Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:44 AM - The weak link (Joe)
2. 07:07 AM - Re: (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 07:07 AM - Re: Fat feed confusion (nuckollsr)
4. 08:39 AM - Re: Re: Fat feed confusion (paul wilson)
5. 12:36 PM - Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Fat feed confusion (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 01:24 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 01:57 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (Matt Prather)
9. 02:25 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (James Robinson)
10. 04:18 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 04:36 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (Bruce Gray)
12. 04:42 PM - Re: glass fuses (Dennis Golden)
13. 05:40 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (James Robinson)
14. 05:40 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (James Robinson)
15. 08:38 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 09:10 PM - Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" (Ray)
17. 11:45 PM - Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Thruster87)
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 |
|
Bob Nuckolls said, "Perhaps dual wing levelers are in order? I'd bet
that a BIG
chunk of the accidents due to poor pilot visibility and/or
workload distractions for single-pilot IFR would have been
averted (if) electrons had the stick. I'll suggest that most
IFR capable airframes would be better outfitted for ventures
into poor visibility if there were NO displays on the panel
and dual, heading-slaved wing levelers installed. The wing
levelers are probably lighter and more reliable than a suite
of panel mounted gyros and more capable than pilot's trying
to manage an airplane . . . .."
I agree wholeheartedly. Flying IFR, if we can trust our lives to
electronics to take information from sensors and display that
information, then why can't we trust electronics to actually operate the
controls? The human being is the weak link in the system. Have you
ever noticed the control movements when the autopilot is on, compared to
when a human is in control? Some planes have dual EFISs. I suggest
that it would be better to have dual autopilots with dual servos. The
recreational IFR pilot is better off monitoring the system as a whole,
watching for component failure, making sure that the altitude and
heading are correct, handling radio communications, looking for traffic,
and etc.
Joe Gores
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 |
|
Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
Interesting thoughts from Doctor Dee.
It brings me to question if my strong advocacy of the T&B over the TC
might be some evidence of my personal conditioning.
It also leads me to think that maybe I am right in my feelings and that the
quandary we find ourselves in when we get confused about which way is up
is caused by that lack of consistency in our perceptions
Sooo .... I have already added another thing for me to worry about! <G>
Not sure where you were working at the time or how close you were to
automatic flight, but I bet you know about how Beech competed with Mooney's PC.
Beech installed a Century I (The folks who made it were called Edo Aire
Mitchell at the time) Wing Leveler and my memory is that they called it the
Constant Copilot. The main difference was that Beech provided an ON/OFF
switch so the pilot could choose to use it or not.
My recollection is that Piper offered a similar unit, but I do not recall
who made it for them or what they called it.
Back to the Constant Copilot.
If the switch was left on, the wing leveler worked full time just like the
Mooney PC. It could be easily over ridden without causing any damage to the
unit and it was made inoperative by pressing an interrupter switch on the
control wheel. Take your thumb off the switch button and the leveler took
over.
We always told our customers to use it regularly.
Almost nobody did!
Just a bit more musing if you don't mind.
Back when autopilots were first being introduced in air carrier use, one of
the first things we were taught to do when any flight attitude problem was
encountered was to turn OFF the autopilot. The thought was that any
deviation from normal was most likely caused by an autopilot failure. When we
flew into turbulence, we were also told to turn off the autopilot. That
attitude certainly did not encourage us to rely on the autopilot when things
started to get dicey.
Maybe we need to train pilots to use and trust the autopilot from the very
first time they ever get in the airplane? That is almost how the Airbus
pilots are trained today!
For fully automatic landings, we initially used three autopilots and a
comparator circuit that told us to execute a miss if any one of those three
autopilots felt that things are not going well.
Seems as if there is something worthwhile in that fully automatic flight
regime, but the issues are not easily solved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
PS My current transportation steed is a 1978 V35B and I still keep the
Century I Constant Copilot in good working order. The early ones shared a roll
servo with the regular autopilot and that was how mine was set up when I
bought it. A few years ago I changed the primary autopilot. The new one has
it's own roll servo so my airplane now has two roll autopilots available. If
I hit the interrupter button, both are turned off. When I let go of the
button, the Century One will come back on line but the primary one stays off.
