Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:34 AM - EAB IFR Certification (Owen Baker)
2. 05:03 AM - EAB IFR Certification (Owen Baker)
3. 05:24 AM - EAB IFR Certification (Owen Baker)
4. 08:18 AM - Re: EAB IFR Certification (Owen Baker)
5. 08:28 AM - Re: EAB IFR Certification (Kelly McMullen)
6. 08:30 AM - Re: Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:37 AM - Re: Re: EAB IFR Certification (Kelly McMullen)
8. 08:53 AM - Re: Re: EAB IFR Certification (Stein Bruch)
9. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design ()
10. 04:21 PM - Re: RV-14 (Bill Watson)
11. 04:54 PM - Re: RV-14 (Tcwtech)
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 |
|
Subject: | EAB IFR Certification |
10/29/2014
Hello David Lamb, Thank you for your very kind and prompt response.
And I apologize =93 I had assumed that you were discussing a USA
built, certified, and operating EAB airplane in your initial posting and
I was trying to make a teaching point by asking some questions to which
there is no correct answer in the USA. I was not sharp enough to look at
the word sasktel in your email address and deduce that you were talking
Canadian rules.
I would not presume to make any judgment or teaching points about what
is correct or permitted regarding aircraft certification in your fine
country.
I wish you the best with your RV 7.
OC
===
Time: 08:06:01 PM PST US
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAB IFR Certification
From: "RV7ASask" <rv7alamb@sasktel.net>
Hello Owen,
Yes, perhaps 'certified' is not exactly correct. I have been working
with Transport
Canada and in the end they removed "VFR ONLY" from my Special
Certificate
of Airworthiness. The only TSO'd equipment I have are a Garmin SL30,
with the
nav displayed on the Skyview and a Garmin GTX327 transponder. I have a
panel
mounted GDU370 GPS. The transponder and the pitot static system had to
be 'certified'
by an avionics shop. That must be done every 2 years. There is also the
requisite iPad with Foreflight for the charts.
I'm sorry I am traveling right now and do not have all the relevant
Canadian Air
Regulations that are required to be complied with to remove the VFR
restriction.
I found the TC inspector to be very helpful. He provided me with all the
answers as to what was required.
Regards
David Lamb
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: | EAB IFR Certification |
10/29/2014
Hello Don Johnson, I apologize.
In order to make a teaching point I was apparently being too subtle
(smart ass?) with my questioning approach to the original poster by
asking some questions to which there is no correct answer regarding IFR
certification of USA EAB aircraft.
There is no such thing as IFR certification per se for an EAB aircraft
in the USA. The attached document will shed some light on this subject.
OC
PS: I subsequently learned that the original poster was writing about
Canadian rules which is a significantly different ball game.
====================
Time: 08:12:31 AM PST US
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAB IFR Certification
From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
I too am very interested in this as I don't have all TSO equipment and
would like
to be IFR certified.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432407#432407
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: | EAB IFR Certification |
10/29/2014
Hello Bill Allen, You wrote: =9CIt's not "Certification" - it's
having
your Operating Limitations re-written to include operations under IMC
(and
night if you want it)=9D
First, let me make it clear that I am addressing USA EAB certification
and operating requirements only and not Canada or any other country.
One should not have to have his Operating Limitations re-written in
order to operate his EAB under IFR or at night. If the Operating
Limitations are of reasonably recent vintage they should already state:
=9CAfter 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.=9D
The interpretation given this statement is that if the aircraft is
=9Cappropriately equipped in accordance with 91.205=9D then
the =9CVFR, day only=9D limitation no longer applies and
the aircraft can be flown at night or under IFR in IMC. You can see that
there is no specific =9Cinclusion=9D for =9Coperations
under IMC (and
night if you want it)=9D in the Operating Limitations as written.
See the attached document for further explanation.
OC
====
Time: 11:04:28 AM PST US
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAB IFR Certification
From: Bill Allen <billallensworld@gmail.com>
FAR 91.205 tells you what you need. It's not "Certification" - it's
having
your Operating Limitations re-written to include operations under IMC
(and
night if you want it)
here's a good link:
https://www.google.com/search?rls=aso&client=gmail&q=FAR%2091.205
Bill Allen
LongEz160 N99BA FD51
CZ4 G-BYLZ EGBJ
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: EAB IFR Certification |
10/29/2014
Hello Don, You wrote:
1) =9CThere's a lot of ignorance, mis-information and just
downright stupidity out there.=9D
Amen to that.
