Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:19 AM - Kitfox 0-120 MPH ASI WANTED (RRTRACK@aol.com)
2. 10:44 AM - GPS info (D. Fisher)
3. 12:10 PM - Re: Coordinated turns to base and final (Lynn Matteson)
4. 12:33 PM - Re: GPS info (Michel Verheughe)
5. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Tiny Tach (Marco Menezes)
6. 02:25 PM - Re: GPS info (Noel Loveys)
7. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Tiny Tach (D. Fisher)
8. 04:06 PM - Re: GPS info (paul wilson)
9. 06:02 PM - Re: Off Topic GPS info (Noel Loveys)
10. 06:02 PM - Floyd's trailer design #1 (Floyd Johnson)
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: | Kitfox 0-120 MPH ASI WANTED |
Looking to buy a 0-120 MPH ASI with the Kitfox emblem on it (PREFERED).
Please contact me off list at
_RRTRACK@AOL.COM_ (mailto:RRTRACK@AOL.COM)
Thanks,
Mark
Wisconsin
DO NOT ARCHIVE
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> Check out free AOL at
http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp. Most comprehensive set of free
safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from across the
web, free AOL Mail and much more.
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 |
|
There was some talk about GPS and Atlitudes lately,
What is the thoughts on GPS and flight planning ,altitudes etc ?
I find mine fairly accurate ( garmin 196) and wondered why anyone
would think that they are not. I think GPS are used for failry precision
approaches. I also use WAAS which seems alot more accurate than
without.
Dave
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: Coordinated turns to base and final |
Thanks for the response, Duane, and the answer...after a week went by
without an answer, I was beginning to think nobody knew the answer,
or that my deodorant had failed. : )
Regarding the forward slip, I got pretty used to this as my
instructor would take over each and every time I came in high, and
always (it seemed) put me on the down and forward side of the plane.
After a few of these in my fully-see-through-door Kitfox, I got the
message, and got the plane down to the proper altitude. I then got to
practice them on my own and got used to the view, and the seat-of-the-
pants feel for speed. He only had to do it one more time, and that
was on my pre-checkride flight. We were coming in perfectly OK and he
took over, slipped it down, then handed it back over to me. I asked
him what was wrong, why he took over and he told me "I was just
messing with ya"...seeing if I could get it back under control, which
I did. :) He loves the Kitfox so much, I think he was thinking this
was going to be nearing the end of his rides in it, and wanted to
have some more fun before it was over.
Lynn
On Feb 19, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Rueb, Duane wrote:
> <ruebd@skymail.csus.edu>
>
> Lynn:
>
> Yes, you are cross controlling in the pattern when you do a slip
> on approach. A forward slip will have you crossing the most, a side
> slip the least.
>
> Duane Rueb
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 |
|
On Feb 21, 2007, at 7:43 PM, D. Fisher wrote:
> I also use WAAS which seems alot more accurate than without.
Yes, it certainly is a big advantage on your continent, Dave.
Regarding the accuracy of altitude (non WAAS, that is) my observation
is that it is not that bad either. But, as the geometry of the
satellites get unfavourable, the first accuracy to go is the altitude.
That's why a 3D position requires more satellites than a 2D.
Now, while most of the time the altitude is within reasonable values,
it may - and will, with time - become inaccurate in relation to the 2D
positioning. And that "not knowing" factor is exactly what was behind
the now inactive "Selective Availability" (SA).
Until May 2000 non-NATO GPS had to suffer the SA. The idea was: 99% of
the time, it was accurate, but one percent of the time, it could be as
much as 600 feet off position. Now, would you e,g. sail your ship in no
visibility in a narrow waterway, knowing that there is one percent of
chance that you may run aground? I think not.
The same applies for e.g. GPS software simulating a virtual ILS with
glide slope. No one wants to take the responsibility to make it because
one could have bad luck and be far away from the actual altitude; even
if most of the time it would work.
At least, that what the guys who write the PocketFMS program told me.
An interesting thing is that, while everyone thought the GPS SA would
be screwed to the highest level during Desert Storm (1991) it was the
opposite. The reason being that some of the allied forces (Saudi
Arabians) were not members of NATO and had to use the "civil" version
of the GPS. But the US DoD meant that, in any case, they had the
military superiority over the Iraqi that it didn't matter if they were
also able to position themselves accurately.
