Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:16 AM - 91.205 - NOT! (Owen Baker)
2. 06:42 AM - Re: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 (toddheffley)
3. 06:42 AM - Re: Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 (MLE)
4. 07:04 AM - Direction Indicator Needs (Summary) (Owen Baker)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: 91.205 - NOT! (Owen Baker)
6. 01:20 PM - Mag switch through d-sub connector (donjohnston)
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 |
|
6/13/2014
Hello Andrew Eliot, Does the attached document help clarify things for
you?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
==================
Time: 07:37:30 AM PST US
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott@cox.net>
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
| 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 |
Boy.
Did I ever suffer hard with the same squawk in a c182. Hope this helps.
I tested the battery voltage WHILE CRANKING with a simple Simpson volt meter.
The meter would dip from 12.5ish to 1.0ish under heavy load.
That seemed resonable.
Then I tested the starter voltage WHILE CRANKING. It was dipping to 5.5vdc on the
compression strokes.
Unreasonable.
I put the meter from the battery + terminal to the starter + terminal.
During cranking there was .75vdc of "drop" from the battery to the starter post.
Seemed resonable.
Then I connected the volt meter from the - terminal to the case of the starter.
WHILE CRANKING there was 5.5 v of "loss".
Further troubleshooting lead to the fact that the small straps at each lord mount
were the only engine ground..... no where near enough.
Big fat ground wire...... big fat smile.
Since then one of my troubleshooting guideposts is........ use HIGH CURRENT to
troubleshoot high current failures.
Cautions apply.... you are spinning the meat clever out the front while troubleshooting.......murphy.
Hope it helps
--------
WWW.toddheffley.com
www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424793#424793
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: | Starting an RV-6 with a Lycoming O-320 |
Just 2 weeks ago I replaced a 6 mo old PC680 in my RV-6A with 0-360 Lyc.
The engine had started fine the weekend before but now it wouldn't even
hold the starter engaged. My panel volt meter showed 8.6v. when resting. I
do not use a wall charger as I fly often enough. So I took the battery
out and returned to the store where purchased. Later, after they "fully
charged it" it was holding voltage at 13.3V yet wouldn't put out half of
its CCA rating. Solution was a new battery under warranty replacement.
YMMV
Marty
Time: 03:26:51 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
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
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: | Direction Indicator Needs (Summary) |
6/13/2015
Hello Ken, Thanks for your posting. You wrote:
1) There is also the Trutrak gemini ADI series for a drop in 3" replacement
with gps track (not magnetic heading).
I do not think that the units that provide only GPS track information, but
not stabilized magnetic heading information, meet the intended requirements
of 14 CFR 91.205 (d) (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro
or equivalent)" for replacing my vacuum driven directional gyro.
A case in point: Suppose that ATC tells the pilot to Fly heading XXX. I
dont think that flying some very similar track instead will necessarily
result in immediate danger or a flight violation (if the ATC controller is
not happy with the movement of your aircraft he will most likely just issue
you a new heading to fly), but I dont think that flying a track instead of
a heading is what a conscientious pilot would want to do.
2) I would not expect the $500. MGL magnetic sensor and display to be a
satisfactory replacement for a directional gyro. I've never flown it but
the description says it won't be accurate during any turn unless you
upgrade to the substantially more expensive AHRS.
My comments:
a) You write: .... the description says it won't be accurate during any
turn unless you
upgrade to the substantially more expensive AHRS.
I can not find that information on the MGL web site. Can you please help me
find it?
http://www.mglavionics.com/html/velocity_singles.html
b) You write: .... the description says it won't be accurate during any
turn unless you
upgrade to the substantially more expensive AHRS.
I can not find any information on the MGL web site that states or implies
that there is any improvement or relationship between a lone SP-6 Sensor,
Tilt-compensated magnetic compass and the display of its heading information
and the heading information displayed from a lone SP-7 Sensor
Attitude indication and turn/bank indication.
c) Here is an extract from the MGL web site:
"Heading stability issues: You may find short term fluctuations of the
heading occurring. These tend to be very small and are typically less than
one
degree. This could still cause the heading to fluctuate occasionally by a
single degree. These fluctuations occur naturally
in the earths magnetic field and can also be caused by nearby electrical
equipment such as radios, lamps, electronic
instrumentation or computers, even the ignition systems of engines. The AV-2
is specifically designed for fast response
and thus may show residual fluctuations of the magnetic field that are
impossible to filter out without causing delays in the
update of the heading information."
I can understand that there exists different levels of heading stability and
instantaneous accuracy between the magnetic wet compass envisioned by 14 CFR
91.205 (b) (3) for VFR flight and a stabilized magnetic device that would
meet 14 CFR 91.205 (d) (9) for IFR flight to perfection so it may come down
to which device will meet both the intention of 14 CFR 91.205 (d) (9), but
not to perfection, and the individual pilot's needs.
d) You write: "I was surprised to learn that in my location at 45*N
lattitude, the magnetic vector is tilted about 70 degrees below the horizon
which makes attitude info pretty much essential to simulate a gyro compass."
