Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:21 AM - Backup Electric Vacuum Pump (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 08:43 AM - Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:25 AM - Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump (Dave N6030X)
4. 10:19 AM - Beginner advice needed and greatly appreciated! (Paul K)
5. 01:13 PM - Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump (Bill Denton)
6. 01:25 PM - SL30 and Dynon (Emrath)
7. 04:05 PM - Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump (Dave N6030X)
8. 04:32 PM - Re: 18 AH Battery Test Data (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 05:23 PM - Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump (Robert Feldtman)
10. 05:39 PM - Re: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 05:51 PM - Re: Beginner advice needed and greatly appreciated! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:04 PM - Re: Beginner advice needed and greatly appreciated! (Ken)
13. 07:29 PM - Re: SL30 and Dynon (Emrath)
14. 08:27 PM - Monitoring external temperatures ()
15. 08:37 PM - Radio interference to instruments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 10:52 PM - Stolen aircraft... C-FBCG...help requested (B Tomm)
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: | Backup Electric Vacuum Pump |
Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
Thank you for the very complete analysis of my position on the validity of
using a T&B and venturi as a low cost back up to whatever else is deemed
desirable in a flying machine.
I have been reading your freely presented views since the days when the
connection was from Down By The Riverside Press. (or, something close to that)
Always a pleasure and your writings are always able to jiggle some thought
out of my very uneducated brain.
Nevertheless, I do think my responses have some merit.
The original question that started this particular string had to do with
providing a low cost source of vacuum.
The Venturi is a low cost option.
It is susceptible to icing, but when placed in a warm airstream behind the
engine it has been shown to handle ice quite well. Vacuum pumps do fail.
Especially the modern dry pumps if they are not replaced or serviced in accordance
with the manufacturers instructions.
I still think the venturi is a viable option.
I recognize that you cannot take the time to read everything on this list.
However, I think you would find that I have always said that I will happily
embrace a newer technology whenever it fits my needs (and my price point!).
There is nothing I would like better than having a solid state autopilot that
would be reliable enough such that I did not have to know how to fly by
instruments to be able to operate in cloud.
If I were to be dropped in the wilderness with nothing to sustain me, I
would surely die. Many of my ancestors would have been able to survive in those
same conditions.
Having accepted modern conveniences to keep me alive, I think I would be
able to accept fully automatic flight sometime in the future.
Just not yet.
I recognize that I am old and am happy with current knowledge. It does allow
me to feel comfortable flying a lot of those flying machines that are
"rotting away".
If the new breed of aviators is comfortable flying without the ability to
control their flying machine while in cloud, that is fine with me.
The venturi powered T&B in my Stearman is very comforting.
You infer that flying a partial panel is difficult. I contend that it is NOT
particularly difficult, IF adequate training has been received.
There is no doubt that the skill is being lost. Most larger airliners lost
their T&Bs almost forty years ago. To my knowledge, none ever had a turn
coordinator.
Chances are that many of the more modern airline pilots would have a problem
flying with the basic needle ball and airspeed.
I contend that the skill is relatively easy to attain ... IF the skill is
desired!
You very correctly stated that a skill not exercised tends to be lost. One
of the reasons I like the T&B over the TC is because I find it relatively easy
to integrate into my basic scan. I do so by using the T&B to check my rate
of turn even though basic attitude reference is being obtained from an
artificial horizon. This day and age, rate of turn is not regularly considered,
but
by keeping the rate of turn in mind, I force myself to include the T&B in my
normal scan which makes it much easier for me to use should a failure occur.
You make reference to my background as a professional pilot.
I agree that I have had an opportunity that not every pilot has, needs, or
wants. However, I have also been a flight instructor for fifty-eight years and
in those fifty-eight years have trained many an instrument pilot. Not all of
them have retained their partial panel skills, but many have!
I do not contend that my way is the only way, just that it is a useful way.
I see that I have wandered all over the landscape where the original intent
was to suggest a low cost source of vacuum to someone who was looking for such
a source.
Once again, my lack of education has done me in, --- but I am having fun!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 3/3/2007 11:24:12 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>At 09:23 PM 3/3/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Good Evening Bob,
>May I take that to mean that you would want a GPS aided wing leveler in a
Stearman?,
>Piper Cub?, Luscombe?, Cessna 140? Cessna 172, Beech Musketeer?,
>Beech Bonanza? North American AT-6? Twin Beech?
Sure, why not? The answer is simple for most owners
but for myself, I wouldn't own one of those airplanes
because I need to stand in line at too many windows
begging permission to make it better.
>Where would you draw the line? All of the above? None of the
>above? Some of the above?
You have just illuminated the reason that those airplanes
are all rotting away never to be replaced. The GPS
aided wing leveler is mechanically no more difficult to
install in one of those airplanes than in an RV. But
those who claim to know more about what's good for us
have become the mill-stones between which those airplanes
are slowly turning to dust.
>I have never flown any airplane that had a GPS aided wing lever
>though I have flown and owned plenty that did have wing levelers.
>We all have to make individual decisions on what we feel meets our
>individual level of risk, but requiring a GPS aided wing leveler
>is not real high on my list of necessities. Interesting that you
>think such a device is imperative.
Depends on what your design goals are. For most of the
the folks on this List, reducing cost of ownership is
a goal. Dependency on a T&B traded for dependency on
a GPS aided wing leveler offers a lower cost of ownership
over the lifetime of the airplane.
>Just goes to show, there is a wide range of desires among us all.
If the "desire" is to minimize the probability of an
unhappy ending to a piece of equipment failing, then
the design goals are pretty clear. I've watched the
conversations here on the List and elsewhere for
over a decade that vigorously debated the value of
this technique or piece of equipment over that . . .
But seldom did the conversation recommend reversion
modes that reduce, not increase pilot workload.
I'm dead-nuts serious about the admonition in my
signature tag . . . an exceedingly small number of pilots
accomplish daily practice for standard (much less reversion)
modes flight in IMC. I understand that you may be personally
comfortable . . . and perhaps world class in skills and
willingness to fly through clouds with the venerable tools
of yesteryear. I've done it too. But I cannot in good
conscience recommend that the neophyte builder embrace
these techniques today when there are better options that
are cheap as a percentage of the total cost of acquiring,
owning and operating an airplane.
In a cost-of-ownership accounting, the venturi-driven
T&B offered as a gift will be more expensive in $time$
expended than what's needed to install the modern alternative.
Further, the GPS aided wing leveler adds value to a
high percentage of every flight while the T&B is useful
for calibrating your rudder pressure on climb-out,
setting rudder trim, and being there to assist with the
management of a failure that you hope will never come but
demands a perpetual investment of $time$ to make sure
you are ready when it does.
Very few of us are professional pilots. Those of us
who are should be mindful of advice which presumes that
all listeners are interested in (or even capable of) achieving
levels of proficiency needed to avoid quantum jumps
in risk after certain failures. This isn't about a "wide
range of desires" but simple failure modes effects analysis
in a market place where the pilots come with a wide range
of capability and willingness to spend $time$ necessary
to level the risks if not lower them.
One of the reasons why I see an opportunity for OBAM aviation
to excel in accident reduction is because we can readily
take advantage of modernization opportunities for reducing
workload without begging anyone's permission.
When the GPS aided wing leveler is present, failure of the
primary display does not generate an immediate need
to revert to a whole new mode of flying. When one is
depending on primary attitude displays to stay upright,
then reversion to N/B/AS aviating at the same level of risk
demands and investment of $time$ for maintenance of
proficiency. The GPS aided wing leveler will hold track to
within a degree or so all day, every day and doesn't need a
bit of practice to stay "world class" at the task.
Bob . . .
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump |
At 09:20 AM 3/4/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>
>Thank you for the very complete analysis of my position on the validity of
>using a T&B and venturi as a low cost back up to whatever else is deemed
>desirable in a flying machine.
