Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:22 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (glen matejcek)
2. 05:46 AM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (Doug Weiler)
3. 06:25 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
4. 07:17 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (linn Walters)
5. 07:36 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Patrick Kelley)
6. 07:44 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
7. 08:08 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
8. 09:01 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Patrick Kelley)
9. 11:15 AM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (evmeg@snowcrest.net)
10. 12:04 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Bob)
11. 12:56 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Joseph Larson)
12. 01:01 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
13. 01:03 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
14. 01:34 PM - Re: How ridiculous is this?! (Robin Marks)
15. 01:38 PM - Re: How ridiculous is this?! (Robin Marks)
16. 01:42 PM - Re: How ridiculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
17. 01:43 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Chuck Jensen)
18. 01:48 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Chuck Jensen)
19. 01:52 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Joseph Larson)
20. 02:09 PM - Re: How ridiculous is this?! (Greg Young)
21. 02:14 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Bob Collins)
22. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
23. 03:06 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Olson)
24. 03:25 PM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (Vincent Palermo)
25. 03:37 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Bryan)
26. 04:44 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Bob Leffler)
27. 05:07 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
28. 05:24 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Tim Olson)
29. 06:21 PM - Jack Norris Book on "Props" / "Logic of Flight" (RV6 Flyer)
30. 06:27 PM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (Larry Bowen)
31. 07:16 PM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (Charles Reiche)
32. 07:28 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (Gordon or Marge)
33. 10:10 PM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
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: How rediculous is this?! |
Hi Amit-
>I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities category
over an RV???
>Sure made me wonder just how modified that RV-4 was
>Just makes me wonder.
The RV was 'highly modified' and won the speed contest. If the owner was
willing to spend the time and effort to do the speed mods, he was also
probably willing to ballast the plane as far aft as possible to mitigate
the induced drag of both the wing and stabilizer. This in turn would
degrade the handling characteristics of the plane significantly.
Everything is a trade off...
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.ne
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: GPS/XM antenna interference |
On 8/12/07 1:05 PM, "Fiveonepw@aol.com" <Fiveonepw@aol.com> wrote:
> At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active antennas(ae?) next to
> each other as their active electronics could degrade or corrupt data from
> them. I've been unable to find any such restrictions in the installation
> information provided with the equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual
> Horizons with XM satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS,
> for a total of 3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to mount
> these on a common shelf at the top of the firewall under the cowl.
>
> Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which tells me little
> of it's "active" capability or if these are simple (non-active) devices,
> although I know the antenna for the 430W is a dedicated unit (not same as
> non-W unit). The antenna for the ADI is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
>
> Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have any actual
> experience with this or know of any installation requirements/recommended
> practices for these devices, or is this more Urban Legend?
>
> Mark Phillips
> (with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
>
> Mark:
>
> I have my normal GPS antenna mounted immediately adjacent to my XM WX antenna
> (for my Anywhere Map system). There seems to be no issues what so ever. I
> would not place them near a transmitting antenna however.
>
> Doug Weiler
> RV-4, 400 hrs
>
>
>
>
> AOL.com.
>
>
>
>
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: | How rediculous is this?! |
"unskilled and untrained pilot"
Does this make any sense?
Do Not Archive
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: How rediculous is this?! |
Tim Bryan wrote:
> "unskilled and untrained pilot"
>
>
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Do Not Archive
>
Yup. Don't know where that quote came from, but there are a lot of 'em
out there ..... giving the rest of us a bad name. You can buy an
airplane, get someone to 'check you out' and go fly without ever having
to get your license. Not a good recipe for a long life, but they're
out there. Be afraid, really afraid.
Linn
>
>
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: | How rediculous is this?! |
No, it makes no sense. It makes no sense that you deliberately quote out of
context and change the meaning of my words as well as fail to acknowledge
the intent of the competition that was being discussed. 'Relatively' was a
key word in my post.
The issue is accessibility. A high-time pilot is not going to have any
trouble finding an aircraft to suit his needs (except for the ever-present
question of practicality.) For the newly-minted pilot, though, the choices
are bleak. Either a new aircraft who's expense far outruns its performance
or an aging but still-expensive aircraft or, usually, some form of
time-share. Not everyone is cut out to be a builder. The aviation
community has always been looking for that magical mix of low-cost, speed,
and easy handling that would make flying practical for everyone but it just
hasn't happened yet. And even experienced pilots don't (and shouldn't)
sneer at easy handling; what makes the RV a great plane to fly also leads to
a large debate over its suitability as an instrument platform.