2) =9CI spoke to my avionics guy and he said that any non-TSO'd
equipment would require separate certification to fly IFR.=9D
I=99ll be kind and put that requirement initially into the
=9Cmis-information=9D category. If he insists, then it may
have to be placed over into the =9Cdownright stupidity=9D
category.
3) =9CBut he didn't know how to obtain that
certification.=9D
That would be because there is no such requirement and no way to do so.
4) =9CI ran across this article from the EAA.....=9D
I have no significant issue with the article. I wish that they had used
the word =9Callowed=9D instead of =9Capproved=9D
in the following sentence: =9CIn order for the aircraft to be
approved for IFR operations,....=9D because the word
=9Capproved=9D connotes some sort of specific positive
action or approval document to be provided by the FAA and that is not
what will happen.**
5) =9CA friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told
him he needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display
that shows the CDI.=9D
My reaction when someone =9Ctells=9D me thus and so is to
ask for the specific regulation or requirement that makes it so. It is
astounding, as you alluded to, at the amount of hearsay, rumor, and
gossip that is available on this subject. If what I am told can not be
substantiated by documentation then it falls into one of those three
categories.
6) =9CI spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that
because it's such a gray area that they only install certified avionics
(Garmin G3X seems to be the one they use).=9D
Fine with me. They are certainly within their right to install what they
wish into the instrument panel and airplane that they are providing to a
kit purchasing customer. I am not sure what they mean by
=9Ccertified avionics=9D though. Do they mean TSO=99d
avionics? If so I am further puzzled (amused?) by the fact that the
Garmin G3X is not TSO=99d. See here:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/aviation/sport-aviation/g3x-/prod63892.ht
ml
7) =9CI'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I
get a "VFR only" sticker.=9D
I don=99t see that happening. Instead you should get this
statement in your Operating Limitations: =9C=9CAfter
completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with =C2=A7 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.=9D and the
subsequent compliance is up to you.**
8) =9CSo whenever I run across anything that has to do with IFR in
an experimental aircraft, I try and get as much information as I
can.=9D
Good for you, I wish more of the EAB aircraft builders and pilots had
that approach to this subject.
9) =9CBTW, where are you located and what are you
building/flying?=9D
I am located in Fairfax, VA and I have been flying my KIS TR-1 out of
KHEF (Manassas Regional Airport) since 2003 after six and one half years
of building. I am an ancient person and former military pilot with more
hours, aircraft types, education, and ratings than my poor old body can
support.
OC
**PS: For the most part the FARs are written in the =9Cforbidding
mode=9D. They tell you what you can not do (legally) with words
such as =9C no person may.... unless=9D. So if something is
not forbidden by the regulations then it should be permitted. Note that
FAR Section 91.13 specifically forbids =9Ccareless and
reckless=9D (stupid?) operations.
===============
From: Don Johnston
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: EAB IFR Certification
Owen,
Thanks for the email!
I've got to say that I'm totally baffled by this. There's a lot of
ignorance, mis-information and just downright stupidity out there.
I ran across this article from the EAA and figured that I would be okay.
It's a little vague but I thought that it was pretty clear.
I spoke to my avionics guy and he said that any non-TSO'd equipment
would require separate certification to fly IFR. But he didn't know how
to obtain that certification.
A friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told him he
needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display that
shows the CDI.
I spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that because it's such
a gray area that they only install certified avionics (Garmin G3X seems
to be the one they use).
I'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I get a "VFR
only" sticker.
So whenever I run across anything that has to do with IFR in an
experimental aircraft, I try and get as much information as I can.
BTW, where are you located and what are you building/flying?
Thanks,
-Don
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: EAB IFR Certification |
There are misconceptions about IFR certification in the type
certificated world as well. Individual aircraft are not normally
certified for IFR, only the airframe as part of its initial type
certificate, with same kind of limitation. If supplied with required
equipment, only a static system and altimeter certification are needed.
Just as very few items need Tso approval, primarily the transponder (if
required) and the GPS. Navcoms, and instruments do not need TSO
approval, just approval for use in the airframe via minor alteration,
etc. How quickly we forget that in days of old, the majority of Navcoms,
ADFs etc used in Part 91 aircraft were not TSO approved. Prime example,
King KX-170. You only paid for TSO in the KX-175 if the aircraft was
going to be used in "for hire" flights.
Kelly
On 10/29/2014 5:01 AM, Owen Baker wrote:
> 10/29/2014
> Hello Don Johnson, I apologize.
