Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:37 AM - 91.205 - NOT! (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
2. 07:54 AM - Re: testing a coax lead (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:06 AM - Re: 91.205 - NOT! (Dave Saylor)
4. 08:14 AM - Re: 91.205 - NOT! (Jared Yates)
5. 10:22 AM - Direction Indicator Needs (Summary) (Owen Baker)
6. 10:53 AM - Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 (George Nielsen)
7. 12:06 PM - Re: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 (Jeff Luckey)
8. 12:18 PM - Re: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 (B Tomm)
9. 03:11 PM - Re: Direction Indicator Needs (Summary) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:26 PM - Re: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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 |
|
Just a reminder to note that, as specifically stated in the heading
section, 14CFR 91.205 applies to, and only to, "Powered civil aircraft
with *standard* category U.S. airworthiness certificates". For the
larger number of us who are building/flying experimental category
aircraft, the applicable rules appear in your operating limits. The
recommendations in 91.205 are good guidelines, but it's your ops limits,
and the general requirement to have appropriate equipment to complete
the planned flight, that rule here.
Andy
------------------------
Andrew S Elliott, CFI
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: testing a coax lead |
At 03:38 PM 6/10/2014, you wrote:
Problem solved.
So, Bob, your will be gratified to know that you DIY right angle
connector record remains intact. Nothing wrong with that.
Good to know . . .
I started with continuity testing. The pin at the transponder did
not have continuity with the pin at the antenna. My first thought
was that I had fouled up the connector. For whatever reason, I
tested the ground connector and discovered no continuity there, either.
After a short head scratch, I tested all the other antennae and
discovered that I had somehow switched the labels, and hence the
connection, of the transponder antenna with the marker beacon
antenna. For future reference, a transponder does not develop proper
output when connected to a DIY marker beacon antenna.
Fortunately, they were very close together so all I had to do was
switch the antenna inputs. Not quite enough slack to reproduce the
nicely glued DYI right angle, but the connection is solid enough and
the transponder works per specs.
The Devil is in the details . . . funny and
frustrating how much $time$ can be expended
running down the wrong rabbit hole. Been
there, done that.
Pleased that order has returned to your universe . . .
Bob . . .
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: 91.205 - NOT! |
There are other examples of this in the FARs, where experimentals seem to
be given a pass, but then the op limits put the reg back in. Modern op
limits are gonna say:
=8B(8) After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriate
ly
equipped for night
and/or instrument flight in accordance with =C2=A7 91.205, this aircraft is
to
be operated under VFR, day only.
(9) Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under =C2=A7 91.2
05
must be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this
equipment must be recorded in the aircraft maintenance records.
=8BSo 91.205 gets handed back to us, per the op limits.
The only caveat I know of is that some older op limits, which are still
valid, might not refer back to 205.=8B
--Dave
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Dr. Andrew Elliott <a.s.elliott@cox.net>
wrote:
> Just a reminder to note that, as specifically stated in the heading
> section, 14CFR 91.205 applies to, and only to, =9CPowered civil air
craft with
> **standard** category U.S. airworthiness certificates=9D. For the
larger
> number of us who are building/flying experimental category aircraft, the
> applicable rules appear in your operating limits. The recommendations in
> 91.205 are good guidelines, but it=99s your ops limits, and the gen
eral
> requirement to have appropriate equipment to complete the planned flight,
> that rule here.
>
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------
>
> Andrew S Elliott, CFI
>
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
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: 91.205 - NOT! |
In theory you may be right, and while ops limits vary from case to case,
mine say "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 14 CFR
91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only."
So for my airplane and anyone else who has that limit, the ops limits just
circle back to 91.205, so your point doesn't really apply.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Dr. Andrew Elliott <a.s.elliott@cox.net>
wrote:
> Just a reminder to note that, as specifically stated in the heading
> section, 14CFR 91.205 applies to, and only to, =9CPowered civil air
craft with
> **standard** category U.S. airworthiness certificates=9D. For the
larger
> number of us who are building/flying experimental category aircraft, the
> applicable rules appear in your operating limits. The recommendations in
> 91.205 are good guidelines, but it=99s your ops limits, and the gen
eral
> requirement to have appropriate equipment to complete the planned flight,
> that rule here.
