Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:15 AM - Re: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? (Russell Daves)
2. 03:22 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
3. 03:35 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
4. 04:01 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
5. 04:08 AM - Re: Share GPS Antenna (Tim Olson)
6. 04:17 AM - Fw: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
7. 04:17 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
8. 04:22 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
9. 04:29 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
10. 04:36 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
11. 04:47 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rob Kermanj)
12. 04:50 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
13. 05:06 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
14. 05:26 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
15. 05:34 AM - Re: Share GPS Antenna (GRANSCOTT@aol.com)
16. 05:41 AM - Re: Share GPS Antenna (James Hein)
17. 05:44 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
18. 06:22 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Kelly McMullen)
19. 06:34 AM - Re: Share GPS Antenna (W. Curtis)
20. 07:02 AM - Cabin Top Mold Release (Larry Rosen)
21. 07:03 AM - Re: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? (PJ Seipel)
22. 07:04 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
23. 07:08 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
24. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Bill Schlatterer)
25. 07:38 AM - Re: Cabin Top Mold Release (Deems Davis)
26. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS (Deems Davis)
27. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (David McNeill)
28. 07:57 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (rtitsworth)
29. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS (David McNeill)
30. 08:15 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Rene)
31. 08:21 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (rtitsworth)
32. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (rtitsworth)
33. 08:35 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS (Larry Rosen)
34. 09:09 AM - Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? (MauleDriver)
35. 09:18 AM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (MauleDriver)
36. 09:34 AM - (W. Curtis)
37. 09:39 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
38. 10:11 AM - Re: Cabin Top Mold Release (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
39. 10:41 AM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (W. Curtis)
40. 11:36 AM - Re: Smokin Rivets (Noel & Yoshie Simmons)
41. 12:29 PM - Re: Re: Cabin Top Mold Release ()
42. 01:25 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
43. 03:11 PM - Re: Cabin Top Mold Release (linn Walters)
44. 04:15 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
45. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: smoking rivets (noel@blueskyaviation.net)
46. 05:13 PM - Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (John Testement)
47. 05:14 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (GRANSCOTT@AOL.COM)
48. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS (Rick)
49. 05:35 PM - Re: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna (Tim Olson)
50. 08:34 PM - Re: Cabin Top Mold Release (John Gonzalez)
51. 08:41 PM - Re: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? (John Gonzalez)
52. 09:55 PM - Re: Smokin Rivets (John W. Cox)
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: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? |
I didn't see Jesse's picture concerning attachment of the cabin top
without attachment of the tailcone but I suspect it must have been
merely a sitting on of the cabin top to the fuselage and not an install.
Not having attempted to do any work in the baggage area without the
tailcone attached I can't say for sure what is and is not possible but I
would not recommend removing the tailcone and attempting to do the cabin
top before attachment.
Russ Daves
N710RV
First Flight 7/28/06
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 |
I started the subject of 430 vs 480 and wanted to thank everyone for
taking the time to express their opinion. I have to admit that the
comments have not made the decision easier. It seems that you get
used to the unit and work around what might be regarded as essential
by others.
Kelly, what is the offset used for? I have a GNC 250 in my RV6 with
the same feature and have never found a need for it. Of course, I
live in Florida and have to work REALLY hard to find IFR days to
practice.
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:14 PM, 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 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Kelly, searched for Doug's comments on the RV10 list and got
nothing! can you point me to it?
Thanks
Do not archive.
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:14 PM, 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 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>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.
Kelly,
Help me understand this-what do you mean by "more than one segment of an airway?"
Three fixes constitute two segments. Are you telling folks they can't enter
more than 2 fixes with a 430? This is at best misinformed, at worst disingenious.
I mentioned getting to know the flight planning section of the 430, it
seems all you know about is the Direct-To button.
>The 480 can do everything the 430 does in spades and more,
>whether VFR or IFR.
It has WAAS and airways over the 430, only airways over the 430W-- is this your
definition of "spades and more?"
>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.
If by short you mean NJ to Charlotte or NJ to Jacksonville, then yes that's short
compared to coast to coast. What's the range of an RV-10 again? --that of
any typical high performance single? Now tell me what "relatively short flight"
have to do with the navigator you use?
>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.
Like your air navigation I don't understand you economics. Previously I posted
list prices, so let's look at street prices. The best you can get a 480 for
is about $9,000. You can get better from Stark, but from Van's you can get a
430 for $6,760. Add $1,500 for WAAS and you are still almost $1,000 less than
a 480. What am I missing?
I too have flown both units but admittedly I'm biased towards the 430. After factoring
in what the 480 offers, the user interface and the cost, I determined
that the 430 was still better for me and the type of flying I do. I DO NOT regularly
fly "coast to coast", I more routinely fly 4-600 mile legs. I can't say
what is best for Jet A burning coast to coast flyer's only what is best for
me and my typically mission. I always use the flight plan and only use the Direct-To
when ATC clears me to some fix ahead already in the flight plan. This
is what typically happens in the real world and this is MUCH easier on the 430.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: Share GPS Antenna |
Almost certainly not possible to split a GPS Antenna.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Robin Marks wrote:
> *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*
>
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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Here you go Rob.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com <DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
To give you a picture of the routing capabilities, when I flew
around the rockies enroute to Albuquerque, I played with the
flight planning on my 480. I was flying airways to ensure
terrain clearance and make it easier on me and everyone else.
I went to load a flight plan and on the 480 when you start
with a fix and then choose an airway, you can automatically
scroll through many optional routes, and it has them drawn
on the screen. Then when you select one, it loads that path,
but you only see the major segments until you expand it when
you want ultimate detail. It then shows all of your time to
fixes and everything else. And you hardly had to even add
any points to the route, to have even a 20 point route entered.
I would probably have to actually read the manual and practice
with it for 20 minutes to get good at it. I find the Chelton
flight planning to be top notch, so it's hard to get motivated
on the 480, but I'm really screwing myself if I don't....so
that's a New Year's resolution for me. The 480 does lots
of things that I haven't even yet touched.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Rob Kermanj wrote:
> I started the subject of 430 vs 480 and wanted to thank everyone for
> taking the time to express their opinion. I have to admit that the
> comments have not made the decision easier. It seems that you get used
> to the unit and work around what might be regarded as essential by others.
>
> Kelly, what is the offset used for? I have a GNC 250 in my RV6 with the
> same feature and have never found a need for it. Of course, I live in
> Florida and have to work REALLY hard to find IFR days to practice.
>
> do not archive
> Rob Kermanj
>
>
>
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
>> <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>>
>>
>> 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 <mailto: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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> (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 <http://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 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
While some may look down on their statement and see it as a big pitfall,
I see it as proof of how ultimately exacting some of these things
are viewed...and when a manufacturer isn't willing to stick their
neck out into the grey area for you, it just shows you want to
exercise caution. This from all points, including antenna mounting
locations, and such. You want and need great performance out of
these things. I did not find GPS issues with either AHRS system,
and I don't yet have a freeflight GPS. I may actually add on a
freeflight at some point, but it's more for it's value on paper
in my case. I find the built-in GPS does a fantastic job, but
having a 480 next to it just seals it up for me.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Larry Rosen wrote:
>
>
> 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:
>> <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>>
>> .....