Cheers,
Michel
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 |
|
Thanks guys, but back to my original question: Can anyone tell me what model to
get for a 582?
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
You will be pleased with how the unit will work. One thing though don't be
surprised when the screen goes blank when turning off one of your mags.
Someone mentioned wrapping the pick up wire around both HT wires going to a
cylinder that way you won't get the drop out.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kitfoxmike
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:38 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tiny Tach
>
>
>
>
> I recieved mine today and I read the instructions and the 4c
> that I got is for a 4 stroke but only with points and
> condenser, mine is 4 stoke with electronic. I called the
> factory 1-360-920-1300 and was told I needed the 2c and also
> said the 2x is better, x is for keeping interference from the
> other cylenders out or something like that. I wish I would
> have called the factory direct, now I'm sending the other one
> to the factory and they will send me the other one, which acs
> doesn't stock. live and learn I guess.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> model IV, 1200
> speedster
> 912ul
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p'376#96376
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Marco Menezes
Model 2 582 N99KX
---------------------------------
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
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 |
|
Michel:
As much as 600 feet off...Gwaaan.
I was on my way over the highway one day (pre 911)and had the GPS set up on
the dash. I happened to notice that I was no where near the indicated
location so I stopped the car to check it out. And when I was stopped I
noticed the receiver gave me a speed in excess of 100 mph! The location
displayed was around thirty miles south west of my actual location. I
waited a few minutes to see if things would change... Boy did they! In less
than a minute I was reported as being over twenty miles East of the same
location. At that time I figured the receiver was fried so I continued on
my way. When I got to my destination (30 Mi South East) This was a
difference of almost 65 Mi. in about a minute in a stopped car! I noticed
the GPS was reading within ten feet or so of the same location from the day
before. I am convinced that somebody was playing hide and go seek with the
satellites.
That never happened to me before and I've never seen it happen again. After
about a year that receiver just stopped working one day. The manufacturer,
Magellan, Replaced it with an upgrade. I've had it upgraded once again
since then. Their receivers seem to have a relatively short lifespan.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:03 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GPS info
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2007, at 7:43 PM, D. Fisher wrote:
> > I also use WAAS which seems alot more accurate than without.
>
> Yes, it certainly is a big advantage on your continent, Dave.
> Regarding the accuracy of altitude (non WAAS, that is) my observation
> is that it is not that bad either. But, as the geometry of the
> satellites get unfavourable, the first accuracy to go is the
> altitude.
> That's why a 3D position requires more satellites than a 2D.
> Now, while most of the time the altitude is within reasonable values,
> it may - and will, with time - become inaccurate in relation
> to the 2D
> positioning. And that "not knowing" factor is exactly what was behind
> the now inactive "Selective Availability" (SA).
> Until May 2000 non-NATO GPS had to suffer the SA. The idea
> was: 99% of
> the time, it was accurate, but one percent of the time, it
> could be as
> much as 600 feet off position. Now, would you e,g. sail your
> ship in no
> visibility in a narrow waterway, knowing that there is one percent of
> chance that you may run aground? I think not.
> The same applies for e.g. GPS software simulating a virtual ILS with
> glide slope. No one wants to take the responsibility to make
> it because
> one could have bad luck and be far away from the actual
> altitude; even
> if most of the time it would work.
> At least, that what the guys who write the PocketFMS program told me.
>
> An interesting thing is that, while everyone thought the GPS SA would
> be screwed to the highest level during Desert Storm (1991) it was the
> opposite. The reason being that some of the allied forces (Saudi
> Arabians) were not members of NATO and had to use the "civil" version
> of the GPS. But the US DoD meant that, in any case, they had the
> military superiority over the Iraqi that it didn't matter if
> they were
> also able to position themselves accurately.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Marco,
I just pick up phone and ask Bob to send me the right one as he deals in
them daily.
Dave
Bob Robertson
Light Engine Services Ltd.
Rotax Service Center
Aero Control Enterprises, Inc.