> In order to make a teaching point I was apparently being too subtle
> (smart ass?) with my questioning approach to the original poster by
> asking some questions to which there is no correct answer regarding
> IFR certification of USA EAB aircraft.
> There is no such thing as IFR certification per se for an EAB aircraft
> in the USA. The attached document will shed some light on this subject.
> OC
>
> =============================================
> Time: 08:12:31 AM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAB IFR Certification
> From: "donjohnston" <don@velocity-xl.com>
>
>
> I too am very interested in this as I don't have all TSO equipment and
> would like
> to be IFR certified.
>
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: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design |
At 18:01 2014-10-28, you wrote:
>
>A small, active antenna is just fine as I would
>have room for a circuit board on the end of the
>whip (inboard end) and have power available a few inches away.
>
>I don=99t think I can get 1"dia in there. The D
>section is quite small in aspect, and there are
>wooden dowels running fore/aft in the middle of
>the foam from the construction process.
I'm not sure I have a clear mental image of your configuration.
Q: If the antenna portion of the proposed installation were
a 15-25" long, say stiff rod with the 'amplifier' stuck to
the inboard end, would you be able to install such a device?
It occurs to me that while many builders have described the
boring of a hole through the foam under a composite structure,
it might be possible to simply push the antenna portion of
the device into the foam. The resulting hole would be no
larger than what the antenna itself produced.
>In this case, and ideally, the antenna portion
>would be flexible enough to bend 90degrees (not
>sharply) to be fed down and into the foam
>conduit (inboard to outboard) - it is not a
>direct shot into the conduit from the inboard end.
This is the unclear part. The 'antenna' portion the
system need not be straight, rigid or any particular
shape. It ultimately DOES want to have some geometric
length in the horizontal plane (this is the e-field probe
portion of its physics) but something of a curve or zig-zag
isn't especially detrimental.
So the goal is to get SOME conductor in a mostly horizontal
orientation. The 'active' portion of the installation is
an etched circuit board with a handful of surface mount
components on it. I'm thinking something on the order of
3/4" square. It would be fitted with a length of RG coax
and a 14v power supply wire soldered on. The antenna connection
could be a short pigtail that attached to the end of
the conductor of choice installed in the foam.
Emacs!
>So you know, the antenna will be connected to a
>Garmin 650 radio that has a VOR/GS splitter
>internally and has only the one coax connection.
This is a 'broadband' design which should perform
well at both VOR/LOC and GS frequencies. Parts
not already on hand have been ordered. I'm going
to set up a little 'antenna range' experiment in
the back yard in the next few weeks. I can massage
this active antenna project at the same time.
Bob . . .
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: EAB IFR Certification |
I had Aerotronics build a panel for me, for IFR use. The only TSO items
are the GTN-650, SL30 and the Dynon transponder.
Neither of the nav units have separate VOR heads, and they are not
needed, as the Dynon Skyview displays needles for each nav unit on the
EFIS HSI. Same deal for AFS, and GRT EFIS. Either he talked to someone
new at Aerotronics, or misunderstood what he was told.
Kelly
On 10/29/2014 8:16 AM, Owen Baker wrote:
> 1
>
> 5) A friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told him he
> needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display that
> shows the CDI.
> My reaction when someone tells me thus and so is to ask for the
> specific regulation or requirement that makes it so. It is astounding,
> as you alluded to, at the amount of hearsay, rumor, and gossip that is
> available on this subject. If what I am told can not be substantiated
> by documentation then it falls into one of those three categories.
> 6) I spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that because it's
> such a gray area that they only install certified avionics (Garmin G3X
> seems to be the one they use).
> Fine with me. They are certainly within their right to install what
> they wish into the instrument panel and airplane that they are
> providing to a kit purchasing customer. I am not sure what they mean
> by certified avionics though. Do they mean TSOd avionics? If so I
> am further puzzled (amused?) by the fact that the Garmin G3X is not
> TSOd. See here:
> https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/aviation/sport-aviation/g3x-/prod63892.html
> 7) I'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I get a
> "VFR only" sticker.
> I dont see that happening. Instead you should get this statement in
> your Operating Limitations: 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. and the subsequent compliance is up to you.**
>
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: EAB IFR Certification |
Spot on comments for the US, but for Canada not so muchas those
requirements are wholly different for IFR then ours in the US are.
I=99m still not sure if folks are specifically discussing US or
Canada rules, but I do know that some of it is getting intermingled here
=93 which will only lead to the possibility of additional
confusion. Perhaps this should be split into =9CUS rules=9D
and =9CCanada rules=9D.because they are quite
different.
