Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:30 AM - Re: Another New RV-10 Builder (Michael Wellenzohn)
2. 03:37 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
3. 04:43 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Wayne Edgerton)
4. 04:44 AM - Re: RV 10 designation with FAA (Tim Olson)
5. 05:03 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (W. Curtis)
6. 05:12 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (Tim Olson)
7. 05:30 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Jesse Saint)
8. 05:37 AM - Re: Another New RV-10 Builder (Jesse Saint)
9. 05:43 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? ()
10. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (David Boone)
11. 06:10 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Dave Leikam)
12. 06:22 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (Tim Olson)
13. 06:31 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
14. 06:43 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (Jesse Saint)
15. 06:52 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
16. 06:53 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Jesse Saint)
17. 06:53 AM - Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires (Rick)
18. 07:10 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
19. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (David McNeill)
20. 07:17 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
21. 07:42 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (David McNeill)
22. 07:47 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna ()
23. 07:49 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
24. 08:08 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (MauleDriver)
25. 08:13 AM - Re: I0-540 hottest cylinder (Ted French)
26. 08:14 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Vern W. Smith)
27. 08:19 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
28. 08:36 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
29. 08:37 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
30. 08:37 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Jesse Saint)
31. 09:05 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (David McNeill)
32. 09:36 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
33. 10:13 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (David McNeill)
34. 10:53 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Chris Johnston)
35. 11:15 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (MauleDriver)
36. 11:49 AM - Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Lorenz_Malmstr=F6m?=)
37. 11:50 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rick)
38. 12:00 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
39. 12:19 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
40. 12:22 PM - Window weight (Chris , Susie Darcy)
41. 02:00 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
42. 03:18 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com)
43. 04:06 PM - Re: Work Table Size (Jack Sargeant)
44. 05:12 PM - IFR in the RV-10 (Steven Roberts)
45. 05:57 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (MauleDriver)
46. 06:15 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
47. 06:39 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
48. 08:10 PM - Smokin Rivets (John W. Cox)
49. 08:48 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Bill Schlatterer)
50. 09:48 PM - Re: Smokin Rivets (Chris , Susie Darcy)
51. 10:51 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Larry Rosen)
52. 11:52 PM - Share GPS Antenna (Robin Marks)
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: Another New RV-10 Builder |
Welcome!
I guess most of us went through this process of surfing the web and one day then
you take the first step and order the kit.
Have fun building and all the best from Zuerich, Switzerland
Michael
[url]www.wellenzohn.net
P.S. If someone visits my website could you please give me feedback if the loading
time of the java menu to the left is acceptable?[/url]
--------
RV-10 builder (wings)
#511
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=81686#81686
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say
that 480 is not intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either
model, only magazine reports.
I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they
are estimating another year to get it to the customers,
Thanks
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
> to actually get there safely.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>> Jesse,
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>> Jim C
>> Do not archive
>
>
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: I0-540 hottest cylinder |
On the issue of hottest cylinder. I bought my engine from Aero Sport
Power with the Lasar system and they test ran the engine before shipping
it to me and included a printed report with the engine when they
delivered it. From this report I could figure out which was the hottest
cylinder.
Depending on where you got your engine, maybe it's in the paper work
they sent.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
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: RV 10 designation with FAA |
Well, I've had to file HXB/G but then inevitably as I'm cruising along
someone has to ask what kind of plane it is because it's too vague
to envision. It would be great to just have RV10/G available.
Hopefully they'll get'r-done.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Mike Kraus wrote:
> Why not just file as experimental??
>
> And I'm sure Van's would know how to do this, especially if 3-9 are
> already there....
>
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *GenGrumpy@aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:19 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RV10-List: RV 10 designation with FAA
>
> For those interested, I sent the following to van's today (might
> help if you also prodded them)
>
> Grumpy #40404
>
>
> Vans,
>
> While working with FltPlan.com in trying to build my RV 10 (#40404)
> database, and from which I file flight plans with the FAA, the RV-10
> is not included as an identified model in Section 5 (page 5-1-82) of
> the FAA Order 7340.1Y. It lists RV models 3 through 9 only.
>
> Paragraph 1-3-3 (page 1-3-1) provides instructions on how to request
> an aircraft-type designator be added to the approved identifiers.
>
> All of us RV 10 fliers (and those to fly later) would appreciate it
> if Van's would request that the -10 be added to FAA's list.
>
> Thanks - John Miller
>
> #40404 with 40 hrs and counting!!
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.aeroelectric.com">www.aeroelectric.com
> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com">www.buildersbooks.com
> href="http://www.kitlog.com">www.kitlog.com
> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com">www.homebuilthelp.com
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
>I really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my
>primary VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430)
David,
Do yourself a favor and connect your 396 to your Garmin 430. That way weather
VFR or IFR, the active route on your 430 will feed down to the portable 396.
Then you only have to program one device and if your panel goes dark, you still
have the active flight plan in the portable. Get the 396/496 power data cable
and connect RxData in to one of the GNS-430 serial out configured for Aviation
Data.
> The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a marketing
> decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which
> they so heartliy disliked.
How so?
Garmin was founded by ex-King engineers and I think on their worst day, their customer
service is better than King on their best. Just my opinion.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is
correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin
set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info
you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give
you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought
I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the
final approach data.
I've had a couple of educational experiences regarding handhelds.
Previously, I was adamant when talking to my highly experienced
airline pilot pal that I could get down to my airport while IFR
with my handheld. I even went as far as to set up the extended
runway centerline and try to prove it by flying down to
the runway. Yeah, I even made it over the airport. The thing
is, I really didn't have a clue as to exactly where I was on
the approach and if I had safe obstacle clearance. You may
indeed be able to get to an airport with one, but you really
won't be able to effectively fly a real and safe *approach*.
Prior to my instrument training, I had told the same guy how
I could use my handheld for enroute ops with no problem, and
use it to help me fly the approach using my other actual
non-GPS nav equipment. He explained that I would find that
there's no way I'd have time to play with that GPS during
an approach, to do the things I needed. And that a handheld
GPS doesn't have the same buttons or menu structures or usage
designs as the certified gear, rendering it much less easy
to use for that type of flying. I didn't believe him...until
I took my instrument training. I found a couple things.
1) I didn't have time to play with the GPS at all. I could plug
in a Direct to waypoint, but it just wasn't made to quickly
adjust routing of a full route. 2) With it mounted low on
the yoke, it was not at all comfortable to spend a lot of
time looking at it, as it distracts you from your scan to look
that low.
Truly, I've had approaches way back then where I had my hands
full just keeping a pair of needles centered and my speed in
check. And more recently I've found that having a properly
designed menu and routing structure to a system can be
extremely important to getting things done quickly. With
the RV-10, you're moving so fast even on enroute ops that
on things like a low IFR departure and climb, you're a busy
pilot just flying the plane. Some of the things that you'd
normally consider conveniences of use can become critical to
a comfortable completion of flight.
This is just a guess, but after a couple years of watching
the RV-10 builders evolve, I do predict that although the
flying qualities of the RV-10 make it a great IFR platform,
that we're headed for some statistical failures. There is
the lions share of the builders who plan to build an IFR
plane, but with our flexibility of design, I'm not sure if
it's going to be done to the required standards by some.
And from there on, it's only a matter of time before we start
to see the statistics turn bad as the pilots start actually
flying some IMC flights. There is an overwhelming urge
in the homebuilding arena to try to cut corners on what
is being done in certified planes. We tout the benefits
of building our own plane to OUR standards, and chuckle
as we talk about how much cheaper we can do things. Well,
there's some truth to the talk that we can save money, but
at the same time, some things are done on certified planes
for a reason...usually safety.
I have been told by that same wise buddy above that most of the
rules of airspace, and IFR procedures, and rules that were bought
in blood. It took deaths to get things to change to be the way
they are.
I have a much higher respect for what is required to safely
do IFR flight than I do for just building a homebuilt aircraft.
Most anyone can build an RV-10 and fly it reasonably
safely. Flying in hard IMC conditions, however, in any aircraft,
is a much more challenging thing. Hopefully the flexibility
we're allowed to build our own planes doesn't turn into the
demise of our safety record though, as people push the limits
of what their design and their skills can handle.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
MauleDriver wrote:
>
> The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.
> They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified
> or not.
> What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult
> to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying
> someone who knows what they are doing.
>
> Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious
> business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>>
>> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>>
>> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no
>> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go
>> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>>
>> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>>
>> So does that mean no /G filing?
>>
>> Jim C
>> N312F
>> Finishing
>>
>>
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: | I0-540 hottest cylinder |
The hottest cylinder on an airplane depends on cooling, which depends on
your cowl and baffles. IMHO there is no way to be sure the hottest cylinder
in their test will be the hottest in your plane. You could setup the Lasar
for the hottest in the test and then change it when you have some time to
establish which one is hottest in the air.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: I0-540 hottest cylinder
On the issue of hottest cylinder. I bought my engine from Aero Sport Power
with the Lasar system and they test ran the engine before shipping it to me
and included a printed report with the engine when they delivered it. From
this report I could figure out which was the hottest cylinder.
Depending on where you got your engine, maybe it's in the paper work they
sent.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
"http://www.aeroelectric.com"www.aeroelectric.com
"http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribution
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV10-List
7:28 PM
--
7:28 PM
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: | Another New RV-10 Builder |
Welcome to the group of builders and flyers. I think you will be
happier
with this plane that you do right now. Just make sure to set a pace
that
won=92t burn you (or your family) out and you should be good.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
N127KR@aol.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 2:50 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Another New RV-10 Builder
After reading the note from Gary regarding his decision to purchase an
RV
-10 kit, I felt like he was reading my mind. I also have read, reread
and
surfed all of the web sites pertaining to RV-10 construction.
Not only is the Matronics List a valuable tool, but the plethora of data
from all of the web sites are amazing.
I received my kit on the 12th and as of tonight I have finished
deburring
the VS skin and will start on the ribs tomorrow.
If I recall, there was a request to Gary as to his location.... well if
anybody wants to know mine, I am located in Somerville, TN (about 50
miles
east of KMEM).
Thanks to all who have contributed their thoughts, perceptions and
gotchas.