I don't think they'll find an aircraft that will suddenly make aviation as
common as automobiles (and that is probably a good thing; could you imagine
the congestion?) but I think every effort to make it more practical benefits
us all. Even a small gain could get more people off the fence and into the
sport. Does that really make no sense?
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A in progress
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
"unskilled and untrained pilot"
Does this make any sense?
Do Not Archive
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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Hi Linn,
It came from the previous post. I realize he didn't mean it exactly so no
flame was intended by me. However for your comments, the idea of
considering someone who buys an airplane, gets someone to check em out, and
goes flying without ever getting a license; they are not pilots. The idea
of airplanes being piloted by "unskilled and untrained pilots" is scary to
me and should not be happening as they are not pilots. I realize non-pilots
do get out there but building airplanes targeted at that audience however I
don't really think is happening.
Airplanes should be built for pilots who are trained and skilled. Now the
level of skill and training certainly varies and may be what he was
referring to.
Tim
Do Not Archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
Tim Bryan wrote:
"unskilled and untrained pilot"
Does this make any sense?
Do Not Archive
Yup. Don't know where that quote came from, but there are a lot of 'em out
there ..... giving the rest of us a bad name. You can buy an airplane, get
someone to 'check you out' and go fly without ever having to get your
license. Not a good recipe for a long life, but they're out there. Be
afraid, really afraid.
Linn
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: | How rediculous is this?! |
No, it makes no sense. It makes no sense that you deliberately quote out of
context and change the meaning of my words as well as fail to acknowledge
the intent of the competition that was being discussed. 'Relatively' was a
key word in my post.
[Tim]
Patrick, You are right! I was not intending to flame you for your comments
at all and apologize as I only caught the phrase I quoted. I am sorry, I
didn't mean to offend you. It was an interesting point, one which is a
little more frightening as it becomes more and more of a reality for non
trained, and non skilled persons to be flying airplanes because they become
more available and touted as anybody planes. It used to be *Some*
ultra-light pilots who could with no training take passengers up so long as
they called it a training flight. This has changed for the better but how
many of those non-trained persons will continue to fly once moved to
something other than the *newly* defined ultra-light? Do you think a/c
manufactures should tout their planes as "Anybody planes" or "So Easy a
caveman could do it" type ads? Piloting requires a level of skill and
training regardless of what you fly. A person who chooses a Cessna over an
RV should do so based on their comfort level and desire but certainly I
don't think because they feel they are unskilled enough. We as pilots do
challenge ourselves to continue learning and gaining skill and competence
with what we choose to fly.
Take care
Tim
The issue is accessibility. A high-time pilot is not going to have any
trouble finding an aircraft to suit his needs (except for the ever-present
question of practicality.) For the newly-minted pilot, though, the choices
are bleak. Either a new aircraft who's expense far outruns its performance
or an aging but still-expensive aircraft or, usually, some form of
time-share. Not everyone is cut out to be a builder. The aviation
community has always been looking for that magical mix of low-cost, speed,
and easy handling that would make flying practical for everyone but it just
hasn't happened yet. And even experienced pilots don't (and shouldn't)
sneer at easy handling; what makes the RV a great plane to fly also leads to
a large debate over its suitability as an instrument platform.
I don't think they'll find an aircraft that will suddenly make aviation as
common as automobiles (and that is probably a good thing; could you imagine
the congestion?) but I think every effort to make it more practical benefits
us all. Even a small gain could get more people off the fence and into the
sport. Does that really make no sense?
Patrick Kelley - RV-6A in progress
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:25 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
"unskilled and untrained pilot"
Does this make any sense?
Do Not Archive
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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Ah, ok. Yah, your concerns are well noted and I certainly don't advocate
untrained and unlicensed pilots; I completely agree with you there. And
when I got my Private, the check pilot referred to it as my 'license to
learn'; I know there's a lot of aircraft out there I'd need much training to
fly. Your comments about marketing hype and the unintended consequences on
inexperienced pilots are valid, which is why training is important to
counteract that. But aside from hype, actually designing a plane that
performs better and cheaper is still an ideal worth pursuing.
Anyway, I'm glad to see that we're pretty much on the same page and that you
weren't intending to misquote me. Apology gladly accepted; I prefer to
think of all RV pilots as friends.
