---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 09/16/07: 56 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 04:39 AM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Tim Olson) 2. 04:40 AM - Re: All Painted (Tim Olson) 3. 07:09 AM - Re: All Painted (zackrv8) 4. 08:12 AM - Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination (Rick Sked) 5. 08:18 AM - Re: All Painted (Robin Marks) 6. 08:37 AM - Re: All Painted (John W. Cox) 7. 08:50 AM - Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination (John W. Cox) 8. 09:28 AM - RV-10 Incident (Robin Marks) 9. 10:05 AM - Re: All Painted (Rick Leach) 10. 10:24 AM - Fiberglass and antenna placement (Deems Davis) 11. 10:26 AM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Max) 12. 10:36 AM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Deems Davis) 13. 11:06 AM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Robin Marks) 14. 11:19 AM - Re: All Painted (Tim Olson) 15. 11:25 AM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (James Hein) 16. 11:32 AM - Re: All Painted (Byron Gillespie) 17. 11:32 AM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Tim Olson) 18. 11:41 AM - Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination (Deems Davis) 19. 11:49 AM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Deems Davis) 20. 12:08 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Tim Olson) 21. 12:16 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (James Hein) 22. 12:17 PM - Re: All Painted (Jesse Saint) 23. 12:32 PM - Re: RV-10 Incident (pascal) 24. 02:37 PM - Spiders!!! (Eric_Kallio) 25. 02:47 PM - Performance data (Dan Masys) 26. 02:51 PM - Re: All Painted (Kelly McMullen) 27. 03:47 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Deems Davis) 28. 04:11 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Tim Olson) 29. 04:34 PM - wiring runs and aC43.13-1B Chapter 11-Section 11-clamping (tomhanaway) 30. 04:46 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Kelly McMullen) 31. 05:32 PM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Larry Rosen) 32. 05:36 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Tim Olson) 33. 05:40 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (John W. Cox) 34. 05:50 PM - Re: All Painted (John W. Cox) 35. 05:53 PM - Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! (Chris Johnston) 36. 05:54 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Deems Davis) 37. 06:17 PM - Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wi (zackrv8) 38. 06:31 PM - Chill out!!!!! (Rick Sked) 39. 06:32 PM - Re: Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wi (Rick Sked) 40. 06:32 PM - Re: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! (bob.kaufmann) 41. 06:33 PM - Re: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! (Rick Sked) 42. 06:36 PM - Re: All Painted (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 43. 06:37 PM - Re: RV-10 Incident (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 44. 06:37 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Rick Sked) 45. 06:38 PM - Re: RV-10 Incident (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 46. 06:41 PM - Re: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! (Rick Sked) 47. 06:47 PM - Re: All Painted (Rick Sked) 48. 06:50 PM - Re: RV-10 Incident (Rick Sked) 49. 06:51 PM - Re: All Painted (Bill Schlatterer) 50. 06:52 PM - Re: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! (Kelly McMullen) 51. 07:10 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Indran Chelvanayagam) 52. 07:12 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Indran Chelvanayagam) 53. 07:16 PM - Re: All Painted (McGANN, Ron) 54. 07:50 PM - Re: All Painted (Dj Merrill) 55. 08:43 PM - Retractable Seat Belt Question (Robin Marks) 56. 10:02 PM - Re: Fiberglass and antenna placement (Patrick ONeill) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:39:47 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident I didn't get much detail, but it sounds like it was that famous first-customer-flying RV-10, now painted with a dog pawprint, that got dropped in hard on landing, but no fatals or anything. No details that I've seen for myself but it sounded to be pretty smacked up. Not sure if it went reported or not, regardless of amount of metal bent, but it hasn't shown up in the database. Everything was 2nd or 3rd hand though, so the picture isn't clear, and I'm not sure if there's anything we can learn from it that will help us....other than the obvious....build it well, fly it well. Pictures of it in paint http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/024535.html Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Dave Leikam wrote: > Tim, > > What did you hear about this? > > Dave Leikam > 40496 > > do not archive > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:40:03 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted Gorgeous! Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive DejaVu wrote: > Guys, > Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since > first flight. > Anh > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:09:06 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: All Painted From: "zackrv8" DeJa, Nicely done! A beautiful paint scheme. You should be very proud. Zack -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134653#134653 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:12:05 AM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination Deems, You have a pic of that in your RV-10, OSH pics...dry version. Wish we didn't have a plane to catch that day. I could have spent hours combing over Rick's RV. Rick S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deems Davis" Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:13:59 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination Zack thanks for the pic of Ricks install. Larry, I think it's going to be easier to do the firewall shelf. I just spent 60 minutes in the garage and bent up some .032" and riveted it into a decent 'shelf'. I've already got 4 bolts that hold the voltage regulators to the inside of the firewall that I'll use to attach this to. One thing I didn't account for is the slight forward cant of the upper part of the firewall so there is a bit of a tilt to the shelf that I'll have to take out with some shims/standoffs. The cable/antenna runs for the cabin top install are problematic for me. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Larry Rosen wrote: > > Have you considered mounting them under the cabin top, inside the > Accuracy Avionics overhead console? I know there are two layers of > fiberglass and a core, but that shouldn't interfere with the signals. > (in my non expert opinion). Any thoughts? > > Larry Rosen > > Deems Davis wrote: >> >> With all this talk about antennas, I've got a question for the group. >> I need to mount a XM weather antenna and an additional GPS antenna. I >> already have the primary GPS mounted on the top of the tail cone aft >> of the cabin top intersection. I am not keen on placing them on the >> cabin top, primarily for aesthetics, so I'm planning on mounting them >> side by side on a shelf on the firewall. This will make installation >> and the cabling easier. The antennas don't require a ground plane as >> best as I can tell. Mounting them in this location will make for a >> shorter cable run and an easier installation. Anybody gone this >> route? Feedback? I think I recall that Checkoway mounted one or more >> antennas in this manner. >> >> Deems Davis # 406 >> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> * >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:18:29 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted From: "Robin Marks" I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the photos? When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a message: File format not supported. Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I also tried to rename the files with no luck. Weird! Any photos on the internet to see? Robin Do not archive From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:37:20 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted From: "John W. Cox" I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to view them? John ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the photos? When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a message: File format not supported. Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I also tried to rename the files with no luck. Weird! Any photos on the internet to see? Robin Do not archive From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:50:57 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination From: "John W. Cox" I understand you guys (Deems, Zack and Rick) are having an "offline party discussion" but can you share the photos of Rick's OSH aircraft for everyone? The suspense can be fatal. The comment was made yesterday about antenna performance so someone was seeing the direction I was pointed. Which was well placed because many finished RV-10s should be running with diminished avionics performance and just don't know better. I think Tim has now seen the light (or was that the color) with his WSI 300 antenna. Fiberglass is not transparent to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence. "I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw". Where are the avionics guys when we need some real illumination on the subject of placement and installation technique? You guys should try talking to L3 on traffic reporting if you are missing the direction. John C. Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Sked Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:11 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination Deems, You have a pic of that in your RV-10, OSH pics...dry version. Wish we didn't have a plane to catch that day. I could have spent hours combing over Rick's RV. Rick S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deems Davis" Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 8:13:59 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination Zack thanks for the pic of Ricks install. Larry, I think it's going to be easier to do the firewall shelf. I just spent 60 minutes in the garage and bent up some .032" and riveted it into a decent 'shelf'. I've already got 4 bolts that hold the voltage regulators to the inside of the firewall that I'll use to attach this to. One thing I didn't account for is the slight forward cant of the upper part of the firewall so there is a bit of a tilt to the shelf that I'll have to take out with some shims/standoffs. The cable/antenna runs for the cabin top install are problematic for me. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Larry Rosen wrote: > > Have you considered mounting them under the cabin top, inside the > Accuracy Avionics overhead console? I know there are two layers of > fiberglass and a core, but that shouldn't interfere with the signals. > (in my non expert opinion). Any thoughts? > > Larry Rosen > > Deems Davis wrote: >> >> With all this talk about antennas, I've got a question for the group. >> I need to mount a XM weather antenna and an additional GPS antenna. I >> already have the primary GPS mounted on the top of the tail cone aft >> of the cabin top intersection. I am not keen on placing them on the >> cabin top, primarily for aesthetics, so I'm planning on mounting them >> side by side on a shelf on the firewall. This will make installation >> and the cabling easier. The antennas don't require a ground plane as >> best as I can tell. Mounting them in this location will make for a >> shorter cable run and an easier installation. Anybody gone this >> route? Feedback? I think I recall that Checkoway mounted one or more >> antennas in this manner. >> >> Deems Davis # 406 >> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> * >>> >>> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:28:52 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident From: "Robin Marks" Interesting... I know nothing about the incident but I actually know something about this plane. While at my home airport (SBP) in California I saw an RV-10 parked in our transient restaurant parking. I was very excited to see one in person and it looked kinda nice from a distance. As I got closer my opinion changed considerably. First the good news... The wheel pants, gear legs and the panel were very nice. Now the rest of the story... The fit & finish was about the worst I had ever seen on an RV. The fit around the cowl was horrendous, with several different type screws used with different type washers and the cowl screws were not in a row, some were offset high and low. The baggage door was not aligned well and there was filler between some metal pieces that was only partially filled and partially left "mounded" then painted over. It looked awful!. The wing tips were not cut back to match the trailing edge of the ailerons. (I have not started that part of the build yet but I understand they should line up). By far the worst part and something I thought was a real danger were the back sides of the fiberglass tips to the horizontal stabilizer. They were left hollow, rough cut and very flexible. I was actually horrified that this portion of the build was not completed. I could not imagine that that was airworthy. As you can guess the fit of the doors was not acceptable to me but they were not that