Rusty Bliss
40668
HYPERLINK "mailto:rbliss1015@aol.com"rbliss1015@aol.com
Somerville, TN
"http://www.aeroelectric.com"www.aeroelectric.com
"http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
"http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na
vig
ator?RV10-List
12/14/2006
7:28 PM
--
12/14/2006
7:28 PM
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
Tim,
Well said!
The only reason I have not pursued IFR ticket is that I would have not been able
to stay proficient. If I can't stay current then having the IFR rating would
only serve to get me into trouble.
I do plan on building my skills and knowing what my limits are.
A statistic is not something I want to become. I do value the input of all the
people in this forum. If I don't learn from this, I shouldn't be flying anyway.
Safety has to come first.
I don't know which would be worse, having a inexperienced pilot with a full state
of the art panel or having an experienced pilot with a minimal IFR panel.
Hopefully I can take baby steps to build my skills and upgrade the airplane
as I need it.
Thanks, Jim C
N312F
Do not archive
===========================================================
From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is
correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin
set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info
you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give
you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought
I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the
final approach data.
I've had a couple of educational experiences regarding handhelds.
Previously, I was adamant when talking to my highly experienced
airline pilot pal that I could get down to my airport while IFR
with my handheld. I even went as far as to set up the extended
runway centerline and try to prove it by flying down to
the runway. Yeah, I even made it over the airport. The thing
is, I really didn't have a clue as to exactly where I was on
the approach and if I had safe obstacle clearance. You may
indeed be able to get to an airport with one, but you really
won't be able to effectively fly a real and safe *approach*.
Prior to my instrument training, I had told the same guy how
I could use my handheld for enroute ops with no problem, and
use it to help me fly the approach using my other actual
non-GPS nav equipment. He explained that I would find that
there's no way I'd have time to play with that GPS during
an approach, to do the things I needed. And that a handheld
GPS doesn't have the same buttons or menu structures or usage
designs as the certified gear, rendering it much less easy
to use for that type of flying. I didn't believe him...until
I took my instrument training. I found a couple things.
1) I didn't have time to play with the GPS at all. I could plug
in a Direct to waypoint, but it just wasn't made to quickly
adjust routing of a full route. 2) With it mounted low on
the yoke, it was not at all comfortable to spend a lot of
time looking at it, as it distracts you from your scan to look
that low.
Truly, I've had approaches way back then where I had my hands
full just keeping a pair of needles centered and my speed in
check. And more recently I've found that having a properly
designed menu and routing structure to a system can be
extremely important to getting things done quickly. With
the RV-10, you're moving so fast even on enroute ops that
on things like a low IFR departure and climb, you're a busy
pilot just flying the plane. Some of the things that you'd
normally consider conveniences of use can become critical to
a comfortable completion of flight.
This is just a guess, but after a couple years of watching
the RV-10 builders evolve, I do predict that although the
flying qualities of the RV-10 make it a great IFR platform,
that we're headed for some statistical failures. There is
the lions share of the builders who plan to build an IFR
plane, but with our flexibility of design, I'm not sure if
it's going to be done to the required standards by some.
And from there on, it's only a matter of time before we start
to see the statistics turn bad as the pilots start actually
flying some IMC flights. There is an overwhelming urge
in the homebuilding arena to try to cut corners on what
is being done in certified planes. We tout the benefits
of building our own plane to OUR standards, and chuckle
as we talk about how much cheaper we can do things. Well,
there's some truth to the talk that we can save money, but
at the same time, some things are done on certified planes
for a reason...usually safety.
I have been told by that same wise buddy above that most of the
rules of airspace, and IFR procedures, and rules that were bought
in blood. It took deaths to get things to change to be the way
they are.
I have a much higher respect for what is required to safely
do IFR flight than I do for just building a homebuilt aircraft.
Most anyone can build an RV-10 and fly it reasonably
safely. Flying in hard IMC conditions, however, in any aircraft,
is a much more challenging thing. Hopefully the flexibility
we're allowed to build our own planes doesn't turn into the
demise of our safety record though, as people push the limits
of what their design and their skills can handle.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
MauleDriver wrote:
>
> The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.
> They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified
> or not.
> What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult
> to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying
> someone who knows what they are doing.
>
> Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious
> business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>>
>> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>>
>> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no
>> intentions to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go
>> with a TSO-129 certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>>
>> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>>
>> So does that mean no /G filing?
>>
>> Jim C
>> N312F
>> Finishing
>>
>>
===========================================================
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: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
Thanks for the info. David
----- Original Message -----
From: W. Curtis
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:02 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>I really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my
>primary VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430)
David,
Do yourself a favor and connect your 396 to your Garmin 430. That way
weather VFR or IFR, the active route on your 430 will feed down to the
portable 396. Then you only have to program one device and if your panel
goes dark, you still have the active flight plan in the portable. Get
the 396/496 power data cable and connect RxData in to one of the GNS-430
serial out configured for Aviation Data.
> The Garmin decison to reduce the TSO on the 480 sounds like a
marketing
> decision to me. Perhaps someday Garmin will go the way of King which
> they so heartliy disliked.
How so?
Garmin was founded by ex-King engineers and I think on their worst
day, their customer service is better than King on their best. Just my
opinion.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Thanks for the link, but I would like to get a bound hard copy if possible
for easier quick reference. Where? Thanks.
Dave Leikam
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>
> Sorry to inform you John, and a bonus for those "holiday cheapies"
> <http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/99C827DB9BAAC81B86256B4500596C4E?OpenDocument>
>
> Here is the link to AC 43.13-1B including change 1 all chapters as acrobat
> pdf, and all for free.
> Or <http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/> for all sorts of aircraft information.
> Our taxes at work.
>
> Dave Leikam wrote:
>>
>> O.K.
>>
>> I'll get the book. Where?
>>
>> Dave Leikam
>> 40496
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rick" <ricksked@earthlink.net>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:56 PM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires
>>
>>
>>>
>>> OK so I'm ranting, it's lunch time so here goes.....Ivory soapbox and
>>> all
>>>
>>> The first step in risk management is hazard identification.
>>>
>>> OK so our hazard = metal fuel lines and high amperage electrical
>>> conductor in close proximity.
>>>
>>> Second step=Lowering or eliminating the risk of the hazard.
>>>
>>> This can be accomplished several ways....the simplistic way is to
>>> eliminate the hazard unless it is not possible...in this case there are
>>> many alternative routes for the electrical wire that it would go against
>>> practical thinking to route it in the tunnel so ELIMINATE the hazard!!
>>>
>>> If you had no other option and had to run these two items, the next step
>>> is to engineer a system that would lower the hazard to acceptable
>>> levels...this should not even be a consideration in this situation BUT
>>> the AC 43.13 1B, change 1 gives you some options in the form of conduits
>>> and proper postioning.
>>>
>>>> From day one this book has been in my shop, the binder has worn
>>>> through and I need to tape it or replace it...really replace since
>>>> change 1 is out.
>>>
>>> For those that don't have a copy get one, John, myself and many others
>>> have preached for the last almost three years!!
>>>
>>> Almost every question asked in this forum regarding fuel lines,
>>> electrical, acceptable metal practices etc. etc. etc. is right inside
>>> that book.
>>>
>>> I am guessing that many builders have not had the absolute pleasure to
>>> work on aircraft in a structured enviroment, Johns experience in
>>> commercial an mine in the military maybe gives us a slanted or "Nothing
>>> less than perfect will do" attitude.
>>>
>>> There is technical data that has to be followed for EVERY task that's
>>> performed on the aircraft. Step by step, aircraft maintenance forms that
>>> document every panel and component removed and replaced along with the
>>> required operational checks afterwards. Quality assurance and
>>> supervision inspections and final sign offs. You get thick skinned
>>> because you just finished up an 8 hour auxillary drive gearbox change
>>> and missed safety wiring one bolt that is now almost impossible to get
>>> to. It sucks to make a mistake and have it pointed out so you fix it
>>> with a smile and swear you won't miss THAT again. Those checks and
>>> balances are what makes the safety records what they are today and what
>>> yours is going to be tomorrow
>>>
>>> Get yourself a copy of AC 43.13 and mitigate your risk.
>>>
>>> It's written in bent sheet metal and blood. Get two copies, one for the
>>> shop and one for the bathroom...really good bathroom book.
>>>
>>> Now back to soap sudsing each other up ;)
>>>
>>> Rick S.
>>> 40185
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
As far as the proficiency goes, here's my take on that.
During my build, I certainly didn't maintain actual proficiency
in IFR skills. But, once you get your plane built, you'll
be spending 25-40 hours just flying the plane. Then, you'll
really need to spend some more time truly learning your panel
for IFR ops. This is best done with an instructor, and can
be done as part of the Instrument Proficiency check. You'll
need to shoot multiple approaches in practice before you'd
ever want to even try it for real. So I don't think it's
unacceptable to get the ticket, but then lose the proficiency
for a while. The fact is, you'll learn a lot of things
getting the ticket that will help with your conceptualization.
Also, you can always re-read books, or watch a DVD Course
again. The important part is that you get some re-training
using your new panel when you're done.
Also, as has been discussed before, but is arguable, is that
I think there is some value in spending some time during your
IFR training doing it the "old fashioned" way. Ideally,
you'd put in 20 hours using steam gauges, and another 20
on EFIS systems. But, there's something to be said for
being able to make the approach using some of the rudimentary
gear, and maintain your orientation...and it may help you
later if your EFIS dies.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> Well said!
>
> The only reason I have not pursued IFR ticket is that I would have
> not been able to stay proficient. If I can't stay current then
> having the IFR rating would only serve to get me into trouble.
>
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: | RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables,
and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on
making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit
itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a
portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare
shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a
signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero
vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they
say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as
reliable as panel mounted units.
For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be
backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is
after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and
am about 10 hours into the flying portion.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
jim@CombsFive.Com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>From my "Inexperienced" point of view:
- The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.
- It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff
- They (Garmin) already have certified database for use
So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which
I admittedly know nothing about)
These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable
should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO
requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue.
As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up.
Fewer units sold also drive the cost up.
This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning
as I go.
This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.
Thanks, Jim C
N312F
===========================================================
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis@core.com>
Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Jim,
What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT
IFR certified?
Let's see:
1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable
system configuration?
2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at
$11,000
While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the
requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no
portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time.
That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with
the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR
certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would
be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation,
however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able
to file /G.