>
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------
>
> Andrew S Elliott, CFI
>
>
> *
>
===========
www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
===========
===========
om/contribution>
===========
>
> *
>
>
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: | Direction Indicator Needs (Summary) |
6/12/2014
Hello Aeroelectric and Avionics Listers, On this subject back on
6/10/2014 I wrote:
=9CI know that there are many technically smart people on these
lists and I would like to enlist your assistance.
Picture this situation: There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of EAB
(Experimental Amateur Built) IFR capable aircraft flying around with
vacuum driven mechanical spinning mass gyroscopic attitude and
directional indicators. A large percentage of these builders and pilots
would like to (or need to) replace those indicators with something
electronic (other than expensive electrical motor driven mechanical
spinning mass gyroscopic) in nature and remove the entire vacuum system
from their EAB.=9D
and
=9CHow about it experts (and entrepreneurs) are my desires
hopeless and unrealistic?=9D
I want to now post what I have learned / concluded and express my
gratitude to the several people who responded:
1) The two best choices for replacing my previous vacuum driven attitude
gyro:
a) The Sandia SAI 340 Quattro. See here:
http://www.sandia.aero/?q=node/80
b) The Dynon EFIS-D6. See here:
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D6_intro.html
2) The best choice for replacing my previous vacuum driven directional
gyro:
The MGL Avionics Velocity Singles Horizon / Compass. See here:
http://www.mglavionics.com/html/velocity_singles.html
Many thanks again for all that posted help and I would be willing to
discuss my choices if desired.
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
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: | Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 |
For several months my RV-6 has experienced starting problems. At first
go the engine would hardly turn as there did not seem to be enough power
from the starter motor. After repeated attempts things would
progressively improve until there was enough power to start the engine.
Since the end of last month the starter motor has simply not been able
to provide enough power to start my engine.
I removed the starter motor and had it tested. It jumped to life when
exposed to enough voltage. Therefore this was apparently not the problem.
Measurements initially seemed to indicate that the battery was OK.
However, later it appeared that the battery could not provide enough
tension. I removed it and measured it. It provides almost 11.7 V at
present. I reckon that the battery is, if not the only problem, then one
of the problems.
A fellow aircraft owner told me that he believes that the problem is
with the relay. That is why, according to him, in the past I initially
had problems in starting but after several attempts I succeeded. Could
this in your opinion be the case? Does anyone by chance know where can I
find a replacement relay, which companies make suitable relays and what
their part numbers are?
As for my battery, it is an Odyssey PC 680 by Enersys. When in the
hangar it is always kept under tension by a battery charger. Is this
battery the optimal choice for a Lycoming O-320 powered RV-6 or RV-6A?
Do you know whether any other batteries would be just as good or better?
I have found sources for such a battery.
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
P.S. I have sent this on both the RV-6 and Lycoming lists. Please excuse
me if you receive the same message more than once.
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: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 |
George,=0A=0AThe PC 680 should be fine - lots of RVers use them.However, a
resting battery voltage of 11.7 volts is a bad thing.- That is essentiall
y a dead battery.- A healthy battery should have a resting voltage > 12.5
volts.=0A=0AI would start with a new battery.- If that does not solve th
e problem we can look at the start solenoid (relay).=0A=0A=0AAlso, be advis
ed that some battery charger/maintainers do not have the proper output for
maintaining this type of battery and will actually decrease battery life.
- There was a thread here on the Aeroelectric List some months ago where
BobN analyzed the charge curves of a few battery maintainers and recommende
d one.- I know it was a Schumacher and I think is was model number 1562A
(around $20). (somebody please correct me if that's wrong)=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A
=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Thursday, June 12, 2014 11:03 AM, George Nielsen <genie@swis
ge Nielsen <genie@swissmail.org>=0A=0AFor several months my RV-6 has experi
enced starting problems. At first =0Ago the engine would hardly turn as the
re did not seem to be enough power =0Afrom the starter motor. After repeate
d attempts things would =0Aprogressively improve until there was enough pow
er to start the engine. =0ASince the end of last month the starter motor ha
s simply not been able =0Ato provide enough power to start my engine.=0A=0A
I removed the starter motor and had it tested. It jumped to life when =0Aex
posed to enough voltage. Therefore this was apparently not the problem.=0A
=0AMeasurements initially seemed to indicate that the battery was OK. =0AHo
wever, later it appeared that the battery could not provide enough =0Atensi
on. I removed it and measured it. It provides almost 11.7 V at =0Apresent.