The only problem is that I can't use both at the same time because they
will fight with each other! Not sophisticated enough to use the same inputs
and do the comparison bit.
In a message dated 7/19/2009 10:39:26 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:
At 06:06 PM 7/19/2009, you wrote:
Good Evening Bob,
I agree with your evaluation, but back when Mooney tried it, most pilots
didn't care for it. You would regularly find the interrupt button taped down
thus deactivating the system. I feel certain that some method could be
made to work and still be acceptable to the average pilot, but no one has, as
yet, figured out that method.
Yeah . . . PC (positive control) by Brittain as I recall.
A totally pneumatic wing leveler that operated directly
though valves at the back of the turn-coordinator driving
"tomato juice can" servos. A truly elegant design for its
time. Just found that the system is still offered at:
_http://www.brittainautopilots.com/
_ (http://www.brittainautopilots.com/) I liked it. You couldn't hurt it by
direct over-ride while
engaged. No servos to smoke, no clutches to burn, no
engagement solenoids to burn out. This was TSO-C3a hardware
which tells us how far back that goes. I did a little white
paper for Cessna way back when that suggested large diaphragm
pneumatic force cartridges operated by pitot/static delta-P
and permanently rigged to ailerons. A simple reed valve system
driven from a turn-coordinator would drive a simple set
of electronics that consumed less than 1 watt of total power.
Three moving parts, no lubrication issues, etc. etc. But they
were the proud owners of ARC who was already offering a line
of autopilots that plagued with every failure mode that such
devices might offer . . .
Had JFK jr just let his autopilot fly his airplane, we would probably have
a light plane pilot high in our government hierarchy by now.
Hmmm . . . you can lead a horse to water. . .
All we can do as teachers/designers/suppliers is offer well
considered advice backed by a history of recipes for success. Dr.
Dee speaks of a human condition known as "cognitive dissonance"
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)
which we've all observed first hand: "I KNOW that
smoking is bad for me . . . but I (like/need/want)
to do it". We've all observed a pilot's worst ever
day in the cockpit that appeared to rise from a
dead-short-between-the-headphones. It's called the
"bell curve". For the very best among us, there MUST
be individuals who balance out the other end of the
curve.
'Tis a quandary indeed!
Let us continue to strive for position on the upper
slope of that curve . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
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: Fat feed confusion |
Sharp eye! I think that's a typo. To qualify as a "fat feeder" with inherent resistance
to ground-fault-burning of wire/insulation, the current carrying ability
of the wire compared with highest hypothesized fault needs to be pretty high.
While the 10AWG buss feeder is adequate to the task of servicing electro-whizzies
that load the 20A alternator, it's also small enough to be at risk for
burning the length of the wire along with the attendant risk of smoke in the
cockpit, etc.
We have two choices here to slide this feeder under the umbrella of legacy design
goals: (a) add a fusible link to the feed-end of this wire (6" of 14 AWG would
be fine) or (b) increase the 10AWG feeder to at least a 6AWG. Since we're
already wired with lots of 4AWG, that would be good too.
Actually, there's a third option. We bought the Delrin stock from which we can
fabricate mounting blocks for the minature robust, ANL style fuses. See
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/ABI_fuses.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/megafuse250.gif
http://www.knukonceptz.com/productMaster.cfm?category=Mini-ANL%20Fuse#
We're going to stock one of these fuse topologies and offer a mounting block to
to with it. But these can be fabricated locally from the right nuts, washers,
screws, and block of Delrin or cloth filled phenolic.
While on the subject of fuses, check out this little treatis I found on the 'net.
Nicely done . . .
http://www.bcae1.com/fuses.htm
Note the author's caveat concerning the quality levels of glass cartridge fuses.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253876#253876
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: Fat feed confusion |
When we put a high amp alternator in the truck we used a fuse with
holder to protect against alt internal failure. Same kind should work
fine for the batt feeder as recommended by Littelfuse?
http://www.littelfuse.com/part/0298175.html No need to fabricate a
holder. Pretty common in my truck world.
Use it in-line or bolt it to the structure. Very low tech and functional.
