---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 07/20/09: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:42 AM PST US From: "Joe" Subject: AeroElectric-List: The weak link 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:07:02 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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! 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:07:03 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fat feed confusion From: "nuckollsr" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:39:37 AM PST US From: paul wilson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:36:30 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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! 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:37:17 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:24:36 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com 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. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?ncid=emlcntusfood00000009) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 01:57:27 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Autopilots vs. "The Right Stuff" From: "Matt Prather" 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- > > > 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! > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:25:22 PM PST US From: James Robinson 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:18:03 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com 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 Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! yExcfooterNO62) ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 04:36:26 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 12 ____________________________________ Time: 04:42:17 PM PST US From: Dennis Golden Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:40 PM PST US From: James Robinson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:41 PM PST US From: James Robinson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 =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" =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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:38:56 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:10:07 PM PST US From: Ray Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:45:17 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Icom A-210 intercom From: "Thruster87" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.