>
>I have been reading your freely presented views since the days when the
>connection was from Down By The Riverside Press. (or, something close to that)
>
>Always a pleasure and your writings are always able to jiggle some thought
>out of my very uneducated brain.
>
>Nevertheless, I do think my responses have some merit.
>
>The original question that started this particular string had to do with
>providing a low cost source of vacuum.
>
>The Venturi is a low cost option.
No argument.
>
>It is susceptible to icing, but when placed in a warm airstream behind the
>engine it has been shown to handle ice quite well. Vacuum pumps do fail.
>Especially the modern dry pumps if they are not replaced or serviced in
>accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
>
>I still think the venturi is a viable option.
Also no argument.
>
>I recognize that you cannot take the time to read everything on this list.
>However, I think you would find that I have always said that I will
>happily embrace a newer technology whenever it fits my needs (and my price
>point!). There is nothing I would like better than having a solid state
>autopilot that would be reliable enough such that I did not have to know
>how to fly by instruments to be able to operate in cloud.
>
>If I were to be dropped in the wilderness with nothing to sustain me, I
>would surely die. Many of my ancestors would have been able to survive in
>those same conditions.
>
>Having accepted modern conveniences to keep me alive, I think I would be
>able to accept fully automatic flight sometime in the future.
>
>Just not yet.
Which IS your preference . . .
>
>I recognize that I am old and am happy with current knowledge. It does
>allow me to feel comfortable flying a lot of those flying machines that
>are "rotting away".
>
>If the new breed of aviators is comfortable flying without the ability to
>control their flying machine while in cloud, that is fine with me.
>
>The venturi powered T&B in my Stearman is very comforting.
>
>You infer that flying a partial panel is difficult. I contend that it is
>NOT particularly difficult, IF adequate training has been received.
"IF" is the operative word here . . .
>
>There is no doubt that the skill is being lost. Most larger airliners lost
>their T&Bs almost forty years ago. To my knowledge, none ever had a turn
>coordinator.
>
>Chances are that many of the more modern airline pilots would have a
>problem flying with the basic needle ball and airspeed.
>
>I contend that the skill is relatively easy to attain ... IF the skill is
>desired!
>
>You very correctly stated that a skill not exercised tends to be lost. One
>of the reasons I like the T&B over the TC is because I find it relatively
>easy to integrate into my basic scan. I do so by using the T&B to check my
>rate of turn even though basic attitude reference is being obtained from
>an artificial horizon. This day and age, rate of turn is not regularly
>considered, but by keeping the rate of turn in mind, I force myself to
>include the T&B in my normal scan which makes it much easier for me to use
>should a failure occur.
>
>You make reference to my background as a professional pilot.
>
>I agree that I have had an opportunity that not every pilot has, needs, or
>wants. However, I have also been a flight instructor for fifty-eight years
>and in those fifty-eight years have trained many an instrument pilot. Not
>all of them have retained their partial panel skills, but many have!
>
>I do not contend that my way is the only way, just that it is a useful way.
>
>I see that I have wandered all over the landscape where the original
>intent was to suggest a low cost source of vacuum to someone who was
>looking for such a source.
>
>Once again, my lack of education has done me in, --- but I am having fun!
That's what it's all about. Fun and risk reduction.
You've offered nothing that's arguable. Nor have I.
You've encouraged new builders to take advantage of
a system that has a exceedingly low initial cost and
if they're willing to do the investment of $time$ for
training and sustaining the skill, it's one option.
My approach is that of a systems integrator where
the pilot is a close second place behind the airframe
in the study of need for reliability in flight system
components.
I have observed first-hand how a pilot who took all the
courses, spent a lot of time in his airplane, and outfitted
it with everything you and I both would recommend . . .
except a stand alone wing-leveler that would back up
the very expensive system that proved to have
vulnerabilities. Still, the mechanical failures he
was presented with should have been no big deal . . .
except that he experienced a real upset in the clouds and
upon recovery he no doubt had a cabin full of excited
passengers. Then while wrestling with the unbelievable
fact that all this $high$ stuff with backups on top
of backups was behaving in unanticipated, unpracticed
ways he needed to revert to an alternate mode of
flying the airplane. It's a situation that is exceedingly
difficult to train for.
I presume that a goodly number of our brothers are
building airplanes they intend to use for point-A
to point-B transportation. On long legged trips the
probability of encountering less than clear weather
is higher . . . and the possibilities for having
company in the cabin goes up. This paints a different
situation than one experiences while under the hood
with a pilot riding shotgun who can SEE what's really
going on. The shape of the airframe/pilot performance
limits envelope is different, variable and many features
cannot be anticipated.
If one EXPECTS to bore holes in clouds and wants the
minimum cost of ownership for a reversion mode of
flight management where the risks are on a par with
flight by stable gyro presentations, then a wing
leveler is THE solution. My personal vision of the
ideal machine for poking around in the fog has dual
wing levelers with a failure monitor system. This
suit of hardware would be expected to do ALL handling
of the ailerons while in IMC. Then I can leave all
the presentations off the panel because they're no
longer needed and the cost of ownership for having
them goes to zero.
Over the lifetime of the airplane where I would
expect to spend less than a few percent of total
flight time in IMC, the dual wing-leveler system
offers exceedingly low $ownership$ and risk compared to
the legacy systems the gray-beards have grown
up with.
That doesn't mean others among us shouldn't embrace
and even enjoy owning and operating a legacy system.
It's a matter of design goals. If one enjoys
stalking game with a bow and arrow and the risk of
going hungry is low or immaterial, great. But if one needs
to provide food for himself and perhaps others . . .
and technology enhanced tools for harvesting game
are available, then the optimum choice is clear.
If a builder is considering N/B/AS referenced flight
as a backup for "safe" flight, then he/she must
be anticipating some willingness (or accidental
probability) for venturing into clouds. So no
matter how good you, I or anyone else is with
the legacy flight instrumentation systems, we are
remiss in our duties as teachers if we do not
explain all of TODAY'S options and assist the readers in
understanding requirements for getting a low risk
return on the cost of ownership.
The low cost installation commits one to a future
investment of $time$ that should be fully explained
while the builder is still in the decision making phase
and before hardware is purchased and holes cut
in the panel. This isn't about anyone else's levels
of skill or personal preferences. It's a study of
return on investment and options for real risk reduction.
Bob . . .
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: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump |
I'll throw another variable into the equation. Under the heading of
"GPS ain't no guarantee neither"...
Yesterday while flying Eastbound under the floor of the rather
complex Class B airspace north of Dallas, my GPS suddenly said "No
Sat", and flopped over on its back. I figured it was just a quick
"blink" and kept flying. It stayed offline. I flew a 360 to see if
it would reaquire on any other satellites, but it didn't. I rebooted
it. I rebooted the PDA it was hooked to. I rebooted the WX Worx
box. I checked the power lights. (All while staying upright and
without busting the Class B).
Since I was trying to get from Dallas to Shreveport, I powered up my
backup Loran and looked up a few VORs while I was at it. Then I used
the Loran to give me the distance from the Addison airport whose
airspace I also needed to stay out of. Finally, I decided I had time
to go land at McKinney and figure out what was wrong with the GPS,
and at that instant, it came back online and stayed that way all the
way to Shreveport and back.
What I neglected to try was powering off my COM radios, since there
are reports that some local oscillator frequencies interfere with GPS
under certain conditions. I didn't have the luxury of powering off
my transponder, since I was deep inside the Mode C circle. But
here's a case where high technology failed and it was a good thing to
have a backup.
Dave Morris
At 10:41 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 09:20 AM 3/4/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>>
>>Thank you for the very complete analysis of my position on the
>>validity of using a T&B and venturi as a low cost back up to
>>whatever else is deemed desirable in a flying machine.