I reckon that the battery is, if not the only problem, then one =0Aof the p
roblems.=0A=0AA fellow aircraft owner told me that he believes that the pro
blem is =0Awith the relay. That is why, according to him, in the past I ini
tially =0Ahad problems in starting but after several attempts I succeeded.
Could =0Athis in your opinion be the case? Does anyone by chance know where
can I =0Afind a replacement relay, which companies make suitable relays an
d what =0Atheir part numbers are?=0A=0AAs for my battery, it is an Odyssey
PC 680 by Enersys. When in the =0Ahangar it is always kept under tension by
a battery charger. Is this =0Abattery the optimal choice for a Lycoming O-
320 powered RV-6 or RV-6A? =0ADo you know whether any other batteries would
be just as good or better? =0AI have found sources for such a battery.=0A
=0AThanks.=0A=0AGeorge Nielsen=0ARV-6 PH-XGN=0AThe Hague, the Netherlands
=0A=0AP.S. I have sent this on both the RV-6 and Lycoming lists. Please exc
==============
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: | Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 |
Hi George,
Since no one else has replied yet, I'll offer my thoughts.
It is my understanding that the PC680 does not respond well to constant
charge. I'm not sure if this battery is recoverable, but you can try. You
may find some methods on the net, or someone else may chime in here.
What is the open circuit voltage?
What is the charger's voltage output?
What is the battery charge about an hour after you remove the charger?
How old is it?
Has it bulged, enlarged or deformed in anyway?
Have you contacted the manufacturer?
The PC680 has a reputation as a very good battery for our applications.
However, if you find you need to replace it, consider one of the new LiFePo
such as EarthX and save about 11 LB. I am.
Bevan
Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of George
Nielsen
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 10:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320
--> <genie@swissmail.org>
For several months my RV-6 has experienced starting problems. At first go
the engine would hardly turn as there did not seem to be enough power from
the starter motor. After repeated attempts things would progressively
improve until there was enough power to start the engine.
Since the end of last month the starter motor has simply not been able to
provide enough power to start my engine.
I removed the starter motor and had it tested. It jumped to life when
exposed to enough voltage. Therefore this was apparently not the problem.
Measurements initially seemed to indicate that the battery was OK.
However, later it appeared that the battery could not provide enough
tension. I removed it and measured it. It provides almost 11.7 V at present.
I reckon that the battery is, if not the only problem, then one of the
problems.
A fellow aircraft owner told me that he believes that the problem is with
the relay. That is why, according to him, in the past I initially had
problems in starting but after several attempts I succeeded. Could this in
your opinion be the case? Does anyone by chance know where can I find a
replacement relay, which companies make suitable relays and what their part
numbers are?
As for my battery, it is an Odyssey PC 680 by Enersys. When in the hangar it
is always kept under tension by a battery charger. Is this battery the
optimal choice for a Lycoming O-320 powered RV-6 or RV-6A?
Do you know whether any other batteries would be just as good or better?
I have found sources for such a battery.
Thanks.
George Nielsen
RV-6 PH-XGN
The Hague, the Netherlands
P.S. I have sent this on both the RV-6 and Lycoming lists. Please excuse me
if you receive the same message more than once.
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: Direction Indicator Needs (Summary) |
At 12:21 PM 6/12/2014, you wrote:
>6/12/2014
>
>Hello Aeroelectric and Avionics Listers, On this
>subject back on 6/10/2014 I wrote:
>
>I know that there are many technically smart
>people on these lists and I would like to enlist your assistance.
>
>Picture this situation: There are hundreds
>(maybe thousands) of EAB (Experimental Amateur
>Built) IFR capable aircraft flying around with
>vacuum driven mechanical spinning mass
>gyroscopic attitude and directional indicators.