By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced
the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly
TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took
Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
===========================================================
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: | Garmin 496 - IFR? |
I have used a 396 in a panel dock a fair bit and have talked to others who
are, and there have been no complaints. When in turbulence, pushing any
buttons is harder, but the 396 is fairly intuitive and the buttons are
responsive. I have not tried a yoke mount or anything like that, so the
panel mount is all I have experience with. I personally would very much
recommend it, for weather more so than for navigation, but just because that
has been my use of it.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Boone
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:01 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
I would like to comment about the use of a panel dock and a 296/396/496, I
originally thought it was a great idea, until I installed one in my 182. I
really like the 396 and when it was on the yoke it was used as my primary
VFR navigation. (instead of the garmin 430) When it is mounted in the panel
it can be hard and frustating to use the "rocker" button, particularly in
turbulance. The "rocker" button is used in many of the navigation functions
and in almost all of the weather functions. I will be mounting the 396 in
the RV10 on an E mount protruding from the panel, directly above the
stick.The airplane will also have the 430, SL30, Grand Rapids 3 screen, but
for local VFR flying, its hard to beat the 396/496.
----- Original Message -----
From: <jim@CombsFive.Com>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>
> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>
> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions to
> certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129
> certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>
> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>
> So does that mean no /G filing?
>
> Jim C
> N312F
> Finishing
>
>
>
--
7:28 PM
--
7:28 PM
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: | Garmin 496 - IFR? |
I totally agree with this, during the first hours my instructor took us
out in a plane with all the bells and whistles, and with my lacking of
experience I was able to fly the approach pretty easy. But then we went
out in my Cherokee 140 that had dual KX155 with standard CDI's with
glideslopes, and I could not maintain, and quickly became overloaded
with what needed to be done. This demonstration alone was what made me
determine to learn the "old fashion way". I am putting so much
technology in the plane, that it will make it simple to fly, right up to
the point that it fails and I have to revert to the CDI/Nav radio.
So, with that being said I will be learning to fly a standard set of
instruments, and then will spend the first 100 or so hours in the RV
learning all the bells and whistles but still have the ability to fall
back to an SL30/CDI approach.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
As far as the proficiency goes, here's my take on that.
During my build, I certainly didn't maintain actual proficiency
in IFR skills. But, once you get your plane built, you'll
be spending 25-40 hours just flying the plane. Then, you'll
really need to spend some more time truly learning your panel
for IFR ops. This is best done with an instructor, and can
be done as part of the Instrument Proficiency check. You'll
need to shoot multiple approaches in practice before you'd
ever want to even try it for real. So I don't think it's
unacceptable to get the ticket, but then lose the proficiency
for a while. The fact is, you'll learn a lot of things
getting the ticket that will help with your conceptualization.
Also, you can always re-read books, or watch a DVD Course
again. The important part is that you get some re-training
using your new panel when you're done.
Also, as has been discussed before, but is arguable, is that
I think there is some value in spending some time during your
IFR training doing it the "old fashioned" way. Ideally,
you'd put in 20 hours using steam gauges, and another 20
on EFIS systems. But, there's something to be said for
being able to make the approach using some of the rudimentary
gear, and maintain your orientation...and it may help you
later if your EFIS dies.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> Well said!
>
> The only reason I have not pursued IFR ticket is that I would have
> not been able to stay proficient. If I can't stay current then
> having the IFR rating would only serve to get me into trouble.
>
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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Don=92t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430
quite a
bit. First of all, it seems to be about the industry standard for
pre-G1000
panels. They are everywhere and TONS of pilots know how to run them.
That
it a benefit in itself, IMHO. Even all the new Cirrus planes have one
or
two of them, I believe, along with the Avidyne glass. It is quite
intuitive
and is very stable. The screen quality leaves a little to be desired,
and
getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of the
low
resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality of the weather
it
can display.
The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate. Once an
approach
is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that approach,
unlike
some handhelds I have used. It flies the TruTrak auto pilots
beautifully,
only horizontally, of course.
The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not very
broad. The power output of the COM and the sound quality are great.
The
only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the COM output power
is
not as high, but I can=92t give any more details.
Overall, I would not say =93Don=92t do the 480=94, but I know the 430 is
extremely
widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
HYPERLINK "mailto:jesse@itecusa.org"jesse@itecusa.org
HYPERLINK "http://www.itecusa.org"www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin
480
and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say that 480 is not
intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either model, only
magazine
reports.
I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they
are
estimating another year to get it to the customers,
Thanks
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
"mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com"Tim@MyRV10.com>
Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
to actually get there safely.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
HYPERLINK "mailto:jim@CombsFive.Com"jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
"mailto:jim@combsfive.com"jim@combsfive.com>
Jesse,
Excellent! I like that mount!
I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
a cost effective panel in the airplane.
Jim C
Do not archive
(And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
the Contribution link below to find out more about
by:
* The Builder's Bookstore HYPERLINK
"http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
* HomebuiltHELP HYPERLINK
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
--> HYPERLINK
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na
vig
ator?RV10-List
Terrific Free
Bookstore HYPERLINK "http://www.buildersbooks.com"www.buildersbooks.com
* Aeroware Enterprises HYPERLINK "http://www.kitlog.com"www.kitlog.com
HomebuiltHELP HYPERLINK
"http://www.homebuilthelp.com"www.homebuilthelp.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
List Admin.
to
and much
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List"http://www.matronics.com/Na
vig
ator?RV10-List
===========
--
12/14/2006
7:28 PM
--
12/14/2006
7:28 PM
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: | Re: Tunnel Question - Fuel lines and electrical wires |
Try the here: http://www.buildersbooks.com/
Rick S.
40185
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
that is real world it will be great.
The 480 is design for the busy IFR system where you fly departures,
airways and approaches. It has all the airways in it, the 430 doesn't.
So you can enter your flight plan just as the clearance is read,
instead of every single waypoint. Yes, it will take a bit more to
learn, but CFIIs I know that mastered it say it is like night and day.
An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than
the 430W and has a bigger screen.
On 12/15/06, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin 480
> and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say that 480 is not
> intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either model, only magazine
> reports.
>
> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they are
> estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>
> Thanks
> do not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
> to actually get there safely.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
> Jesse,
> Excellent! I like that mount!
> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
> Jim C
> Do not archive
>
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
> November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
> this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
> * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
> www.buildersbooks.com
> www.kitlog.com
> www.homebuilthelp.com
> List Contribution Web Site
> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> Thank you for your generous support!
> - The RV10-List Email Forum -
>
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I agree; having used the Loran C system, the Garmin 90, Garmin 150, Garmin
pilot III and the Garmin 295, I found that the only time I lost a fiz was
when the antenna was shielded and/or when the GPS satelittes were outputing
lower power. I used to be unable to get a lock inside a wood frame house but
now the power output is sufficent to get a lock in my living room. Another
concern of the FAA I am sure is whether there is sufficent computing power
in the handheld to process the incoming data and update the moving map at a
display rate which is adequate for the speed of the aircraft (had the 295
lockup while using the WAAS sfotware that was available). Most of the TSOed
units will handle speeds of 900+ kts. It would probably be helpful if a
laymens guide to the GPS theory was provided. Another concern would be the
testing and update controls on the software. Do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:30 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
> We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables,
> and the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on
> making portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit
> itself, rather the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a
> portable dangerous, because some just throw the puck up on the glare
> shield and it could easily fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a
> signal. The last thing you want to be doing is scrambling around in zero
> vis and looking for your main nav source antenna. As for the units, they
> say as long as they are hooked to ships power they feel they are just as
> reliable as panel mounted units.
> For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be
> backing up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is
> after I get my IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and
> am about 10 hours into the flying portion.
> Dan
> N289DT RV10E
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> jim@CombsFive.Com
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>
>>From my "Inexperienced" point of view:
>
> - The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.
> - It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff
> - They (Garmin) already have certified database for use
>
> So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which
> I admittedly know nothing about)
>
> These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable
> should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO
> requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue.
>
> As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up.
> Fewer units sold also drive the cost up.
>
> This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning
> as I go.
>
> This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.
>
>
> Thanks, Jim C
> N312F
> ===========================================================
> From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis@core.com>
> Date: 2006/12/14 Thu PM 09:32:41 EST
> To: RV10-List@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>
> Jim,
>
> What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT
> IFR certified?
>
> Let's see:
> 1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable
> system configuration?
> 2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at
> $11,000
>
> While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the
> requirements for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no
> portable will EVER meet these requirements-yes ever is a long time.
> That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with
> the antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR
> certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would
> be able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation,
> however, no matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able
> to file /G.
>
> By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced
> the WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly
> TSO's 129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took
> Garmin so long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
>
> GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
> http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
>
> http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
>
>
> William Curtis
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
> ===========================================================
>
>
>
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I don't think that either the 430 or 480 would be a bad choice. They're
both good, despite their differences. I have heard that the 480
is better at route planning, and is more of a flight management
system, but personally I think that between those 2 systems, you'll
get used to either.
One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's
and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have
that one upside.
I do find that the amount of data you can get out of the 480 is
pretty great. In fact, I just added a CO Guardian CO monitor
to my plane, and it interfaces serially to the GNS480 and I can
get onscreen display of Cabin Pressure, Cabin Temp, and CO level
in ppm. Totally didn't expect to ever have that one.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jesse Saint wrote:
> Dont know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430 quite
> a bit. First of all, it seems to be about the industry standard for
> pre-G1000 panels. They are everywhere and TONS of pilots know how to
> run them. That it a benefit in itself, IMHO. Even all the new Cirrus
> planes have one or two of them, I believe, along with the Avidyne
> glass. It is quite intuitive and is very stable. The screen quality
> leaves a little to be desired, and getting weather on the screen is not
> my recommendation because of the low resolution, size of the screen, and
> limited functionality of the weather it can display.
>
>
>
> The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate. Once an
> approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that
> approach, unlike some handhelds I have used. It flies the TruTrak auto
> pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.
>
>
>
> The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not very
> broad. The power output of the COM and the sound quality are great.
> The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the COM output
> power is not as high, but I cant give any more details.
>
>
>
> Overall, I would not say Dont do the 480, but I know the 430 is
> extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.
>
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>
> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kermanj
> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>
>
> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin
> 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say that 480 is
> not intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either model, only
> magazine reports.