PW
=========
At 08:05 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
><bob.nuckolls@aeroelectric.com>
>
>Sharp eye! I think that's a typo. To qualify as a "fat feeder" with
>inherent resistance to ground-fault-burning of wire/insulation, the
>current carrying ability of the wire compared with highest
>hypothesized fault needs to be pretty high. While the 10AWG buss
>feeder is adequate to the task of servicing electro-whizzies that
>load the 20A alternator, it's also small enough to be at risk for
>burning the length of the wire along with the attendant risk of
>smoke in the cockpit, etc.
>
>We have two choices here to slide this feeder under the umbrella of
>legacy design goals: (a) add a fusible link to the feed-end of this
>wire (6" of 14 AWG would be fine) or (b) increase the 10AWG feeder
>to at least a 6AWG. Since we're already wired with lots of 4AWG,
>that would be good too.
>
>Actually, there's a third option. We bought the Delrin stock from
>which we can fabricate mounting blocks for the minature robust, ANL
>style fuses. See
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/ABI_fuses.jpg
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/megafuse250.gif
>
>http://www.knukonceptz.com/productMaster.cfm?category=Mini-ANL%20Fuse#
>
>We're going to stock one of these fuse topologies and offer a
>mounting block to to with it. But these can be fabricated locally
>from the right nuts, washers, screws, and block of Delrin or cloth
>filled phenolic.
>
>While on the subject of fuses, check out this little treatis I found
>on the 'net. Nicely done . . .
>
>http://www.bcae1.com/fuses.htm
>
>Note the author's caveat concerning the quality levels of glass
>cartridge fuses.
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253876#253876
>
>
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: | Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 09:04 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
Interesting thoughts from Doctor Dee.
It brings me to question if my strong advocacy of the T&B over the TC
might be some evidence of my personal conditioning.
It also leads me to think that maybe I am right in my feelings and
that the quandary we find ourselves in when we get confused about
which way is up is caused by that lack of consistency in our perceptions
Sooo .... I have already added another thing for me to worry about! <G>
The debate for visual display of yaw rate and
apparent center of the earth (gravity) as
a flight instrument is only slightly related to
the task of providing a practical automatic
flight control system. For a simple yaw damper
to work, it needs only numerical knowledge of
turning rate about the yaw axis.
However, given that the process of turning the airplane
to a new heading BEGINS with a change in roll
followed by a change in yaw rate. Doing the job
smoothly with a single rate sensor required some
knowledge of both roll (to anticipate a heading
change) and yaw (to quantify the rate of change
after the turn was established).
While the T&B may well be best suited to recovering
from an upset condition, the TC is best suited for
avoiding that upset in the first place. I.e, Brittain
could not have achieved the design goal without a
carefully considered "pollution" of TB data.
Not sure where you were working at the time or how close you were to
automatic flight, but I bet you know about how Beech competed with
Mooney's PC.
Only vaguely. I'll have to ask some of the grey-beards
if they recall the system. I guess I could get on
the computer and check service parts catalogs. I think
Beech listed their A/P hardware in those books.
Beech installed a Century I (The folks who made it were called Edo
Aire Mitchell at the time) Wing Leveler and my memory is that they
called it the Constant Copilot. The main difference was that Beech
provided an ON/OFF switch so the pilot could choose to use it or not.
My recollection is that Piper offered a similar unit, but I do not
recall who made it for them or what they called it.
I believe Piper had the Brittian system too but
featured a valve in the vacuum supply line to
shut if off if wanted. I think that valve was
added to the Mooneys later.
Back to the Constant Copilot.
If the switch was left on, the wing leveler worked full time just
like the Mooney PC. It could be easily over ridden without causing
any damage to the unit and it was made inoperative by pressing an
interrupter switch on the control wheel. Take your thumb off the
switch button and the leveler took over.
We always told our customers to use it regularly.
Almost nobody did!
Yeah, the "Right Stuff" syndrome. I guess it
depends on what you use the airplane for and
how you assess risk for the situations in which
you fly. I enjoy flying. I enjoyed honing my
under-the-hood skills. But when it was necessary
to competently and smoothly manage a transition
though IMC, I've never been adverse to calling
up what ever support was available to reduce both
sweat and risk.
