Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:59 AM - Re: GNS 430 (Bob-tcw)
2. 06:25 AM - (Rino)
3. 09:02 AM - Static Grounding (James Robinson)
4. 09:02 AM - Re: Power Opti-Miser (Ron Quillin)
5. 11:51 AM - Re: Static Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:01 PM - Re: Static Grounding (XeVision)
7. 12:35 PM - Re: Static Grounding (James Robinson)
8. 12:38 PM - Re: Re: Static Grounding (James Robinson)
9. 01:40 PM - Re: Static Grounding (Bruce Gray)
10. 02:03 PM - Re: GNS 430 (Allen Fulmer)
11. 02:21 PM - Strobe Light Recommendation (Joe Dubner)
12. 04:03 PM - Re: Static Grounding (Matt Prather)
13. 07:24 PM - Comm and marker beacon antennas (Bill Hibbing)
14. 07:49 PM - Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 09:05 PM - Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas (Ron Quillin)
16. 09:32 PM - Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas (Tim Andres)
17. 09:37 PM - Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas (William Hibbing)
18. 10:14 PM - Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas (Don)
19. 11:50 PM - Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas (BobsV35B@aol.com)
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 |
|
Tim,
The power inputs marked Aircraft Power 1 , P4001 pin 19,20 provide
power to all the functions of the 430W except the comm radio and the
super flag outputs, powering these inputs brings the GPS to life.
The power inputs marked Aircraft Power 2, P4001 pin 15,72 are a
redunant set of power inputs that do the same as aircraft power 1,
these inputs are recommend for use with a second source of power to keep
the gps system up and running in the event of loss of power on aircraft
power 1. Also these inputs may be used with a product such as the TCW
technologies IPS series of products that provide brown out protection
down to 5 volts of bus voltage. see www.tcwtech.com to learn about
these products.
The power inputs marked Aircraft Power (comm) P4002 pin 11,12 provide
power only to the communitcation radio.
The power input marked Aircraft Power ( Nav super flags) P4006 pin 44
provides the power to drive the nav flags if you are separately driving
various nav indicators connected to P4006 pin 15, 38 for vor/loc and
glideslope. If you are not adding any separate indicators here then
no power is required on this pin.
hope this helps,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
www.tcwtech.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Andres
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:59 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GNS 430
I have a couple of questions re: the installation of a Garmin 430W.
There are 7 separate power connections on the back of this unit. Two are
labeled COMM, 1 "super flag" and the rest are labeled MAIN. There is
nothing in the manual re: this other than the electrical load figures.
What is common practice on these, 1 10 amp fuse & ganged together? I'm
able to see the loads for the MAIN & COMM circuits so they could be
fused separately.
The second question is re: the "super flag", what is it? It shows as
optional. I will not be using an indicator other than the GRT Horizons.
Which by the way have a similar issue, that is 3 separate power inputs,
which I understand from the manual how they work, but with an E bus and
Brown out Batt. (Z-10/8) I think these will all be ganged together at
the E-Bus fuse.
There will be an Avionics master or at least an EFIS master as these
units have no on/off switch, and GRT asks for one. I believe they would
be protected anyway with Z-10/8 but I want to be able to shut down a
misbehaving EFIS if needed.
Thanks
Tim Andres
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 |
|
Bonne ann=E9e Camilla & Roger,
Rino & Rita
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: | Static Grounding |
I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and I am trying to deal with some
static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate ground wire from radios
stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to the ground buss as close to the battery
as possible. Static wicks are not an option . Any comments or ideas?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
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: Power Opti-Miser |
At 18:05 12/15/2009, you wrote:
> The utility doesn't have to generate any extra watts. It only has
> to choose wire sizes that carry an artificially high current that
> doesn't participate in the running of devices with poor p.f.
A year end article summary from an e-rag I read
had a short commentary on PF issues that may be of some interest...
Sorry I didn't recall it earlier in the thread.
Ron Q.
http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/450043045.html?nid=2431&rid=1968
165
>
>Monday, April 6, 2009
>
>
>Utilities suffer from CFLs=92 poor power factor
>
>
>Apr 6 2009 6:00PM |
><http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/450043045.html>Permalink
>|<http://www.edn.com/blog/1470000147/post/450043045.html?nid=2431&rid=1
968165#comments>Comments
>(96) |
>
>Every CFL light contains a small ac-dc power
>supply with reactive components in it that will
>affect the CFL=92s power factor (PF) ' that is,
>the load presented to the ac line. The closer
>the PF is to 1, the better. A load with low
>power factor (<.85) draws more current and is
>less efficient than a load with a high power
>factor for the same amount of useful power. The
>higher currents required by the lower PF devices
>mean increased energy lost in the grid due to
>such things as I2R losses. These power losses
>don=92t show up directly on our electricity bill,
>but the utilities sure see the effects.