Cheers,
Stein
Do not archive
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen
Baker
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAB IFR Certification
10/29/2014
Hello Don, You wrote:
1) =9CThere's a lot of ignorance, mis-information and just
downright stupidity out there.=9D
Amen to that.
2) =9CI spoke to my avionics guy and he said that any non-TSO'd
equipment would require separate certification to fly IFR.=9D
I=99ll be kind and put that requirement initially into the
=9Cmis-information=9D category. If he insists, then it may
have to be placed over into the =9Cdownright stupidity=9D
category.
3) =9CBut he didn't know how to obtain that
certification.=9D
That would be because there is no such requirement and no way to do so.
4) =9CI ran across this article from the EAA.....=9D
I have no significant issue with the article. I wish that they had used
the word =9Callowed=9D instead of =9Capproved=9D
in the following sentence: =9CIn order for the aircraft to be
approved for IFR operations,....=9D because the word
=9Capproved=9D connotes some sort of specific positive
action or approval document to be provided by the FAA and that is not
what will happen.**
5) =9CA friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told
him he needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display
that shows the CDI.=9D
My reaction when someone =9Ctells=9D me thus and so is to
ask for the specific regulation or requirement that makes it so. It is
astounding, as you alluded to, at the amount of hearsay, rumor, and
gossip that is available on this subject. If what I am told can not be
substantiated by documentation then it falls into one of those three
categories.
6) =9CI spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that
because it's such a gray area that they only install certified avionics
(Garmin G3X seems to be the one they use).=9D
Fine with me. They are certainly within their right to install what they
wish into the instrument panel and airplane that they are providing to a
kit purchasing customer. I am not sure what they mean by
=9Ccertified avionics=9D though. Do they mean TSO=99d
avionics? If so I am further puzzled (amused?) by the fact that the
Garmin G3X is not TSO=99d. See here:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-GB/GB/aviation/sport-aviation/g3x-/prod63892.ht
ml
7) =9CI'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I
get a "VFR only" sticker.=9D
I don=99t see that happening. Instead you should get this
statement in your Operating Limitations: =9C=9CAfter
completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with =C2=A7 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.=9D and the
subsequent compliance is up to you.**
8) =9CSo whenever I run across anything that has to do with IFR in
an experimental aircraft, I try and get as much information as I
can.=9D
Good for you, I wish more of the EAB aircraft builders and pilots had
that approach to this subject.
9) =9CBTW, where are you located and what are you
building/flying?=9D
I am located in Fairfax, VA and I have been flying my KIS TR-1 out of
KHEF (Manassas Regional Airport) since 2003 after six and one half years
of building. I am an ancient person and former military pilot with more
hours, aircraft types, education, and ratings than my poor old body can
support.
OC
**PS: For the most part the FARs are written in the =9Cforbidding
mode=9D. They tell you what you can not do (legally) with words
such as =9C no person may.... unless=9D. So if something is
not forbidden by the regulations then it should be permitted. Note that
FAR Section 91.13 specifically forbids =9Ccareless and
reckless=9D (stupid?) operations.
===============
From: Don Johnston <mailto:don@velocity-xl.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: EAB IFR Certification
Owen,
Thanks for the email!
I've got to say that I'm totally baffled by this. There's a lot of
ignorance, mis-information and just downright stupidity out there.
I ran across this article
<https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/aviation-communities-and-interests/homebuilt-
aircraft-and-homebuilt-aircraft-kits/frequently-asked-questions/equipping
-a-homebuilt-for-ifr-operations> from the EAA and figured that I would
be okay. It's a little vague but I thought that it was pretty clear.
I spoke to my avionics guy and he said that any non-TSO'd equipment
would require separate certification to fly IFR. But he didn't know how
to obtain that certification.
A friend that used Aerotronics for his panel build was told him he
needed a VOR head to fly IFR even though he's got a GRT display that
shows the CDI.
I spoke with the factory of my kit and they said that because it's such
a gray area that they only install certified avionics (Garmin G3X seems
to be the one they use).
I'm going to be pretty annoyed if when I'm done building I get a "VFR
only" sticker.
So whenever I run across anything that has to do with IFR in an
experimental aircraft, I try and get as much information as I can.
BTW, where are you located and what are you building/flying?
Thanks,
-Don
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: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design |
Again, thank you for your help here.