>> 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 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 -Antenna |
thanks.
do not archive
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 16, 2006, at 7:16 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Here you go Rob.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com <DOUGPFLYRV@aol.com>
> Date: Dec 15, 2006 4:17 PM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>
>
> 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 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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
One part not often thought about is what you will do after you've filed
/G and the weather got worse than expected. On my trip home from
ElPaso, I was supposed to have 1200' ceilings at my fuel stop in the
middle of the country. What I ended up with was finding that the AWOS
at my planned stop was inop, but local airports that ATC could read off
were showing ceilings varying from 300-1200', and it was solid overcast
up to 6000'. So there was not going to be ANY getting down easy.
I continued on, flying a full approach, figuring that sometimes it's
best to stick with a plan, and be prepared to change it than just
go throwing wrenches into the system right away. I was IMC for
at least 85 miles over the course of the approach. Popped out around
400' ceilings, right at minimums. Had it been worse, I'd now be
looking at a missed and rerouting to another airport for a different
approach. Most 100% certainly not something that you would want
to face even on an emergency approach with a handheld GPS, or
not "made for the job" system software. You certainly don't have
time to run all of the approach fixes into your unit individually.
Now, people could say that I could have made it easier by changing
destinations to the 1200' ceilings. Sure, but now I'd be digging
up the necessary info to do that approach safely, and have to
mentally re-work all of that...unnecessarily. And what would it
have got me....the last 30 seconds of the approach might
have been a little easier. Fact is, even at 1200' ceilings,
there wasn't a way that someone with a handheld was going to
get in safely to that 1200' ceiling airport, without calling
an emergency and trying to do some wacky modified vectored straight
in approach with lots of help from ATC. And then where would your
pilot certificate be once you talked to them on the ground?
You really don't want to file /G unless you're prepared for
the worst with it, because it may have to be proven some day.
I had an interesting situation develop over Atlanta years ago
where I did just this. To my benefit, the handheld did allow
me to navigate direct to a fix, and they didn't bust me even
though I admitted up front it was a VFR ONLY gps (handheld).
I fessed up right away because the weather situation was
pretty bad. No sense leading them on, because that can only
lead to worse things. Once I told them I could go to a
intersection fix, they gave me a list of a couple fixes to
fly. Good thing they only gave me a couple, because it's
not fun to be heads-down in the clouds punching in 5-letter
fixes that you're not familiar with. It all worked out,
but convinced me that if you file /G with a handheld,
some day someone's going to call your bluff.
Be careful out there.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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
> 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 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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
Thanks for the info. Any time someone mentions Chelton, I kick myself!
Do not archive.
Rob Kermanj
On Dec 16, 2006, at 7:17 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> To give you a picture of the routing capabilities, when I flew
> around the rockies enroute to Albuquerque, I played with the
> flight planning on my 480. I was flying airways to ensure
> terrain clearance and make it easier on me and everyone else.
> I went to load a flight plan and on the 480 when you start
> with a fix and then choose an airway, you can automatically
> scroll through many optional routes, and it has them drawn
> on the screen. Then when you select one, it loads that path,
> but you only see the major segments until you expand it when
> you want ultimate detail. It then shows all of your time to
> fixes and everything else. And you hardly had to even add
> any points to the route, to have even a 20 point route entered.
> I would probably have to actually read the manual and practice
> with it for 20 minutes to get good at it. I find the Chelton
> flight planning to be top notch, so it's hard to get motivated
> on the 480, but I'm really screwing myself if I don't....so
> that's a New Year's resolution for me. The 480 does lots
> of things that I haven't even yet touched.
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
> do not archive
>
>
> Rob Kermanj wrote:
>> I started the subject of 430 vs 480 and wanted to thank everyone
>> for taking the time to express their opinion. I have to admit
>> that the comments have not made the decision easier. It seems
>> that you get used to the unit and work around what might be
>> regarded as essential by others.
>> Kelly, what is the offset used for? I have a GNC 250 in my RV6
>> with the same feature and have never found a need for it. Of
>> course, I live in Florida and have to work REALLY hard to find IFR
>> days to practice.
>> do not archive
>> Rob Kermanj
>> On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
>>> <apilot2@gmail.com <mailto:apilot2@gmail.com>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> (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 <http://
>>> 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 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 -Antenna |
What Kelly means is that you enter where you start,
where you're going, and which airway you want,
and often the entire list of segments can be filled
automatically. Or when you're progressively entering
airways, some of which can be hundreds of miles long,
you aren't forced to enter the intermediate fixes...they
are already there, as part of that airway. So you
may be able to enter a couple dozen fixes as one
entry. I see you bouncing back to Kelly that he must
not know the 430 very well. I would say that it looks
like from your end of the discussion that the alternate
is true.
I myself have not spoken much of the 430's limitations and
spent my time trying to turn people away from it. This is
because I haven't got the experience flying behind one enough
to really comment on it at all. Notice I'm limiting my commentary
usually on the 480 to things I've actually punched in and made
work in flight. I'm thinking that if you really don't want to
come across as completely one sided, you either have to be
willing to be open-minded in the discussion, or you have to go
out and spend the due diligence to fly the other system enough
to make yourself qualified to speak on it. Even from my minimal
knowledge of the 480, the below segmenting questions would be
blatantly obvious if you had some good time behind it.
Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one
sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
don't have experience on the other end. Talk to the points
you know, tell the good about the items you know about, and
any well-known flaws of the other...then leave it at that. The
products need to survive on their merits. It's why you don't
see me bashing the other EFIS systems, but instead just pointing
out the capabilities of what I myself know. If I had spent 10
or 20 hours behind a BMA / GRT / Dynon / AFS / G1000 / Avidyne,
then perhaps I could throw some stones. At this point I'm not
qualified to do so. So honestly, other than your extreme
dissatisfaction with anything that costs $1000 more than the
next thing, exactly why do you like throwing stones and talking
people away from a product that you don't understand the
capabilities of?
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
W. Curtis wrote:
> >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.
>
> Kelly,
>
> Help me understand this-what do you mean by "more than one segment of an
> airway?" Three fixes constitute two segments. Are you telling folks they
> can't enter more than 2 fixes with a 430? This is at best misinformed,
> at worst disingenious. I mentioned getting to know the flight planning
> section of the 430, it seems all you know about is the Direct-To button.
>
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 - IFR? |
Jim consider buying a "certified" IFR GPS like a 300xl and use the 496 as
situational awareness system...
P
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one
>sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
>don't have experience on the other end.
Tim,
I understand what you are saying but what you have said is the EXACT thing that
got me on this "rant." Which is more on sided and/or inaccurate; any of the
things I've stated about the 480 or the below comments about the 430?
Comments such as:
>>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
>>that is real world it will be great.
>>Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger
>>screen.
>>An IFR tool vs a VFR tool.
My responses were to show why the above comments were inaccurate. Tell me why
you think mine are one sided and closed minded?
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: | Re: Share GPS Antenna |
I have an IFR certified GPS in our spam can and during a recent visit to our
avionic shop asked if they could create a "split" for me for my Garmin
portable...the response was interesting:
1. It not legal to split the cable to a hand held unit
2. It won't work well anyway
3. Using a handheld unit only to shoot an approach without a legal IFR
certified GPS on board is illegal...and the certified unit must be currently
checked with a current data base to make a legal/loggable approach.