>
>I put one of my home CFL bulbs on my Kill-O-Watt
>power meter recently and measured its power
>factor: It was .57. This is lousy. Although each
>CFL is only 13W, there are millions of them out
>there. Why no PF regulation, as there is of
>higher-power, but less ubiquitous devices?
>
>I emailed Peter Banwell of the EnergyStar
>program and asked if EnergyStar was considering
>making minimum PF a requirement for Energy Star
>compliance. He replied, =93We looked at this in
>detail several years ago and decided against it,
>though there are a couple of utilities that
>still support the idea. We may take this up in
>the future, as the market share grows, but right
>now it is still in the noise in terms of impacts.=94
>
>Coincidentally, after our email exchange I ran
>into Mike Grather of
><http://www.luminairetesting.com/>Luminaire
>Testing Laboratory. He recently ran a series of
>life-cycle and performance tests on a batch of
>100 CFLs with various power ratings averaging
>approximately 20W each. They assumed a PF for
>the lights of at least .75 and sized the power
>supply at 3KVA. However, when they powered up
>the bank of CFLs, the 3KVA supply was
>inadequate. Grather checked the power factor for
>the CFLs and found they ranged from .45 to .50.
>Their =93real=94 load was about twice that implied by their wattage.
>
>CFLs are still an efficient form of household
>lighting, but their poor PF number is leaving
>money on the table. However, it=92s clear that at
>about $2 each there=92s not a lot of room for
>adding power factor correction circuitry. On the
>other hand, utilities are already going to great
>lengths to encourage consumers to switch to
>CFLs, including subsidizing the price of CFLs. I
>doubt that consumers would be interested in
>paying more for a feature that actually benefits
>the utility directly, not them. Perhaps
>utilities will start to subsidize
>high-power-factor CFLs, rather than the mediocre ones we can buy now.
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Static Grounding |
At 10:59 AM 12/31/2009, you wrote:
>I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and I am trying to
>deal with some static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate
>ground wire from radios stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to
>the ground buss as close to the battery as possible. Static wicks
>are not an option . Any comments or ideas?
If you're plagued with p-static in flight, then
some form of surface treatment combined with
static wicks are the only option. Grounds in
the electrical system have no significance
on this issue.
P-static in all composite aircraft having no
submerged lightning mesh has been a problem
since day-one. It's not an electrical/electronics
problem.
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: Static Grounding |
[quote="jbr79r(at)yahoo.com"]I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and
I am trying to deal with some static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate
ground wire from radios stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to the ground
buss as close to the battery as possible. Static wicks are not an option
. Any comments or ideas?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
> [b]
I am in Ogden, UT and also fly a Glasair (I-RG) cruising at 200Kts Similar speeds
(oversized engine 245 HP).
Are you talking about static when flying through rain or snow ??? Or something
else ??
When flying to Alaska a few years ago, Flying in some light snow at like 12-13K,
I experienced such a static problem once that the cockpit was glowing and everything
metal I touched shocked me.
I made the mistake of touching the remote head (panel mounted control) for my ELT
it it got "fried".
All the radios were loud static noise and sometimes a howling sound.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=279463#279463
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: Static Grounding |
I know I can't do much about the static, but I'm trying to do what ever I can to
protect the avionics.
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 12:49:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static Grounding
At 10:59 AM 12/31/2009, you wrote:
> I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and I am trying to deal with some
static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate ground wire from radios
stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to the ground buss as close to the
battery as possible. Static wicks are not an option . Any comments or ideas?
If you're plagued with p-static in flight, then
some form of surface treatment combined with
static wicks are the only option. Grounds in
the electrical system have no significance
on this issue.
P-static in all composite aircraft having no
submerged lightning mesh has been a problem
since day-one. It's not an electrical/electronics
problem.
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: Static Grounding |
I have been in and around clouds without any static like you mentioned but I lost
the com port on my Chelton and the display screen on my TruTrak autopilot twice.