>>
>>I have been reading your freely presented views since the days when
>>the connection was from Down By The Riverside Press. (or, something
>>close to that)
>>
>>Always a pleasure and your writings are always able to jiggle some
>>thought out of my very uneducated brain.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I do think my responses have some merit.
>>
>>The original question that started this particular string had to do
>>with providing a low cost source of vacuum.
>>
>>The Venturi is a low cost option.
>
> No argument.
>
>>
>>It is susceptible to icing, but when placed in a warm airstream
>>behind the engine it has been shown to handle ice quite well.
>>Vacuum pumps do fail. Especially the modern dry pumps if they are
>>not replaced or serviced in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.
>>
>>I still think the venturi is a viable option.
>
> Also no argument.
>
>>
>>I recognize that you cannot take the time to read everything on
>>this list. However, I think you would find that I have always said
>>that I will happily embrace a newer technology whenever it fits my
>>needs (and my price point!). There is nothing I would like better
>>than having a solid state autopilot that would be reliable enough
>>such that I did not have to know how to fly by instruments to be
>>able to operate in cloud.
>>
>>If I were to be dropped in the wilderness with nothing to sustain
>>me, I would surely die. Many of my ancestors would have been able
>>to survive in those same conditions.
>>
>>Having accepted modern conveniences to keep me alive, I think I
>>would be able to accept fully automatic flight sometime in the future.
>>
>>Just not yet.
>
> Which IS your preference . . .
>
>>
>>I recognize that I am old and am happy with current knowledge. It
>>does allow me to feel comfortable flying a lot of those flying
>>machines that are "rotting away".
>>
>>If the new breed of aviators is comfortable flying without the
>>ability to control their flying machine while in cloud, that is fine with me.
>>
>>The venturi powered T&B in my Stearman is very comforting.
>>
>>You infer that flying a partial panel is difficult. I contend that
>>it is NOT particularly difficult, IF adequate training has been received.
>
> "IF" is the operative word here . . .
>
>>
>>There is no doubt that the skill is being lost. Most larger
>>airliners lost their T&Bs almost forty years ago. To my knowledge,
>>none ever had a turn coordinator.
>>
>>Chances are that many of the more modern airline pilots would have
>>a problem flying with the basic needle ball and airspeed.
>>
>>I contend that the skill is relatively easy to attain ... IF the
>>skill is desired!
>>
>>You very correctly stated that a skill not exercised tends to be
>>lost. One of the reasons I like the T&B over the TC is because I
>>find it relatively easy to integrate into my basic scan. I do so by
>>using the T&B to check my rate of turn even though basic attitude
>>reference is being obtained from an artificial horizon. This day
>>and age, rate of turn is not regularly considered, but by keeping
>>the rate of turn in mind, I force myself to include the T&B in my
>>normal scan which makes it much easier for me to use should a failure occur.
>>
>>You make reference to my background as a professional pilot.
>>
>>I agree that I have had an opportunity that not every pilot has,
>>needs, or wants. However, I have also been a flight instructor for
>>fifty-eight years and in those fifty-eight years have trained many
>>an instrument pilot. Not all of them have retained their partial
>>panel skills, but many have!
>>
>>I do not contend that my way is the only way, just that it is a useful way.
>>
>>I see that I have wandered all over the landscape where the
>>original intent was to suggest a low cost source of vacuum to
>>someone who was looking for such a source.
>>
>>Once again, my lack of education has done me in, --- but I am having fun!
>
> That's what it's all about. Fun and risk reduction.
> You've offered nothing that's arguable. Nor have I.
> You've encouraged new builders to take advantage of
> a system that has a exceedingly low initial cost and
> if they're willing to do the investment of $time$ for
> training and sustaining the skill, it's one option.
>
> My approach is that of a systems integrator where
> the pilot is a close second place behind the airframe
> in the study of need for reliability in flight system
> components.
>
> I have observed first-hand how a pilot who took all the
> courses, spent a lot of time in his airplane, and outfitted
> it with everything you and I both would recommend . . .
> except a stand alone wing-leveler that would back up
> the very expensive system that proved to have
> vulnerabilities. Still, the mechanical failures he
> was presented with should have been no big deal . . .
> except that he experienced a real upset in the clouds and
> upon recovery he no doubt had a cabin full of excited
> passengers. Then while wrestling with the unbelievable
> fact that all this $high$ stuff with backups on top
> of backups was behaving in unanticipated, unpracticed
> ways he needed to revert to an alternate mode of
> flying the airplane. It's a situation that is exceedingly
> difficult to train for.
>
> I presume that a goodly number of our brothers are
> building airplanes they intend to use for point-A
> to point-B transportation. On long legged trips the
> probability of encountering less than clear weather
> is higher . . . and the possibilities for having
> company in the cabin goes up. This paints a different
> situation than one experiences while under the hood
> with a pilot riding shotgun who can SEE what's really
> going on. The shape of the airframe/pilot performance
> limits envelope is different, variable and many features
> cannot be anticipated.
>
> If one EXPECTS to bore holes in clouds and wants the
> minimum cost of ownership for a reversion mode of
> flight management where the risks are on a par with
> flight by stable gyro presentations, then a wing
> leveler is THE solution. My personal vision of the
> ideal machine for poking around in the fog has dual
> wing levelers with a failure monitor system. This
> suit of hardware would be expected to do ALL handling
> of the ailerons while in IMC. Then I can leave all
> the presentations off the panel because they're no
> longer needed and the cost of ownership for having
> them goes to zero.
>
> Over the lifetime of the airplane where I would
> expect to spend less than a few percent of total
> flight time in IMC, the dual wing-leveler system
> offers exceedingly low $ownership$ and risk compared to
> the legacy systems the gray-beards have grown
> up with.
>
> That doesn't mean others among us shouldn't embrace
> and even enjoy owning and operating a legacy system.
> It's a matter of design goals. If one enjoys
> stalking game with a bow and arrow and the risk of
> going hungry is low or immaterial, great. But if one needs
> to provide food for himself and perhaps others . . .
> and technology enhanced tools for harvesting game
> are available, then the optimum choice is clear.
>
> If a builder is considering N/B/AS referenced flight
> as a backup for "safe" flight, then he/she must
> be anticipating some willingness (or accidental
> probability) for venturing into clouds. So no
> matter how good you, I or anyone else is with
> the legacy flight instrumentation systems, we are
> remiss in our duties as teachers if we do not
> explain all of TODAY'S options and assist the readers in
> understanding requirements for getting a low risk
> return on the cost of ownership.
>
> The low cost installation commits one to a future
> investment of $time$ that should be fully explained
> while the builder is still in the decision making phase
> and before hardware is purchased and holes cut
> in the panel. This isn't about anyone else's levels
> of skill or personal preferences. It's a study of
> return on investment and options for real risk reduction.
>
> 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: | Beginner advice needed and greatly appreciated! |
Hi Guys,
I have been following this list for about 3 years. In the beginning 99.99%
went over my head but now only 99.9% is not understood. One thing I have
learned is that this is a great place to learn and get help.
Ok, I am just starting to wire my capacitance fuel senders for a RV7. At
present I have not acquired any tools. Over time my data base of saved
"tooling messages" is quite extensive. Based on that knowledge and recent
rereading of Bob's articles on the use of said tools I have formed a few
questions that maybe someone can help me with.
I know technique is critical. Regardless of price is it easier to get up
to speed and precision with a tool like Daniels Mil Spec crimper or is the
B&C RCT-1 just as (difficult / easy) to learn and master.
My next question is what tools will I need to finish the RV wiring system.
It may not seem like it but you have all been teaching me alot in a few
short years. Thanks
Paul
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: | Backup Electric Vacuum Pump |
Probably not relevant to this specific problem, but worth noting...