>
>
>
> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they
> are estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> do not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
>
> <mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>>
>
>
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>
> to actually get there safely.
>
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com <mailto:jim@CombsFive.Com> wrote:
>
>> <mailto:jim@combsfive.com>>
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>>
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>>
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>>
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>
>> Jim C
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>
>
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>
> the Contribution link below to find out more about
>
> by:
>
> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
> <http://www.buildersbooks.com>
>
> * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> < /DIV>
> < /DIV>
>
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto
> browse Archive Search more:
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
> ==========
>
>
> --
> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>
>
> --
> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
like I said the SB on the 480 was a marketing decision to depreciate the 480
in the eyes of the uniformed to sell the higher price lower feature 430W.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly McMullen" <apilot2@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
> The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
> that is real world it will be great.
> The 480 is design for the busy IFR system where you fly departures,
> airways and approaches. It has all the airways in it, the 430 doesn't.
> So you can enter your flight plan just as the clearance is read,
> instead of every single waypoint. Yes, it will take a bit more to
> learn, but CFIIs I know that mastered it say it is like night and day.
> An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than
> the 430W and has a bigger screen.
>
> On 12/15/06, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding Garmin
>> 480
>> and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say that 480 is not
>> intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either model, only
>> magazine
>> reports.
>>
>> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they are
>> estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>>
>> Thanks
>> do not archive
>>
>> Rob Kermanj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>> to actually get there safely.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>> Jesse,
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>> Jim C
>> Do not archive
>>
>> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>> November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
>> this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
>> * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> www.kitlog.com
>> www.homebuilthelp.com
>> List Contribution Web Site
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> Thank you for your generous support!
>> - The RV10-List Email Forum -
>>
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>
> One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's
> and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have
> that one upside.
>
Now that the 430w is available, I would think that this is no longer a differentiator.
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Thanks Jesse for your opinion. I will consider it seriously. Is
there anything you do not like about the 430?
Do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
> Don=92t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430
> quite a bit. First of all, it seems to be about the industry
> standard for pre-G1000 panels. They are everywhere and TONS of
> pilots know how to run them. That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.
> Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe,
> along with the Avidyne glass. It is quite intuitive and is very
> stable. The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and
> getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of
> the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality
> of the weather it can display.
>
>
> The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate. Once an
> approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that
> approach, unlike some handhelds I have used. It flies the TruTrak
> auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.
>
>
> The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not
> very broad. The power output of the COM and the sound quality are
> great. The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the
> COM output power is not as high, but I can=92t give any more details.
>
>
> Overall, I would not say =93Don=92t do the 480=94, but I know the 430
is
> extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.
>
>
> Jesse Saint
>
> I-TEC, Inc.
>
> jesse@itecusa.org
>
> www.itecusa.org
>
> W: 352-465-4545
>
> C: 352-427-0285
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>
> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
> Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say
> that 480 is not intuitive. I have not fond customer review on
> either model, only magazine reports.
>
>
> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as
> they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>
>
> Thanks
>
> do not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>
> to actually get there safely.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>>
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>>
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>>
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>
>> Jim C
>>
>> Do not archive
>
>
> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>
> the Contribution link below to find out more about
>
> by:
>
> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
>
> * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/
> contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search
> more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ==========
>
>
> --
> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>
>
> --
> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>
Annual
> ========================
List
> ========================
>
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: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the
final fix with initial fixes eliminated. Whatever, it's not enough to
fly an approach. Legal reasons I'm sure.
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is
> correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin
> set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info
> you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give
> you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought
> I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the
> final approach data.
>
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: | I0-540 hottest cylinder |
Thanks guys. I have put the probe on #1 for now. I'll leave enough extra
wire lengths to move it later if necessary. My feeling right now is that the
baffles in front of #1 & #2 make these two run hottest if they are not cut
down. Seems to me that one can cut them down to the point where #1 might run
just a little hotter than the others and can therefore be used to control
the Lasar timing.
Gotta love the list....
Ted French
RV-10 wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jesse Saint
Sent: December 15, 2006 5:30 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV10-List: I0-540 hottest cylinder
The hottest cylinder on an airplane depends on cooling, which depends on
your cowl and baffles. IMHO there is no way to be sure the hottest cylinder
in their test will be the hottest in your plane. You could setup the Lasar
for the hottest in the test and then change it when you have some time to
establish which one is hottest in the air.
Do not archive.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Edgerton
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:42 AM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: I0-540 hottest cylinder
On the issue of hottest cylinder. I bought my engine from Aero Sport Power
with the Lasar system and they test ran the engine before shipping it to me
and included a printed report with the engine when they delivered it. From
this report I could figure out which was the hottest cylinder.
Depending on where you got your engine, maybe it's in the paper work they
sent.
Wayne Edgerton #40336
www.aeroelectric.comwww.kitlog.comhttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-
List -- Release Date: 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
--
12/14/2006 7:28 PM
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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I wonder if Garmin will discontinue the 480, now that they are bringing
on the 430 and 530 in WAAS. I bring this up only because of what they
did with the rest of the UPS/Apollo line that duplicated the Garmin in
panel GPS line.
Vern (#324 Fuselage)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
that is real world it will be great.
The 480 is design for the busy IFR system where you fly departures,
airways and approaches. It has all the airways in it, the 430 doesn't.
So you can enter your flight plan just as the clearance is read,
instead of every single waypoint. Yes, it will take a bit more to
learn, but CFIIs I know that mastered it say it is like night and day.
An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than
the 430W and has a bigger screen.
On 12/15/06, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
Garmin 480
> and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say that 480 is
not
> intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either model, only
magazine
> reports.
>
> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as they
are
> estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>
> Thanks
> do not archive
>
> Rob Kermanj
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I wouldn't say that, without some additional research. It's my
understanding that the Vertical integration for commanding
the TruTrak AP's like the Digiflight IIVSGV, has only been written
by TruTrak for the GNS-480, the Chelton, and I *think* they're
done with the Grand Rapids system (not sure on that though
if they've actually delivered on that one).
So this being a limitation of the autopilot, not the Nav/Com/GPS,
still leads me to think the 480 is different in that
regards.
You may want to verify with TruTrak before buying one way
or the other, to see if they have this working with the 430/530W.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
rvmail@thelefflers.com wrote:
>
>> One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's
>> and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have
>> that one upside.
>>
>
> Now that the 430w is available, I would think that this is no longer a differentiator.
>
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Thanks for your input as well. With the 430W available now, the
vertical guidance is no longer an issue. The thing that really
bothers me about the 430 is the screen size and I am too cheap to
spend a few thousand more for a 530 to get more real estate.
It is also a little curious that WASS is now available for the 430
since there already is a WAAS GPS on the market.
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:17 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> I don't think that either the 430 or 480 would be a bad choice.
> They're
> both good, despite their differences. I have heard that the 480
> is better at route planning, and is more of a flight management
> system, but personally I think that between those 2 systems, you'll
> get used to either.
>
> One benefit to the 480 is that you can couple it to the TruTrak's
> and it will fly both laterally and vertically, so it does have
> that one upside.
>
> I do find that the amount of data you can get out of the 480 is
> pretty great. In fact, I just added a CO Guardian CO monitor
> to my plane, and it interfaces serially to the GNS480 and I can
> get onscreen display of Cabin Pressure, Cabin Temp, and CO level
> in ppm. Totally didn't expect to ever have that one.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Jesse Saint wrote:
>> Don=92t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430
>> quite a bit. First of all, it seems to be about the industry
>> standard for pre-G1000 panels. They are everywhere and TONS of
>> pilots know how to run them. That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.
>> Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe,
>> along with the Avidyne glass. It is quite intuitive and is very
>> stable. The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and
>> getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of
>> the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality
>> of the weather it can display.
>> The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate. Once an
>> approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that
>> approach, unlike some handhelds I have used. It flies the TruTrak
>> auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.
>> The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not
>> very broad. The power output of the COM and the sound quality are
>> great. The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the
>> COM output power is not as high, but I can=92t give any more details.
>> Overall, I would not say =93Don=92t do the 480=94, but I know the
430
>> is extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad
>> either.
>> Jesse Saint
>> I-TEC, Inc.
>> jesse@itecusa.org <mailto:jesse@itecusa.org>
>> www.itecusa.org <http://www.itecusa.org>
>> W: 352-465-4545
>> C: 352-427-0285
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-
>> list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Kermanj
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
>> Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say
>> that 480 is not intuitive. I have not fond customer review on
>> either model, only magazine reports.
>> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as
>> they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>> Thanks
>> do not archive
>> Rob Kermanj
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>> <mailto:Tim@MyRV10.com>>
>> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>> to actually get there safely.
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>> jim@CombsFive.Com <mailto:jim@CombsFive.Com> wrote:
>>> <mailto:jim@combsfive.com>>
>>>
>>> Jesse,
>>>
>>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>>
>>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>>>
>>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>>>
>>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>>>
>>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>>
>>> Jim C
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>> the Contribution link below to find out more about
>> by:
>> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com <http://
>> www.buildersbooks.com>
>> * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>> < /DIV>
>> < /DIV>
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com> href="http://
>> www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto
>> browse Archive Search more: href="http://www.matronics.com/
>> Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>> ==========
>> --
>> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>> --
>> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>> *
>> *
>
>
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Thanks. Good points. I will have to check the 480 prices.
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 10:09 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
> that is real world it will be great.
> The 480 is design for the busy IFR system where you fly departures,
> airways and approaches. It has all the airways in it, the 430 doesn't.
> So you can enter your flight plan just as the clearance is read,
> instead of every single waypoint. Yes, it will take a bit more to
> learn, but CFIIs I know that mastered it say it is like night and day.
> An IFR tool vs a VFR tool. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than
> the 430W and has a bigger screen.
>
> On 12/15/06, Rob Kermanj <flysrv10@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
>> Garmin 480
>> and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say that 480
>> is not
>> intuitive. I have not fond customer review on either model, only
>> magazine
>> reports.
>>
>> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as
>> they are
>> estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>>
>> Thanks
>> do not archive
>>
>> Rob Kermanj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>> to actually get there safely.
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>> Jesse,
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>> Jim C
>> Do not archive
>>
>> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>> November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
>> this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts provided
>> * AeroElectric www.aeroelectric.com
>> www.buildersbooks.com
>> www.kitlog.com
>> www.homebuilthelp.com
>> List Contribution Web Site
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> Thank you for your generous support!