Understand. How does one determine whether or not some stabilized magnetic
heading indication device indeed has attitude information incorporated at
all into providing more accurate and instantaneous magnetic heading
indication and to the level of that incorporation between the zero
stabilization of a wet compass and perfection?
3) "Nothing like the noise from a spinning gyro to remind me that the master
is still on."
Any time my master switch is on and the alternator is not putting out the
minimum acceptable voltage (such as after alternator failure or engine shut
down) the B&C voltage regulator in my system is flashing a light on my
instrument panel. See here:
http://www.bandc.biz/alternatorcontrollerregulator14vhomebuilt.aspx
Different strokes for different folks. Thanks again for your input.
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
and understand information."
=============================================================
Time: 11:51:37 AM PST US
From: Ken <kleh@dialupatcost.ca>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Direction Indicator Needs (Summary)
There is also the Trutrak gemini ADI series for a drop in 3" replacement
with gps track (not magnetic heading). These are rate sensing gyros so
they are a bit different than spinning gyro's. If you hold a pitch
attitude and there is an altitude change they function well. However
with no corresponding altitude change they gradually return to
displaying nose level. Not really a problem but if I decelerate very
very slowly I can get the nose quite high while the display still reads
a level flight attitude. Accordingly the gemini flashes an airpseed
warning when the speed gets low.
Similarly if you maintain a turn for a long time, the display will
gradually indicate wings level unless it has heading or track
information such as from a gps.
I would not expect the $500. MGL magnetic sensor and display to be a
satisfactory replacement for a directional gyro. I've never flown it but
the description says it won't be accurate during any turn unless you
upgrade to the substantially more expensive AHRS. I was surprised to
learn that in my location at 45*N lattitude, the magnetic vector is
tilted about 70 degrees below the horizon which makes attitude info
pretty much essential to simulate a gyro compass.
While it's as heavy as the removed vacuum pump, I've been running a
$25. junk table 28volt T&B for quite some time powered with a $5. dc-dc
converter on my 12 volt electrical system. Nothing like the noise from a
spinning gyro to remind me that the master is still on.
Ken
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: 91.205 - NOT! |
6/13/2014
Hello Andy, Thanks for your response. You wrote: Why do you think that it
(91.205) does?
1) I agree, 91.205 does not normally apply to any aircraft that has a:
Special Airworthiness Certificate, Category/Designation: Experimental.
2) Such an aircraft is limited to VFR day only flight. See here:
"14 CFR 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating
limitations.
(d) (2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Administrator;...."
3) However the entire context of the recent postings regarding the subject
Direction Indicator Needs has been for IFR flight by an aircraft that has a:
Special Airworthiness Certificate, Category/Designation: Experimental.
Purpose: To operate Amateur Built Aircraft. Operating Limitations Dated
XX/XX/XXXX Are Part Of This Certificate.
Note: The terminology and entries in 1 and 2 above are taken directly from
an issued FAA Form 8130-7 (10/82).
4) This below extract copied from the attached document states why 91.205
DOES APPLY for IFR or night flight for an aircraft certificated as in 3
above.(commonly referred to as an EAB (Experimental Amateur Built)
aircraft):
"The Special Airworthiness Certificate issued for each amateur built
experimental aircraft includes specific Operating Limitations. Per FAA
Order 8130.2G the Operating Limitations state: After completion of Phase I
flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument
flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR,
day only. The interpretation given this statement is that if the aircraft
is appropriately equipped in accordance with 91.205 then the VFR day
only limitation no longer applies and the aircraft can be flown at night
or under IFR in IMC."
4) If the EAB in question does not contain the above quoted Operating
Limitations extract then one must, as you say, look at the Operating
Limitations for that specific aircraft to see what does apply.
Please let me know if the above information does not clarify this issue.
Thanks,
OC
======================================================================
From: Dr. Andrew Elliott
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 8:38 AM
Subject: RE: 91.205 - NOT!
It does not. In your list, 91.205 is the reference for nearly all
requirements. And most clearly, 91.205 does not apply to experimental
category aircraft. Why do you think that it does?
Andy
==================================================================
From: Owen Baker [mailto:bakerocb@cox.net]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 5:15 AM
Subject: 91.205 - NOT!
6/13/2014
Hello Andrew Eliot, Does the attached document help clarify things for you?
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
and understand information."
========================================================================================
Time: 07:37:30 AM PST US
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott@cox.net>
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 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: | Mag switch through d-sub connector |
I'm trying to clean up the connections to a switch panel that has the mag switches.
Is a D-sub connector appropriate for mag switch connections?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=424805#424805
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! --
|