And, definitely, do not archive.
Pat Kelley
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
No, it makes no sense. It makes no sense that you deliberately quote out of
context and change the meaning of my words as well as fail to acknowledge
the intent of the competition that was being discussed. 'Relatively' was a
key word in my post.
[Tim]
Patrick, You are right! I was not intending to flame you for your comments
at all and apologize as I only caught the phrase I quoted. I am sorry, I
didn't mean to offend you.
*remainder snipped*
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: | How rediculous is this?! |
This is great news! That has got to be our man Dave Anders. He has been
working hard on this contest for a while and his biggest concern was the
noise factor. He seems to have done exceptionally well on that front.
Congratulations are in order.
Cheers..
Evan Johnson
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using SnowCrest WebMail.
http://www.snowcrest.net
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: | Re: How rediculous is this?! |
>
>I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities
>category over an RV???
I am not a big fan of the C-172, but, I take no pleasure in putting
it down either. But, to answer your question try this exercise in
both planes.
While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your location
on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away. For me, it
is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
never to do it again!!
I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
judge the handling qualities.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: How rediculous is this?! |
Bob, that's a completely ridiculous example. When I fly, the
sequence is much more like....
Reach into the flight bag located on the back seat, fumbling around
for the map.
Turn around to look at what you're doing
Find the map, but realize it's the wrong one
Tell my wife to get her hands off the controls -- the plane flies
better when she leaves it alone (honest to god!)
Half climb into the back seat so I can see better
Finally find the right map
Open it
Find I'm on the wrong side, so refold it and reopen it the right way
Find my location
Refold it once more
Make small course correction, having drifted off course 5 degrees
during the above.
My RV is going to have *some* sort of wing leveler / autopilot. A
C172 doesn't need one.
-Joe :-)
do not archive
On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Bob wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities
>> category over an RV???
>
>
> I am not a big fan of the C-172, but, I take no pleasure in putting
> it down either. But, to answer your question try this exercise in
> both planes.
>
> While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your
> location on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away.
> For me, it is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
>
> Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
> management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
> never to do it again!!
>
> I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
> judge the handling qualities.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 12
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design sectionals
this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a sectional up into
pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure be lots of work
however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too. (Quicker
than a 172 does anyway)
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:00 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
>
> >
> >I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities
> >category over an RV???
>
>
> I am not a big fan of the C-172, but, I take no pleasure in putting
> it down either. But, to answer your question try this exercise in
> both planes.
>
> While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your location
> on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away. For me, it
> is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
>
> Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
> management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
> never to do it again!!
>
> I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
> judge the handling qualities.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Wow I am in a big right turn and a severe dive if I do that! My wife
doesn't have any controls when we fly. I take it out. :-)
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Larson
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 2:55 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
> Bob, that's a completely ridiculous example. When I fly, the
> sequence is much more like....
>
> Reach into the flight bag located on the back seat, fumbling around
> for the map.
> Turn around to look at what you're doing
> Find the map, but realize it's the wrong one
> Tell my wife to get her hands off the controls -- the plane flies
> better when she leaves it alone (honest to god!)
> Half climb into the back seat so I can see better
> Finally find the right map
> Open it
> Find I'm on the wrong side, so refold it and reopen it the right way
> Find my location
> Refold it once more
> Make small course correction, having drifted off course 5 degrees
> during the above.
>
> My RV is going to have *some* sort of wing leveler / autopilot. A
> C172 doesn't need one.
>
> -Joe :-)
>
> do not archive
>
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Bob wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities
> >> category over an RV???
> >
> >
> > I am not a big fan of the C-172, but, I take no pleasure in putting
> > it down either. But, to answer your question try this exercise in
> > both planes.
> >
> > While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your
> > location on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away.
> > For me, it is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
> >
> > Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
> > management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
> > never to do it again!!
> >
> > I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
> > judge the handling qualities.
> >
> > Bob
> > RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| 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: | How ridiculous is this?! |
I do the same think (remove controls) when I fly with my dog.
Robin
Do not archive
Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
Wow I am in a big right turn and a severe dive if I do that! My wife
doesn't have any controls when we fly. I take it out. :-)
Tim
Message 15
| 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: | How ridiculous is this?! |
I have a book that does present the sectional in book form.
http://www.airchart.com/ They are easy to use on your kitchen table or
cockpit but they are heavy. Cost is $99/ year and it still needs to
reside in the back of an RV6/7/9 until needed.
Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design
sectionals
this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a sectional up
into
pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure be lots of work
however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too.
(Quicker
than a 172 does anyway)
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:00 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
>
> >
> >I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities
> >category over an RV???
>
>
> I am not a big fan of the C-172, but, I take no pleasure in putting
> it down either. But, to answer your question try this exercise in
> both planes.
>
> While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your location
> on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away. For me, it
> is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
>
> Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
> management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
> never to do it again!!
>
> I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
> judge the handling qualities.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
| 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: | How ridiculous is this?! |
LOL!! Actually, my wife prefers not to have it in her way. She manages the
sectionals, etc for me. I am trying to teach her to work the radios and GPS
as well.
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:33 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: How ridiculous is this?!
>
>
> I do the same think (remove controls) when I fly with my dog.
> Robin
> Do not archive
>
>
> Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
> Wow I am in a big right turn and a severe dive if I do that! My wife
> doesn't have any controls when we fly. I take it out. :-)
> Tim
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Tim,
You are precisely describing the Air Chart System's VFR or IFR Atlas.
Half the cost and half the bother of Jeppesen...and no folding.
http://www.airchart.com/Pages/product.html
Chuck Jensen
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design
sectionals this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a
sectional up into pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure
be lots of work however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty
quick too. (Quicker than a 172 does anyway)
Message 18
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Bob,
What's a "folded sectional"? Is that something that comes with a GPS
and moving map? I thought I saw one once in the Air-n-Space Museum---it
was in a photo and was under the pilot's arm as he was hand propping an
airplane; very quaint. :-)
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your location
on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away. For me, it
is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
never to do it again!!
I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
judge the handling qualities.
Bob
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
Message 19
| 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: How rediculous is this?! |
Fly in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area. You need 5 maps for VFR
without traveling further than 50 miles from home:
-Minneapolis terminal area chart
-Twin Cities Sectional
-Green Bay Sectional if you fly east
-Chicago Sectional if you fly southeast
-Omaha Sectional if you fly southwest
In any case, I prefer maps like this than in a book. Too much
fumbling around in a book. Ultimately, however, I think the best
solution is going to come from a "tablet" style computer where you
can easily scroll the map in any particular direction plus zoom in /
out capabilities. Just need one cheap enough and reliable enough to
use, with a subscription service that delivers electronically.
-Joe
do not archive
On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design
> sectionals
> this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a sectional
> up into
> pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure be lots of work
> however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too.
> (Quicker
> than a 172 does anyway)
>
> Tim
> Do Not Archive
Message 20
| 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: | How ridiculous is this?! |
No need for scissors, just buy
http://www.airchart.com/Pages/ac_vfr_sectional.html
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:01 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
> Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to
> design sectionals this way for airplanes? I have thought
> about cutting a sectional up into pages and making some kind
> of book for it. Would sure be lots of work however to keep
> doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too. (Quicker
> than a 172 does anyway)
>
> Tim
> Do Not Archive
11:03 AM
Message 21
| 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: How rediculous is this?! |
[quote="n616tb(at)btsapps.com"]Wow I am in a big right turn and a severe dive if
I do that! My wife
doesn't have any controls when we fly. I take it out. :-)
Tim
> --
This is precisely the scenario that led me to put the single-axis TruTrak in my
RV.
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129029#129029
Message 22
| 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: How rediculous is this?! |
I do have the trio but without altitude hold. Adding that will be next as I
do love the auto pilot. However if I lean around to the back the way he
described, I would easily put enough pressure on the stick to override the
servo. I would probably know I did that. I try to put the things I need in
my wife's lap before I go. The ox tank valve is the one I forget when all
of a sudden I need to climb to get over those tall clouds.
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Collins
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:14 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Re: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
> [quote="n616tb(at)btsapps.com"]Wow I am in a big right turn and a severe
> dive if I do that! My wife
> doesn't have any controls when we fly. I take it out. :-)
> Tim
>
>
> > --
>
>
> This is precisely the scenario that led me to put the single-axis TruTrak
> in my RV.
>
> --------
> Bob Collins
> St. Paul, Minn.
> RV Builder's Hotline (free!)