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
________________________________
From: XeVision <dblumel@XeVision.com>
Sent: Thu, December 31, 2009 1:00:07 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Static Grounding
[quote="jbr79r(at)yahoo.com"]I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and
I am trying to deal with some static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate
ground wire from radios stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to the ground
buss as close to the battery as possible. Static wicks are not an option
. Any comments or ideas?
Jim
James Robinson
Glasair lll N79R
Spanish Fork UT U77
> [b]
I am in Ogden, UT and also fly a Glasair (I-RG) cruising at 200Kts Similar speeds
(oversized engine 245 HP).
Are you talking about static when flying through rain or snow ??? Or something
else ??
When flying to Alaska a few years ago, Flying in some light snow at like 12-13K,
I experienced such a static problem once that the cockpit was glowing and everything
metal I touched shocked me.
I made the mistake of touching the remote head (panel mounted control) for my ELT
it it got "fried".
All the radios were loud static noise and sometimes a howling sound.
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=279463#279463
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: | Static Grounding |
Hi Bob,
I'm building a Glasair III, an E-glass composite. While I don't have a
metal mesh embedded in my skin, I was thinking of using a conductive
vinyl ester primer bonded to static wicks to tame the P-static demon.
Should I be concerned with the primer blocking the effectiveness of my
internal COMM/NAV/GPS antennas? I suppose I could mask those areas and
reshoot them with a normal primer but would that give me a rather
directional radiation/reception pattern on my antennas?
Is there any way I can test the effectiveness of a conductive primer on
e-glass in p-static suppression before I bite the bullet?
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static Grounding
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 10:59 AM 12/31/2009, you wrote:
>I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and I am trying to
>deal with some static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate
>ground wire from radios stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to
>the ground buss as close to the battery as possible. Static wicks
>are not an option . Any comments or ideas?
If you're plagued with p-static in flight, then
some form of surface treatment combined with
static wicks are the only option. Grounds in
the electrical system have no significance
on this issue.
P-static in all composite aircraft having no
submerged lightning mesh has been a problem
since day-one. It's not an electrical/electronics
problem.
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 |
|
-- Tim said:
-- There will be an Avionics master or at least an EFIS master as these
units have no
-- on/off switch, and GRT asks for one. I believe they would be protected
anyway with
-- Z-10/8 but I want to be able to shut down a misbehaving EFIS if needed.
I too decided to put a DPDT switch on DU1 and 2 (each controls its
respective AHRS)and a SPDT switch on DU3 (since no AHRS to control). I just
did not like seeing all those screens come up every time I flipped the
master switches on. So my MO would be to turn on the EIS and Master
Switches while starting the engine and then turn on the EFIS/AHRS as needed.
I have also noticed that the GTX337 transponder cannot be set to remain off
when power is supplied. It will remain in the standby position but, once
again, when I am playing and fiddling around I just hate to see it go up and
down unnecessarily. Haven't decided on a switch for it or not.
The PMA8000B and the 430W can be turned on with their own on/off switches.
I know this might be different than Bob's suggestions minimizing single
points of failure and component count but I think I will like it better.
Allen Fulmer
RV7 finishing the wiring
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: | Strobe Light Recommendation |
Does anyone have a recommendation for a low-cost strobe light system
(strobes only, no position lights)? I plan to put them on the sheared
wingtips of a Van's RV-8A in concert with these position lights
http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm (RV-style, not square-style or
combo light style).
I'm looking for something more economical than the Aeroflash $300
strobes, light weight, and 14V operation.
Thanks,
Joe
Independence, OR
http://www.mail2600.com/position
http://www.mail2600.com/cgi-bin/webcam.cgi
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: | Static Grounding |
I don't have an answer, but a bit of speculation..
I suspect that p-static doesn't build as a uniform voltage all over the
airframe, but instead as a charge distribution along the pathway of high
speed airflow. As such, I'd think you might be able to get rid of
p-static by adding a conductive path roughly aligned with the flow. This
allows bleeding the charge off quietly. The mesh is certainly the best
solution for providing this path, but I could imagine that other
techniques could be used. Conductive coatings seem like a reasonable
thing to try. I imagine that they are somewhat process sensitive, and
probably won't work as well as mesh - or a metal airframe.
Depending on where your antennas are, you could probably get away with
omitting the coating in these areas. I kind of suspect if the coating
works well at warding off the p-static, it will also cause problems if
used over the antennas, and if it doesn't work well, you could spray it
everywhere and the antennas won't care.