St. Albert, Ab. T8N 1M8
Ph: (Tech Support) 1-780-418-4164
Ph: (Order Line) 1-866-418-4164 (TOLL FREE)
www.rtx-av-engines.ca
www.aerocontrols.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Marco Menezes
To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Re: Tiny Tach
Thanks guys, but back to my original question: Can anyone tell me what
model to get for a 582?
Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
You will be pleased with how the unit will work. One thing though
don't be
surprised when the screen goes blank when turning off one of your
mags.
Someone mentioned wrapping the pick up wire around both HT wires
going to a
cylinder that way you won't get the drop out.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> kitfoxmike
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:38 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Kitfox-List: Re: Tiny Tach
>
>
>
>
> I recieved mine today and I read the instructions and the 4c
> that I got is for a 4 stroke but only with points and
> condenser, mine is 4 stoke with electronic. I called the
> factory 1-360-920-1300 and was told I needed the 2c and also
> said the 2x is better, x is for keeping interference from the
> other cylenders out or something like that. I wish I would
> have called the factory direct, now I'm sending the other one
> to the factory and they will send me the other one, which acs
> doesn't stock. live and learn I guess.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> model IV, 1200
> speedster
> 912ul
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=96376#96376
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.
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 |
|
Noel,
Did you know that a GPS has to be moving to give accurate speed readings. Your
distance errors using a highway as a reference is not a good way to see accuracy.
Your location jumping is a function of a slow processor and the fact that
you stopped. This always will yield bad data. Again the GPS is not moving and
just sits there and dithers. My old Etrex exhibits this behavior. Its slow and
it takes as much as 15 minutes to get accurate results. And it still dithers,
but the dithers are small after that time.
I use a simple Etrex for hiking. On top of a mountain with a USGS bench mark of
known elevation the GPS read the correct altitude + or - 20 feet in elevation
and the plot of the coordinates when I got home were dead on using a 7.5' map.
In my truck I have a 2 year old single processor (1 compute / second) GPS with
WAAS, but I cannot give you any accuracy data since I have yet to drive to
a high altitude bench mark. The newer the GPS the better. Some come with more
than 12 channels and dual processors. The result is faster and better accuracy.
The remote antenna is highly desirable. I did a test with my hand held and
even my body reduces the signal and gives poor results. If your GPS is used in
a car expect poor data unless you have an antenna on the roof. However, some
are pretty good looking thru the windshield even though half or more of the sky
is missing.
Remember how GPS works - your GPS looks at satellites so if it sees several above
then X and Y coordinates will be accurate and It has to see satellites near
the horizon to triangulate the altitude. WAAS is a great help with regard to
location/altitude but it is still necessary for the unit to see satellites at
low angles to get accurate altitude. This is seldom an issue in an airplane since
the horizon is visible. Also remember that a GPS contains a computer that
recalculates your location/altitude frequently 1 to 4 times a second. This causes
what I call dither where it displays jumps the location/altitude. This is
especially frustrating when you are not moving. Its the satellites that are moving
changing the calculations at each recalculation.
Don't worry about using a GPS in your plane as the internal antenna can see thru
the plastic overhead and to the side. My tests show no degradation inside a
plastic or fiberglass container.
If you want to find out if your GPS is giving bad data, go to a known surveyed
place at the airport and see what the result is for coordinates and altitude,
assuming you are not at a podunk place with high mountains near by to mask the
horizon.
Don't be mislead by a GPS that says you are not located on the highway you are
driving on. The error observed is not from the GPS but are the errors created
when the aerial photos were digitized to real maps. Then the real maps were loaded
into the GPS background and more errors are created. What is going on is
50 year old map data done by real people compared to state computerized locating
device. It makes the cartographers look real bad.
Regards, Paul
======================
At 02:25 PM 2/21/2007, you wrote:
Michel:
As much as 600 feet off...Gwaaan.