In the installation manuals for Garmin's 400W and 500W series units, it
states the following:
"Ground-based cell phones that are on, even in a monitoring state, can
disrupt GPS performance."
I know there have been all sorts of nebulous warnings floating around from
time to time, but this is the first specific one I've seen.
Hope it's useful to some of you guys...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave
N6030X
Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump
I'll throw another variable into the equation. Under the heading of
"GPS ain't no guarantee neither"...
Yesterday while flying Eastbound under the floor of the rather
complex Class B airspace north of Dallas, my GPS suddenly said "No
Sat", and flopped over on its back. I figured it was just a quick
"blink" and kept flying. It stayed offline. I flew a 360 to see if
it would reaquire on any other satellites, but it didn't. I rebooted
it. I rebooted the PDA it was hooked to. I rebooted the WX Worx
box. I checked the power lights. (All while staying upright and
without busting the Class B).
Since I was trying to get from Dallas to Shreveport, I powered up my
backup Loran and looked up a few VORs while I was at it. Then I used
the Loran to give me the distance from the Addison airport whose
airspace I also needed to stay out of. Finally, I decided I had time
to go land at McKinney and figure out what was wrong with the GPS,
and at that instant, it came back online and stayed that way all the
way to Shreveport and back.
What I neglected to try was powering off my COM radios, since there
are reports that some local oscillator frequencies interfere with GPS
under certain conditions. I didn't have the luxury of powering off
my transponder, since I was deep inside the Mode C circle. But
here's a case where high technology failed and it was a good thing to
have a backup.
Dave Morris
At 10:41 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 09:20 AM 3/4/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>>
>>Thank you for the very complete analysis of my position on the
>>validity of using a T&B and venturi as a low cost back up to
>>whatever else is deemed desirable in a flying machine.
>>
>>I have been reading your freely presented views since the days when
>>the connection was from Down By The Riverside Press. (or, something
>>close to that)
>>
>>Always a pleasure and your writings are always able to jiggle some
>>thought out of my very uneducated brain.
>>
>>Nevertheless, I do think my responses have some merit.
>>
>>The original question that started this particular string had to do
>>with providing a low cost source of vacuum.
>>
>>The Venturi is a low cost option.
>
> No argument.
>
>>
>>It is susceptible to icing, but when placed in a warm airstream
>>behind the engine it has been shown to handle ice quite well.
>>Vacuum pumps do fail. Especially the modern dry pumps if they are
>>not replaced or serviced in accordance with the manufacturers
instructions.
>>
>>I still think the venturi is a viable option.
>
> Also no argument.
>
>>
>>I recognize that you cannot take the time to read everything on
>>this list. However, I think you would find that I have always said
>>that I will happily embrace a newer technology whenever it fits my
>>needs (and my price point!). There is nothing I would like better
>>than having a solid state autopilot that would be reliable enough
>>such that I did not have to know how to fly by instruments to be
>>able to operate in cloud.
>>
>>If I were to be dropped in the wilderness with nothing to sustain
>>me, I would surely die. Many of my ancestors would have been able
>>to survive in those same conditions.
>>
>>Having accepted modern conveniences to keep me alive, I think I
>>would be able to accept fully automatic flight sometime in the future.
>>
>>Just not yet.
>
> Which IS your preference . . .
>
>>
>>I recognize that I am old and am happy with current knowledge. It
>>does allow me to feel comfortable flying a lot of those flying
>>machines that are "rotting away".
>>
>>If the new breed of aviators is comfortable flying without the
>>ability to control their flying machine while in cloud, that is fine with
me.
>>
>>The venturi powered T&B in my Stearman is very comforting.
>>
>>You infer that flying a partial panel is difficult. I contend that
>>it is NOT particularly difficult, IF adequate training has been received.
>
> "IF" is the operative word here . . .
>
>>
>>There is no doubt that the skill is being lost. Most larger
>>airliners lost their T&Bs almost forty years ago. To my knowledge,
>>none ever had a turn coordinator.
>>
>>Chances are that many of the more modern airline pilots would have
>>a problem flying with the basic needle ball and airspeed.
>>
>>I contend that the skill is relatively easy to attain ... IF the
>>skill is desired!
>>
>>You very correctly stated that a skill not exercised tends to be
>>lost. One of the reasons I like the T&B over the TC is because I
>>find it relatively easy to integrate into my basic scan. I do so by
>>using the T&B to check my rate of turn even though basic attitude
>>reference is being obtained from an artificial horizon. This day
>>and age, rate of turn is not regularly considered, but by keeping
>>the rate of turn in mind, I force myself to include the T&B in my
>>normal scan which makes it much easier for me to use should a failure
occur.
>>
>>You make reference to my background as a professional pilot.
>>
>>I agree that I have had an opportunity that not every pilot has,
>>needs, or wants. However, I have also been a flight instructor for
>>fifty-eight years and in those fifty-eight years have trained many
>>an instrument pilot. Not all of them have retained their partial
>>panel skills, but many have!
>>
>>I do not contend that my way is the only way, just that it is a useful
way.
>>
>>I see that I have wandered all over the landscape where the
>>original intent was to suggest a low cost source of vacuum to
>>someone who was looking for such a source.
>>
>>Once again, my lack of education has done me in, --- but I am having fun!
>
> That's what it's all about. Fun and risk reduction.
> You've offered nothing that's arguable. Nor have I.
> You've encouraged new builders to take advantage of
> a system that has a exceedingly low initial cost and
> if they're willing to do the investment of $time$ for
> training and sustaining the skill, it's one option.
>
> My approach is that of a systems integrator where
> the pilot is a close second place behind the airframe
> in the study of need for reliability in flight system
> components.
>
> I have observed first-hand how a pilot who took all the
> courses, spent a lot of time in his airplane, and outfitted
> it with everything you and I both would recommend . . .
> except a stand alone wing-leveler that would back up
> the very expensive system that proved to have
> vulnerabilities. Still, the mechanical failures he
> was presented with should have been no big deal . . .
> except that he experienced a real upset in the clouds and
> upon recovery he no doubt had a cabin full of excited
> passengers. Then while wrestling with the unbelievable
> fact that all this $high$ stuff with backups on top
> of backups was behaving in unanticipated, unpracticed
> ways he needed to revert to an alternate mode of
> flying the airplane. It's a situation that is exceedingly
> difficult to train for.
>
> I presume that a goodly number of our brothers are
> building airplanes they intend to use for point-A
> to point-B transportation. On long legged trips the
> probability of encountering less than clear weather
> is higher . . . and the possibilities for having
> company in the cabin goes up. This paints a different
> situation than one experiences while under the hood
> with a pilot riding shotgun who can SEE what's really
> going on. The shape of the airframe/pilot performance
> limits envelope is different, variable and many features
> cannot be anticipated.
>
> If one EXPECTS to bore holes in clouds and wants the
> minimum cost of ownership for a reversion mode of
> flight management where the risks are on a par with
> flight by stable gyro presentations, then a wing
> leveler is THE solution. My personal vision of the
> ideal machine for poking around in the fog has dual
> wing levelers with a failure monitor system. This
> suit of hardware would be expected to do ALL handling
> of the ailerons while in IMC. Then I can leave all
> the presentations off the panel because they're no
> longer needed and the cost of ownership for having
> them goes to zero.
>
> Over the lifetime of the airplane where I would
> expect to spend less than a few percent of total
> flight time in IMC, the dual wing-leveler system
> offers exceedingly low $ownership$ and risk compared to
> the legacy systems the gray-beards have grown
> up with.
>
> That doesn't mean others among us shouldn't embrace
> and even enjoy owning and operating a legacy system.
> It's a matter of design goals. If one enjoys
> stalking game with a bow and arrow and the risk of
> going hungry is low or immaterial, great. But if one needs
> to provide food for himself and perhaps others . . .
> and technology enhanced tools for harvesting game
> are available, then the optimum choice is clear.