> http://rvhotline.expercraft.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=129029#129029
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| 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: How rediculous is this?! |
Actually, what you describe below sounds a lot like what I had/have
with Chart Case Express. I just started using Voyager software
at OSH, and that seems similar, but currently Chart Case has
them beat from a live tracking on Sectional/Low-Enroute charts,
and it really works slick. Each program has it's plusses and
minuses, but Chart Case Express very much does exactly what you're
talking about, and works on my tablet well. It even plots your
course on approach charts. Voyager will do it on the approach
charts but they don't yet offer geo-referenced sectionals
and low-enroutes to plot your position on.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Joseph Larson wrote:
>
> Fly in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area. You need 5 maps for VFR without
> traveling further than 50 miles from home:
>
> -Minneapolis terminal area chart
> -Twin Cities Sectional
> -Green Bay Sectional if you fly east
> -Chicago Sectional if you fly southeast
> -Omaha Sectional if you fly southwest
>
> In any case, I prefer maps like this than in a book. Too much fumbling
> around in a book. Ultimately, however, I think the best solution is
> going to come from a "tablet" style computer where you can easily
> scroll the map in any particular direction plus zoom in / out
> capabilities. Just need one cheap enough and reliable enough to use,
> with a subscription service that delivers electronically.
>
> -Joe
> do not archive
>
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Tim Bryan wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design
>> sectionals
>> this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a sectional up into
>> pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure be lots of work
>> however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too.
>> (Quicker
>> than a 172 does anyway)
>>
>> Tim
>> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| 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: GPS/XM antenna interference |
Mark
The antennas will not interact with each other but should be at least
24 inches from other types of active antennas(comm). If you want to
see if it is an active antenna, take the tnc off, turn on the gns
430w/530w and measure from the center conductor to the shield with a
voltmeter and you will find that there is 5 vdc at that point.
Vincent Palermo
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Doug Weiler wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/07 1:05 PM, "Fiveonepw@aol.com" <Fiveonepw@aol.com> wrote:
>
> At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active antennas
> (ae?) next to each other as their active electronics could degrade
> or corrupt data from them. I've been unable to find any such
> restrictions in the installation information provided with the
> equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual Horizons with XM
> satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS, for a
> total of 3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to
> mount these on a common shelf at the top of the firewall under the
> cowl.
>
> Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which
> tells me little of it's "active" capability or if these are simple
> (non-active) devices, although I know the antenna for the 430W is a
> dedicated unit (not same as non-W unit). The antenna for the ADI
> is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
>
> Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have
> any actual experience with this or know of any installation
> requirements/recommended practices for these devices, or is this
> more Urban Legend?
>
> Mark Phillips
> (with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
>
> Mark:
>
> I have my normal GPS antenna mounted immediately adjacent to my XM
> WX antenna (for my Anywhere Map system). There seems to be no
> issues what so ever. I would not place them near a transmitting
> antenna however.
>
> Doug Weiler
> RV-4, 400 hrs
>
>
> AOL.com.
>
>
> il Forum -
> >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> matronics.com
>
>
Message 25
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
I have been using Flightsoft for several years now. When I plan a flight, I
just download the current sectional and I can print out my route with the
course line included. It does use a lot of ink however and you don't get
any additional charts unless you print them all off also.
The advantage of having some charts in the plane even if you aren't using
them (besides legality) is having them when you need to deviate. This
occurred to me real recently when I was up playing in the
thunderstorms(shiver). The chart came in pretty handy even though I have
sectional printouts and a sectional moving map display (MX20). I was trying
to unravel a large sectional however on short notice and it was quite
distracting. A book open seems pretty nice.
I haven't seen the voyager software, but I am quite happy with flight soft
as I get flight planning, sectionals, moving map on my ipaq if I want, live
weather, all database updates, and bargain fuel finder all for one low price
of $109 a year. My best update deal of all my stuff. Jeppesen is the worst
deal for my gps & mx20.
Tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 5:04 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
> Actually, what you describe below sounds a lot like what I had/have
> with Chart Case Express. I just started using Voyager software
> at OSH, and that seems similar, but currently Chart Case has
> them beat from a live tracking on Sectional/Low-Enroute charts,
> and it really works slick. Each program has it's plusses and
> minuses, but Chart Case Express very much does exactly what you're
> talking about, and works on my tablet well. It even plots your
> course on approach charts. Voyager will do it on the approach
> charts but they don't yet offer geo-referenced sectionals
> and low-enroutes to plot your position on.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Joseph Larson wrote:
> >
> > Fly in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area. You need 5 maps for VFR without
> > traveling further than 50 miles from home:
> >
> > -Minneapolis terminal area chart
> > -Twin Cities Sectional
> > -Green Bay Sectional if you fly east
> > -Chicago Sectional if you fly southeast
> > -Omaha Sectional if you fly southwest
> >
> > In any case, I prefer maps like this than in a book. Too much fumbling
> > around in a book. Ultimately, however, I think the best solution is
> > going to come from a "tablet" style computer where you can easily
> > scroll the map in any particular direction plus zoom in / out
> > capabilities. Just need one cheap enough and reliable enough to use,
> > with a subscription service that delivers electronically.
> >
> > -Joe
> > do not archive
> >
> > On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:00 PM, Tim Bryan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design
> >> sectionals
> >> this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a sectional up
> into
> >> pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure be lots of work
> >> however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too.
> >> (Quicker
> >> than a 172 does anyway)
> >>
> >> Tim
> >> Do Not Archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Message 26
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
Tim,
I'm curious as to why you switched to Voyager?
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
Actually, what you describe below sounds a lot like what I had/have
with Chart Case Express. I just started using Voyager software
at OSH, and that seems similar, but currently Chart Case has
them beat from a live tracking on Sectional/Low-Enroute charts,
and it really works slick. Each program has it's plusses and
minuses, but Chart Case Express very much does exactly what you're
talking about, and works on my tablet well. It even plots your
course on approach charts. Voyager will do it on the approach
charts but they don't yet offer geo-referenced sectionals
and low-enroutes to plot your position on.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Message 27
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
They already have this and it is about $100 per year and is spiral
bound. I have flown with them for the past two years and love them, as
they also include the updates for the year to keep you legal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
Have you ever wondered who thought it was a good idea to design
sectionals
this way for airplanes? I have thought about cutting a sectional up
into
pages and making some kind of book for it. Would sure be lots of work
however to keep doing this. We fly off a page pretty quick too.
(Quicker
than a 172 does anyway)
Tim
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 3:00 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
>
> >
> >I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities
> >category over an RV???
>
>
> I am not a big fan of the C-172, but, I take no pleasure in putting
> it down either. But, to answer your question try this exercise in
> both planes.
>
> While flying, open a completely folded sectional, find your location
> on the map and then refold the sectional and put it away. For me, it
> is much easier in a C-172 than my RV6.
>
> Of course, no one in their right mind would ever let cockpit
> management get so sloppy! I have never done this, and I promise
> never to do it again!!
>
> I think the real question should be, what is the criteria used to
> judge the handling qualities.
>
> Bob
> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"
>
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| 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: How rediculous is this?! |
Actually, I'm in process doing a big write-up as to the comparisons
between them, and it's not really a simple answer. Without
seeing the details, it's hard to really compare, but here's a
brief synopsis.
Voyager offers more in the flight planning arena, at a good price,
and has some very cool multi-pc integrations. They also include
fuel price planning, and lots of great things for the flight.
If you just want to be legal and have the charts you need, their
IFR package gave more charts, at a better annual subscription rate.
The interface is a lot more complex, and messy though, and not
nearly as pretty, and I can see that in flight, it won't be as
simple to use today.
Chart Case Express (or Pro) is a great system, with a great
flight planner (free in the case of Golden Eagle Flight Prep).
It's got good graphics, and great general planning features, and
is very clean. For in-flight use, it would blow away Voyager,
but at a cost. Chart Case Express uses all geo-referenced charts,
so you always can get your position plotted on the chart, and it
works fantastically well, and would be great in hard IFR even
in some turbulence. Voyager, not so much.
I ended up upgrading my purchase of Voyager to the EFB version,
which still costs less than Chart Case Express, but is closer
in price. That gives GPS tracking and geo-referenced approaches.
The sad part was, Voyager "IFR" didn't include any GPS functionality,
whereas Chart Case Express didn't OFFER anything less than full
functionality.
In the end it came down to long-term costs. I have an EFIS that
I already have a good flight director and Jepp database in, so
charts, while necessary, aren't used all that heavily. Voyager
has a cheaper annual subscription, with more charts offered.
They just aren't all geo-referenced charts, unfortunately.