I've run the traps with some fellow techo-wiennies
here in Wichita for a roll servo that contains
a dedicated GPS receiver, canted roll/yaw rate
sensor and a micro-controller that will "hold that
GPS track" to plus/minus 1 degree. Controls would
be limited to an on/off switch and bi-directional
track increment buttons. Click one for each degree
of track change. Hold button for standard rate turn.
The servo would have a serial port that accepts
commands for "new track to make good". The same
line outputs system status. As a single installation,
you install a servo, hook up an antenna, hook up
14v and you're done. As a dual installation, there
would be a "arbitrator box" that compares data
to and from the pair of wing levelers with data from
a panel mounted GPS and raises a warning flag if
one of the systems mis-behaves. Each system is
powered from a separate source.
It's my belief that such a system would allow a
pilot to comfortably enter a controlled airspace
environment and comply with all ATC instructions
with great precision, low risk and very low
sweat factor . . . and never have to touch the
stick. E.g. cluttering the panel with attitude
displays would add nothing to the design goal.
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
$200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
of other duties!
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Fat feed confusion |
At 10:36 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>
>When we put a high amp alternator in the truck we used a fuse with
>holder to protect against alt internal failure. Same kind should
>work fine for the batt feeder as recommended by Littelfuse?
>http://www.littelfuse.com/part/0298175.html No need to fabricate a
>holder. Pretty common in my truck world.
>Use it in-line or bolt it to the structure. Very low tech and functional.
Yup, that's a righteous product. It's a miniaturize
version of the 70 year old ANN/ANL series devices.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing
leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human pilots.
Too much conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I have expanded
on that thought here many times in the past.
I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B
and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me to
have considerable merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Piper Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
$200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
of other duties!
Bob. . .
**************What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
for any occasion.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009)
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Modern autopilots are remarkably better performers than their elder
parents.. The P3 Orion had an autopilot which had a component with a
limited operating life.. Crews would often hand fly en route to and from
their station in order to improve the odds that the autopilot would work
during a critical period.
My only personal experience with autopilots is in late 70's Archers which
I think had a rebadged Century III. They do the job (track a nav source),
but sloppily. They tend to wander heading a fair amount and if the rudder
trim isn't spot-on they can see-saw back and forth. In a flight regime
with low indicated airspeed (climb or high altitude cruise) the increased
adverse yaw makes the ride somewhat unpleasant and is kind of distracting.
Especially in an airplane with fairly strong roll-yaw coupling. If that
were the state of the art for autopilots, I'd be much less excited about
having one.
My impression is that the modern autopilots are much, much better.
Although, I did get a ride in the right seat of a PC12.. At cruise (in
the low FL's) in smooth air the airplane tended to slowly vary altitude
+/-100ft from the programmed value. Seemed a bit odd in a brand new
(30TTSN) multi-million dollar machine. Probably just needed a bit of
tuning.
Finally, pilots need to train like they fly, and fly like they train.
Pilots need to let George fly enough so that they have confidence in "his"
abilities.
Regards,
Matt-
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:04 AM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
> Good Morning 'Lectric Bob,
>
> Interesting thoughts from Doctor Dee.
>
> It brings me to question if my strong advocacy of the T&B over the TC
> might be some evidence of my personal conditioning.
>
> It also leads me to think that maybe I am right in my feelings and
> that the quandary we find ourselves in when we get confused about
> which way is up is caused by that lack of consistency in our perceptions
>
> Sooo .... I have already added another thing for me to worry about! <G>
>
> The debate for visual display of yaw rate and
> apparent center of the earth (gravity) as
> a flight instrument is only slightly related to
snip
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with pictorial
displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret Strong visual information
.
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "BobsV35B@aol.com" <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:17:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing leveler than
does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human pilots. Too much
conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I have expanded on that thought
here many times in the past.
I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B and the
TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me to have considerable
merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Piper Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
writes:
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
> $200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
> of other duties!
>
> Bob. . .
>
>
________________________________
What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion.
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Good Evening James,
I sure hope something works out along that line, but suitable reliability
and usability has not yet been demonstrated.
Glass is also way out of my price range at the present time. The TC and
T&B have been fairly economical in the past, though the prices have
skyrocketed in the last couple of years. Do you figure on two glass units to
provide back up or are you willing to go with a single source of information?