>> - The RV10-List Email Forum -
>>
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Probably the thing I don't like the most is the screen. The resolution is
low and I have experienced a number of screens that are not extremely
clear (ghosting from other screens on the one you are viewing - burn-in?).
With the auto-pilot and the other instruments, however, the screen itself
is not used a whole lot under normal conditions, so it doesn't become much
of a bother, IMHO.
Jesse
> Thanks Jesse for your opinion. I will consider it seriously. Is
> there anything you do not like about the 430?
>
Do not archive
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
>> Dont know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430
>> quite a bit. First of all, it seems to be about the industry
>> standard for pre-G1000 panels. They are everywhere and TONS of
>> pilots know how to run them. That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.
>> Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe,
>> along with the Avidyne glass. It is quite intuitive and is very
>> stable. The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and
>> getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of
>> the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality
>> of the weather it can display.
>>
>>
>>
>> The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate. Once an
>> approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that
>> approach, unlike some handhelds I have used. It flies the TruTrak
>> auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.
>>
>>
>>
>> The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not
>> very broad. The power output of the COM and the sound quality are
>> great. The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the
>> COM output power is not as high, but I cant give any more details.
>>
>>
>>
>> Overall, I would not say Dont do the 480, but I know the 430 is
>> extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad either.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jesse Saint
>>
>> I-TEC, Inc.
>>
>> jesse@itecusa.org
>>
>> www.itecusa.org
>>
>> W: 352-465-4545
>>
>> C: 352-427-0285
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
>> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
>> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>>
>>
>>
>> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
>> Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say
>> that 480 is not intuitive. I have not fond customer review on
>> either model, only magazine reports.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as
>> they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>> Rob Kermanj
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>>
>> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>>
>> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>>
>> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>>
>> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>>
>> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>>
>> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>>
>> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>>
>> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>>
>> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>>
>> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>>
>> to actually get there safely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>>
>>> Jesse,
>>>
>>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>>
>>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>>>
>>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>>>
>>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>>>
>>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>>
>>> Jim C
>>>
>>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>>
>> the Contribution link below to find out more about
>>
>> by:
>>
>> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
>>
>> * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
>>
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>> www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/
>> contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search
>> more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://
>> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ==========
>>
>>
>> --
>> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>>
>>
>> --
>> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>>
>
> Annual
>
>
>> ========================List
>
>> ========================>
>
>
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse@itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
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: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
You will find that the approach intersections are there (in the database)
but do not come up when an approach is selected. Example the RFD RNAV (GPS)
Z 19 calls out NADME, JORMO, WAGET, all of which are in my G295 database of
4/13/06. As a backup map you could add them to the flight plan in the
portable.
----- Original Message -----
From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>
> Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the
> final fix with initial fixes eliminated. Whatever, it's not enough to fly
> an approach. Legal reasons I'm sure.
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is
>> correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin
>> set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info
>> you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give
>> you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought
>> I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the
>> final approach data.
>>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Thanks.
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 11:36 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>
> Probably the thing I don't like the most is the screen. The
> resolution is
> low and I have experienced a number of screens that are not extremely
> clear (ghosting from other screens on the one you are viewing -
> burn-in?).
> With the auto-pilot and the other instruments, however, the screen
> itself
> is not used a whole lot under normal conditions, so it doesn't
> become much
> of a bother, IMHO.
>
> Jesse
>
>> Thanks Jesse for your opinion. I will consider it seriously. Is
>> there anything you do not like about the 430?
>>
> Do not archive
>> Rob Kermanj
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Jesse Saint wrote:
>>
>>> Don=92t know almost anything about the 480, but I have used the 430
>>> quite a bit. First of all, it seems to be about the industry
>>> standard for pre-G1000 panels. They are everywhere and TONS of
>>> pilots know how to run them. That it a benefit in itself, IMHO.
>>> Even all the new Cirrus planes have one or two of them, I believe,
>>> along with the Avidyne glass. It is quite intuitive and is very
>>> stable. The screen quality leaves a little to be desired, and
>>> getting weather on the screen is not my recommendation because of
>>> the low resolution, size of the screen, and limited functionality
>>> of the weather it can display.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The controls are easy to use and it is easy to navigate. Once an
>>> approach is selected, it is hard to accidentally take it off that
>>> approach, unlike some handhelds I have used. It flies the TruTrak
>>> auto pilots beautifully, only horizontally, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The COM and NAV are second to none in my experience, which is not
>>> very broad. The power output of the COM and the sound quality are
>>> great. The only thing I know about the 480, probably, is that the
>>> COM output power is not as high, but I can=92t give any more
details.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Overall, I would not say =93Don=92t do the 480=94, but I know the
430 is
>>> extremely widely used and the $6,000 price tag is not too bad
>>> either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jesse Saint
>>>
>>> I-TEC, Inc.
>>>
>>> jesse@itecusa.org
>>>
>>> www.itecusa.org
>>>
>>> W: 352-465-4545
>>>
>>> C: 352-427-0285
>>>
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-
>>> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Kermanj
>>> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 6:37 AM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Speaking of IFR stuff...I would like an honest opinion regarding
>>> Garmin 480 and Garmin 430 from those flying them. Some people say
>>> that 480 is not intuitive. I have not fond customer review on
>>> either model, only magazine reports.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have decided that I will not wait for GRT for their IFR GPS as
>>> they are estimating another year to get it to the customers,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>> Rob Kermanj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 14, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Tim Olson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
>>>
>>> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
>>>
>>> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
>>>
>>> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
>>>
>>> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
>>>
>>> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
>>>
>>> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
>>>
>>> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
>>>
>>> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
>>>
>>> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
>>>
>>> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
>>>
>>> to actually get there safely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>>
>>> do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Jesse,
>>>>
>>>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>>>
>>>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>>>>
>>>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still
>>>> provides
>>>>
>>>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>>>
>>>> Jim C
>>>>
>>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>> (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
>>>
>>> the Contribution link below to find out more about
>>>
>>> by:
>>>
>>> * The Builder's Bookstore www.buildersbooks.com
>>>
>>> * HomebuiltHELP www.homebuilthelp.com
>>>
>>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>>
>>> --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>>
>>> www.homebuilthelp.com href="http://www.matronics.com/
>>> contribution">http://www.matronics.com/cto browse Archive Search
>>> more: href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://
>>> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List ===========
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 12/14/2006 7:28 PM
>>>
>>
>> Annual
>>
>>
>>
>>> ========================
List
>>
>>> ========================
>
>>
>>
>
>
> Jesse Saint
> I-TEC, Inc.
> jesse@itecusa.org
> www.itecusa.org
>
>
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: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
One other thing to consider, the FAA has to set the TSO so that "EVEN A
CAVEMAN CAN DO IT".
No knowledge of UHF electronics, computer programming, spherical geometry or
mathematical statistics required.
----- Original Message -----
From: "MauleDriver" <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>
> Yes, they include only minimal approach information - Perhaps just the
> final fix with initial fixes eliminated. Whatever, it's not enough to fly
> an approach. Legal reasons I'm sure.
> Tim Olson wrote:
>>
>> I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is
>> correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin
>> set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info
>> you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give
>> you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought
>> I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the
>> final approach data.
>>
>
>
>
Message 34
| 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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Hey all -
I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and
money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before
finishing. Here's my take... I chose to go to a part 141 school,
partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and
partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion. I was at the
airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes
didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am. I did this for two
months solid. Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two
month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been
recorded since the early 1900s. so basically, I did all my training at
night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in
actual IMC. Hardly ever had to wear the hood! It was the hardest thing
I've ever done in my life by far. This is partly because I'm such a low
time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing
because everything seems comfortable or familiar. Turbulence, icing,
pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for
training, but because we had to! Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions
and lost my ASI! All very good training, but hard. Now, I'm an
instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours. I have no desire to
go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower
enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge. Oh,
and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an
EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94. The experience has made
me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have
a LOT to learn, and even more to practice. Also, it had a PROFOUND
effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10. I
spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the
evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.
Here's an example:
Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and
pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of
my headset, on all the time. got a small red flashlight between my legs
to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet
compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger
flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice
on the tires or wing strut. Turbulence. Pesky approach plates that
seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even
on the yoke. Struggle, struggle, struggle. Land, debrief, get into the
car. NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I
turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can
see everything. Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with
something. Turn it off without having to search. And I think for
seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?
answer: it can. If you build it that way.
Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture... there's a
hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every
advantage is significant. SEE the switches. LOGICAL order and
placement. Centralized warning indicators. These are things that I
might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of
going through IFR training during the build.
As always, these are just things that I think. I don't know anything.
Cj
#40410
fuse
www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
to actually get there safely.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
> Jesse,
>
> Excellent! I like that mount!
>
> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>
> Jim C
>
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 35
| 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: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
David McNeill wrote:
> You will find that the approach intersections are there (in the
> database) but do not come up when an approach is selected. Example the
> RFD RNAV (GPS) Z 19 calls out NADME, JORMO, WAGET, all of which are in
> my G295 database of 4/13/06. As a backup map you could add them to the
> flight plan in the portable.
Yes, they are in the 396 too but having to add them manually into a
second unit just about negates their use in practical IFR flight for
this pilot.
Arguably non-standard, yet supported use of even certified GPS systems
can lead to problems. A recent classic is the King Air accident at
Martinsville VA. Check out September's AOPA mag or the NTSB
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041104X01760&key=1
It was a localizer approach with an NDB fix. The King Air had everything
it needed plus some. What appeared to trip them up was the use of a
KLN90B (2nd gen GPS) for waypoint sequencing. That is, using it to
track passage of the NDB fix, and the DME-based missed approach fix. If
you can read the IFR jargon, the AOPA (and Flying) mag writeups are
fascinating reading. Everything about the operation was by the book or
beyond. And yet use of the GPS as a backup aid seemed to trick the
trained, proficient, and otherwise compentent crew, sending them into
the hills.
For me, it crystallized some changes I had recently made to my GPS/IFR
work - that is, I no longer try to recreate non-GPS approaches on my 2nd
Gen Garmin 300XL. If I use it in place of an ADF, VOR, or DME, that's
all I do with it. The single pilot IFR cockpit can be a busy place and
simplicity has helped me, even in my crawling Maule. Of course, the new
equipment makes me drool.
