Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:24 AM - Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
2. 07:01 AM - Choice (Bob Gibfried)
3. 07:46 AM - Re: Choice (cgalley)
4. 08:03 AM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
5. 08:50 AM - Re: Choice (Ron Davis)
6. 09:22 AM - Re: Choice (Jim Stone)
7. 10:09 AM - Re: Choice (Fred Fillinger)
8. 05:33 PM - Re: Re: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types.... ()
9. 06:04 PM - Re: Choice (Ron Davis)
10. 09:53 PM - coax (Bob White)
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: | Re: TSO - vs NON-TSO |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
In a message dated 12/22/04 1:54:57 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
topglock@cox.net writes:
> I plan to fly with it
> taped to the dash so I can compare its performance to the TSO'd unit in
> the plane. I have a feeling that it will do fine...
>
> --
> Jeff - A055
> Primed the doors, avionics panel and windscreen surround, today...
>
>
Jeff,
Do you plan to hook it into the static system of the altimeter you are
comparing it against? The cabin pressure could be many feet different than the
static pressure.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
N766DH (Flying since July)
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
instrument.
An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument that is
off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At today's
aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown could
be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as good
but the standards are different and failure could come at any time. It may
be better to save the budget in some other area other than an altimeter..
Bob, Wichita
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
TSO is only one way of about 5 to certify something for aircraft.
Is it necessary? No.
My Bellanca did NOT have any TSOed instrument or anything else until I
installed a transponder/encoder as TSOs were "invented" about the time of my
plane's manufacture.
I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know that
mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn back
in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft. Unfortunately, it
can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it still
works accurately 60 years later.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Bellancas every day
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
Subject: Avionics-List: Choice
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
>
> I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
> instrument.
>
> An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument that is
> off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At
today's
> aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown
could
> be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as good
> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time. It
may
> be better to save the budget in some other area other than an altimeter..
>
> Bob, Wichita
>
>
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as good
> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time.
> ....
> Bob, Wichita
>
There are no standards for nonTSO. It cannot be installed in a
production aircraft, unless it is FAA-approved by other means, such as
an STC.
Anyone can make an instrument and target only the homebuilt market,
plus scofflaws with production planes. It can be anything from junk
to a decent instrument.
I had to send back a new, nonapproved airspeed indicator (a UMA). The
thing read 6 MPH fast near the stall speed; OK at cruise.
Replacement.was still 2 MPH fast, both times verified by a shop. The
factory must have adjusted it before closing it up; they put the red
witness glop on the many adjuster screws. The usual instrument to do
this is a simple manometer, and it can't become inaccurate.
Fred F.
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
I don't know any way to assess the risk of TSO'd vs non-TSO'd altimeters. I
do know the regs don't require a TSO'd altimeter in your CJ/Yak and one can
therefore infer that the feds think the non-TSO'd altimeter is adequate.
The prices I've seen would let you buy two non-TSO'd altimeters and still be
a few bucks ahead of buying one TSO'd unit...
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Cool story.
Do you know of a good altimeter maker today?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Choice
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> TSO is only one way of about 5 to certify something for aircraft.
>
> Is it necessary? No.
>
> My Bellanca did NOT have any TSOed instrument or anything else until I
> installed a transponder/encoder as TSOs were "invented" about the time of
> my
> plane's manufacture.
>
> I will compare my altimeter up against any TSOed one you wish. I know that
> mine is better as it was made by a real instrument maker... C.G. Conn back
> in 1944 for the Army Air Corp and certified to 30,000 ft. Unfortunately,
> it
> can never be overhauled as it has a radium dial. On the other hand it
> still
> works accurately 60 years later.
>
> Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
> Newsletter Editor-in-Chief & EAA TC
> www.bellanca-championclub.com
> Actively supporting Bellancas every day
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
> To: <avionics-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Avionics-List: Choice
>
>
>> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842@cox.net>
>>
>> I think you really have to assess the risk between a TSO and a non TSO
>> instrument.
>>
>> An engine gauge that is not accurate or a turn and bank instrument that
>> is
>> off fifteen degrees under VFR conditions aren't vital problems. At
> today's
>> aircraft speeds, being at the correct altitude for the direction flown
> could
>> be a real problem. Doesn't mean the non TSO instrument may not be as
>> good
>> but the standards are different and failure could come at any time. It
> may
>> be better to save the budget in some other area other than an altimeter..
>>
>> Bob, Wichita
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis"
<l39parts@hotmail.com>
> I do know the regs don't require a TSO'd altimeter in your CJ/Yak
and one can
> therefore infer that the feds think the non-TSO'd altimeter is
adequate.
The installer can install anything he/she feels is an approved part,
approved by some means, and return it to service. You can't just put
any old part in there.
I have an old nonTSO altimeter downstairs made by a recognizable mfr,
but it says Cessna on the dial face and has a Cessna part #. A
replacement "Cessna" altimeter is legal; it' a Cessna part.
But if a foreign A/C with markings in Cyrillic and millibars, no
longer available, I think you can replace it only with a TSO'd
instrument.
The fuel sender in my plane is no longer made by Stewart Warner, and
it has the out-of-business, airframe mfr's official part#. There's
only one repair shop who overhauls these things, and they assess a
hefty tariff to do so. The distributor of them, who's also a repair
facility for this type A/C, says sorry, that's the only choice you
got. And as the supply of serviceable senders dwindles, the core
charge to this distributor when he ships you a replacement from stock
goes up into the flight levels. They need your old part, really,
really bad; there's no TSO for a fuel sender, so no alternative route
there.
Reg,
Fred F.
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: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types.... |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <skywagon@charter.net>
Ron,
Thanks for confirming that a little CB exercise is good for some breakers. I suspect
the low amperge DC units are the most sensitive to aging and other mysteries
that affect these criters.
Merry Christmas...
David
>
> From: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
> Date: 2004/12/22 Wed AM 11:19:32 PST
> To: <avionics-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Pull type aircrat Circuit Breakers and other types....
>
>
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Ron Davis" <l39parts@hotmail.com>
It wasn't clear to me whether you were talking about the fuel sender for an
experimental or for a Cessna. If it's for the Cessna you would need a
sender on the original type certificate, or an STC'd sender, or a field
approval on a 337. If it's for an experimental, you can use anything you
think is safe for flight.
As to altimeters, you can install a non-TSO altimeter in any experimental
and in Cessna/Piper/Beech/etc if you are flying under part 91. If you
believe this is incorrect, please enlighten me by quoting the FAR number
that says you need a TSO when flying under part 91.
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Bob White" <bob@whitek.com>
I want to install a Garmin GNC 300XL. They mention 50 Ohm, but so far I've
missed finding the instructions on what coax to use to connect the intenna
to the black box. What parts are recommended for the antenna cable and the
connectors, which are BNC on both ends? Does anyone sell made-up cables, or
should one install the connectors oneself?
Thanks,
Bob White
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! --
|