One can build an approach using the handheld but that's illegal and really
stupid besides as the unit may not have the approach integrity. It's
certainly good to have a back up system incase your primary system fails but using
handheld equipment as primary and secondary is not a smart thing to do IMHO.
Like the unit that bridges a portable GPS to your autopilot--seems OK but
certainly not a legal connection for IFR.
If one looks at good avionic IFR systems today...one finds that people are
building panels with multi IFR certified GPS's...ala a duel Garmin GPS's
530/430 or 430/430--530/530 or 480/480 systems. One cannot use a handheld as
your
backup GPS only as awareness and as an emergency unit. Plus a good system
may have an VOR/EHSI to perform as a back up and primary. I did not ask if it
was legal to put your handheld in serial with a certified IFR GPS unit but
I'd suspect that it's not legal to do this whether the aircraft is an
experimental or certified.
Patrick
do not archive
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: | Re: Share GPS Antenna |
It certainly is possible, but I don't know of any "off the shelf" solutions.
What you would need to do is provide:
1. A splitter to compensate for the changed impedance of the line
(Think CATV 'splitters')
2. An inline capacitor of the correct value (I would have to do the
calculations) on one line to block the DC feed to the antenna (The
antenna is powered by a DC feed; The RF signal passes through the capacitor)
-Jim 40384 (I am an RF Engineer.. Working on Bottom Wing Skins)
Robin Marks wrote:
> *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*
>
>*
>
>
>*
>
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: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one
>sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
>don't have experience on the other end. Talk to the points
>you know, tell the good about the items you know about, and
>any well-known flaws of the other...then leave it at that
Tim,
Please point out to me ANY negative (opinionated or il-informed) comments I've
made about the 480? If you look back through my posts you will notice I've only
addressed inaccurate statements made about the 430 which I know well. I have
never made any of the pointed comments that others have made about a product
of which I admittedly know very little. All I've done is attempt to correct
misstatements and to you that constitutes "closed minded hammering?" Help me
understand this?
Do not archive.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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 |
On 12/16/06, W. Curtis <wcurtis@core.com> wrote:
> >Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one
> >sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
> >don't have experience on the other end.
>
> Tim,
>
> I understand what you are saying but what you have said is the EXACT thing
> that got me on this "rant." Which is more on sided and/or inaccurate; any of
> the things I've stated about the 480 or the below comments about the 430?
>
> Comments such as:
>
> >>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
> >>that is real world it will be great.
You haven't refuted the fact that you have to enter each segment,
begining and ending waypoints, same as a VFR direct to handheld.
> >>Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger
> >>screen.
I had seen cheaper prices quoted earlier, Tim confirms the 480 is
available at under $9000, is available with STC, which for TC aircraft
means no local FSDO approval needed, unlike the 430, which reduces
cost for those aircraft, and it is a fact the screen is bigger than
the 430. Lets see what the real price of a 430W becomes. Garmin has
gone back on their $1500 upgrade price at least once, to their credit
they seem to have come back to it, but you still have the hassle of
getting the upgrade separately on somebody else's schedule, not your
build schedule, not your flying schedule. Market prices and relative
prices fluctate every day for many reasons.
The fact the two units are as close as they are in price is surprising.
> >>An IFR tool vs a VFR tool.
Airways are the fact of life in most parts of the country for IFR ATC
operations. Being able to call those up on screen is the difference
between having to constantly divide your attention to a paper chart
and not. Just my opinon, obviously not yours. I fly a lot in
mountainous areas where off airway direct often isn't feasible without
going above 15K. Where doglegs in airways are very common, just like
the one around Indiantown Gap in your area, just different purpose.
>
> My responses were to show why the above comments were inaccurate. Tell me
> why you think mine are one sided and closed minded?
>
So pricing has changed on me...the rest of what I said is more
accurate than not, and supported by what others have said, here and
elsewhere.
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: Share GPS Antenna |
>I did not ask if it was legal to put your handheld in serial with
>a certified IFR GPS unit but I'd suspect that it's not legal to do this
>whether the aircraft is an experimental or certified.
This IS legal and approved by Garmin and the FAA (at least the Allentown FSDO)
and is probably why when this is done, the connection is ONE way from the panel
unit to the portable. That is, the panel unit can send info to the portable,
but the portable is NOT allowed to talk to the panel unit.
I have this configuration (GNS-430 to GPSMAP 195) in my certified Cardinal and
will do the same in the RV-10.
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: | Cabin Top Mold Release |
Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There are
some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange
residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it?
Would acetone work?
--
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
http://lrosen.nerv10.com
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: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? |
If you permanently attach the cabin top before you attach the tailcone,
you're going to have a heck of a time getting the tailcone on later. I
had a hard time getting things lined up properly with 2 people and the
top wide open where I could see what I was doing and had access to
everything, I can't imagine trying to do it with the cabin top in the way.
I also don't think you can do a whole lot in the baggage area without
the tailcone on.
PJ
RV-10 #40032
Lorenz Malmstrm wrote:
>
> Hello group
>
> I am quickly approaching section 32 where you attach the tailcone. As
> I am heavily shop space challenged, Id 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 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 |
Kelly,
Thank you for you comments. I guess the only thing we can conclude is that you
like the 480 and I like the 430.
What we think is largely irrelevant as the market will ultimately decide. Does
this mean you will take the wager:-)?
Do not archive
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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 |
The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and
one without.
As for the Portable Garmins, they do have the information, and the
capability to do it, they have just been disabled through software
programming. IE the FAA says do not enable it, and to comply and not
allow the functionality Garmin disabled it from displaying it. The two
things that need to be resolved to using a handheld is consistent power
and antenna placement. Once there is a way to force that then the
software can be enabled, do I think it will happen? No, but we can
always hope. The 496 is definitely a faster processor and screen refresh
rates are great in comparison, they have WAAS, just need the software.
My .02
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Schlatterer
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
<billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
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 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 -Antenna |
Tim, I missed something here! Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an
airway just like you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry
point. That would be pretty helpful from time to time. I fly a 430 and
have to pull out the chart and find a fix to enter to get to the airway.
Maybe I missed something in the 430 manual as well :-) Realistically, in
the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you
off direct and put on an airway but it does happen. IME
Bill S
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
What Kelly means is that you enter where you start, where you're going, and
which airway you want, and often the entire list of segments can be filled
automatically. Or when you're progressively entering airways, some of which
can be hundreds of miles long, you aren't forced to enter the intermediate
fixes...they are already there, as part of that airway. So you may be able
to enter a couple dozen fixes as one entry. I see you bouncing back to
Kelly that he must not know the 430 very well. I would say that it looks
like from your end of the discussion that the alternate is true.
I myself have not spoken much of the 430's limitations and spent my time
trying to turn people away from it. This is because I haven't got the
experience flying behind one enough to really comment on it at all. Notice
I'm limiting my commentary usually on the 480 to things I've actually
punched in and made
work in flight. I'm thinking that if you really don't want to
come across as completely one sided, you either have to be willing to be
open-minded in the discussion, or you have to go out and spend the due
diligence to fly the other system enough to make yourself qualified to speak
on it. Even from my minimal knowledge of the 480, the below segmenting
questions would be blatantly obvious if you had some good time behind it.
Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one sided
viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
don't have experience on the other end. Talk to the points
you know, tell the good about the items you know about, and any well-known
flaws of the other...then leave it at that. The products need to survive on
their merits. It's why you don't see me bashing the other EFIS systems, but
instead just pointing out the capabilities of what I myself know. If I had
spent 10 or 20 hours behind a BMA / GRT / Dynon / AFS / G1000 / Avidyne,
then perhaps I could throw some stones. At this point I'm not
qualified to do so. So honestly, other than your extreme
dissatisfaction with anything that costs $1000 more than the next thing,
exactly why do you like throwing stones and talking people away from a
product that you don't understand the capabilities of?
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
W. Curtis wrote:
> >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.
>
> Kelly,
>
> Help me understand this-what do you mean by "more than one segment of
> an airway?" Three fixes constitute two segments. Are you telling folks
> they can't enter more than 2 fixes with a 430? This is at best
> misinformed, at worst disingenious. I mentioned getting to know the
> flight planning section of the 430, it seems all you know about is the
Direct-To button.
>
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: | Re: Cabin Top Mold Release |
If I'm understanding correctly, and if the yellowish areas are hard, I
believe these are voids that the fiberglass vendor has filled with and
epoxy/filler solution, try scratching these to see\ if they act like
epoxy. Mold release is a wax like substance that is soft.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
Larry Rosen wrote:
>
> Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There
> are some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange
> residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it?
> Would acetone work?
>
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: | Re: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS |
I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for
months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who I'm
attempting to purchase it through.
1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life"
2. Causing them to find a replacement component
3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201
4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they
originally certified the unit
5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a
testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the one
that was in place years ago when they first introduced the product. The
new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test.
6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take.
7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units.
8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative'
As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS gps
you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a white
paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion that
it's not required for experimental a/c, but.......
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
>The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and
>one without.
>
>
>
>
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 |
The market decides If and only If the products are marketed by different
companies. Hence after Garmin bought the only WAAS approved system,
competition is eliminated. Garmin marketing will decide which one
survives by pricing , development dollars, etc.
----- Original Message -----
From: W. Curtis
To: RV10-List@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:04 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
Kelly,
Thank you for you comments. I guess the only thing we can conclude is
that you like the 480 and I like the 430.
What we think is largely irrelevant as the market will ultimately
decide. Does this mean you will take the wager:-)?
Do not archive
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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 |
William,
Is that the "only" think you can conclude? What about the objective facts?
For example, I also concluded that there are functional differences such as
"you can't enter an airway into the 430". A fact - correct? Why, after all
the diatribe, do you brush away all the facts and revert to subjective
personal opinion? Worse yet, you revert to public opinion/market economics
rather than sound science/engineering? Perhaps a proven political move -
but very bad science/engineering!
There was a time when (most) everyone thought the world was flat and/or that
heavier than air flight was impossible (oops). Personally, I expect more
from the members of this group.
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of W. Curtis
Kelly,
Thank you for you comments. I guess the only thing we can conclude is that
you like the 480 and I like the 430.
What we think is largely irrelevant as the market will ultimately decide.
Does this mean you will take the wager:-)?
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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS |
Like I said , The FAA standards are set so that "EVEN A CAVE MAN DO IT"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS
>
> I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for
> months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who I'm
> attempting to purchase it through.
>
> 1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life"
> 2. Causing them to find a replacement component
> 3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201
> 4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they
> originally certified the unit
> 5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a
> testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the one
> that was in place years ago when they first introduced the product. The
> new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test.
> 6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take.
> 7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units.
> 8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative'
>
> As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS gps
> you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a white
> paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion that it's
> not required for experimental a/c, but.......
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
> Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
>>
>>The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and
>>one without.
>>
>>
>
>
>
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 |
My solution to this is simple. I file what the C-182 is equipped with i.e.
/u and them once in route ask for vectors direct and inform the controller
that I have a VFR GPS. Worked great from Jackson Hole to Ogden Utah.
Standard departure, once turned on course given direct to Ogden, then
vectored to the ILS once in the area. No fibbing required. With an MEA of
15,000 feet, the 10 minutes saved leaves me more O2 reserve.
Rene'
801-721-6080
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna
One part not often thought about is what you will do after you've filed
/G and the weather got worse than expected. On my trip home from
ElPaso, I was supposed to have 1200' ceilings at my fuel stop in the
middle of the country. What I ended up with was finding that the AWOS
at my planned stop was inop, but local airports that ATC could read off
were showing ceilings varying from 300-1200', and it was solid overcast
up to 6000'. So there was not going to be ANY getting down easy.
I continued on, flying a full approach, figuring that sometimes it's
best to stick with a plan, and be prepared to change it than just
go throwing wrenches into the system right away. I was IMC for
at least 85 miles over the course of the approach. Popped out around
400' ceilings, right at minimums. Had it been worse, I'd now be
looking at a missed and rerouting to another airport for a different
approach. Most 100% certainly not something that you would want
to face even on an emergency approach with a handheld GPS, or
not "made for the job" system software. You certainly don't have
time to run all of the approach fixes into your unit individually.
Now, people could say that I could have made it easier by changing
destinations to the 1200' ceilings. Sure, but now I'd be digging
up the necessary info to do that approach safely, and have to
mentally re-work all of that...unnecessarily. And what would it
have got me....the last 30 seconds of the approach might
have been a little easier. Fact is, even at 1200' ceilings,
there wasn't a way that someone with a handheld was going to
get in safely to that 1200' ceiling airport, without calling
an emergency and trying to do some wacky modified vectored straight
in approach with lots of help from ATC. And then where would your
pilot certificate be once you talked to them on the ground?
You really don't want to file /G unless you're prepared for
the worst with it, because it may have to be proven some day.
I had an interesting situation develop over Atlanta years ago
where I did just this. To my benefit, the handheld did allow
me to navigate direct to a fix, and they didn't bust me even
though I admitted up front it was a VFR ONLY gps (handheld).
I fessed up right away because the weather situation was
pretty bad. No sense leading them on, because that can only
lead to worse things. Once I told them I could go to a
intersection fix, they gave me a list of a couple fixes to
fly. Good thing they only gave me a couple, because it's
not fun to be heads-down in the clouds punching in 5-letter
fixes that you're not familiar with. It all worked out,
but convinced me that if you file /G with a handheld,
some day someone's going to call your bluff.
Be careful out there.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
<billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
> 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
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> 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
> 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 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 -Antenna |
Daniel said: "The two things that need to be resolved to using a handheld is
consistent power and antenna placement"
What about predictive RAIM? I do not know of any handheld with that
required functionality and annunciation (perhaps I am uninformed)?
What about the CDI? To view that on most portables, you need to leave the
map display mode. Seems that the advantages of map based situational
awareness are lost when you do that (i.e. why not then just use a Nav radio
and CDI). Furthermore, the scale of the CDI needs to automatically adjust
based on your position within the approach. I do not know of any handheld
with the capability to do that (perhaps I am uninformed)?
What about approaches with outbound procedure turns and course reversals?
What about DME arcs?
Perhaps my investigation into handhelds has missed something. But it seems
that most handheld inquiries do not comprehend the full functionality suite
of a certified IFR GPS.