I have private emailed you with some photos of the project=99s
canard to help better describe the mounting challenges. For everyone
else =93 just imagine a surf board laying on the floor
(perpendicular) in front of you, mark off a 2=99 wide section in
the center, and you need to install a horizontal antenna into the long
side edge of board left or right of the center section; you can only
access that center section you just marked off, and you can=99t
violate the external surfaces other than the center section. Fun, eh?
Had I to do it over with this new antenna style in mind...yes, a ridged
rod could be inserted into the foam (at a slight angle from horizontal)
but it would need to have a spade point on the end, and be able to be
chucked into a drill while inserting for the length you are describing.
The standard blue foam is easy to penetrate an inch or two, but beyond
that the friction builds rapidly. This would be quite difficult if the
amp was attached to the element. It would be much easier to just use a
slightly larger dia rod with a spade tip to bore a path through the skin
and into the foam for the antenna to be inserted into later =93
again, at a slight angle from horizontal.
-James
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Toroid beads/VOR antenna design
At 18:01 2014-10-28, you wrote:
A small, active antenna is just fine as I would have room for a
circuit board on the end of the whip (inboard end) and have power
available a few inches away.
I don=C3=A2=C2=C2=99t think I can get 1"dia in there. The D
section is quite small in aspect, and there are wooden dowels running
fore/aft in the middle of the foam from the construction process.
I'm not sure I have a clear mental image of your configuration.
Q: If the antenna portion of the proposed installation were
a 15-25" long, say stiff rod with the 'amplifier' stuck to
the inboard end, would you be able to install such a device?
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 |
|
On 10/24/2014 11:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 03:06 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote:
>> <peter@sportingaero.com>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> In my view Z13/8 has many advantages, but how would you handle the
>> start-up brown out problem? For example if an EFIS with integral
>> engine monitor is fitted it must be operational during engine start,
>> but is unlikely to endure the start-up low voltage transients. A
>> second alternator seems by far a better mitigation for main
>> alternator failure than a second battery, but I can't see any way
>> around a small additional battery to hold up the power for the
>> EFIS/Engine Monitor (and perhaps main Nav radio/GPS) during engine
>> start.
>>
Having the engine monitor operational during start is 'nice' and seems
like a must, but for me the brownout problem was for the rest of the
EFIS function - flight plans and such - along with the engine monitor
display. I had this brownout problem with a dual alternator -dual batt
Z-14 on my RV10.
>
> Brownout resets are not an architecture problem,
> they're a radio problem. A radio that DOES NOT
> conform to DO-160 guidelines for graceful recovery
> after all manner of input power interruptions.
Well, it's not a 'radio' but the EFIS. I don't care if the 'radio'
gracefully recovers or not from a brownout at start.
But I do completely agree that it's not an architecture problem, it's a
component specific problem. In my case, the Z-14 architecture 'fits my
eye' perfectly. The brownout problem stemmed from (3) GRT HX EFIS units
without on/off switches. They, along with the G430 that I like to all
run before startup were subject to brownout and the subsequent loss of
flight plan info and a loonnnng startup for the GRTs. The fix was TCW's
Intelligent Power Stabilizer. No change in the Z-14 architecture, just
some supplemental power stabilization during starts for my GRTs and and
the G430.
>
> That capability is supposed to be internal to
> the appliance, not external . . . and for good
> reason. What's the poor C-172 owner supposed to
> do when he wants to modernize his avionics but
> doesn't want to climb the Everest-of-paperwork
> necessary to modify the ship's certificated
> electrical system?
>
> My work with lithium cells has germinated some
> ideas for very light, no moving parts, brownout
> mitigation for appliances that suffer this malady.
> I'm making some pretty startling discoveries . . .
> startling because of what the suppliers of lithium
> products don't choose to tell us for what ever
> reasons.
I think TCW's product is just a capacitor but I'm not really knowledgeable.
>
> Along those same lines of thought, it's still not
> clear to me that the owner-operator of a brown-out
> vulnerable instrumentation package is at any serious
> risks for having one or more gizmos reboot after engine
> start . . . yeah . . . we were to worship the oil
> pressure gage . . . I remember reading those words
> in my dad's copy of Sick and Rudder from his flight
> school days in 1946.
In my case, little/no risk if devices are allowed to fully boot or
re-boot. Having them re-boot during the boot process can make them
sick. I'm not worried about the oil pressure either.
>
> But seriously, how many instances of 'failure to
> build pressure' in the first 30 seconds of run
> time were due to lubrication system failure that
> warranted shut-down and investigation?Some airplanes
> I've flow took a minute to develop full oil pressure
> on the gage in very cold weather . . . in spite of
> the fact that nothing was amiss in the engine.