I
kinda like Jim Younkin's instrument for experimental aircraft. We who fly
certified antiques are not allowed to use Jim's stuff.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/20/2009 4:26:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
jbr79r@yahoo.com writes:
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with
pictorial displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret Strong
visual information .
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
yExcfooterNO62)
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: | Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
Hi Jim,
It's been proven time and time again that you're better off using a
backup system that uses a different method of operation when your panel
goes dark.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Robinson
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with
pictorial displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret
Strong visual information .
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
_____
From: "BobsV35B@aol.com" <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 2:17:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing
leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human
pilots. Too much conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I
have expanded on that thought here many times in the past.
I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B
and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me
to have considerable merit.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
LL22
Piper Pacer N2858P
In a message dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:
Bill of materials for the full-up system is under
$200. All I need is a 36 hour day and a relaxation
of other duties!
Bob. . .
_____
What's for dinner tonight? Find quick and easy dinner ideas
<http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009> for any
occasion.
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 |
|
Tim Andres wrote:
> I think you guys are missing each others point. You could have your
> inline fuse inline anywhere you want it and still use an ATO. They
> make inline ATO holders. *http://tinyurl.com/lcvcjq*
I'd like to add that I have had (on my 1976 GMC Motorhome) 2 circuits
that were added during the 90's or early 20's fail. Both using inline
glass fuse holders (one under the dash and another behind the remote
generator control panel). In both cases, the fuse holder actually failed
dropping the fuses out of the holder.
Just another data point and maybe the fuse holders were inferior quality
to what you plan to use, but I wouldn't do it.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
I have the trutrak auto pilot and it has been very dependable. Also the support
has be very good. I fly with 2 screen Cheltons with some round gauges as backup
and a AOA. I am all electric with a 2 alternator setup. It definitely ups
the ante however
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "BobsV35B@aol.com" <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:15:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
Good Evening James,
I sure hope something works out along that line, but suitable reliability and usability
has not yet been demonstrated.
Glass is also way out of my price range at the present time. The TC and T&B have
been fairly economical in the past, though the prices have skyrocketed in the
last couple of years. Do you figure on two glass units to provide back up or
are you willing to go with a single source of information? I kinda like Jim
Younkin's instrument for experimental aircraft. We who fly certified antiques
are not allowed to use Jim's stuff.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 7/20/2009 4:26:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, jbr79r@yahoo.com
writes:
We have something better than T&B or TC. It's call glass panels with pictorial
displays that the mind doesn't have to do much to interpret Strong visual
information .
>
> James Robinson
>Glasair lll N79R
>Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
An Excellent21323041x1201367261/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=JulyExcfooterNO62>See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps!
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
I have backup round gauges and auto pilot and AOA to help me out=0A=0A Jame
s Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpanish Fork UT U77=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______
_________________________=0AFrom: Bruce Gray <Bruce@Glasair.org>=0ATo: aero
electric-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:32:14 PM=0ASubj
ect: RE: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"=0A=0A =0AHi Ji
m,=0A =0AIt=99s=0Abeen proven time and time again that you=99re
better off using a backup=0Asystem that uses a different method of operati
on when your panel goes dark.=0A =0ABruce=0Awww.Glasair.org =0A-----Origina
l Message-----=0AFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com=0A[mail
to:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Robinso
n=0ASent: Monday, July 20, 2009 5:05=0APM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics
.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List:=0AAutopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"
=0A =0AWe have something better than T&B or TC. =0AIt's call glass panels w
ith pictorial displays that the mind doesn't have to do=0Amuch to interpret
Strong visual information .=0A =0AJames Robinson=0AGlasair lll N79R=0ASpa
nish Fork UT U77=0A =0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AFrom:"
BobsV35B@aol.com" <BobsV35B@aol.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
=0ASent: Monday, July 20, 2009=0A2:17:26 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-Lis
t:=0AAutopilots vs. "The Right Stuff"=0A=0A=0A=0AGood=0AAfternoon 'Lectric
Bob,=0A =0AI=0Atotally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for
a wing leveler=0Athan does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we
human pilots. Too=0Amuch conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But
I have expanded on that=0Athought here many times in the past.=0A =0AI wou
ld=0A love to see something new and modern that would replace the T&B and
=0Athe TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems to me to h
ave=0Aconsiderable merit.=0A =0AHappy=0ASkies,=0A =0AOld Bob=0ALL22=0APiper
=0APacer N2858P=0A =0AIn a=0Amessage dated 7/20/2009 2:37:45 P.M. Central
Daylight Time,=0Anuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:=0ABill of materials
for=0A>the full-up system is under=0A>> $200. All I need is a 36 hour d
ay and a relaxation=0A>> of other duties!=0A>=0A>> Bob. . .=0A=0A=0A
=0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AWhat's=0Afor dinner tonight? F
ind quick and easy dinner ideas for any occasion.=0A =0A =0A - T
he AeroElectric-List Email Forum -=0A --> http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?AeroElectric-List=0A - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -=0A --> ht
tp://forums.matronics.com=0A - List Contribution Web Site -=0A
Thank you for your generous support!=0A -Matt
Dralle, List Admin.=0A --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =0A
====================
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: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
At 03:17 PM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>
>I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a
>wing leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with
>we human pilots. Too much conflict with our semi circular canal
>sensors. But I have expanded on that thought here many times in the past.