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 |
More importantly, it will allow you to enter an airway that has turns along
it without needing to enter each intermediate fix (turn). Very nice in
areas where snaking airways are needed to provide terrain and/or airspace
avoidance.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Schlatterer
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 10:30 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna
<billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Tim, I missed something here! Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an
airway just like you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry
point. That would be pretty helpful from time to time. I fly a 430 and
have to pull out the chart and find a fix to enter to get to the airway.
Maybe I missed something in the 430 manual as well :-) Realistically, in
the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you
off direct and put on an airway but it does happen. IME
Bill S
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: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS |
Got to love it. They will sell the 'non-certified alternative' that
will not pass the testing standard set for their certified unit. As
always buyer beware.
Larry
Deems Davis wrote:
>
> I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for
> months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who
> I'm attempting to purchase it through.
>
> 1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life"
> 2. Causing them to find a replacement component
> 3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201
> 4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they
> originally certified the unit
> 5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a
> testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the
> one that was in place years ago when they first introduced the
> product. The new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test.
> 6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take.
> 7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units.
> 8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative'
>
> As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS
> gps you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a
> white paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion
> that it's not required for experimental a/c, but.......
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
> Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
>
>> <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>>
>> The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and
>> one without.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Re: Garmin 496 - IFR? |
I fly that setup now as installed in my Maule with the 300XL installed
over 6 years ago and the 396 mounted 2 years ago. Flown a good deal of
IMC approaches and such. Very serviceable. The weather on the 396 is
worth it's weight in gold.
However, I would suggest that going that route now is to miss 2 whole
generations of GPS development. And I don't think giving up the newer
technology will save you much money (look closely at what the 300XL
install requires - it's more than just the box)
The real challenge is that 1) you will have to thoroughly have to learn
and stay proficient on the 300XL in order to use it for GPS approaches.
2) no matter how much you try to use the 396 for IFR enroute and
terminal work, you simply can't/shouldn't do the approaches on it
because they aren't there. So you will be faced with using both systems
on typical flight to get optimal utility from both. Since they can't be
connected for sharing route information, you will be entering a lot of
route information on both. And believe me, when stuff gets busy, losing
track of what's entered on which system can get you.
I love my setup just as a steam guage using, ADF proficient, dual Nav
equipped 'Bo driver treasures her skills - but it's old school now. The
396/496 is an excellent weather provider, sat music source, flight info
DB, and last resort backup in an IFR machine. Using it as a primary
IFR device is dreaming. Please get a real panel.
Bill "inventorying the QB, with no autopilot, no ADF, and no dual Nav on
my crawling Maule" Watson
GRANSCOTT@aol.com wrote:
> Jim consider buying a "certified" IFR GPS like a 300xl and use the 496
> as situational awareness system...
>
> P
> *
>
>
> *
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 -Antenna |
Agreed. For people in most of the less densely populated, less
mountainous areas, airways seems to be the exception rather than the
rule. For me, flying the southern atlantic seaboard, airway use is
limited to Wash DC ADIZ and the Florida eastern shoreline FWIW.
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
> Realistically, in
> the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you
> off direct and put on an airway but it does happen. IME
>
> Bill S
>
>
>
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 |
|
>Is that the "only" think you can conclude? What about the objective facts?
>For example, I also concluded that there are functional differences such as
>"you can't enter an airway into the 430". A fact - correct? Why, after all
>the diatribe, do you brush away all the facts and revert to subjective
>personal opinion? Worse yet, you revert to public opinion/market economics
>rather than sound science/engineering? Perhaps a proven political move -
>but very bad science/engineering!
rtitsworth,
Since you haven't figured it out, that was my way of saying that this debate is
pointless. Again, If you go back and RE-READ my first post, I stated this very
fact--there is no need for a conclusion on that since this was never debated.
I am searching for a new fact, science/engineering in your post. Tell me what
facts I have brushed away? I'm also still waiting for someone to tell me what
negative or non "sound science/engineering" comments I'm made regarding the 480.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: | Re: Garmin 496 -Antenna |
>Is that the "only" think you can conclude? What about the objective facts?
>For example, I also concluded that there are functional differences such as
>"you can't enter an airway into the 430". A fact - correct? Why, after all
>the diatribe, do you brush away all the facts and revert to subjective
>personal opinion? Worse yet, you revert to public opinion/market economics
>rather than sound science/engineering? Perhaps a proven political move -
>but very bad science/engineering!
rtitsworth,
Since you haven't figured it out, that was my way of saying that this debate is
pointless. Again, If you go back and RE-READ my first post, I stated this very
fact--there is no need for a conclusion on that since this was never debated.
I am searching for a new fact, science/engineering in your post. Tell me what facts
I have brushed away? I'm also still waiting for someone to tell me what negative
or non "sound science/engineering" comments I'm made regarding the 480.
William Curtis
http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
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: | Cabin Top Mold Release |
Larry,
Start with water; most mold releases today are waterborne. If that does not
work go with the acetone
Noel Simmons
Blue Sky Aviation Inc
LWT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:02 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Cabin Top Mold Release
Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There are
some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange
residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it?
Would acetone work?
--
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
http://lrosen.nerv10.com
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 |
>More importantly, it will allow you to enter an airway that has turns along
>it without needing to enter each intermediate fix (turn). Very nice in
>areas where snaking airways are needed to provide terrain and/or airspace
>avoidance.
This sound eerily similar to what I said in my first post but you still did not
answer all of Bill's question.
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>>Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an airway just like
>>you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry point.
>>That would be pretty helpful from time to time.
Yes, we know you can enter an airways as you would a fix, but will it give you
"the closest entry point" or will you have to enter that too?
Please, everyone who thinks they have an opinion (or fact) either way, go back
and read my original response to Kelley's post.
On 12/15/06, 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...
>>An IFR tool [480] vs a VFR tool[430]. Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than
the 430W..
To which part of my response was:
>>"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.
And then the personal attacks started. I've never made any comments on what the
480 can or cannot do, only what the 430 can or cannot do.
On 12/16/06, rtitsworth wrote:
>>Personally, I expect more from the members of this group.
I guess having differing opinion is more than you expect.
On 12/16/06, Tim Olson wrote:
>>Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one
>>sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
>>don't have experience on the other end. Talk to the points
>>you know, tell the good about the items you know about, and
>>any well-known flaws of the other...then leave it at that.
"Our zealots are devout, theirs infidels"
Do not archive.
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 |
|
The anatomy of the smokin=92 rivet.
What is smoke? The black residue that streams down wind of a rivet is
Aluminum oxide, the second hardest substance on earth with the first
being
diamonds. Aluminum oxide is a by product of corrosion that naturally
occurs. Aluminums is considered to be self lubricating, meaning it will
continue to sluff, and the aluminum oxide being harder than the base
metal
will exponentially carve more aluminum oxide out of the base metal,
A rivet that has been properly set will eventually smoke given a
structure
subjected to vibration that has been under engineered, meaning not
enough
rivets per inch. I have seen, and repaired these structures (again and
again), mostly engine nacelles on jets, fortunately or unfortunately how
every you want to look at the subject, Van=92s aircraft does not have
any
under engineered structures that would qualify for the under engineered
place to look for smoking rivets. Yes all rivet joints move to one
degree
or another so a rivet can be set in such a way that it will smoke. In
conclusion smoking rivets on RV is a builder flaw.
