---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 06/12/14: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:37:30 AM PST US From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 91.205 - NOT! 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:54:46 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:06:57 AM PST US From: Dave Saylor Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:05 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 91.205 - NOT! From: Jared Yates 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:22:11 AM PST US From: "Owen Baker " Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:53:39 AM PST US From: George Nielsen Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:06:12 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 =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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:18:48 PM PST US From: "B Tomm" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 --> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:11:49 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:26:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.