>
>I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the
>T&B and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position
>seems to me to have considerable merit.
Stabilization and control of the airframe is
still based on interpretation of rotational
rate values. The sensors are now all solid
state as opposed to spinning up a rotor
on bearings. The rate sensors have become
so commonplace that simple versions are offered
to augment pilot controls for flying model
r/c helicopters . . . and they're just a
few dollars.
http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc
Two more technologies have come forward to make
the job easier and better. GPS and microprocessors.
Our first autopilot for the MQM-107
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-107.html
was totally analog. 741 op amps and fists full of
transistors. The next autopilot was a TI 9900
processor. All of a sudden, our calculating
ability combined with differentiation (anticipation)
made this bird fly even better yet.
We never got to put GPS on this bird but it went
into other products.
http://tinyurl.com/lhwmnp
The availability of ground track nav data opened
the horizons for auto flight AND auto navigation.
The thing that would be pretty cool with the products
I described is access to the serial data ports.
The stand-alone device would nicely steer an
airplane. But anyone handy with byte thrashing
could craft an auto-navigation application in the
portable number cruncher of their choice.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" |
I recall hearing that the solid state sensors (gyros) had a problem with
drift. Is this still an issue?
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
"Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst"
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 03:17 PM 7/20/2009, you wrote:
>> Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
>>
>> I totally agree with you that the canted gyro works better for a wing
>> leveler than does a T&B, but I do NOT feel it works well with we human
>> pilots. Too much conflict with our semi circular canal sensors. But I
>> have expanded on that thought here many times in the past.
>>
>> I would love to see something new and modern that would replace the
>> T&B and the TC. Your thought on using a sequential GPS position seems
>> to me to have considerable merit.
>
> Stabilization and control of the airframe is
> still based on interpretation of rotational
> rate values. The sensors are now all solid
> state as opposed to spinning up a rotor
> on bearings. The rate sensors have become
> so commonplace that simple versions are offered
> to augment pilot controls for flying model
> r/c helicopters . . . and they're just a
> few dollars.
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/lcuqkc*
>
> Two more technologies have come forward to make
> the job easier and better. GPS and microprocessors.
>
> Our first autopilot for the MQM-107
>
> http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-107.html
>
> was totally analog. 741 op amps and fists full of
> transistors. The next autopilot was a TI 9900
> processor. All of a sudden, our calculating
> ability combined with differentiation (anticipation)
> made this bird fly even better yet.
>
> We never got to put GPS on this bird but it went
> into other products.
>
> * http://tinyurl.com/lhwmnp*
>
> The availability of ground track nav data opened
> the horizons for auto flight AND auto navigation.
>
> The thing that would be pretty cool with the products
> I described is access to the serial data ports.
> The stand-alone device would nicely steer an
> airplane. But anyone handy with byte thrashing
> could craft an auto-navigation application in the
> portable number cruncher of their choice.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ---------------------------------------
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Icom A-210 intercom |
Is this ok for a Circuit diagram for a 2 place, 2 x ptt no external intercom ??????
Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=254063#254063
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/icom_a210_835.pdf
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! --
|