How to set rivets that will smoke.
First let us look at the parts that Van=92s sends us. The Punching
process is
extremely actuate, Fin Power CNC punch press have a tolerance of .004 in
8
linear feet. Van=92s has CAD people that really know their system and
can
tell the punch press exactly where to put holes. Given the .004
tolerance
there are some places on the aircraft that have the same hole in 4
sheets of
aluminum that each have this tolerance so you will see holes that are a
little hard to put a reamer through, but is still very accurate.
The punching action causes aluminum to =93flow=94. That is the cause of
the
volcano on the exit side of the sheet. This flow is not like the burr
created from using a drill bit. You must remove the volcano completely
with
out countersinking the base metal.
Below is how to cause voids and entrap, well let=92s call it =91Stuff=92
for lack
of better words, which promote the corrosive environment to create
copious
amounts of SMOKE.
1. Use a drill bit instead of a reamer.
a. Just for giggles take a =BC=94 drill bit and begin drilling a hole in
a
piece of .032 sheet metal. You will see that the hole that begins to
develop is triangular, and as the drill bit finally passes the hole is
not
truly round. This is obviously a start of voids in the rivet joint.
b. USE a Reamer they turn triangular holes into properly sized round
ones. Reamers should be used everywhere on the van=92s pre-punched
holes
2. Don=92t deburr/ deburr to deeply
a. The punching process causes a volcano like structure on the punch
exit. Not only will this cause a void but will chip the rim of the
volcano
into the joint acting like grist in a roller mill.
b. The head and or shop head will sit up on the volcano and will not
properly clamp the rivet joint.
c. Deburring to deeply is a very, very common mistake RV builder=92s
make
due to the punching process.
d. Look at some of the heavier aluminum that has been punched with
1/8=94
holes. You will see one side that is pressed in and the other side will
be
coned out like a volcano. If you take a 100 degree countersink or some
of
the other rotary deburring tools and cut this volcano off to the point
that
there is no aluminum that protrudes above the base metal you will have a
shallow countersink. This shallow countersink WILL NOT be completely
filled
by the expansion of a rivet. This is the stating point of corrosion
e. We use sand paper to deburr. The sand paper will remove the volcano
with out causing a shallow countersink. Two notes WE PRIME, WE don=92t
build
polished aircraft.
3. Dimpling / countersinking the sub structure with the same dimple as
the skin.
a. Easy test, take two small pieces of scrap aluminum and drill #30
holes, Deburr.
b. Dimple each with your #30 dimple dies.
c. Mate the two pieces and you will see that they don=92t fit very well.
This cause lots of voids and is the primary thing that RV builders do to
cause smoke.
d. Take those same two pieces of aluminum and dimple them together
using your #30 dimple dies.
i.
Better
fit isn=92t it! They don=92t rock like a bobble head doll
e. Point here is that most people don=92t dimple the substructures
(ribs)
to =93receive=94 the overlaying dimple.
f. We take a small =BD=94X 1/2=94 scrap and attach it to the male dimple
die
to dimple all the sub structure. This eliminates the rocking caused by
having two improperly formed dimples pinched together by a rivet.
g. I have seen people dimpling with the plastic sill in place, bad
idea.
h. I have seen people afraid of over dimpling so they hit the dimplier
once instead of twice (real hard). Dimpling is a forming process that
must
be complete; a half dimple will cause the skin to warp, bad idea.
Sorry if this is a little anal, I have spent many years trying to get
the
best looking rivets I can. I have piles of scrap that I drill holes in
and
look at with a magnifying glass. Rivet and inspect, change the technique
a
little here and there then drill and rivet inspect until ,In my opinion
we
do some of the finest riveting on RV=92s. Every airplane we do get=92s
a little
better and a little faster.
Noel Simmons
Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
www.blueskyaviation.net <http://www.blueskyaviation.net/>
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:09 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=92s move the discussion to the next
level.
I don=92t 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=92s advise (the self promoted high
guru on
Sheetmetal). What say Dan?
Let=92s 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=92s says =93forgetaboutit=94 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=92s play. During last night=92s 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=92s math on Four Score? We are building the
finest
High Speed, IFR cruisers at low cost out there right?
John Cox
#40600
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: Cabin Top Mold Release |
> I don't thinks is mold realease ,the cabin is vacum bagged,the release is apply
only in the mold side ,the inside is the work side,
Hugo
do not archive
> From: "Noel & Yoshie Simmons" <noel@blueskyaviation.net>
> Date: 2006/12/16 Sat PM 01:10:01 EST
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Cabin Top Mold Release
>
>
> Larry,
>
> Start with water; most mold releases today are waterborne. If that does not
> work go with the acetone
>
> Noel Simmons
> Blue Sky Aviation Inc
> LWT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry Rosen
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:02 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Cabin Top Mold Release
>
>
> Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There are
> some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange
> residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it?
> Would acetone work?
>
> --
>
> Larry Rosen
> RV-10 #356
> http://lrosen.nerv10.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
William,
Sorry for my accusation of being one sided, first of all. You may
indeed be one sided, but that doesn't have to imply anything beyond
that, and one sided people become more centralized as they learn
the other side. My comment was more based on what Kelly pointed out
as your refusal to acknowledge the route planning differences that are
actually significant, although not necessarily better one way or
the other. Simply because you can enter 25 fixes and duplicate
an airway does not make them equivalent at that function. I was
trying to point out though, that while you've had some actual
info presented where one unit does something clearly better, you
choose to dispute it as a functional benefit, and rather you spend
your efforts trying to prove how a less-simple work-around is actually
just as good and presents the unit as superior. I maintain that
really, the BEST benefit to this group, is if people will point
out the STRENGTHS of the equipment they know best, and the weaknesses
of the units they know best...and if you don't know great details,
then watch as someone who has that info fills it in.
My original comments on the 480/430 discussion started with something
like "Truthfully, either one will work fine...", and I commented
on the positives that I experienced so far. I also corrected the
price listed because I paid substantially less than what was stated,
from a place where you all can spend the same amount.
For what it's worth, I do not agree with the statement that the
430 is a VFR tool, or that it's VFR only. I am hoping since I've
seen so many replies since I was last online this a.m. that you
are not confusing too far what has come from me and from others.
Personally, when I chose my radios, I had to make a choice. Looking
at the data at the time, I chose the 480, and I'm happy with that
choice. I also seriously considered the 430. I don't believe either
one of them is a "bad" choice. I would have to fly some approaches
and flights with a 430, and even learn better the approach functions
of the 480 before I could really provide comment on one or the other.
What I have heard from any review I've read though is that there
are thousands of people flying both units, and that they both have
great features. I've also heard that both of them are different
in logical function, but both are just as easy to learn. I've
heard that they do definitely have different capabilities, and most
often I've seen that the 480 was the one that had slightly more...but
more isn't necessarily better. But at the pricepoints the old 430 and
480 were at, those feature differences were were justified by price.
What hasn't been made clear these days is how the 430W and 480 will
stand, given their current feature sets, and the much increased
pricing that is to come.
You've asked me to point out some negative comments. Well, I can
only make slight reference to specific negative comments, but
it wasn't hard to hear the implication in your statements.