What really did Chart Case in for me though was seeing it from
a new purchase point of view, when a fellow builder was shopping
at OSH. The entry cost was much higher with C.C.Express, because
they only included 4 weeks of chart updates. Voyager included
the whole first year. Then, year #2, the new purchaser could
look forward to maybe $125 or more EXTRA per year to continue
with Chart Case. My subscription, being a renewal, was cheaper
by a lot, since I started last year. But for a new buyer, it
was hard to swallow. So for me, I saved only a very little
bit of money, but switched software this year, and will
save on charts every year.
What's the downside? Well, I now have a very full featured but
less pretty flight planner, that has a little less ease of
use in-flight. To me, the ideal product would be the marriage
of the two companies, at the voyager price....but that probably
won't happen. Voyager will probably improve over time though,
but once a company raises it's prices on subscriptions, it
doesn't drop them easily, so in the long run I hope I benefit.
I'll really miss the ease of use of Chart Case Express in flight,
but luckily for me, I really wasn't as reliant on the tablet
as some users would be in the first place.
Wow, for the short version, that took a lot of time. ;)
For a preview of what I hope to complete some day, here's
what I have done so far:
http://www.myrv10.com/tips/IFR/Chart_Software.html
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bob Leffler wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I'm curious as to why you switched to Voyager?
>
> Bob
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:04 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
> Actually, what you describe below sounds a lot like what I had/have
> with Chart Case Express. I just started using Voyager software
> at OSH, and that seems similar, but currently Chart Case has
> them beat from a live tracking on Sectional/Low-Enroute charts,
> and it really works slick. Each program has it's plusses and
> minuses, but Chart Case Express very much does exactly what you're
> talking about, and works on my tablet well. It even plots your
> course on approach charts. Voyager will do it on the approach
> charts but they don't yet offer geo-referenced sectionals
> and low-enroutes to plot your position on.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
Message 29
| 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: | Jack Norris Book on "Props" / "Logic of Flight" |
Was looking in the archives and found this:
--------- insert ---------
Match: #1
Message: #123450
From: John Huft <rv8(at)lazy8.net>
Subject: Re: Jack Norris Propeller book version=3.0.3
version=3.0.3 Oh well. Now I'm really sorry I didn't make it to his
seminar. John S Hamer wrote: > >John, > >Just as a point of reference, I
gave Jack my $12.00 for his book at one of >the Luscombe fly-ins at Columbia
Ca. in either '95 or '96, not sure which >year. It was worth the money just
to listen to him talk about his career. >The book will be a bonus if he ever
finishes it. > >Steve Hamer >Apple Valley
--------- end insert -------
My book from Jack Norris arrive in the mail today.
One side is: "Propellers" the other side is "Logic of Flight".
The paperback book measures 7" X 9" X 1 1/8" thick.
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
2,050 + Flying Hours So. CA, USA
_________________________________________________________________
A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here.
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
Message 30
| 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: GPS/XM antenna interference |
I have 3 ants as close as possible to each other on the RV-8 glareshield and
haven't noticed any ill effects. (396 GPS & XM Weather & XM radio)
--
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
On 8/13/07, Vincent Palermo <vpalermo@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> MarkThe antennas will not interact with each other but should be at least
> 24 inches from other types of active antennas(comm). If you want to see if
> it is an active antenna, take the tnc off, turn on the gns 430w/530w and
> measure from the center conductor to the shield with a voltmeter and you
> will find that there is 5 vdc at that point.
> Vincent Palermo
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Doug Weiler wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/07 1:05 PM, "Fiveonepw@aol.com<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=Fiveonepw@aol.com>"
> <Fiveonepw@aol.com<https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cm&tf=0&to=Fiveonepw@aol.com>>
> wrote:
>
> At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active antennas(ae?) next
> to each other as their active electronics could degrade or corrupt data from
> them. I've been unable to find any such restrictions in the installation
> information provided with the equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual
> Horizons with XM satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS,
> for a total of 3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to mount
> these on a common shelf at the top of the firewall under the cowl.
>
> Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which tells me
> little of it's "active" capability or if these are simple (non-active)
> devices, although I know the antenna for the 430W is a dedicated unit (not
> same as non-W unit). The antenna for the ADI is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
>
> Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have any
> actual experience with this or know of any installation
> requirements/recommended practices for these devices, or is this more Urban
> Legend?