I was on my way over the highway one day (pre 911)and had the GPS set up on
the dash. I happened to notice that I was no where near the indicated
location so I stopped the car to check it out. And when I was stopped I
noticed the receiver gave me a speed in excess of 100 mph! The location
displayed was around thirty miles south west of my actual location. I
waited a few minutes to see if things would change... Boy did they! In less
than a minute I was reported as being over twenty miles East of the same
location. At that time I figured the receiver was fried so I continued on
my way. When I got to my destination (30 Mi South East) This was a
difference of almost 65 Mi. in about a minute in a stopped car! I noticed
the GPS was reading within ten feet or so of the same location from the day
before. I am convinced that somebody was playing hide and go seek with the
satellites.
That never happened to me before and I've never seen it happen again. After
about a year that receiver just stopped working one day. The manufacturer,
Magellan, Replaced it with an upgrade. I've had it upgraded once again
since then. Their receivers seem to have a relatively short lifespan.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Michel Verheughe
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:03 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GPS info
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2007, at 7:43 PM, D. Fisher wrote:
> > I also use WAAS which seems alot more accurate than without.
>
> Yes, it certainly is a big advantage on your continent, Dave.
> Regarding the accuracy of altitude (non WAAS, that is) my observation
> is that it is not that bad either. But, as the geometry of the
> satellites get unfavourable, the first accuracy to go is the
> altitude.
> That's why a 3D position requires more satellites than a 2D.
> Now, while most of the time the altitude is within reasonable values,
> it may - and will, with time - become inaccurate in relation
> to the 2D
> positioning. And that "not knowing" factor is exactly what was behind
> the now inactive "Selective Availability" (SA).
> Until May 2000 non-NATO GPS had to suffer the SA. The idea
> was: 99% of
> the time, it was accurate, but one percent of the time, it
> could be as
> much as 600 feet off position. Now, would you e,g. sail your
> ship in no
> visibility in a narrow waterway, knowing that there is one percent of
> chance that you may run aground? I think not.
> The same applies for e.g. GPS software simulating a virtual ILS with
> glide slope. No one wants to take the responsibility to make
> it because
> one could have bad luck and be far away from the actual
> altitude; even
> if most of the time it would work.
> At least, that what the guys who write the PocketFMS program told me.
>
> An interesting thing is that, while everyone thought the GPS SA would
> be screwed to the highest level during Desert Storm (1991) it was the
> opposite. The reason being that some of the allied forces (Saudi
> Arabians) were not members of NATO and had to use the "civil" version
> of the GPS. But the US DoD meant that, in any case, they had the
> military superiority over the Iraqi that it didn't matter if
> they were
> also able to position themselves accurately.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
_________________________________
SISNA...more service, less money.
http://www.sisna.com/exclusive/
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: | Off Topic GPS info |
Not on the highway I was driving on??? LOL
In less than a minute the location on the GPS map moved almost 60 plus miles
while I was stopped. I have seen dithering in the GPS many times ... A few
feet left or right not 60 + miles. I only saw it once on one particular
receiver which I admit was much slower than my newer Marine. Sure like
everybody else I have used the GPS in the plane with very good results..
Checking groundspeed Etc. I have even just for the fun of it flown a circuit
that I put into the receiver through the mapsend on the computer. All the
turns were right over the chosen land marks.
Telling altitude here isn't hard... Most of the time our tides are a couple
of feet above mean sea level and the house here is about 20' give or take
above high flood tide. Right now the tide is plus five feet above mean sea
level.
I just had to go out and get the GPS and see what altitude it gave me.
There are four satellites almost directly overhead and several more near the
horizon. The altitude reading was 12 meters. That's a hair over 39 feet.
My altitude (gestimation) is around 20 ft. so the altitude is out by 19
ft... Good enough for government work! Generally it reports the altitude
around 7 meters which is not too bad. BUT.... There have been occasions,
especially when the satellites are all close to the horizon that the
altitude has been out by close to a hundred feet. As long as I don't see
the water rushing in the door it's ok. Come to think of it flying VFR it
really doesn't bother me. The one flight instrument I wouldn't want to be
without is the ASI.
BTW tonight, when I turned on the GPS my speed started at 548kph then went
to 532 kph then all the way down to 428kph and at that point something
computed and it went to 0kph until is started walking.
It's a beautiful night. The temperature is just above freezing, there isn't
a cloud in the sky and not enough wind to blow out a match. Not a sound in
the forest behind the house. The nearest town is almost ten miles away so
the sky is absolutely breathtaking or to coin another word "Awesome"!