First, you posted the SB info on the GNS480's change in status...
a good thing, because this was fact, and it was great info that
could be presented. Although you never bothered to acknowledge
that the info was really was absolutely nothing that applied to a
safety record, or how well the system functions, but
how a specification issue was uncovered. It then ended up
with speculative bets as to if the 480 will even be around in 5
years or not. So it didn't take too long to recognize that you
feel an apparent satisfaction from the negative of the SB info,
and anything else that can pull someone the other way. I hope
I'm wrong on this. I keep wondering to myself, "what is it this
guy has against anything but a 430"? since I've seen you go
after it in more than one newsgroup and thread. It certainly
can't be that you have stock in one side, since they're both
under the same company.
Personally, I maintain that either of these GPS's would probably
be a great unit to add to anyone's panel who just wants to make
sure they have a good Nav/Com/GPS that's capable of approaches.
I would not have an iota of an issue telling a friend that they
did a great job going with a 430. Can you say the same about
a friend buying a 480, or would you just go on defending the 430
in areas where there are differences?
So far, for the most part, it's been a creative and informative
discussion. Hopefully we can all keep things mostly positive, or
at least accurate, and acknowledge the positives and negatives of
any type of system. There's drastically too little info out
there, or too few PIREPS on some items, and it makes it very
hard for people to learn and weigh the benefits. By a good
back and forth discussion, many people can learn from this list
the things that will help them in their own build.
I apologize to everyone for whom this is getting too long and
becoming a bandwidth waste.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - 180hrs
do not archive
W. Curtis wrote:
> >Sorry, but it just irks me when someone with a completely one
> >sided viewpoint keeps hammering on with a closed mind, when they
> >don't have experience on the other end.
>
> Tim,
>
> I understand what you are saying but what you have said is the EXACT
> thing that got me on this "rant." Which is more on sided and/or
> inaccurate; any of the things I've stated about the 480 or the below
> comments about the 430?
>
> Comments such as:
>
> >>The 430 is designed to go direct and fly an approach. If you fly where
> >>that is real world it will be great.
>
>
> >>Not to mention the 480 is now cheaper than the 430W and has a bigger
> >>screen.
>
>
> >>An IFR tool vs a VFR tool.
>
> My responses were to show why the above comments were inaccurate. Tell
> me why you think mine are one sided and closed minded?
>
>
> William Curtis
> http://wcurtis.nerv10.com/
>
> *
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cabin Top Mold Release |
I believe that most mold release agents are water soluble.
Linn
do not archive
Larry Rosen wrote:
>
> Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There
> are some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange
> residue. Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it?
> Would acetone work?
>
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: | RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS |
Of course the opinion of 1000 PhD's doesn't mean squat if an FAA type
wants' to disagree and punch your ticket. :-)
Michael
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS
I've been waiting on delivery of a certified Freeflight WAAS GPS for
months now. Here's what I've been told from the people @ Op Tech who I'm
attempting to purchase it through.
1. FreeFlight had one of their hardware components "go to end of life"
2. Causing them to find a replacement component
3. Once found they had to re certify the 1201
4. The certification standards today are more strict than when they
originally certified the unit
5.The latest is that the re-designed receiver is being subjected to a
testing standard that is revised and moredifficult to meet than the one
that was in place years ago when they first introduced the product. The
new receiver isn't passing an over-temperature test.
6. They don't know how long a fix is going to take.
7. They are not now and have not for some time shipped 1201 units.
8. They are offering the 1101 as a 'non-certified alternative'
As I read the FAA they are still saying that to be legal to fly WAAS gps
you need to have a certified TSO 146 device. I know that D2 has a white
paper on their website authored by a Phd that offers his opinion that
it's not required for experimental a/c, but.......
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
Lloyd, Daniel R. wrote:
<LloydDR@wernerco.com>
>
>The Chelton has two different ones to choose from one with the TSO and
>one without.
>
>
>
>
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: smoking rivets |
Here are some drawings I did quickly to help picture acidental
countersinking of the base metal=2E
Noel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web=2Ecom/ =2E
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: | Garmin 496 -Antenna |
CJ,
Thanks for sharing your experience and congrats on the IFR ticket. Given all
of your night experience and thinking about lighting, would you tell us the
details of your interior lighting design?
John Testement
jwt@roadmapscoaching.com
40321
Richmond, VA
Finish kit - wheel fairings, cowl prep
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Garmin 496 -Antenna
--> <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
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 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 |
Tim my take on the two units are pretty straight forward, both will get you
from point A to point B...but the cnx 80/480 will provide you with airways and
you can calculate closest point of approach...the 480 will provide WAAS
approaches with data bases that contain these WAAS approaches. Buttons are
slightly different as are some command words. The next generation 430's will
have WAAS approaches and apparently Garmin will retro the current in the field
430's to WAAS units at some point in the future with an up charge.
When I talked to Garmin several years ago about the apparent disconnect on
the lack of Victor's in the 430/530 system their response was that they created
their units with direct flights in mind...now I've also heard from others
that at the time Garmin had a problem with memory and could not include all
the Victor's plus all the other items they designed. Maybe that's why they are
now making a major modification to update the old 430/530 with the WAAS
approaches.
Like Kelly out west, when one files up here in the east one does a lot of
Victor's before you get cleared direct. I'd think that having Victors sure
would make the routing easier than having to plug in all the way points...but
all can be done with time and charts in hand.
The MX 20 with the G1000/530 system is pretty easy but they do not have
Victor's in it either. Or at least in the last 100 hours I've flown behind it
I've yet to find a Victor airway...maybe I've got to punch a little deeper in
the sub pages...but I don't think I'll find them...I know my partner Dan has
the Victors in his system that in the 767 he drives.
Patrick
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: Garmin 496 -Antenna - Freeflight WAAS |
All I want to know is my MX 20, 480, SL-30 with two CDI's OK?
Rick S.
40185
heeheehee
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 |
Bill, I'm not sure about entering from the closest entry point. I
haven't tried that. What I meant to try to explain was that I could
put in a start fix, and a destination and when I went to choose the
airway it drew out the airway routes if you wished and you could
select multiple airway routes and it would automatically load
all of the inbetween fixes. I wish I could answer that exact
function question, but it's not something I know.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
> Tim, I missed something here! Are you saying the 480 will let you enter an
> airway just like you would enter a fix and then give you the closest entry
> point. That would be pretty helpful from time to time. I fly a 430 and
> have to pull out the chart and find a fix to enter to get to the airway.
> Maybe I missed something in the 430 manual as well :-) Realistically, in
> the south central states, it seems to be very unusual for ATC to move you
> off direct and put on an airway but it does happen. IME
>
> Bill S
>
>
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: | Cabin Top Mold Release |
As Hugo stated on the lastest email concerning this topic, if it is on the
inside of the part it is lickely one of the following.
1) A lack of adequate fiberglass cloth over the core material and it is
showing through.
2) A separator film, like peel ply(Absorbant)(usually white in color) or
perforated release film plastic(non absorbant)that is laid over the part to
separate it from the next material.
3) A breather cloth which allows all the air to be removed from the project
prior to the vacuum bag touching down on the part while pulling vacuum.
4) unlikely to be the actual vacuum bag with all this other stuff in between
during the entire process.