>
> Mark Phillips
> (with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
>
> Mark:
>
> I have my normal GPS antenna mounted immediately adjacent to my XM WX
> antenna (for my Anywhere Map system). There seems to be no issues what so
> ever. I would not place them near a transmitting antenna however.
>
> Doug Weiler
> RV-4, 400 hrs
>
>
> ------------------------------
> AOL.com.
> *
>
> il Forum -
> >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> matronics.com
>
> *
>
>
> *
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 31
| 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: GPS/XM antenna interference |
This is not the test of an "active" antenna, that being really one that
tranmits RF, like com antennas, active traffic (tcas, skywatch) and
transponder antennas.... also satcom ( as far from every other antenna
as possible) 5V at the antenna just means there is a preamp in the
antenna. Passive antennas are ones such as ADF loop and sense, GPS, XM
radio, Marker Beacon, and stormscope antennas. You can line those GPS
and XM antennas right up next to each other no problems!
Charlie
Make sure you have enough cable loss or attenuation with your GNS X30
WAAS system!
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Palermo
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS/XM antenna interference
Mark
The antennas will not interact with each other but should be at least
24 inches from other types of active antennas(comm). If you want to see
if it is an active antenna, take the tnc off, turn on the gns 430w/530w
and measure from the center conductor to the shield with a voltmeter and
you will find that there is 5 vdc at that point.
Vincent Palermo
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Doug Weiler wrote:
On 8/12/07 1:05 PM, "Fiveonepw@aol.com" <Fiveonepw@aol.com> wrote:
At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active
antennas(ae?) next to each other as their active electronics could
degrade or corrupt data from them. I've been unable to find any such
restrictions in the installation information provided with the equipment
which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual Horizons with XM satellite and internal
GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS, for a total of 3 GPS antennas(ae?)
and one XM receiver. I'd like to mount these on a common shelf at the
top of the firewall under the cowl.
Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which
tells me little of it's "active" capability or if these are simple
(non-active) devices, although I know the antenna for the 430W is a
dedicated unit (not same as non-W unit). The antenna for the ADI is a
Laipac Tech model GLP1.
Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have
any actual experience with this or know of any installation
requirements/recommended practices for these devices, or is this more
Urban Legend?
Mark Phillips
(with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
Mark:
I have my normal GPS antenna mounted immediately adjacent to my XM
WX antenna (for my Anywhere Map system). There seems to be no issues
what so ever. I would not place them near a transmitting antenna
however.
Doug Weiler
RV-4, 400 hrs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
AOL.com.
il Forum -
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 32
| 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: | How rediculous is this?! |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Amit Dagan
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 6:18 PM
Subject: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
Now I know that I am preaching to the choir here, but after reading this:
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9758741-7.html
I must ask, how can it be that a C-172 wins the handling qualities category
over an RV???
Sure made me wonder just how modified that RV-4 was, note that it also won
in the quietest category.
Just makes me wonder.
_____
Recharge--play some free games. Win cool prizes too! Play It!
<http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB_wlmailtextlink>
The thing that bothers me most about all of this is that NASA is putting
money in the misbegotten notion that somehow, someway, someone will come up
with
something (all purpose multimode transportation device that anyone can
handle) for not much money you can keep in the garage. This from an outfit
that wouldn't
recognize a good idea if it jumped up and bit them. I am reminded of the
colossal waste that went to Continental and Williams. This, this pipe
dream, is something
that has been sought after for at least 60 years that I know of and
distributing money for individual elements of a desired goal will bring out
those who can latch
onto some of it (money) but will bring us no closer to airmotive nirvana
than we have been for the last 60 years. This whole hocuspocus really
makes mu
blood pressure spike. This rant is not meant to belittle or deprecate the
efforts people have made in this competition
but really, someone should kick NASA right square in the sternsheets.
Gordon Comfort
Message 33
| 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: GPS/XM antenna interference |
In a message dated 8/13/2007 9:22:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
reichec@verizon.net writes:
Make sure you have enough cable loss or attenuation with your GNS X30 WAAS
system!
No kidding- I'm trying to figure out some place to loop 7' in one direction
and the other 7' opposite to cancel itself out! 8-)
Thanks to all who replied on this (Chris, David, Alan, Doug, Randy, Vincent,
Larry, Charlie & anyone I missed!)- will proceed with planned antenna farm...
Mark - do not archive
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
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! --
|