>
> If a builder is considering N/B/AS referenced flight
> as a backup for "safe" flight, then he/she must
> be anticipating some willingness (or accidental
> probability) for venturing into clouds. So no
> matter how good you, I or anyone else is with
> the legacy flight instrumentation systems, we are
> remiss in our duties as teachers if we do not
> explain all of TODAY'S options and assist the readers in
> understanding requirements for getting a low risk
> return on the cost of ownership.
>
> The low cost installation commits one to a future
> investment of $time$ that should be fully explained
> while the builder is still in the decision making phase
> and before hardware is purchased and holes cut
> in the panel. This isn't about anyone else's levels
> of skill or personal preferences. It's a study of
> return on investment and options for real risk reduction.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
I would like to get opinions and thoughts from anyone driving the HSI
feature of the Dynon D10A or D100 from a Garmin SL30 Garmin. I'm thinking
of doing this in lieu of having a DG and a CDI/LOC/GS/GPS indicator like a
MD200-306 indicator and wondering about the pros and cons of this. I
already have a Altitude Indicator.
Marty
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: | Backup Electric Vacuum Pump |
That's a very interesting point, because it was the one time I've
flown in the past 5 months where I accidentally left my cellphone
turned on in my coat pocket all the way in the baggage compartment
and couldn't reach it, so I just left it alone. Hmmmmmmmm
Dave Morirs
At 03:12 PM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
>
>Probably not relevant to this specific problem, but worth noting...
>
>In the installation manuals for Garmin's 400W and 500W series units, it
>states the following:
>
>"Ground-based cell phones that are on, even in a monitoring state, can
>disrupt GPS performance."
>
>I know there have been all sorts of nebulous warnings floating around from
>time to time, but this is the first specific one I've seen.
>
>Hope it's useful to some of you guys...
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave
>N6030X
>Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:23 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump
>
>
>
>I'll throw another variable into the equation. Under the heading of
>"GPS ain't no guarantee neither"...
>
>Yesterday while flying Eastbound under the floor of the rather
>complex Class B airspace north of Dallas, my GPS suddenly said "No
>Sat", and flopped over on its back. I figured it was just a quick
>"blink" and kept flying. It stayed offline. I flew a 360 to see if
>it would reaquire on any other satellites, but it didn't. I rebooted
>it. I rebooted the PDA it was hooked to. I rebooted the WX Worx
>box. I checked the power lights. (All while staying upright and
>without busting the Class B).
>
>Since I was trying to get from Dallas to Shreveport, I powered up my
>backup Loran and looked up a few VORs while I was at it. Then I used
>the Loran to give me the distance from the Addison airport whose
>airspace I also needed to stay out of. Finally, I decided I had time
>to go land at McKinney and figure out what was wrong with the GPS,
>and at that instant, it came back online and stayed that way all the
>way to Shreveport and back.
>
>What I neglected to try was powering off my COM radios, since there
>are reports that some local oscillator frequencies interfere with GPS
>under certain conditions. I didn't have the luxury of powering off
>my transponder, since I was deep inside the Mode C circle. But
>here's a case where high technology failed and it was a good thing to
>have a backup.
>
>Dave Morris
>
>
>At 10:41 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
> ><nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> >At 09:20 AM 3/4/2007 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >>Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
> >>
> >>Thank you for the very complete analysis of my position on the
> >>validity of using a T&B and venturi as a low cost back up to
> >>whatever else is deemed desirable in a flying machine.
> >>
> >>I have been reading your freely presented views since the days when
> >>the connection was from Down By The Riverside Press. (or, something
> >>close to that)
> >>
> >>Always a pleasure and your writings are always able to jiggle some
> >>thought out of my very uneducated brain.
> >>
> >>Nevertheless, I do think my responses have some merit.
> >>
> >>The original question that started this particular string had to do
> >>with providing a low cost source of vacuum.
> >>
> >>The Venturi is a low cost option.
> >
> > No argument.
> >
> >>
> >>It is susceptible to icing, but when placed in a warm airstream
> >>behind the engine it has been shown to handle ice quite well.
> >>Vacuum pumps do fail. Especially the modern dry pumps if they are
> >>not replaced or serviced in accordance with the manufacturers
>instructions.
> >>
> >>I still think the venturi is a viable option.
> >
> > Also no argument.
> >
> >>
> >>I recognize that you cannot take the time to read everything on
> >>this list. However, I think you would find that I have always said
> >>that I will happily embrace a newer technology whenever it fits my
> >>needs (and my price point!). There is nothing I would like better
> >>than having a solid state autopilot that would be reliable enough
> >>such that I did not have to know how to fly by instruments to be
> >>able to operate in cloud.
> >>
> >>If I were to be dropped in the wilderness with nothing to sustain
> >>me, I would surely die. Many of my ancestors would have been able
> >>to survive in those same conditions.
> >>
> >>Having accepted modern conveniences to keep me alive, I think I
> >>would be able to accept fully automatic flight sometime in the future.
> >>
> >>Just not yet.
> >
> > Which IS your preference . . .
> >
> >>
> >>I recognize that I am old and am happy with current knowledge. It
> >>does allow me to feel comfortable flying a lot of those flying
> >>machines that are "rotting away".
> >>
> >>If the new breed of aviators is comfortable flying without the
> >>ability to control their flying machine while in cloud, that is fine with
>me.
> >>
> >>The venturi powered T&B in my Stearman is very comforting.
> >>
> >>You infer that flying a partial panel is difficult. I contend that
> >>it is NOT particularly difficult, IF adequate training has been received.
> >
> > "IF" is the operative word here . . .
> >
> >>
> >>There is no doubt that the skill is being lost. Most larger
> >>airliners lost their T&Bs almost forty years ago. To my knowledge,
> >>none ever had a turn coordinator.
> >>
> >>Chances are that many of the more modern airline pilots would have
> >>a problem flying with the basic needle ball and airspeed.
> >>
> >>I contend that the skill is relatively easy to attain ... IF the
> >>skill is desired!
> >>
> >>You very correctly stated that a skill not exercised tends to be
> >>lost. One of the reasons I like the T&B over the TC is because I
> >>find it relatively easy to integrate into my basic scan. I do so by
> >>using the T&B to check my rate of turn even though basic attitude
> >>reference is being obtained from an artificial horizon. This day
> >>and age, rate of turn is not regularly considered, but by keeping
> >>the rate of turn in mind, I force myself to include the T&B in my
> >>normal scan which makes it much easier for me to use should a failure
>occur.
> >>
> >>You make reference to my background as a professional pilot.
> >>
> >>I agree that I have had an opportunity that not every pilot has,
> >>needs, or wants. However, I have also been a flight instructor for
> >>fifty-eight years and in those fifty-eight years have trained many
> >>an instrument pilot. Not all of them have retained their partial
> >>panel skills, but many have!
> >>
> >>I do not contend that my way is the only way, just that it is a useful
>way.
> >>
> >>I see that I have wandered all over the landscape where the
> >>original intent was to suggest a low cost source of vacuum to
> >>someone who was looking for such a source.
> >>
> >>Once again, my lack of education has done me in, --- but I am having fun!
> >
> > That's what it's all about. Fun and risk reduction.
> > You've offered nothing that's arguable. Nor have I.
> > You've encouraged new builders to take advantage of
> > a system that has a exceedingly low initial cost and
> > if they're willing to do the investment of $time$ for
> > training and sustaining the skill, it's one option.
> >
> > My approach is that of a systems integrator where
> > the pilot is a close second place behind the airframe
> > in the study of need for reliability in flight system
> > components.
> >
> > I have observed first-hand how a pilot who took all the
> > courses, spent a lot of time in his airplane, and outfitted
> > it with everything you and I both would recommend . . .