What is it that the FAA says, building experimental aircraft is for the
education of the builder. I think you can do a lot of experimentation
on aircraft design and construction and learn a lot. Experimenting
with IFR equipment, procedures, or anything is another matter. If you
do no experimentation with IFR equipment and procedures, you'll learn
plenty.
How did the airmail pilots learn about IMC? By sending another pilot
and a/c into the next cloud.
Message 36
| 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: | Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? |
Hello group
I am quickly approaching section 32 where you attach the tailcone. As I
am
heavily =91shop space challenged=92, I=92d like to postpone this step as
long as
possible. My idea is to:
- Temporarily attach (cleco) the tailcone and do what can be done in the
baggage area.
- Remove the tailcone and finish the rest of the fuselage (including
cabin
cover).
- Install the engine, cowling & panel.
- Finally install the tailcone completely.
Jesse had an image recently where the cabin cover was installed without
tailcone so it seems to be possible. What are the traps and gotchas with
this approach? What can be done in the baggage area and what not?
Thanks everybody in advance.
Lorenz.
#40280
http://www.malmstrom.ch/RV10.htm
Message 37
| 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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Good writeup Cj.
Nuff said...good writeup.
Rick S.
40185
do not archive
Message 38
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I will go flying with you anytime! It looks like you got your
money's worth.
do not archive.
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Chris Johnston wrote:
> <CJohnston@popsound.com>
>
> Hey all -
>
> I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and
> money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and
> before
> finishing. Here's my take... I chose to go to a part 141 school,
> partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and
> partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion. I was at
> the
> airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes
> didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am. I did this for two
> months solid. Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two
> month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been
> recorded since the early 1900s. so basically, I did all my
> training at
> night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in
> mostly in
> actual IMC. Hardly ever had to wear the hood! It was the hardest
> thing
> I've ever done in my life by far. This is partly because I'm such
> a low
> time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm
> relaxing
> because everything seems comfortable or familiar. Turbulence, icing,
> pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for
> training, but because we had to! Forgot pitot heat in icing
> conditions
> and lost my ASI! All very good training, but hard. Now, I'm an
> instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours. I have no
> desire to
> go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower
> enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge. Oh,
> and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an
> EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94. The experience has
> made
> me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly,
> have
> a LOT to learn, and even more to practice. Also, it had a PROFOUND
> effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my
> 10. I
> spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the
> evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.
> Here's an example:
>
> Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board
> and
> pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the
> side of
> my headset, on all the time. got a small red flashlight between my
> legs
> to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet
> compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger
> flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check
> for ice
> on the tires or wing strut. Turbulence. Pesky approach plates that
> seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them,
> even
> on the yoke. Struggle, struggle, struggle. Land, debrief, get
> into the
> car. NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place,
> when I
> turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can
> see everything. Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with
> something. Turn it off without having to search. And I think for
> seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?
> answer: it can. If you build it that way.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture... there's a
> hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every
> advantage is significant. SEE the switches. LOGICAL order and
> placement. Centralized warning indicators. These are things that I
> might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of
> going through IFR training during the build.
>
> As always, these are just things that I think. I don't know anything.
>
> Cj
> #40410
> fuse
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:03 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
> to actually get there safely.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>
>> Jim C
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>
>
Message 39
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
>that is real world it will be great.
Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that?
I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've never) get
to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't enter an
airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on the map.
In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in MIV V1 JAX and
have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper flight planning
you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a navigator determine
them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning section in the 430 is pretty
good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I don't understand you
statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct" and "a VFR tool." If this
is the way you are using a 430 then you are not using it to even a small amount
of its potential.
I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR tool, while
a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool.
>Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger screen.
Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 used to lists
for $12,000. ????
The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than the 480. I've
had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and continue
to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new in 5 years?
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
Message 40
| 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 |
|
For those who have not put there front window in I just did ours and
wasn't happy with just putting a weight on the window to hold in place
so if you have a look at pic I used a bit of scrap bar with a bolt threw
it into where the support arm goes. Just tighten up and its done !!
Chris 388
Message 41
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Chris, that is excellent experience you had, congratulations for
doing it!
One thing that I just thought of now, that fits into this discussion
of IFR ticket before or after RV-10 flying is this:
An Instrument rating is usually THE NUMBER ONE thing you can do to
lower your insurance rates. In fact, some people will tell you
their insurance companies REQUIRED an instrument rating for
them on their RV-10. Getting your rating done ahead of time will
not only boost your total time, which may lower your rate, but will
give you that rate reduction. This in addition to the other benefits
we've discussed. The insurance companies aren't treating the RV-10
like a plain old day VFR cruiser, which is only natural, seeing as
an old informal poll showed that the vast majority of RV-10's are
being built as high-speed X-country IFR equipped planes.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Chris Johnston wrote:
>
> Hey all -
>
> I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and
> money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before
> finishing. Here's my take... I chose to go to a part 141 school,
> partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and
> partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion. I was at the
> airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes
> didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am. I did this for two
> months solid. Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two
> month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been
> recorded since the early 1900s. so basically, I did all my training at
> night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in
> actual IMC. Hardly ever had to wear the hood! It was the hardest thing
> I've ever done in my life by far. This is partly because I'm such a low
> time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing
> because everything seems comfortable or familiar. Turbulence, icing,
> pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for
> training, but because we had to! Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions
> and lost my ASI! All very good training, but hard. Now, I'm an
> instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours. I have no desire to
> go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower
> enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge. Oh,
> and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an
> EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94. The experience has made
> me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have
> a LOT to learn, and even more to practice. Also, it had a PROFOUND
> effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10. I
> spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the
> evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.
> Here's an example:
>
> Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and
> pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of
> my headset, on all the time. got a small red flashlight between my legs
> to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet
> compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger
> flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice
> on the tires or wing strut. Turbulence. Pesky approach plates that
> seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even
> on the yoke. Struggle, struggle, struggle. Land, debrief, get into the
> car. NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I
> turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can
> see everything. Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with
> something. Turn it off without having to search. And I think for
> seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?
> answer: it can. If you build it that way.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture... there's a
> hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every
> advantage is significant. SEE the switches. LOGICAL order and
> placement. Centralized warning indicators. These are things that I
> might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of
> going through IFR training during the build.
>
> As always, these are just things that I think. I don't know anything.
>
> Cj
> #40410
> fuse
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:03 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
> to actually get there safely.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>
>> Jim C
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I HAVE USED THE 430 IN THE LAST 3 RV'S. NOW HAVE THE 480 AND U R
CORRECT....IT IS MORE COMPLEX, BUT, THE MORE I USE IT AND LEARN IT, THE BETTER
I LIKE
IT. IT IS MORE LIKE THE FMS WE USE IN THE CORPORATE JETS. I AM ALSO GOING TO
USE THE 480 IN MY RV10.
GOOD LUCK
DO NOT ARCHIVE
DOUG PRESTON
RV-7A
N196VA
Message 43
| 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 |
|
I haven't started building the airplane yet, but have built 2 of the EAA
tables per plans except that I added masonite over the top. I'm finding
them very useful already and have 3' by 4' top and shelf pieces left over.
I'm going to get some more 2x4s for the framing and build 2 2' x 3' tool
stands. I may shorten the legs enough to add casters and still have the
same height as the 5'x2's. And when the airplane construction starts I may
build a couple more then by clamping tables together a great variety of
sizes and shapes can be accomplished.
Jack & Cecilia Sargeant
1127 Patricia St.
Wichita, KS 67208-2642
316/683-5268
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Niko
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:12 PM
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Work Table Size
Hi orchidman
Welcome the the RV10 building world.
I have used two 8ft by 2 ft tables. Built similarly to those in the EAA
site. They worked great. A 32 inch table should work great also but I
wouldn't go any wider than that. I used a 2ft depth because I slit a 4x8
plywood sheet in the middle for the two table tops. A more important item
might be table height. You don't want to have to bend down for a long
period of time while working on your kit.
Happy building
Niko
40188
----- Original Message ----
From: orchidman <gary@wingscc.com>
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 4:25:30 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Work Table Size
In the past there have been many topics discussing the minimum size to
build a 10 but I have not seen any discussion as to work tables. Tims
site talks about using an 8 foot and a 4 foot table but no reference to
depth. The pictures look like his were not 48 . I suspect 24 or 32
.
I hope to be doing my inventory on the Emp kit next weekend and I am
trying to get the work area ready. I already have a 4 x 8 table for general
work but for the construction, it looks like most people are using much less
then 48 of depth. A shallower table allows easier working from both
sides.
If I go with a 4 ft and 8 ft table, can I get by with a 24 depth or do
I need 32 or even wider?
I am also considering adding a cutout in the 4 foot table for a 'Hand
Riveting and Dimpling Tool' that I can drop in when needed that will allow
the aluminum being worked on to rest on the table at the tools work height.
Are others finding this arangement useful?
--------
Gary Blankenbiller
RV10 - # 40674
(N410GB reserved)
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronibsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Ge
AeroElectric www.tore www.buildersbsp; * HomebuiltHELP
http://www.matrogenerous sp; -Matt Dralle, List
Admin.http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
Message 44
| 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: | IFR in the RV-10 |
I concur with Tim's concerns regarding hard IFR in the RV-10, or any single
pilot/single engine aircraft.
The only way to mitigate the risk is to have a proficient pilot, competency
with reliable and capable IFR systems, a good understanding of the weather,
and personal minimums that reflect all of these factors. Once you get your
IFR ticket and fly hard IFR single pilot, you quickly realize that anything
less is just too dangerous for you and your family.
That said, these airplanes are much more useful as cross-country
transportation with IFR capability, even if you only use the capability to
get through cloud decks. My RV-10 will be loaded with all the IFR and comm
gear I can reasonably afford.
I personally will not plan a non-precision approach with less than 800 ft
ceilings forecast; 600 ft for precision. Even then a couple of times I have
ended up breaking out right at the published minimums, always with wet
palms.
Steve Roberts
Still flying spam cans and lurking
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 - IFR?