The Bay of Exploits, a shade more than 50 feet away, is pretty much a
shallow bay with many islands. A tsunami would probably break up thirty
miles out the bay. I say probably because as far as I know there has never
been a tsunami here at least in recorded history. If I get one minutes
notice I can make it to the top of a three hundred foot high hill... Problem
is they usually don't give notice.
I marked this post Off Topic because I didn't mention my ------ once.
Oh yes, let's try a Do Not Archive statement in this one too.
Noel
------ mod III-A, 582 "B" box
Sorry for the rambling...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> paul wilson
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 8:36 PM
> To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: GPS info
>
>
>
> Noel,
> Did you know that a GPS has to be moving to give accurate
> speed readings. Your distance errors using a highway as a
> reference is not a good way to see accuracy. Your location
> jumping is a function of a slow processor and the fact that
> you stopped. This always will yield bad data. Again the GPS
> is not moving and just sits there and dithers. My old Etrex
> exhibits this behavior. Its slow and it takes as much as 15
> minutes to get accurate results. And it still dithers, but
> the dithers are small after that time.
>
> I use a simple Etrex for hiking. On top of a mountain with a
> USGS bench mark of known elevation the GPS read the correct
> altitude + or - 20 feet in elevation and the plot of the
> coordinates when I got home were dead on using a 7.5' map.
> In my truck I have a 2 year old single processor (1 compute /
> second) GPS with WAAS, but I cannot give you any accuracy
> data since I have yet to drive to a high altitude bench mark.
> The newer the GPS the better. Some come with more than 12
> channels and dual processors. The result is faster and better
> accuracy. The remote antenna is highly desirable. I did a
> test with my hand held and even my body reduces the signal
> and gives poor results. If your GPS is used in a car expect
> poor data unless you have an antenna on the roof. However,
> some are pretty good looking thru the windshield even though
> half or more of the sky is missing.
>
> Remember how GPS works - your GPS looks at satellites so if
> it sees several above then X and Y coordinates will be
> accurate and It has to see satellites near the horizon to
> triangulate the altitude. WAAS is a great help with regard to
> location/altitude but it is still necessary for the unit to
> see satellites at low angles to get accurate altitude. This
> is seldom an issue in an airplane since the horizon is
> visible. Also remember that a GPS contains a computer that
> recalculates your location/altitude frequently 1 to 4 times a
> second. This causes what I call dither where it displays
> jumps the location/altitude. This is especially frustrating
> when you are not moving. Its the satellites that are moving
> changing the calculations at each recalculation.
>
> Don't worry about using a GPS in your plane as the internal
> antenna can see thru the plastic overhead and to the side. My
> tests show no degradation inside a plastic or fiberglass container.
>
> If you want to find out if your GPS is giving bad data, go to
> a known surveyed place at the airport and see what the result
> is for coordinates and altitude, assuming you are not at a
> podunk place with high mountains near by to mask the horizon.
>
> Don't be mislead by a GPS that says you are not located on
> the highway you are driving on. The error observed is not
> from the GPS but are the errors created when the aerial
> photos were digitized to real maps. Then the real maps were
> loaded into the GPS background and more errors are created.
> What is going on is 50 year old map data done by real people
> compared to state computerized locating device. It makes the
> cartographers look real bad.
> Regards, Paul
> ======================
> At 02:25 PM 2/21/2007, you wrote:
>
> Michel:
>
> As much as 600 feet off...Gwaaan.
>
> I was on my way over the highway one day (pre 911)and had the
> GPS set up on
> the dash. I happened to notice that I was no where near the indicated
> location so I stopped the car to check it out. And when I
> was stopped I
> noticed the receiver gave me a speed in excess of 100 mph!
> The location
> displayed was around thirty miles south west of my actual location. I
> waited a few minutes to see if things would change... Boy did
> they! In less
> than a minute I was reported as being over twenty miles East
> of the same
> location. At that time I figured the receiver was fried so I
> continued on
> my way. When I got to my destination (30 Mi South East) This was a
> difference of almost 65 Mi. in about a minute in a stopped
> car! I noticed
> the GPS was reading within ten feet or so of the same
> location from the day
> before. I am convinced that somebody was playing hide and go
> seek with the
> satellites.