> > except a stand alone wing-leveler that would back up
> > the very expensive system that proved to have
> > vulnerabilities. Still, the mechanical failures he
> > was presented with should have been no big deal . . .
> > except that he experienced a real upset in the clouds and
> > upon recovery he no doubt had a cabin full of excited
> > passengers. Then while wrestling with the unbelievable
> > fact that all this $high$ stuff with backups on top
> > of backups was behaving in unanticipated, unpracticed
> > ways he needed to revert to an alternate mode of
> > flying the airplane. It's a situation that is exceedingly
> > difficult to train for.
> >
> > I presume that a goodly number of our brothers are
> > building airplanes they intend to use for point-A
> > to point-B transportation. On long legged trips the
> > probability of encountering less than clear weather
> > is higher . . . and the possibilities for having
> > company in the cabin goes up. This paints a different
> > situation than one experiences while under the hood
> > with a pilot riding shotgun who can SEE what's really
> > going on. The shape of the airframe/pilot performance
> > limits envelope is different, variable and many features
> > cannot be anticipated.
> >
> > If one EXPECTS to bore holes in clouds and wants the
> > minimum cost of ownership for a reversion mode of
> > flight management where the risks are on a par with
> > flight by stable gyro presentations, then a wing
> > leveler is THE solution. My personal vision of the
> > ideal machine for poking around in the fog has dual
> > wing levelers with a failure monitor system. This
> > suit of hardware would be expected to do ALL handling
> > of the ailerons while in IMC. Then I can leave all
> > the presentations off the panel because they're no
> > longer needed and the cost of ownership for having
> > them goes to zero.
> >
> > Over the lifetime of the airplane where I would
> > expect to spend less than a few percent of total
> > flight time in IMC, the dual wing-leveler system
> > offers exceedingly low $ownership$ and risk compared to
> > the legacy systems the gray-beards have grown
> > up with.
> >
> > That doesn't mean others among us shouldn't embrace
> > and even enjoy owning and operating a legacy system.
> > It's a matter of design goals. If one enjoys
> > stalking game with a bow and arrow and the risk of
> > going hungry is low or immaterial, great. But if one needs
> > to provide food for himself and perhaps others . . .
> > and technology enhanced tools for harvesting game
> > are available, then the optimum choice is clear.
> >
> > If a builder is considering N/B/AS referenced flight
> > as a backup for "safe" flight, then he/she must
> > be anticipating some willingness (or accidental
> > probability) for venturing into clouds. So no
> > matter how good you, I or anyone else is with
> > the legacy flight instrumentation systems, we are
> > remiss in our duties as teachers if we do not
> > explain all of TODAY'S options and assist the readers in
> > understanding requirements for getting a low risk
> > return on the cost of ownership.
> >
> > The low cost installation commits one to a future
> > investment of $time$ that should be fully explained
> > while the builder is still in the decision making phase
> > and before hardware is purchased and holes cut
> > in the panel. This isn't about anyone else's levels
> > of skill or personal preferences. It's a study of
> > return on investment and options for real risk reduction.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: 18 AH Battery Test Data |
At 01:28 PM 3/1/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Listers,
>FWIW I have been following the procedure of replacing my 18/17.X AH RG
>battery annually for the last two years. This year, I decided to do an
>endurance test on the "old" battery. Using an automotive two filament
>headlamp with the filaments in parallel, I was able to start at a current
>of 6.7 amps drain to simulate an endurance buss demand with a failed
>alternator. The battery has been used for one year including about 40
>flight hours and 50 engine starts.
>The battery is a 17-18 AH sold by Batteries Plus sometimes with the name
>Xtreme Plus.
>My engine is an O-320 with 110 plus hours on it. These batteries turn the
>engine over very "smartly" only observed at temperatures above 60F.
>At the beginning of the test, the current was 6.7 A and at the end at 5.6
>A . This decline is partly explained by the voltage decline as well as
>filament resistance decrease with temperature in the lamp.
>These results are consistent with the specification sheet provided for the
>Xtreme Plus batteries which predicts a two hour endurance at 6A.
>
>Regards,
>
>Richard Dudley
Good data sir. Thanks for sharing. Richard's experiment
underscores the idea that MOST RG/VSLA batteries are
capable of providing satisfactory service for periods
of more than a year.
The problem to be cited and solved is what are YOUR
personal requirements for support of electro-whizzies
in the alternator-out, endurance mode? Further, what
is your $time$ and $equipment$ investments worth to
track your battery's performance?
I have a number of batteries in the shop that are used
for various portable power applications . . . some are
over 5 years old. Some are down to less than 80% of original
capacity. However, the equipment needed to check a battery's
present ability is always available as a standard component
of my professional tools. The $time$ for me to put a dipstick
into a battery's capacity takes perhaps two minutes total
time. One minute to hook it up to the tester and another
minute to return it to the rack where a Battery Minder
will top it off. When I grab a battery and saddle up to
do a task, I know what the battery can be expected to
do for me.
A lot of folks got upset at my recommendation for yearly
replacement of the ship's battery. But if you can buy
an 18/20 AH battery for about $30 then what is the cost
of ownership trade off to test the battery perhaps one
or two times to determine serviceability over the lifetime
of the battery?
Obviously, the more expensive the battery, the more likely
it is that acquiring and using test equipment becomes
attractive. Richard didn't describe his own operating
requirements for load and endurance but it seems likely
that he might use the battery for another year. Assuming
he tests in another year and then discards the battery,
his cost of ownership is ($acquisition$) + 2x($test$)
divided by 2.
Nobody is in a position to make any really useful recommendations
for battery replacement without having a lot of data about
how you expect your battery to perform and knowing
what your $time$ is worth when expended on the task
of battery maintenance.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump |
Remember - the feds can turn off the GPS system with any perceived
threat - so I'd be careful about pure IMC in an A/C where GPS is only
source of data. I noted it was "down" during the Super bowl.
bobf
Dave N6030X wrote:
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> That's a very interesting point, because it was the one time I've
> flown in the past 5 months where I accidentally left my cellphone
> turned on in my coat pocket all the way in the baggage compartment and
> couldn't reach it, so I just left it alone. Hmmmmmmmm
>
> Dave Morirs
>
> At 03:12 PM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
>> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>> Probably not relevant to this specific problem, but worth noting...
>>
>> In the installation manuals for Garmin's 400W and 500W series units, it
>> states the following:
>>
>> "Ground-based cell phones that are on, even in a monitoring state, can
>> disrupt GPS performance."
>>
>> I know there have been all sorts of nebulous warnings floating around
>> from
>> time to time, but this is the first specific one I've seen.
>>
>> Hope it's useful to some of you guys...
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave
>> N6030X
>> Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2007 11:23 AM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Backup Electric Vacuum Pump
>>
>>
>> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>>
>> I'll throw another variable into the equation. Under the heading of
>> "GPS ain't no guarantee neither"...
>>
>> Yesterday while flying Eastbound under the floor of the rather
>> complex Class B airspace north of Dallas, my GPS suddenly said "No
>> Sat", and flopped over on its back. I figured it was just a quick
>> "blink" and kept flying. It stayed offline. I flew a 360 to see if
>> it would reaquire on any other satellites, but it didn't. I rebooted
>> it. I rebooted the PDA it was hooked to. I rebooted the WX Worx
>> box. I checked the power lights. (All while staying upright and
>> without busting the Class B).
>>
>> Since I was trying to get from Dallas to Shreveport, I powered up my
>> backup Loran and looked up a few VORs while I was at it. Then I used
>> the Loran to give me the distance from the Addison airport whose
>> airspace I also needed to stay out of. Finally, I decided I had time
>> to go land at McKinney and figure out what was wrong with the GPS,
>> and at that instant, it came back online and stayed that way all the
>> way to Shreveport and back.
