
With master switch on, the e-buss can also get power when the e-buss
alternate feed switch is turned on.
Bevan
RV7A finish kit
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problem with Power Sources
I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main
Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the
Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus
to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that
and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work, but
I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole system in
jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate any
troubleshooting ideas.
Ron
RV-4 - 10 hours
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Problem with Power Sources |
You definitely want the e-buss to be fed through the diode from the main
buss so that the e-buss switch isn't a single point of failure.
Hotting up everything shouldn't cause any problems that I can see. On
our RV, we have the Master and E-buss switches side by side and turn
them both on every flight. It saves having to remember to turn on the
e-buss prior to offing the master. The way I see it, if the alternator
quits, we just turn off the master and shed whatever loads we can spare
from the e-buss. I'd hate to re-boot the Dynon, GPS and autopilot
(potentially in IMC) just because I got the order wrong.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Problem with Power Sources
I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus,
Main Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works
of the Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the
Main bus to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced
that and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all
work, but I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the
whole system in jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything.
Appreciate any troubleshooting ideas.
Ron
RV-4 - 10 hours
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: OBAM vs. ABEA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Just a point of interest and my 1/2 cent input. (way less than 2 cents).
This thread is the first time I've seen the acronym ABEA, but I have become
very familiar with OBAM over the past few years on this, and other,
Matronics lists. I think OBAM is a much better "sell" to the general public
than any mention of "experimental", "homebuilt", "homemade", or "amateur".
All of those words tend to instil negative connotations to anyone unfamiliar
with our hobby. To those directly involved the semantics are irrelevant, to
those "outsiders" the semantics could mean all the difference between
acceptance, understanding, appreciation, and rejection, mistrust or fear.
(just a thought to keep in the back of our minds when the need for
terminology comes up).
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 10:20 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OBAM vs. ABEA
< big snip >
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! --
|