Matt-
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I'm building a Glasair III, an E-glass composite. While I don't have a
> metal mesh embedded in my skin, I was thinking of using a conductive
> vinyl ester primer bonded to static wicks to tame the P-static demon.
> Should I be concerned with the primer blocking the effectiveness of my
> internal COMM/NAV/GPS antennas? I suppose I could mask those areas and
> reshoot them with a normal primer but would that give me a rather
> directional radiation/reception pattern on my antennas?
>
> Is there any way I can test the effectiveness of a conductive primer on
> e-glass in p-static suppression before I bite the bullet?
>
> Bruce
> www.Glasair.org
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Static Grounding
>
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 10:59 AM 12/31/2009, you wrote:
>>I fly a composite (E-glass not Carbon) Glasair and I am trying to
>>deal with some static problems. A suggestion was to run a separate
>>ground wire from radios stack , the EFIS and the AHRS directly to
>>the ground buss as close to the battery as possible. Static wicks
>>are not an option . Any comments or ideas?
>
> If you're plagued with p-static in flight, then
> some form of surface treatment combined with
> static wicks are the only option. Grounds in
> the electrical system have no significance
> on this issue.
>
> P-static in all composite aircraft having no
> submerged lightning mesh has been a problem
> since day-one. It's not an electrical/electronics
> problem.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Comm and marker beacon antennas |
I'm thinking about building a comm dipole to put in my Glasair and am
curious as to the need for any toroids on the feedline. I've got the
dipole formula and an antenna analyzer for tuning it but the toroid
question is what I need an answer to. I'll be mounting it in the
interior of the airplane and it will be at least 3' from my other comm
antenna.
Next question...has anyone built a marker beacon antenna? As long as
I'm building antennas I thought I might build one of these also.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
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: Comm and marker beacon antennas |
Good Evening Bill,
I have no knowledge concerning making an antenna, but may I ask why you
want to install a marker beacon antenna? Or, for that matter, why you want a
marker beacon receiver?
The marker beacon is no longer a part of an ILS and very few enroute marker
beacons are still in service in the US National Airspace System. An IFR
approved GPS position can legally be used for any function that might
otherwise require gaining a position via a marker beacon.
It is not much more useful than would be a low frequency receiver that will
allow you to shoot a four course low frequency range approach. Save your
time and money and forget that ancient antique. It is no longer needed for
any modern approach.
Many of the beacons that are still shown on approaches have been notamed
out of service because components are no longer available to repair the
units.
Once again, the very few positions that might use a beacon can be more
easily and accurately located via an IFR approved GPS.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 12/31/2009 9:29:32 P.M. Central Standard Time,
n744bh@bellsouth.net writes:
I'm thinking about building a comm dipole to put in my Glasair and am
curious as to the need for any toroids on the feedline. I've got the dipole
formula and an antenna analyzer for tuning it but the toroid question is what
I need an answer to. I'll be mounting it in the interior of the airplane
and it will be at least 3' from my other comm antenna.
Next question...has anyone built a marker beacon antenna? As long as I'm
building antennas I thought I might build one of these also.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
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: Comm and marker beacon antennas |
At 19:47 12/31/2009, you wrote:
>The marker beacon is no longer a part of an ILS and very few enroute
>marker beacons are still in service in the US National Airspace
>System. An IFR approved GPS position can legally be used for any
>function that might otherwise require gaining a position via a marker beacon.
>
>It is not much more useful than would be a low frequency receiver
>that will allow you to shoot a four course low frequency range
>approach. Save your time and money and forget that ancient antique.
>It is no longer needed for any modern approach.
I won't disagree, but the LOC-D approach at my home 'drome, KSEE,
with a FM, allows descent from 2700 to 1580.
So, lacking that approach certified GPS, it -can- still be useful...
Ron Q.
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: | Comm and marker beacon antennas |
RST has an antenna kit that supplies the formula for what you want to do as
well as the instructions for installing in a glass airframe and the toroids
you need. You can gather all this yourself if you want to go to the
trouble, the only difficult thing to find are the torroids but they are out
there and someone will know where to get them.
Tim
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Hibbing
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comm and marker beacon antennas
I'm thinking about building a comm dipole to put in my Glasair and am
curious as to the need for any toroids on the feedline. I've got the dipole
formula and an antenna analyzer for tuning it but the toroid question is
what I need an answer to. I'll be mounting it in the interior of the
airplane and it will be at least 3' from my other comm antenna.