>
> That never happened to me before and I've never seen it
> happen again. After
> about a year that receiver just stopped working one day. The
> manufacturer,
> Magellan, Replaced it with an upgrade. I've had it upgraded
> once again
> since then. Their receivers seem to have a relatively short lifespan.
>
> Noel
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Michel Verheughe
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:03 PM
> > To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: GPS info
> >
> >
> <michel@online.no>
> >
> > On Feb 21, 2007, at 7:43 PM, D. Fisher wrote:
> > > I also use WAAS which seems alot more accurate than without.
> >
> > Yes, it certainly is a big advantage on your continent, Dave.
> > Regarding the accuracy of altitude (non WAAS, that is) my
> observation
> > is that it is not that bad either. But, as the geometry of the
> > satellites get unfavourable, the first accuracy to go is the
> > altitude.
> > That's why a 3D position requires more satellites than a 2D.
> > Now, while most of the time the altitude is within
> reasonable values,
> > it may - and will, with time - become inaccurate in relation
> > to the 2D
> > positioning. And that "not knowing" factor is exactly what
> was behind
> > the now inactive "Selective Availability" (SA).
> > Until May 2000 non-NATO GPS had to suffer the SA. The idea
> > was: 99% of
> > the time, it was accurate, but one percent of the time, it
> > could be as
> > much as 600 feet off position. Now, would you e,g. sail your
> > ship in no
> > visibility in a narrow waterway, knowing that there is one
> percent of
> > chance that you may run aground? I think not.
> > The same applies for e.g. GPS software simulating a virtual
> ILS with
> > glide slope. No one wants to take the responsibility to make
> > it because
> > one could have bad luck and be far away from the actual
> > altitude; even
> > if most of the time it would work.
> > At least, that what the guys who write the PocketFMS
> program told me.
> >
> > An interesting thing is that, while everyone thought the
> GPS SA would
> > be screwed to the highest level during Desert Storm (1991)
> it was the
> > opposite. The reason being that some of the allied forces (Saudi
> > Arabians) were not members of NATO and had to use the
> "civil" version
> > of the GPS. But the US DoD meant that, in any case, they had the
> > military superiority over the Iraqi that it didn't matter if
> > they were
> > also able to position themselves accurately.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
>
>
> _________________________________
> SISNA...more service, less money.
> http://www.sisna.com/exclusive/
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Floyd's trailer design #1 |
This is an overview from the hitch position. Going from front to back, first are
two tiedown rings. Next is a winch attach point. I bought an electric winch,
but always use it manually. A regular boat winch would be more than adequate.
Next you see the
tail wheel channel guide. More on that later. Just visible, about 2 feet beyond
the channel stop is the tail brace. More detail will come later.
The main frame is 8 feet wide,made of square tubing. This trailer is WAY overbuilt.
The material is .215 steel. You can use 1/8 in. thickness and have more
than adequate strength. The box frame is 58 inches front to back, NOT including
the ramp area.
The box frame carries the axle assembly and provides support for the plane on floats.
More on the float part later.
The outer box frame tubes are 8 foot 3.5 inches from the front of the box to
the end of the trailer. They provide side protection
and a place for the LOCK pipe to latch.The tongue runs from the hitch to the inside
of the rear box crosspiece. Detail later.
Now the rear view: The ramps are left and right, supported by the pipe lock
which slides thru the rear ramp tubes, providing support during transport.
Detail later. The plywood decks actually have a hinged portion, not on the trailer
now, which fold down to the rear, covering the ramps. This allows surface
for the floats to rest on. When the plane is on wheels or skis, the rear decks
fold back on the front decks and are secured with a 1/4inch bolt.
The isometric shows the trailer full length. Looks long dosen't it? The tongue
box beam is 20'8" to its attach point at the rear cross member. You might
want to shorten it a bit, if it fits your needs. I made it long to enable it's
use with a variety of vehicles.
OK! That's the overview. Details coming up in subsequent messages. Regards,
Floyd
Floyd Johnson
kitfox69@earthlink.net
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
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! --
|