>
> I agree with your statements. Also, I'm not sure if this is
> correct or not, because it's been a while, but doesn't Garmin
> set up those handhelds purposely to NOT give you the info
> you'd need to complete an approach? I mean, they give
> you the fixes for some of the approach segments, but I thought
> I had heard or seen that the purposely leave out some of the
> final approach data.
>
> I've had a couple of educational experiences regarding handhelds.
>
> Previously, I was adamant when talking to my highly experienced
> airline pilot pal that I could get down to my airport while IFR
> with my handheld. I even went as far as to set up the extended
> runway centerline and try to prove it by flying down to
> the runway. Yeah, I even made it over the airport. The thing
> is, I really didn't have a clue as to exactly where I was on
> the approach and if I had safe obstacle clearance. You may
> indeed be able to get to an airport with one, but you really
> won't be able to effectively fly a real and safe *approach*.
>
> Prior to my instrument training, I had told the same guy how
> I could use my handheld for enroute ops with no problem, and
> use it to help me fly the approach using my other actual
> non-GPS nav equipment. He explained that I would find that
> there's no way I'd have time to play with that GPS during
> an approach, to do the things I needed. And that a handheld
> GPS doesn't have the same buttons or menu structures or usage
> designs as the certified gear, rendering it much less easy
> to use for that type of flying. I didn't believe him...until
> I took my instrument training. I found a couple things.
> 1) I didn't have time to play with the GPS at all. I could plug
> in a Direct to waypoint, but it just wasn't made to quickly
> adjust routing of a full route. 2) With it mounted low on
> the yoke, it was not at all comfortable to spend a lot of
> time looking at it, as it distracts you from your scan to look
> that low.
>
> Truly, I've had approaches way back then where I had my hands
> full just keeping a pair of needles centered and my speed in
> check. And more recently I've found that having a properly
> designed menu and routing structure to a system can be
> extremely important to getting things done quickly. With
> the RV-10, you're moving so fast even on enroute ops that
> on things like a low IFR departure and climb, you're a busy
> pilot just flying the plane. Some of the things that you'd
> normally consider conveniences of use can become critical to
> a comfortable completion of flight.
>
> This is just a guess, but after a couple years of watching
> the RV-10 builders evolve, I do predict that although the
> flying qualities of the RV-10 make it a great IFR platform,
> that we're headed for some statistical failures. There is
> the lions share of the builders who plan to build an IFR
> plane, but with our flexibility of design, I'm not sure if
> it's going to be done to the required standards by some.
> And from there on, it's only a matter of time before we start
> to see the statistics turn bad as the pilots start actually
> flying some IMC flights. There is an overwhelming urge
> in the homebuilding arena to try to cut corners on what
> is being done in certified planes. We tout the benefits
> of building our own plane to OUR standards, and chuckle
> as we talk about how much cheaper we can do things. Well,
> there's some truth to the talk that we can save money, but
> at the same time, some things are done on certified planes
> for a reason...usually safety.
>
> I have been told by that same wise buddy above that most of the
> rules of airspace, and IFR procedures, and rules that were bought
> in blood. It took deaths to get things to change to be the way
> they are.
>
> I have a much higher respect for what is required to safely
> do IFR flight than I do for just building a homebuilt aircraft.
> Most anyone can build an RV-10 and fly it reasonably
> safely. Flying in hard IMC conditions, however, in any aircraft,
> is a much more challenging thing. Hopefully the flexibility
> we're allowed to build our own planes doesn't turn into the
> demise of our safety record though, as people push the limits
> of what their design and their skills can handle.
>
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> MauleDriver wrote:
>>
>> The 396, and presumably the 496, doesn't have approaches in it anyway.
>> They have some fixes but you *can't* use them for approaches, certified
>> or not.
>> What Tim said as far as IFR panel planning. I think it is very difficult
>> to do effectively without either 1) having used the ticket or 2) copying
>> someone who knows what they are doing.
>>
>> Flying IFR with a homebuilt panel seems to me to be a lot more serious
>> business than flying a homebuilt aircraft to this pilot.
>>
>> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>>>
>>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
>>>
>>> Here is the response from Garmin as to why:
>>>
>>> "The GPSMAP 496 is not a IFR certified unit. The FAA has no intentions
>>> to certify a handeld unit as an IFR unit. You need to go with a TSO-129
>>> certified box if you want to an IFR GPS."
>>>
>>> Hmmm. That really stinks!
>>>
>>> So does that mean no /G filing?
>>>
>>> Jim C
>>> N312F
>>> Finishing
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Message 45
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I"d love to see the design when you're ready.
Chris Johnston wrote:
>
> Hey all -
>
> I'm actually a builder that's a low time pilot who took the time (and
> money!) to get my instrument rating after starting building, and before
> finishing. Here's my take... I chose to go to a part 141 school,
> partly due to my low hours (I don't have enough PIC Xcountry time) and
> partly so that I could get it done in very rapid fashion. I was at the
> airport Monday, Wednesday, and Friday at 5pm after work, and sometimes
> didn't get home from flying til midnight or 1am. I did this for two
> months solid. Just so you get the picture, I also did this in a two
> month period where California got more rainfall than has ever been
> recorded since the early 1900s. so basically, I did all my training at
> night (I never flew during the day til my check ride!) and in mostly in
> actual IMC. Hardly ever had to wear the hood! It was the hardest thing
> I've ever done in my life by far. This is partly because I'm such a low
> time pilot, that there's really no point in a flight where I'm relaxing
> because everything seems comfortable or familiar. Turbulence, icing,
> pouring rain, approaches to minimums, HAVING to go missed - not for
> training, but because we had to! Forgot pitot heat in icing conditions
> and lost my ASI! All very good training, but hard. Now, I'm an
> instrument rated pilot and I have about 106 hours. I have no desire to
> go barreling through "hard" IMC at the moment, but I do fly tower
> enroute occasionally in VFR conditions, and enjoy the challenge. Oh,
> and I did a few GPS approaches, but never used anything close to an
> EFIS, all stem gauges and needles with a KLN94. The experience has made
> me a much better pilot, and has taught me that I need to go slowly, have
> a LOT to learn, and even more to practice. Also, it had a PROFOUND
> effect on the panel and also the interior lighting design for my 10. I
> spent a lot of time thinking about what was so dammed hard about the
> evening's flight, and how I could improve things in my own aircraft.
> Here's an example:
>
> Flying around the LA area in actual IMC at night, got my knee board and
> pencils and pens at the ready, got a red LED light stuck to the side of
> my headset, on all the time. got a small red flashlight between my legs
> to find the switches behind the yoke, and to help illuminate the wet
> compass and engine gauges that had inop or dim lighting, and a bigger
> flashlight also between my legs to shine out the window to check for ice
> on the tires or wing strut. Turbulence. Pesky approach plates that
> seem to take me forever to read when I look down and focus on them, even
> on the yoke. Struggle, struggle, struggle. Land, debrief, get into the
> car. NOW, turn on the car, and everything is in a logical place, when I
> turn on the lights, every switch and control is illuminated, and I can
> see everything. Pop the map light on for a second to fiddle with
> something. Turn it off without having to search. And I think for
> seemingly the hundredth time...WHY CAN'T AN AIRPLANE BE LIKE THIS?
> answer: it can. If you build it that way.
>
> Sorry for the rant, but I just wanted to paint a picture... there's a
> hundred things that seem small, but for a low time pilot in IMC, every
> advantage is significant. SEE the switches. LOGICAL order and
> placement. Centralized warning indicators. These are things that I
> might not have paid such close attention to without the experience of
> going through IFR training during the build.
>
> As always, these are just things that I think. I don't know anything.
>
> Cj
> #40410
> fuse
> www.perfectlygoodairplane.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 6:03 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>
>
> Now might be a good time to again bring up a comment regarding panel
> planning and IFR ops. It's just my opinion, but I really, truly
> believe that a person will make better choices in all of the
> panel-related decisions if they take the time to get their IFR
> rating *before* they lay out their panel. I know it's a downer
> when you want to spend the money on the plane, but truly you will
> not have a full understanding of what's necessary or how critical
> some of the details can be, until you have the rating and have
> spent some time in the clouds...preferrably during the rating.
> It could actually save you money in the end if you don't have
> to re-do things, or have a more effective panel that allows you
> to actually get there safely.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> jim@CombsFive.Com wrote:
>
>>
>> Jesse,
>>
>> Excellent! I like that mount!
>>
>> I am not IFR rated (Yet). The plans are to add that after I get
>> flying. I think the idea of "VFR GPS" in the comment section of the
>> flight plan is the way to go. It stays FAA legal and still provides
>> a cost effective panel in the airplane.
>>
>> Jim C
>>
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 46
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
ou may be used to the 430, obviously you don't know the 480. Fact
remains that you can't enter more than one segment of an airway at a
time on the 430. If you get a reroute, you will be doing a lot of
heads down time, or just entering one or two fixes ahead at a time.
The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more, whether VFR
or IFR.
Also kind of hard to fly an offset to an airway when you don't have
it, piece of cake for the 480. Flying in the Northeast means
relatively short flights. Maybe the 430 is right for you. I routinely
fly coast to coast and having airways mapped is extremely useful.
See Doug Preston's comments as one who has owned both units.
Not to mention it is available now. What do you suppose the delivery
on a 430W is, given there is a 6 month or more backlog for upgrades?
Not to mention that the 430 is a considerably older design, and much
of it will remain older even with the upgrade. It looks like from
various on-line vendors you are within $500 of each other right now,
although most listings are for the 430, not the 430W, appearing
discounted about $2000 from the 430W. Not hard at all to find the 480
advertised for $9000, probably less on unadvertised price.
On 12/15/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis@core.com> wrote:
> >The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
> >that is real world it will be great.
>
> Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that?
>
> I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've never)
> get to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't enter
> an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on the
> map. In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in MIV
> V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper flight
> planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a
> navigator determine them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning section in
> the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I
> don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct"
> and "a VFR tool." If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not
> using it to even a small amount of its potential.
>
> I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR
> tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool.
>
> >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger
> screen.
>
> Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480 used
> to lists for $12,000. ????
> The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than the 480.
> I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and
> continue to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new in 5
> years?
>
> William Curtis
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
>
Message 47
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
I paid under $9K for my GNS-480, brand new of course.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> ou may be used to the 430, obviously you don't know the 480. Fact
> remains that you can't enter more than one segment of an airway at a
> time on the 430. If you get a reroute, you will be doing a lot of
> heads down time, or just entering one or two fixes ahead at a time.