>>
>> What I neglected to try was powering off my COM radios, since there
>> are reports that some local oscillator frequencies interfere with GPS
>> under certain conditions. I didn't have the luxury of powering off
>> my transponder, since I was deep inside the Mode C circle. But
>> here's a case where high technology failed and it was a good thing to
>> have a backup.
>>
>> Dave Morris
>>
>>
>> At 10:41 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
>> ><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>> >
>> >At 09:20 AM 3/4/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>> >
>> >>Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>> >>
>> >>Thank you for the very complete analysis of my position on the
>> >>validity of using a T&B and venturi as a low cost back up to
>> >>whatever else is deemed desirable in a flying machine.
>> >>
>> >>I have been reading your freely presented views since the days when
>> >>the connection was from Down By The Riverside Press. (or, something
>> >>close to that)
>> >>
>> >>Always a pleasure and your writings are always able to jiggle some
>> >>thought out of my very uneducated brain.
>> >>
>> >>Nevertheless, I do think my responses have some merit.
>> >>
>> >>The original question that started this particular string had to do
>> >>with providing a low cost source of vacuum.
>> >>
>> >>The Venturi is a low cost option.
>> >
>> > No argument.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>It is susceptible to icing, but when placed in a warm airstream
>> >>behind the engine it has been shown to handle ice quite well.
>> >>Vacuum pumps do fail. Especially the modern dry pumps if they are
>> >>not replaced or serviced in accordance with the manufacturers
>> instructions.
>> >>
>> >>I still think the venturi is a viable option.
>> >
>> > Also no argument.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>I recognize that you cannot take the time to read everything on
>> >>this list. However, I think you would find that I have always said
>> >>that I will happily embrace a newer technology whenever it fits my
>> >>needs (and my price point!). There is nothing I would like better
>> >>than having a solid state autopilot that would be reliable enough
>> >>such that I did not have to know how to fly by instruments to be
>> >>able to operate in cloud.
>> >>
>> >>If I were to be dropped in the wilderness with nothing to sustain
>> >>me, I would surely die. Many of my ancestors would have been able
>> >>to survive in those same conditions.
>> >>
>> >>Having accepted modern conveniences to keep me alive, I think I
>> >>would be able to accept fully automatic flight sometime in the future.
>> >>
>> >>Just not yet.
>> >
>> > Which IS your preference . . .
>> >
>> >>
>> >>I recognize that I am old and am happy with current knowledge. It
>> >>does allow me to feel comfortable flying a lot of those flying
>> >>machines that are "rotting away".
>> >>
>> >>If the new breed of aviators is comfortable flying without the
>> >>ability to control their flying machine while in cloud, that is
>> fine with
>> me.
>> >>
>> >>The venturi powered T&B in my Stearman is very comforting.
>> >>
>> >>You infer that flying a partial panel is difficult. I contend that
>> >>it is NOT particularly difficult, IF adequate training has been
>> received.
>> >
>> > "IF" is the operative word here . . .
>> >
>> >>
>> >>There is no doubt that the skill is being lost. Most larger
>> >>airliners lost their T&Bs almost forty years ago. To my knowledge,
>> >>none ever had a turn coordinator.
>> >>
>> >>Chances are that many of the more modern airline pilots would have
>> >>a problem flying with the basic needle ball and airspeed.
>> >>
>> >>I contend that the skill is relatively easy to attain ... IF the
>> >>skill is desired!
>> >>
>> >>You very correctly stated that a skill not exercised tends to be
>> >>lost. One of the reasons I like the T&B over the TC is because I
>> >>find it relatively easy to integrate into my basic scan. I do so by
>> >>using the T&B to check my rate of turn even though basic attitude
>> >>reference is being obtained from an artificial horizon. This day
>> >>and age, rate of turn is not regularly considered, but by keeping
>> >>the rate of turn in mind, I force myself to include the T&B in my
>> >>normal scan which makes it much easier for me to use should a failure
>> occur.
>> >>
>> >>You make reference to my background as a professional pilot.
>> >>
>> >>I agree that I have had an opportunity that not every pilot has,
>> >>needs, or wants. However, I have also been a flight instructor for
>> >>fifty-eight years and in those fifty-eight years have trained many
>> >>an instrument pilot. Not all of them have retained their partial
>> >>panel skills, but many have!
>> >>
>> >>I do not contend that my way is the only way, just that it is a useful
>> way.
>> >>
>> >>I see that I have wandered all over the landscape where the
>> >>original intent was to suggest a low cost source of vacuum to
>> >>someone who was looking for such a source.
>> >>
>> >>Once again, my lack of education has done me in, --- but I am
>> having fun!
>> >
>> > That's what it's all about. Fun and risk reduction.
>> > You've offered nothing that's arguable. Nor have I.
>> > You've encouraged new builders to take advantage of
>> > a system that has a exceedingly low initial cost and
>> > if they're willing to do the investment of $time$ for
>> > training and sustaining the skill, it's one option.
>> >
>> > My approach is that of a systems integrator where
>> > the pilot is a close second place behind the airframe
>> > in the study of need for reliability in flight system
>> > components.
>> >
>> > I have observed first-hand how a pilot who took all the
>> > courses, spent a lot of time in his airplane, and outfitted
>> > it with everything you and I both would recommend . . .
>> > except a stand alone wing-leveler that would back up
>> > the very expensive system that proved to have
>> > vulnerabilities. Still, the mechanical failures he
>> > was presented with should have been no big deal . . .
>> > except that he experienced a real upset in the clouds and
>> > upon recovery he no doubt had a cabin full of excited
>> > passengers. Then while wrestling with the unbelievable
>> > fact that all this $high$ stuff with backups on top
>> > of backups was behaving in unanticipated, unpracticed
>> > ways he needed to revert to an alternate mode of
>> > flying the airplane. It's a situation that is exceedingly
>> > difficult to train for.
>> >
>> > I presume that a goodly number of our brothers are
>> > building airplanes they intend to use for point-A
>> > to point-B transportation. On long legged trips the
>> > probability of encountering less than clear weather
>> > is higher . . . and the possibilities for having
>> > company in the cabin goes up. This paints a different
>> > situation than one experiences while under the hood
>> > with a pilot riding shotgun who can SEE what's really
>> > going on. The shape of the airframe/pilot performance
>> > limits envelope is different, variable and many features
>> > cannot be anticipated.
>> >
>> > If one EXPECTS to bore holes in clouds and wants the
>> > minimum cost of ownership for a reversion mode of
>> > flight management where the risks are on a par with
>> > flight by stable gyro presentations, then a wing
>> > leveler is THE solution. My personal vision of the
>> > ideal machine for poking around in the fog has dual
>> > wing levelers with a failure monitor system. This
>> > suit of hardware would be expected to do ALL handling
>> > of the ailerons while in IMC. Then I can leave all
>> > the presentations off the panel because they're no
>> > longer needed and the cost of ownership for having
>> > them goes to zero.
>> >
>> > Over the lifetime of the airplane where I would
>> > expect to spend less than a few percent of total
>> > flight time in IMC, the dual wing-leveler system
>> > offers exceedingly low $ownership$ and risk compared to
>> > the legacy systems the gray-beards have grown
>> > up with.
>> >
>> > That doesn't mean others among us shouldn't embrace
>> > and even enjoy owning and operating a legacy system.
>> > It's a matter of design goals. If one enjoys
>> > stalking game with a bow and arrow and the risk of
>> > going hungry is low or immaterial, great. But if one needs
>> > to provide food for himself and perhaps others . . .
>> > and technology enhanced tools for harvesting game
>> > are available, then the optimum choice is clear.
>> >
>> > If a builder is considering N/B/AS referenced flight
>> > as a backup for "safe" flight, then he/she must
>> > be anticipating some willingness (or accidental
>> > probability) for venturing into clouds. So no
>> > matter how good you, I or anyone else is with
>> > the legacy flight instrumentation systems, we are
>> > remiss in our duties as teachers if we do not
>> > explain all of TODAY'S options and assist the readers in
>> > understanding requirements for getting a low risk
>> > return on the cost of ownership.