On the outside, up against the mold, the wax they use is whiped off just
like the finish on your car, you can't see it. Over that, they use PVA(
poly vinyl acetate) an alcohol/water based release agent, green in color and
leaves a transparent film so thin it would whipe off with a sponge and
water.
In any case, it doesn't speak to well for the manufactures of the part.
John G.
>From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV10-List: Cabin Top Mold Release
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:01:42 -0500
>
>
>Getting ready to start finishing the inside of the cabin top. There are
>some large voids (surprise surprise) that have a yellow to orange residue.
>Is this mold release? Should I use a solvent to remove it? Would acetone
>work?
>
>--
>
>Larry Rosen
>RV-10 #356
>http://lrosen.nerv10.com
>
>
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: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ? |
In complete agreement, I don't think you can do much of anything. Do not
even try unless you wnat to rebuild the entire thing again. I have been
working on this area for two weekends and I am skipping steps because my
wires are in the mail and my baggage floors are not riveted in yet, but the
tailcone has been on for a month now. This part seems to be going very slow
as I keep having to plan ahead as to not fall into a trap. Ordering and
waiting on mail deliveries.
John G.
>From: PJ Seipel <seipel@seznam.cz>
>To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV10-List: Bad idea to skip section 32: Tailcone Attachment ?
>Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:03:25 -0500
>
>
>If you permanently attach the cabin top before you attach the tailcone,
>you're going to have a heck of a time getting the tailcone on later. I had
>a hard time getting things lined up properly with 2 people and the top wide
>open where I could see what I was doing and had access to everything, I
>can't imagine trying to do it with the cabin top in the way.
>
>I also don't think you can do a whole lot in the baggage area without the
>tailcone on.
>
>PJ
>RV-10 #40032
>
>Lorenz Malmstrm wrote:
>>
>>Hello group
>>
>>I am quickly approaching section 32 where you attach the tailcone. As I am
>>heavily shop space challenged, Id 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 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 |
|
Noel -
Noelle to you too. You were the first to help pull the list off of the
VNE dive on the subject of Garmin vs. Garmin. Much like the movie
Kramer v. Kramer. I will let the reader figure out which was Dustin and
which was Meryl. Remember no one won in the end and the kid took the
beating.
You hit on why reamers are of value. Why the tightest fit of hole to
rivet dimension is important. Why it is a matter of perspective a blind
builder vs. one with a magnifying glass can see imperfections which will
result in sloppier work. Sloppier work might just mean corrective
action after final assembly. The topic of attachment technique of four
dynamically moving elements being correctly aligned and fastened prior
to rivet set is another subject.
My guess is most readers like the conflict rather than the detail of
build.
Now back to the fur fly contest.
John Cox
Do not Archive as content is too G in an R market
________________________________
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel & Yoshie
Simmons
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Smokin Rivets
The anatomy of the smokin' rivet.
What is smoke? The black residue that streams down wind of a rivet is
Aluminum oxide, the second hardest substance on earth with the first
being diamonds. Aluminum oxide is a by product of corrosion that
naturally occurs. Aluminums is considered to be self lubricating,
meaning it will continue to sluff, and the aluminum oxide being harder
than the base metal will exponentially carve more aluminum oxide out of
the base metal,
A rivet that has been properly set will eventually smoke given a
structure subjected to vibration that has been under engineered, meaning
not enough rivets per inch. I have seen, and repaired these structures
(again and again), mostly engine nacelles on jets, fortunately or
unfortunately how every you want to look at the subject, Van's aircraft
does not have any under engineered structures that would qualify for the
under engineered place to look for smoking rivets. Yes all rivet joints
move to one degree or another so a rivet can be set in such a way that
it will smoke. In conclusion smoking rivets on RV is a builder flaw.
How to set rivets that will smoke.
First let us look at the parts that Van's sends us. The Punching
process is extremely actuate, Fin Power CNC punch press have a tolerance
of .004 in 8 linear feet. Van's has CAD people that really know their
system and can tell the punch press exactly where to put holes. Given
the .004 tolerance there are some places on the aircraft that have the
same hole in 4 sheets of aluminum that each have this tolerance so you
will see holes that are a little hard to put a reamer through, but is
still very accurate.
The punching action causes aluminum to "flow". That is the cause of the
volcano on the exit side of the sheet. This flow is not like the burr
created from using a drill bit. You must remove the volcano completely
with out countersinking the base metal.
Below is how to cause voids and entrap, well let's call it 'Stuff' for
lack of better words, which promote the corrosive environment to create
copious amounts of SMOKE.
1. Use a drill bit instead of a reamer.
a. Just for giggles take a =BC" drill bit and begin drilling a
hole in a piece of .032 sheet metal. You will see that the hole that
begins to develop is triangular, and as the drill bit finally passes the
hole is not truly round. This is obviously a start of voids in the
rivet joint.
b. USE a Reamer they turn triangular holes into properly sized
round ones. Reamers should be used everywhere on the van's pre-punched
holes
2. Don't deburr/ deburr to deeply
a. The punching process causes a volcano like structure on the
punch exit. Not only will this cause a void but will chip the rim of
the volcano into the joint acting like grist in a roller mill.
b. The head and or shop head will sit up on the volcano and will
not properly clamp the rivet joint.
c. Deburring to deeply is a very, very common mistake RV builder's
make due to the punching process.
d. Look at some of the heavier aluminum that has been punched with
1/8" holes. You will see one side that is pressed in and the other side
will be coned out like a volcano. If you take a 100 degree countersink
or some of the other rotary deburring tools and cut this volcano off to
the point that there is no aluminum that protrudes above the base metal
you will have a shallow countersink. This shallow countersink WILL NOT
be completely filled by the expansion of a rivet. This is the stating
point of corrosion
e. We use sand paper to deburr. The sand paper will remove the
volcano with out causing a shallow countersink. Two notes WE PRIME, WE
don't build polished aircraft.
3. Dimpling / countersinking the sub structure with the same dimple
as the skin.
a. Easy test, take two small pieces of scrap aluminum and drill
#30 holes, Deburr.
b. Dimple each with your #30 dimple dies.
c. Mate the two pieces and you will see that they don't fit very
well. This cause lots of voids and is the primary thing that RV
builders do to cause smoke.
d. Take those same two pieces of aluminum and dimple them together
using your #30 dimple dies.
i. Better fit isn't it! They don't rock like a
bobble head doll
e. Point here is that most people don't dimple the substructures
(ribs) to "receive" the overlaying dimple.
f. We take a small =BD"X 1/2" scrap and attach it to the male
dimple die to dimple all the sub structure. This eliminates the rocking
caused by having two improperly formed dimples pinched together by a
rivet.
g. I have seen people dimpling with the plastic sill in place, bad
idea.
h. I have seen people afraid of over dimpling so they hit the
dimplier once instead of twice (real hard). Dimpling is a forming
process that must be complete; a half dimple will cause the skin to
warp, bad idea.
Sorry if this is a little anal, I have spent many years trying to get
the best looking rivets I can. I have piles of scrap that I drill holes
in and look at with a magnifying glass. Rivet and inspect, change the
technique a little here and there then drill and rivet inspect until ,In
my opinion we do some of the finest riveting on RV's. Every airplane we
do get's a little better and a little faster.
Noel Simmons
Blue Sky Aviation, Inc.
www.blueskyaviation.net <http://www.blueskyaviation.net/>
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! --
|