> The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more, whether VFR
> or IFR.
> Also kind of hard to fly an offset to an airway when you don't have
> it, piece of cake for the 480. Flying in the Northeast means
> relatively short flights. Maybe the 430 is right for you. I routinely
> fly coast to coast and having airways mapped is extremely useful.
> See Doug Preston's comments as one who has owned both units.
> Not to mention it is available now. What do you suppose the delivery
> on a 430W is, given there is a 6 month or more backlog for upgrades?
> Not to mention that the 430 is a considerably older design, and much
> of it will remain older even with the upgrade. It looks like from
> various on-line vendors you are within $500 of each other right now,
> although most listings are for the 430, not the 430W, appearing
> discounted about $2000 from the 430W. Not hard at all to find the 480
> advertised for $9000, probably less on unadvertised price.
>
> On 12/15/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis@core.com> wrote:
>> >The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
>> >that is real world it will be great.
>>
>> Huh? How do you come up with a statement like that?
>>
>> I fly a 430 IFR in the busy Northeast where you NEVER (at least I've
>> never)
>> get to fly direct. "It doesn't have airways" only means that you can't
>> enter
>> an airway in the flight planning section and they are not displayed on
>> the
>> map. In practicality this only means that on the 430, you can't put in
>> MIV
>> V1 JAX and have it determine all 12 intermediate points. With proper
>> flight
>> planning you should have all these points anyway and not have to let a
>> navigator determine them for you. Otherwise, the flight planning
>> section in
>> the 430 is pretty good. Get to know it and see for yourself. So I guess I
>> don't understand you statement about the 430 designed only "to go direct"
>> and "a VFR tool." If this is the way you are using a 430 then you are not
>> using it to even a small amount of its potential.
>>
>> I think a truer statement is that a 430 is a effective VFR AND and IFR
>> tool, while a 480 in ONLY a IFR tool.
>>
>> >Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger
>> screen.
>>
>> Let's see, the 430W will list for $10,750, the 530W $16,495. The 480
>> used
>> to lists for $12,000. ????
>> The economies of scale will make the 430W MUCH less expensive than
>> the 480.
>> I've had my 430 since '99 and there are over 40,000 now in service and
>> continue to sell. Anyone care to wager on the 480 being available new
>> in 5
>> years?
>>
>> William Curtis
>> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 48
| 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 |
|
Now that builders have painted the landscape with why and why not to
drill, then deburr, then dimple vs. deburr, dimple then drill or just
skip it all together and just pop rivet. Let's move the discussion to
the next level. I don't know if any RV-10s that have enough time on
them yet but no one has addressed the cause for them, where they are
likely to occur (so you can be watching), what corrective action can be
taken or more importantly which of the two or three techniques being
used is less likely to contribute to them. We are all prideful of our
selected technique but a lot of builders might find the discussion
enlightening. - not to be confused with Lightning and the need for
static suppression wicks.
Deems, you referenced Dan Checkoway's advise (the self promoted high
guru on Sheetmetal). What say Dan?
Let's hear discussion about tensile vs. shear, wet rivets, use of reams
vs. drill bits, fitment of the rivet to the opening and proper prep, or
rivets in composite. VAN's says "forgetaboutit" cause the RV-12 is
going to skip steps in the effort to find a faster build and lazy group
of builders. How about the advantages and applications of Icebox
rivets, Monel or the common 1100 rivets?
Come on Kelly - let's play. During last night's Pacific NW storm we
were hit by a rash of lightning strikes and smoking rivets all over the
NW (scores of aircraft).
Anyone remember Honest Abe's math on Four Score? We are building the
finest High Speed, IFR cruisers at low cost out there right?
John Cox
#40600
Message 49
| 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Dan, maybe the local FDSO knows something but it goes deeper than that with
the 396/496. Questions on filing /g with a non-certified unit assume that
it is used only on the enroute phase(not sure it's legal but some do
anyway). I may be wrong on this point, but when you file /g you are telling
ATC that you have equipment on board capable of flying a full GPS approach
and not just the enroute leg. The AIM says that /g means "GPS with enroute
AND terminal capability". Since the 396 and 496 don't show anything other
than the FAF segment, it doesn't appear that you have the "terminal"
capability required to fly the full approach. Until Garmin adds the full
approach procedures to the 396/496 all the other questions would seem moot.
Of course, it is a chicken and the egg thing so maybe if the FDSO loosened
up some, Garmin might add them.
Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in? If so back up
with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified.
Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in ;-)
Just my .02
Bill S
7a engine
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lloyd, Daniel R.
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
--> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
We asked the local FSDO their opinion on this issue with the portables, and
the feedback we got is that there has been allot of conversation on making
portables Legal for IFR but the main concern is not the unit itself, rather
the antenna, and its placement, this is what makes a portable dangerous,
because some just throw the puck up on the glare shield and it could easily
fall or somehow get blocked from receiving a signal. The last thing you want
to be doing is scrambling around in zero vis and looking for your main nav
source antenna. As for the units, they say as long as they are hooked to
ships power they feel they are just as reliable as panel mounted units.
For what it is worth, I am also putting in the 496, but it will be backing
up the Chelton Freeflight so I can file /g. This of course is after I get my
IFR ticket, I did pass the written over Thanksgiving and am about 10 hours
into the flying portion.
Dan
N289DT RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jim@CombsFive.Com
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>From my "Inexperienced" point of view:
- The 496 has a WAAS GPS receiver.
- It's newer than the panel mounted 430, 480, 5xx stuff
- They (Garmin) already have certified database for use
So why not make a portable receiver that meets the TSO standard? (Which I
admittedly know nothing about)
These are just questions from my viewpoint. Just because it's portable
should not mean it is not certifiable. (Again - My opinion!) The TSO
requirements may indeed force the panel mount issue.
As for cost, the certification costs will drive the cost of the unit up.
Fewer units sold also drive the cost up.
This whole certification / IFR business is new to me. So I am learning
as I go.
This is a great forum to get the questions asked and get good feedback.
Thanks, Jim C
N312F
===========================================================
From: "W. Curtis" <wcurtis@core.com>
Subject: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
>> I have been planning on using the Garmin 496 with a panel dock. The
>> Garmin Web page indicates the 496 is not IFR certified.
Jim,
What exactly surprises you that the Garmin portable GPSMAP 496 is NOT IFR
certified?
Let's see:
1) It's portable - how do you validate the repeatably of a portable
system configuration?
2) The 496 is $2800, their IFR certified panel units start at
$11,000
While is is certainly a good idea to have a portable GPS, the requirements
for TSO 129 or TSO146a are quite clear and IMHO, no portable will EVER meet
these requirements-yes ever is a long time.
That being said, I too will have a portable 496/596(?) IN my panel with the
antenna mounted on the glare shield. It will sit right below an IFR
certified GNS-430W. Even if you don't have a GNS-4/5xx you still would be
able to use the portable as "supplemental" aid to navigation, however, no
matter how you read the regs you definitely will not be able to file /G.
By the way, anyone notice that Garmin Service Bulletin 0621 has reduced the
WAAS certified TSO'd 146 (sole means navigation) GNS-480 to a lowly TSO's
129 box like the non WAAS GNS430/530? It also explains what took Garmin so
long to get WAAS certification for the GNS 430/530.
GNS 480 owners can read the gory details below:
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480SB0621.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/PDFiles/480nesletter.pdf
http://www.avionicswest.com/software/Service%20Bulletin0621.htm
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
===========================================================
Message 50
| 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: Smokin Rivets |
Smokin Rivetsmaaate WHO CARES JUST BUILD!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: John W. Cox
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 3:08 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Smokin Rivets
Now that builders have painted the landscape with why and why not to
drill, then deburr, then dimple vs. deburr, dimple then drill or just
skip it all together and just pop rivet. Let's move the discussion to
the next level. I don't know if any RV-10s that have enough time on
them yet but no one has addressed the cause for them, where they are
likely to occur (so you can be watching), what corrective action can be
taken or more importantly which of the two or three techniques being
used is less likely to contribute to them. We are all prideful of our
selected technique but a lot of builders might find the discussion
enlightening. - not to be confused with Lightning and the need for
static suppression wicks.
Deems, you referenced Dan Checkoway's advise (the self promoted high
guru on Sheetmetal). What say Dan?
Let's hear discussion about tensile vs. shear, wet rivets, use of
reams vs. drill bits, fitment of the rivet to the opening and proper
prep, or rivets in composite. VAN's says "forgetaboutit" cause the
RV-12 is going to skip steps in the effort to find a faster build and
lazy group of builders. How about the advantages and applications of
Icebox rivets, Monel or the common 1100 rivets?
Come on Kelly - let's play. During last night's Pacific NW storm we
were hit by a rash of lightning strikes and smoking rivets all over the
NW (scores of aircraft).
Anyone remember Honest Abe's math on Four Score? We are building the
finest High Speed, IFR cruisers at low cost out there right?
John Cox
#40600
Message 51
| 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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Well sort of.
The Chelton system (SV-Sport) is not certified. Built into the Pinpoint
GADAHRS is a GPS. The optional FreeFlight 1101 WAAS GPS has full
integrity monitoring. The Chelton SV-Sport is "based" on their
certified system. The FreeFlight 1101 GPS according to Chelton is the
same as the certified 1201 but without the TSO sticker. So, it is not
certified. I believe it meets the standard, but you can decide for your
self. The closest Chelton will come to saying if you can legally fly
IFR with there system is this, "As an option, add to your SV-10 the
FreeFlight WAAS GPS with full integrity monitoring, and your SV-10 can
be used for stand-alone IFR GPS navigation.
Larry Rosen
#356
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
> .....
>
> Does the Chelton Freeflight have certified a GPS built in? If so back up
> with the 496 is gold, if not it's just two x non-certified.
>
> Maybe some AIM scholar will weigh in ;-)
>
> Just my .02
> Bill S
> 7a engine
>
>
>
Message 52
| 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: | Share GPS Antenna |
RV Guru's,
Is there a way to share / split a GPS antenna between a Garmin 396 &
Garmin XL250? I have the exterior mounted XL250 antenna and I think it
would be a cleaner installation if both units could share the same feed.
Robin
RV-4 Sold
RV-6A 330 Hours
RV-10 Parts
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! --
|