>A large percentage of these builders and pilots
>would like to (or need to) replace those
>indicators with something electronic (other than
>expensive electrical motor driven mechanical
>spinning mass gyroscopic) in nature and remove
>the entire vacuum system from their EAB
Exactly . . . which is what the TC world has
been working toward for decades. A discussion
I had with an FAA type some years ago about
iron-gyro instruments hinged on the word "equivalent"
with confidence levels supported by a plan-b.
We kinda got wrapped around the AHRS axle;
he was of the opinion that rate-based sensors
would never replace a suite of spinning iron disks.
But few contemporary offerings use real gyros yet
are demonstrably capable of offering reliable
presentations.
Our venerable iron gyros were 'backed up' with needle-
ball and airspeed . . . and indeed, the prudent driller
of holes in clouds was encouraged to keep those skills
sharp too.
Ever since I wrote the article on hand-held GPS receivers
for S.A. in 1997, I've not turned on an ADF, VOR or even
a panel mounted GPS. There was a time that I gave away
hand-helds suitable for airplanes (GPS310/315) as
seminar door prizes . . . bought them at Walmart for
$100.
http://tinyurl.com/pzuzf7y
I fly with dual GPS . . . two hand-helds stuck between
glare-shield and windshield with little wads of windshield
sealant. Dual displays that get fresh batteries out-bound
and return legs. Totally independent of panel mounted
equipment . . .
I'd be perfectly comfortable poking through a layer
needle, ball, airspeed -AND- GPS. In terms of complying
with spirit and intent of the rules, the hand helds offer
considerable redundancy to stuff already mounted on the
panel.
Bottom line is, what do YOU need to competently and
confidently operate your airplane? If you call for clearance
to poke holes in clouds, nobody gives a toot what's
on your panel . . . except you. The only time individuals
with an aire of authority care is when digging through
the wreckage . . . at which time it will probably be
discovered that no suite of instrumentation, holy-watered
or not, would have made any difference.
While we owned the airport at Benton, I did a lot of playing
with the dual GPS. I devised approach profiles to
our runway using the hand-helds that were quite capable
of getting me on the ground comfortably at 400 and 1/2.
Never needed to use them . . . but they worked.
The nice thing about the hand-helds is, like the whisky
compass, total independence from the panel mounted stuff.
Put one or more of these puppies in your flight bag
http://tinyurl.com/mrlquos
and the pressures for selection of 'just the right
panel mounted equipment' go WAAaayyyy down . . .
Bob . . .
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 |
At 02:04 PM 6/12/2014, you wrote:
>George,
>
>The PC 680 should be fine - lots of RVers use them. However, a
>resting battery voltage of 11.7 volts is a bad thing. That is
>essentially a dead battery. A healthy battery should have a resting
>voltage > 12.5 volts.
>
>I would start with a new battery. If that does not solve the
>problem we can look at the start solenoid (relay).
Try using jumper cables to put a car battery in
parallel with your ship's battery . . . if you see
a marked improvement, then load check the battery.
No improvement, start looking at interconnecting
hardware and wiring.
>Also, be advised that some battery charger/maintainers do not have
>the proper output for maintaining this type of battery and will
>actually decrease battery life. There was a thread here on the
>Aeroelectric List some months ago where BobN analyzed the charge
>curves of a few battery maintainers and recommended one. I know it
>was a Schumacher and I think is was model number 1562A (around $20).
>(somebody please correct me if that's wrong)
That's the one. I've had good luck with the Battery
Tenders too. I don't recall if I mentioned my disappointment
with the charger-gods at Schumacher with the performance of
an XC75W charger a couple weeks ago
Emacs!
This 'super whippy' product was supposed to massage any of
the common technologies. In fact, when I tried the Standard
and AGM modes during some battery tests, the thing peaked
out at well over 15 volts . . . only the GEL mode proved to
be a profile I'd want to use with ANY battery. I've still
got it on my list of things to do to forward this data to
Schumacher with some hope of receiving clarification.
Bob . . .
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! --
|