>> >
>> > The low cost installation commits one to a future
>> > investment of $time$ that should be fully explained
>> > while the builder is still in the decision making phase
>> > and before hardware is purchased and holes cut
>> > in the panel. This isn't about anyone else's levels
>> > of skill or personal preferences. It's a study of
>> > return on investment and options for real risk reduction.
>> >
>> > Bob . . .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery Tenders as recharging tools . . . |
At 04:22 PM 3/2/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Many thanks Bob. My charger from Napa does not seem to bring the charge
>up beyond 12.5v even when the charger has been on the battery for 5
>days.
You need to track and plot the voltage during the
recharge cycle on a battery you know has been discharged
to some substantial degree.
One expects the voltage to be sustained at about 13.0 volts
after a recharge cycle has terminated. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_2.jpg
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
What you may be seeing after 5 days is the charger's
normal drop to a sustaining level after the battery
has been topped off.
What brand of charger is it?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
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: Beginner advice needed and greatly appreciated! |
At 12:18 PM 3/4/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>I have been following this list for about 3 years. In the beginning
>99.99% went over my head but now only 99.9% is not understood. One thing
>I have learned is that this is a great place to learn and get help.
>
>Ok, I am just starting to wire my capacitance fuel senders for a RV7. At
>present I have not acquired any tools. Over time my data base of saved
>"tooling messages" is quite extensive. Based on that knowledge and recent
>rereading of Bob's articles on the use of said tools I have formed a few
>questions that maybe someone can help me with.
>
> I know technique is critical. Regardless of price is it easier to get
> up to speed and precision with a tool like Daniels Mil Spec crimper or is
> the B&C RCT-1 just as (difficult / easy) to learn and master.
The RCT-1 is for PIDG terminals. Daniels tools
>My next question is what tools will I need to finish the RV wiring system.
>It may not seem like it but you have all been teaching me alot in a few
>short years. Thanks
Have you reviewed the article on "Getting Started" that
I posted at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Getting_Started.pdf
The commonly needed crimp tools and their applications
are discussed in this piece. For the most part you can
get all the tools you'll need at decent prices at:
http://bandc.biz
http://steinair.com
although there are many other places you could look
too. Harbor Freight has been offering a satisfactory
PIDG tool at:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?Itemnumber=93977
This is probably the first tool you need to acquire and
is equivalent to the ratchet-handle, PIDG tools sold at
many stores.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
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: Beginner advice needed and greatly appreciated! |
Paul
You need to do a few test crimps no matter what tool you choose. Bob's
comic book articles are quite useful. I think you will be pleased with
anything from places like B&C or Steinair. It is always possible to mess
up a crimp no matter what the tool but there is not much more risk going
economical in my opinion and you will likely be surprised at how easy
it is. I was.
Ken
Paul K wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I have been following this list for about 3 years. In the beginning
> 99.99% went over my head but now only 99.9% is not understood. One
> thing I have learned is that this is a great place to learn and get help.
>
> Ok, I am just starting to wire my capacitance fuel senders for a RV7.
> At present I have not acquired any tools. Over time my data base of
> saved "tooling messages" is quite extensive. Based on that knowledge
> and recent rereading of Bob's articles on the use of said tools I have
> formed a few questions that maybe someone can help me with.
>
> I know technique is critical. Regardless of price is it easier to
> get up to speed and precision with a tool like Daniels Mil Spec
> crimper or is the B&C RCT-1 just as (difficult / easy) to learn and
> master.
>
> My next question is what tools will I need to finish the RV wiring
> system. It may not seem like it but you have all been teaching me alot
> in a few short years. Thanks
>
> Paul
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: SL30 and Dynon |
Oops, I mean Attitude Indicator, it's electric not vacuum.
Marty
-----Original Message-----
From: Emrath [mailto:emrath@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 3:24 PM
Subject: SL30 and Dynon
I would like to get opinions and thoughts from anyone driving the HSI
feature of the Dynon D10A or D100 from a Garmin SL30 Garmin. I'm thinking
of doing this in lieu of having a DG and a CDI/LOC/GS/GPS indicator like a
MD200-306 indicator and wondering about the pros and cons of this. I
already have a Altitude Indicator. Marty
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: | Monitoring external temperatures |
Question: I would like to hear from anyone who has wired a temperature
gauge such that a warning light indicator is illuminated when the temp
falls below freezing (or some other significant value). Have you
included an override to silence the warning light and did you build a
delay into the mechanism to interrupt or disable the warning light?
Thanks
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: | Radio interference to instruments |
>Comments/Questions: When I push my PTT switch to transmit on my radio I
>get an increase in manifold pressure and either a large increase or
>decrease in ammeter reading. This is intermittent and happens about 80%
>of the time. All works great with the radio off.
Sounds like these instruments were not designed to live
in the real world of airplanes. They seem to suffer from
radio frequency interference.
Check your coax cables from transceiver to antenna. If the
shield ground comes loose at either end, the coax can radiate
very strongly into airframe wiring.
You might try putting a ferrite cable-choke-core over the
bundles going into the back of these instruments. See:
http://tinyurl.com/28bdgm
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one wishes to be "world class" at )
( anything, what ever you do must be )
( exercised EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Stolen aircraft... C-FBCG...help requested |
All listers,
Although this is not specific to our list, please forgive me and have a
look. Especially those located in BC, Alberta and the Pacific Northwest.
Timely awareness/communication may help to solve this crime. Keep an eye
out at your airport and pass this along to anyone/group you think may be
able to help this guy find his aircraft.
Bevan
RV7A Finishing kit
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary West / PFC <mailto:kgwest@shaw.ca>
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: Missing, and presumed stolen airplane C182 C-FBCG...help requested
please
Hello fellow fliers........
I hope you can assist me in locating my aircraft which went missing the
night of March 1 from Oliver Airport, in the south Okanagan of BC. It was
last seen at the airport in March 1st morning and was not there when I went
to check on the plane this afternoon, March 2nd. They picked the first clear
night in a while and a nearly full moon to steal it. It may have been stolen
for smuggling or it may be taken somewhere to be stripped or altered (e.g.,
painting or false registration) and then moved elsewhere over time.
The plane is a 1966 Cessna 182, white in colour with two thin stripes along
the side, one green and the other brown. It has Rosen sun visors (green pull
down sun visors) and green tinted windows. As noted above it has the
Canadian Registration C-FBCG on both sides of the fuselage in brown vinyl
letters. It has a piece of purple carpet cover on the glare shield which
will be visible through the window. Interior is avocado green as are the
seats. It has wing strobes and a tail beacon.
I've sent this to the COPA Flight contacts in BC and Alberta and I'm hoping
that you might send this email to others in your clubs and to other
nonmember pilots in your area in case the plane turns up at an airport near
you. I suspect they took it south (we're only 15 miles north of the US
border) and have notified all authorities there of the theft in case they
can find it once the thieves are finished with it. However, I believe that
other pilots will give me a better chance of finding it, since there are
only so many places to land and there are COPA/AOPA members everywhere who
may be able to assist with their eyes and ears at their airports. If you
have contacts in Idaho, Washington or Montana please forward this email to
them in case they see it.
I just bought it as my move up aircraft last year and would like to get it
back. I thought it was safe at a locked, fenced airport with doors locked
but it appears that was not enough. I've included photos of the plane taken
in January this year.
If you have any information on this aircraft, please contact me by email or
by phone at 250 498-2205. Alternatively, contact the police in your area and
give them any information. The police file rests with the Oliver, BC
detachment of the RCMP.
Thanks for your consideration
Bill Michael
Osoyoos, BC
--
1:58 PM
--
1:58 PM
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! --
|