Next question...has anyone built a marker beacon antenna? As long as I'm
building antennas I thought I might build one of these also.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
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: Comm and marker beacon antennas |
Bob and Ron,
Thanks for the info. I guess I probably knew that but thought that
since the audio panel already had a MB rcvr in it I could build an el
cheapo antenna. I know I'm not willing to spend any money on trying to
receive an obsolete system. I've decided to splurge and put in a second
comm radio/gps so that's why I've got an audio panel now...didn't need
it with just one comm/gps. Well, actually I'm putting in a bit more.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Quillin
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm and marker beacon antennas
At 19:47 12/31/2009, you wrote:
The marker beacon is no longer a part of an ILS and very few enroute
marker beacons are still in service in the US National Airspace System.
An IFR approved GPS position can legally be used for any function that
might otherwise require gaining a position via a marker beacon.
It is not much more useful than would be a low frequency receiver
that will allow you to shoot a four course low frequency range approach.
Save your time and money and forget that ancient antique. It is no
longer needed for any modern approach.
I won't disagree, but the LOC-D approach at my home 'drome, KSEE, with
a FM, allows descent from 2700 to 1580.
So, lacking that approach certified GPS, it -can- still be useful...
Ron Q.
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Comm and marker beacon antennas |
Bill, The market beacon antenna is 40 inches of copper foil or the sane
length of coax with the shield removed. Position it for to aft and
horizontal and it will work fine. Mine is in a glass wing tip on my RV
DonVS
RV7 flying
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Hibbing
Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2009 7:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comm and marker beacon antennas
I'm thinking about building a comm dipole to put in my Glasair and am
curious as to the need for any toroids on the feedline. I've got the dipole
formula and an antenna analyzer for tuning it but the toroid question is
what I need an answer to. I'll be mounting it in the interior of the
airplane and it will be at least 3' from my other comm antenna.
Next question...has anyone built a marker beacon antenna? As long as I'm
building antennas I thought I might build one of these also.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Comm and marker beacon antennas |
Good Evening Ron,
That particular approach was what got me interested in the current status
of marker beacons.
A few of years ago, I wanted to shoot that approach, but the marker beacon
was listed as being out of service so the minima was very high. I checked
with the local FEDS and was told that it was highly unlikely that the fan
marker would ever be returned to service as they were having trouble finding
parts for the repair.
I had an IFR approved GPS, but under the AIM interpretation of that time,
substitution of a GPS measurement was not approved. (That interpretation in
the AIM has since been changed) There was no intersection listed to be used
in place of the Fan Marker. I requested that an intersection be named so
that we could use that intersection in lieu of the fan marker. That
intersection was then designated so under the old AIM interpretation we could
use
the GPS in lieu of the fan marker. I asked whether or not a radar fix from
the tower could be used in lieu of the marker. I was told that such use was
dependent on whether or not the particular controller who was working that
position was radar qualified. The last statement was NOT agreed to by all
of the FEDs with whom I spoke.
The last time I was at KSEE was last spring for the Beechcraft Heritage
Museum spring board meeting and the fan marker was still inoperative, but with
the new intersection available, there was no question as to whether or not
the GPS could be used.
Is that marker beacon now back in service?
I would be very interested in any other example within the US National
Airspace System where a marker beacon is still required and a GPS cannot be
substituted. I think we can get such a situation rectified if we try. It
worked at your home drome! <G>
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/31/2009 11:06:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,
rjquillin@gmail.com writes:
At 19:47 12/31/2009, you wrote:
The marker beacon is no longer a part of an ILS and very few enroute
marker beacons are still in service in the US National Airspace System. An IFR
approved GPS position can legally be used for any function that might
otherwise require gaining a position via a marker beacon.
It is not much more useful than would be a low frequency receiver that
will allow you to shoot a four course low frequency range approach. Save your
time and money and forget that ancient antique. It is no longer needed for
any modern approach.
I won't disagree, but the LOC-D approach at my home 'drome, KSEE, with a
FM, allows descent from 2700 to 1580.
So, lacking that approach certified GPS, it -can- still be useful...
Ron Q.
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/)
(http://www.buildersbooks.com/)
(http://www.homebuilthelp.com/)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
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! --
|