>
> Architecture should be crafted to optimize system
> performance for all the equipment items needed to
> accomplish the mission. But if some piece of equipment
> fails to meet legacy goals for performance, I'm
> more disposed to put the necessary band-aid on that
> piece of equipment than to take an egg-beater to the
> whole system.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
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 |
|
The TCW IPS system is not just a capacitor. It is a real dc to dc converter designed
on purpose to handle very low input voltage, down below 5 volts, and up
convert it to a steady 12 volts. It can do it all day long at its rated output
current. This takes the un-certainty of how long you crank the engine and
how much load you actually have on the IPS out of the equation of whether you
are going to have a reset. The other solutions which just try to store some
energy in whacking big capacitors lead to a race condition between the stored
energy, your connected load and the duration of the low voltage event.
The IPS system has been written into the install manuals for Garmin's G900 and
G3x system as a method for resolving low voltage upset conditions just as Bill
described with GRT system.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC
610-928-3420
> On Oct 29, 2014, at 7:20 PM, Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 10/24/2014 11:41 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>> At 03:06 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote:
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> In my view Z13/8 has many advantages, but how would you handle the start-up
brown out problem? For example if an EFIS with integral engine monitor is fitted
it must be operational during engine start, but is unlikely to endure the
start-up low voltage transients. A second alternator seems by far a better mitigation
for main alternator failure than a second battery, but I can't see any
way around a small additional battery to hold up the power for the EFIS/Engine
Monitor (and perhaps main Nav radio/GPS) during engine start.
> Having the engine monitor operational during start is 'nice' and seems like a
must, but for me the brownout problem was for the rest of the EFIS function
- flight plans and such - along with the engine monitor display. I had this
brownout problem with a dual alternator -dual batt Z-14 on my RV10.
>>
>> Brownout resets are not an architecture problem,
>> they're a radio problem. A radio that DOES NOT
>> conform to DO-160 guidelines for graceful recovery
>> after all manner of input power interruptions.
> Well, it's not a 'radio' but the EFIS. I don't care if the 'radio' gracefully
recovers or not from a brownout at start.
>
> But I do completely agree that it's not an architecture problem, it's a component
specific problem. In my case, the Z-14 architecture 'fits my eye' perfectly.
The brownout problem stemmed from (3) GRT HX EFIS units without on/off switches.
They, along with the G430 that I like to all run before startup were
subject to brownout and the subsequent loss of flight plan info and a loonnnng
startup for the GRTs. The fix was TCW's Intelligent Power Stabilizer. No change
in the Z-14 architecture, just some supplemental power stabilization during
starts for my GRTs and and the G430.
>>
>> That capability is supposed to be internal to
>> the appliance, not external . . . and for good
>> reason. What's the poor C-172 owner supposed to
>> do when he wants to modernize his avionics but
>> doesn't want to climb the Everest-of-paperwork
>> necessary to modify the ship's certificated
>> electrical system?
>>
>> My work with lithium cells has germinated some
>> ideas for very light, no moving parts, brownout
>> mitigation for appliances that suffer this malady.
>> I'm making some pretty startling discoveries . . .
>> startling because of what the suppliers of lithium
>> products don't choose to tell us for what ever
>> reasons.
> I think TCW's product is just a capacitor but I'm not really knowledgeable.
>>
>> Along those same lines of thought, it's still not
>> clear to me that the owner-operator of a brown-out
>> vulnerable instrumentation package is at any serious
>> risks for having one or more gizmos reboot after engine
>> start . . . yeah . . . we were to worship the oil
>> pressure gage . . . I remember reading those words
>> in my dad's copy of Sick and Rudder from his flight
>> school days in 1946.
> In my case, little/no risk if devices are allowed to fully boot or re-boot.
Having them re-boot during the boot process can make them sick. I'm not worried
about the oil pressure either.
>
>>
>> But seriously, how many instances of 'failure to
>> build pressure' in the first 30 seconds of run
>> time were due to lubrication system failure that
>> warranted shut-down and investigation?Some airplanes
>> I've flow took a minute to develop full oil pressure
>> on the gage in very cold weather . . . in spite of
>> the fact that nothing was amiss in the engine.
>>
>> Architecture should be crafted to optimize system
>> performance for all the equipment items needed to
>> accomplish the mission. But if some piece of equipment
>> fails to meet legacy goals for performance, I'm
>> more disposed to put the necessary band-aid on that
>> piece of equipment than to take an egg-beater to the
>> whole system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|