far off. And of course there was complete cracking around each window. I did end up taking some detailed photos of the plane and keep them filed in my "RV Pictures" folder under the file name "Ugly RV-10." I don't intend to be cruel but the attention to detail was completely lacking and all that hard work of construction was wasted by not spending 200-400 more hours on doing things right. One of my first thoughts was if the appearance items look this bad I wonder what it's like in places you don't easily see. As I was finishing my photo shoot the owner came out from the restaurant and we had the opportunity to chat. She was an older lady (~65) that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like. She was based at Santa Paula Airport (SZP) about 70 miles south of me. That day she was giving a hangar neighbor acquaintance of mine a ride to SZP to pick up his beautiful Cessna 170 from service. I remember thinking to myself... well at least the plane has two pilots onboard in case there is an "issue." Please note I do not wish to be malicious but the plane had obvious flaws in craftsmanship. Like most incidents it's usually pilot problems before plane problems. Attached are some photos from the visit. Robin ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:05:44 AM PST US From: "Rick Leach" Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted Very nice _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:03 AM Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:00 AM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement John W. Cox wrote: . Fiberglass is not transparent to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite based systems. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:26:06 AM PST US From: "Max" Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident "Alabama/Mississippi or the like"??? If you don't know where she purchased it, I would leave statements like this out of your comments. You insult the many careful, diligent builders in those areas. I know of many great builders from "Alabama/Mississippi or the like." That said, it would have been good if you had been diligent enough to get the exact location so no one else would be duped by a lousy builder. Max -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident "that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like." Robin ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 10:36:07 AM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident This plane was built by John Nys who is in Texas. He has built several RV-10's and is one of the 'build for hire' gang. He had a couple of his plane @ OSH in '06 and they displayed the same workmanship issues noted in Robins e-mail. He boasted to some that he could build a plane in 3 months. To be fair I understand that he also built/assisted in the construction of Alex D.'s -10 which is cosmetically better. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Max wrote: > > "Alabama/Mississippi or the like"??? > > If you don't know where she purchased it, I would leave statements like this > out of your comments. You insult the many careful, diligent builders in > those areas. I know of many great builders from "Alabama/Mississippi or the > like." > That said, it would have been good if you had been diligent enough to get > the exact location so no one else would be duped by a lousy builder. > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:26 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident > > "that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like." > > Robin > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:13 AM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident From: "Robin Marks" Max, I was NOT denigrating builders in Alabama/Mississippi I was recalling my 4 minute conversation with the new owner. I have no way of recalling EXACTLY what state she purchased the -10 but I do believe it was the south (she definitely did not say Texas). Not sure what your beef is exactly with that statement but I was doing my best to fill in some of the gaps regarding the aircraft in question. This is not an official FAA report, it's the RV-List. Robin Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:58 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted Superman vision not required..... Just didn't use any products made by Microsoft. ;) Irfanview and Thunderbird, baby! Tim John W. Cox wrote: > Ive tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are > corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to > view them? > > > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Robin Marks > *Sent:* Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: All Painted > > > > I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the > photos? > > When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a > message: File format not supported. > > Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into > Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I > also tried to rename the files with no luck. > > Weird! > > Any photos on the internet to see? > > > > Robin > > Do not archive > > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DejaVu > *Sent:* Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM > *To:* RV10 > *Subject:* RV10-List: All Painted > > > > Guys, > > Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since > first flight. > > Anh > > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > * * > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:25:31 AM PST US From: James Hein Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement I am an extra-class ham radio operator, so here's my opinion: Most fiberglass is relatively transparent to RF. Glass cloth and epoxy don't attenuate RF much more than dust. If you put in carbon fiber, or other additives then the situation changes. The biggest issues typically are actually getting 1) a good ground plane, and 2) good seperation from nearby antennas and other parallel pieces of metal which can cause an impedance mismatch. I have several antennas on top of my tower which are actually *encased* in fiberglass. Want a cheap tool for analyzing your antenna installation? Here's what I use (a bit overkill for the aviation band): http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-269 -Jim 40384 Deems Davis wrote: > > > John W. Cox wrote: > > . Fiberglass is not transparent > to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is > only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires > your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier > potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you > need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence > > John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have > always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is > a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a > 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? > Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite > based systems. > > Deems Davis # 406 > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > http://deemsrv10.com/ > >> > > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:12 AM PST US From: "Byron Gillespie" Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted They showed up fine for me using Microsoft photo and fax viewer..? Byron -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to view them? John _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the photos? When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a message: File format not supported. Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I also tried to rename the files with no luck. Weird! Any photos on the internet to see? Robin Do not archive From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:32:37 AM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident I'll always remember looking at that plane unpainted at OSH, with a wire bundle running from the panel to the tunnel near the brake lines, with the wires clearly laying on the sheet metal edge of the tunnel cover....with no wire chafing protection at all. That was just the start of it, but I just kind of figured some day it would be an electrical fire that we'd hear about. Especially since very little of the sheet metal edging had much deburring done to it. On the up side, there are many very fine examples of craftsmanship to look at these days, and many builders are taking the time to make them far better than any production plane. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Robin Marks wrote: > Interesting... > I know nothing about the incident but I actually know something > about this plane. > While at my home airport (SBP) in California I saw an RV-10 > parked in our transient restaurant parking. I was very excited to see > one in person and it looked kinda nice from a distance. As I got closer > my opinion changed considerably. First the good news... The wheel pants, > gear legs and the panel were very nice. Now the rest of the story... > The fit & finish was about the worst I had ever seen on an RV. > The fit around the cowl was horrendous, with several different type > screws used with different type washers and the cowl screws were not in > a row, some were offset high and low. The baggage door was not aligned > well and there was filler between some metal pieces that was only > partially filled and partially left "mounded" then painted over. It > looked awful!. The wing tips were not cut back to match the trailing > edge of the ailerons. (I have not started that part of the build yet but > I understand they should line up). > By far the worst part and something I thought was a real danger > were the back sides of the fiberglass tips to the horizontal stabilizer. > They were left hollow, rough cut and very flexible. I was actually > horrified that this portion of the build was not completed. I could not > imagine that that was airworthy. As you can guess the fit of the doors > was not acceptable to me but they were not that far off. And of course > there was complete cracking around each window. I did end up taking some > detailed photos of the plane and keep them filed in my "RV Pictures" > folder under the file name "Ugly RV-10." I don't intend to be cruel but > the attention to detail was completely lacking and all that hard work of > construction was wasted by not spending 200-400 more hours on doing > things right. One of my first thoughts was if the appearance items look > this bad I wonder what it's like in places you don't easily see. > As I was finishing my photo shoot the owner came out from the > restaurant and we had the opportunity to chat. She was an older lady > (~65) that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like. > She was based at Santa Paula Airport (SZP) about 70 miles south of me. > That day she was giving a hangar neighbor acquaintance of mine a ride to > SZP to pick up his beautiful Cessna 170 from service. I remember > thinking to myself... well at least the plane has two pilots onboard in > case there is an "issue." > Please note I do not wish to be malicious but the plane had > obvious flaws in craftsmanship. Like most incidents it's usually pilot > problems before plane problems. > Attached are some photos from the visit. > > Robin > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 11:41:21 AM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wire termination John W. Cox wrote: > > I understand you guys (Deems, Zack and Rick) are having an "offline > party discussion" but can you share the photos of Rick's OSH aircraft > for everyone? The suspense can be fatal. No offline discussion going on John, Zack sent a pic. which was posted to the list and Rick pointed out to me that I already had a similar copy of it on my web site: http://deemsrv10.com/album/OSHKOSH%202007/RV-10's/slides/DSC_0419.html. page forward and back to see the rest of Rick's plane. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:40 AM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement James, Thanks for the feedback, Here's another naive question: In your opinion would the heat which exists in the engine compartment adversely affect the performance of these satellited antennas? Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ James Hein wrote: > > I am an extra-class ham radio operator, so here's my opinion: > > Most fiberglass is relatively transparent to RF. Glass cloth and epoxy > don't attenuate RF much more than dust. If you put in carbon fiber, or > other additives then the situation changes. > > The biggest issues typically are actually getting 1) a good ground > plane, and 2) good seperation from nearby antennas and other parallel > pieces of metal which can cause an impedance mismatch. > > I have several antennas on top of my tower which are actually > *encased* in fiberglass. > > Want a cheap tool for analyzing your antenna installation? Here's what > I use (a bit overkill for the aviation band): > http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-269 > > -Jim 40384 > > Deems Davis wrote: > >> >> >> John W. Cox wrote: >> >> . Fiberglass is not transparent >> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires >> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you >> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >> >> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is >> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a >> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? >> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite >> based systems. >> >> Deems Davis # 406 >> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >> http://deemsrv10.com/ >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 12:08:09 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to choose an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I never understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that we pride as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that someone would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and the signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. Here's something I dug up recently: http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofing.html "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is about 160dBw (1 x 1016 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receivers antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of a similar frequency but greater strength. " So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, but if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY endorsing that thinking) http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered by foliage is generally quite poor" http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm "This is an extremely low-powered systemso low-powered, in fact, that the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. The receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf "Youd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us from dozens of satellites in space wed all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is very small, equivalent to the tail light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the ordinary background radio noise thats all around us all of the time." So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought is: "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So some of them aren't worth seeing. I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, but to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. And nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's good experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a universal acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like Garmin and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an answer. If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the advice. I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same reliability as the certified planes could have. Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, may as well give it a try". Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying Deems Davis wrote: > > > John W. Cox wrote: > > . Fiberglass is not transparent > to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is > only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires > your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier > potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you > need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence > > John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have always > heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is a loss > due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a 'false > positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? Both of > the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite based systems. > > Deems Davis # 406 > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > http://deemsrv10.com/ >> ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 12:16:32 PM PST US From: James Hein Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement The heat in the engine compartment would affect the antennas somewhat. Why? 1. Matching components (if used - capacitors and/or inductors) values will change with regard to temperature 2. Coax dielectric will soften, allowing the center conductor to migrate closer to the shield over time, changing the impedance of the coax, reducing performance. In reality, #1 probably doesn't amount to much difference at all due to the small values involved, but #2 needs to be protected against (heat shield, etc.) -Jim 40384 Deems Davis wrote: > > James, Thanks for the feedback, Here's another naive question: In your > opinion would the heat which exists in the engine compartment > adversely affect the performance of these satellited antennas? > > Deems Davis # 406 > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > James Hein wrote: > >> >> I am an extra-class ham radio operator, so here's my opinion: >> >> Most fiberglass is relatively transparent to RF. Glass cloth and >> epoxy don't attenuate RF much more than dust. If you put in carbon >> fiber, or other additives then the situation changes. >> >> The biggest issues typically are actually getting 1) a good ground >> plane, and 2) good seperation from nearby antennas and other parallel >> pieces of metal which can cause an impedance mismatch. >> >> I have several antennas on top of my tower which are actually >> *encased* in fiberglass. >> >> Want a cheap tool for analyzing your antenna installation? Here's >> what I use (a bit overkill for the aviation band): >> http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-269 >> >> -Jim 40384 >> >> Deems Davis wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> John W. Cox wrote: >>> >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also >>> requires >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you >>> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >>> >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there >>> is a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is >>> a 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums >>> equally? Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are >>> satellite based systems. >>> >>> Deems Davis # 406 >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >>> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 12:17:37 PM PST US From: Jesse Saint Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted They showed up fine for me on my Motorola Q running Windows Mobile. Looks great! Nice & clean. Do not archive. Jesse Saint Saint Aviation jesse@saintaviation.com C: 352-427-0285 F: 815-377-3694 -----Original Message----- From: "Byron Gillespie" Sent: 9/16/2007 2:32 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted They showed up fine for me using Microsoft photo and fax viewer..? Byron -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:37 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to view them? John _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the photos? When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a message: File format not supported. Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I also tried to rename the files with no luck. Weird! Any photos on the internet to see? Robin Do not archive From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 12:32:27 PM PST US From: "pascal" Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident and to think I worry if a rivet incorrectly squeezed will be a problem! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Marks" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 9:25 AM Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident Interesting... I know nothing about the incident but I actually know something about this plane. While at my home airport (SBP) in California I saw an RV-10 parked in our transient restaurant parking. I was very excited to see one in person and it looked kinda nice from a distance. As I got closer my opinion changed considerably. First the good news... The wheel pants, gear legs and the panel were very nice. Now the rest of the story... The fit & finish was about the worst I had ever seen on an RV. The fit around the cowl was horrendous, with several different type screws used with different type washers and the cowl screws were not in a row, some were offset high and low. The baggage door was not aligned well and there was filler between some metal pieces that was only partially filled and partially left "mounded" then painted over. It looked awful!. The wing tips were not cut back to match the trailing edge of the ailerons. (I have not started that part of the build yet but I understand they should line up). By far the worst part and something I thought was a real danger were the back sides of the fiberglass tips to the horizontal stabilizer. They were left hollow, rough cut and very flexible. I was actually horrified that this portion of the build was not completed. I could not imagine that that was airworthy. As you can guess the fit of the doors was not acceptable to me but they were not that far off. And of course there was complete cracking around each window. I did end up taking some detailed photos of the plane and keep them filed in my "RV Pictures" folder under the file name "Ugly RV-10." I don't intend to be cruel but the attention to detail was completely lacking and all that hard work of construction was wasted by not spending 200-400 more hours on doing things right. One of my first thoughts was if the appearance items look this bad I wonder what it's like in places you don't easily see. As I was finishing my photo shoot the owner came out from the restaurant and we had the opportunity to chat. She was an older lady (~65) that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like. She was based at Santa Paula Airport (SZP) about 70 miles south of me. That day she was giving a hangar neighbor acquaintance of mine a ride to SZP to pick up his beautiful Cessna 170 from service. I remember thinking to myself... well at least the plane has two pilots onboard in case there is an "issue." Please note I do not wish to be malicious but the plane had obvious flaws in craftsmanship. Like most incidents it's usually pilot problems before plane problems. Attached are some photos from the visit. Robin ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 02:37:33 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Spiders!!! From: "Eric_Kallio" Uncle Sam saw fit to send for some training for a few weeks and upon my return I found my hanger infested with spiders. I HATE spiders!!!! But I spent all day stomping and spraying and taking back my hanger and cleaning the exterior of my parts. I am back to preventative spraying of the perimeter to keep them from returning. My question is, does anyone know of a a non-corrosive fogger that is safe to use around airplane parts? My interior is primed but with plenty of untreated aluminum I am still very cautious about what I spray around my parts. I am concerned that there may be more spiders in my wings and my tail control surfaces. Eric Kallio 40518 Upper forward fuse Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134720#134720 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:47:20 PM PST US From: Dan Masys Subject: RV10-List: Performance data > Time: 10:06:44 AM PST US > Subject: RE: RV10-List: Bad battery/bad experience > From: "John W. Cox" > > Okay Dan, It's been weeks and weeks since OSH '07 and almost months. > Your flyoff hours were done in record time as I remember. Now we are > all interested In the service ceiling, cruise at 8,500 MSL, climb rate > and fuel consumption numbers. Just how is it going or was there a > problem? This is not like you. > > John Cox I know this was directed at the other Dan who got his fly-off done in a week in order to get to OSH, but I did the same with my "PORV10" - Plain Ole RV10" with box stock new Lycoming IO-540 and Hartzell CS prop. So here are my numbers: Service ceiling: only tested to 17.5 K and airplane was climbing at 400 fpm between 17K and 17.5K. Handles really well up there, indicating 120 Kts and doing 165 KTAS. Cruise at 8500: 172 KTAS at 13.5 gph. Interesting thing is it will reliably deliver 168-170 KTAS at 13,000-14,000 ft at best power settings, which makes it a great platform for climbing up to the middle altitudes to get better winds. Climb rate: exactly Vans numbers or slightly better at middle and gross weights. With the stock Lycoming using magnetos, both CHTs and oil temps stay in acceptable limits on protracted best rate climbs (after I removed the air dams from both sides of the front cylinders). This is one really fine airplane! -Dan Masys N104LD - 42 SNEW ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:51:52 PM PST US From: "Kelly McMullen" Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted They view fine in Gmail, using Firefox as my browser. Most be a Microsnot issue ss On 9/16/07, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Superman vision not required..... Just didn't use any products > made by Microsoft. ;) > > Irfanview and Thunderbird, baby! > Tim > > > John W. Cox wrote: > > I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are > > corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to > > view them? > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Robin Marks > > *Sent:* Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM > > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: All Painted > > > > > > > > I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the > > photos? > > > > When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a > > message: File format not supported. > > > > Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into > > Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I > > also tried to rename the files with no luck. > > > > Weird! > > > > Any photos on the internet to see? > > > > > > > > Robin > > > > Do not archive > > > > > > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DejaVu > > *Sent:* Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM > > *To:* RV10 > > *Subject:* RV10-List: All Painted > > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since > > first flight. > > > > Anh > > > > > > > > * * > > > > * * > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > ** > > > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > > > ** > > > > * * > > > > * > > > > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 03:47:04 PM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how much attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed anywhere in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a gain of 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the amount available through several different types and lengths (feet & yards) of coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down to the 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you may use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl is not an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking restrictions, then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas with the same issues. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Tim Olson wrote: > > I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to choose > an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're > shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I never > understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that we pride > as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely > sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their > installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that someone > would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really > makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna > is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and the > signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. > > Here's something I dug up recently: > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofing.html > > > "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is about > 160dBw (1 x 1016 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a > 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal > can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receivers > antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of > a similar frequency but greater strength. " > > So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an > airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark > plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount > the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get > scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years > ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're > *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, but > if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR > approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? > If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the > actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with > an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY > endorsing that thinking) > > > http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html > "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) > signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to > allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, > GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight > to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered > by foliage is generally quite poor" > > http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm > "This is an extremely low-powered systemso low-powered, in fact, that > the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. The > receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using > spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in > communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." > > http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf > "Youd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us > from dozens of satellites in space > wed all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is > very small, equivalent to the tail > light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the > U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the > ordinary background radio noise thats all around us all of the time." > > > So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought is: > "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are > transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? > At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" > > And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted > horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then > which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you > happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So > some of them aren't worth seeing. > > I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, but > to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. And > nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's good > experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a universal > acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting > and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like Garmin > and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an answer. > If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the advice. > I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna > makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to > try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same > reliability as the certified planes could have. > > Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, > may as well give it a try". > > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > > > Deems Davis wrote: >> >> >> John W. Cox wrote: >> >> . Fiberglass is not transparent >> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires >> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you >> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >> >> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is >> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a >> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? >> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite >> based systems. >> >> Deems Davis # 406 >> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 04:11:35 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement Well, I don't know that you're going to find some place to get a specific factor of attenuation from having a specified layer of fiberglass. I was just sorting out some antenna boxes in prep for sending back my piece of crap Comant 401-620 though, and read through some install docs where they actually specify things like installation of the antenna near the leading edge of high-wing wings, so that during climb they aren't shaded by the wing, and they specify to mount it where things like the propeller arc aren't in the way of the antenna's forward and upward view too. It would seem that during climb, a firewall mounted antenna could be shaded quite a bit by the engine, and your comments don't address at all the factors of electrical noise of the ignition system. It's all just food for thought, since a builder can do whatever they want. The sad part is, when looks become more important than function, it can just lead to someone remarking later after they hear the bad news "Gosh, and that was such a beautiful plane, too." The 396/496 w/weather and glareshield mounted antenna's don't even begin to approach the suitability of a WAAS approved GPS antenna for flying approaches. Consider that the update rate for doing the calculations is so much higher, that the receiver really needs to make sure it has a good incoming data stream, whereas a lesser performing GPS may get by with more sporadic signals. Regarding the attenuation, keep in mind that the attenuation in the cable is going to happen AFTER the active antenna has done it's notch filtering to reduce the external noise and non-on-freq "stuff" coming down the pipe. Oh, and, if the GPS signal quality weren't an issue, why would Xbow make such noise about how they really want to see people use some specific models of antenna, mounted in some good locations, using proper techniques. Seems we have actual known experiences with their AHRS driving EFIS's screwy from lower-quality GPS signalling. It really doesn't matter personally to me how someone does it, as long as they've thought it through and made an informed choice. Just try to put yourself into the future though, and say 50 hours into it you start noticing the GPS just isn't what it should be....how much harder will it be to RE-mount that stuff in a different location? If it's no fun now, it's really gonna suck later. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Deems Davis wrote: > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how much > attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed anywhere > in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant > Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne > installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a gain of > 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db > (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some > additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the amount > available through several different types and lengths (feet & yards) of > coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down to the > 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you may > use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my > choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it > away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). > > If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl is not > an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking restrictions, > then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation > cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 > Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas with the > same issues. > > Deems Davis # 406 > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > Tim Olson wrote: >> >> I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to choose >> an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're >> shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I never >> understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that we pride >> as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely >> sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their >> installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that someone >> would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really >> makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna >> is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and the >> signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. >> >> Here's something I dug up recently: >> http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofing.html >> >> >> "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is about >> 160dBw (1 x 1016 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a >> 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal >> can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receivers >> antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of >> a similar frequency but greater strength. " >> >> So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an >> airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark >> plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount >> the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get >> scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years >> ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're >> *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, but >> if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR >> approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? >> If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the >> actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with >> an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY >> endorsing that thinking) >> >> >> http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html >> "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) >> signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to >> allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, >> GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight >> to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered >> by foliage is generally quite poor" >> >> http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm >> "This is an extremely low-powered systemso low-powered, in fact, that >> the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. The >> receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using >> spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in >> communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." >> >> http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf >> "Youd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us >> from dozens of satellites in space >> wed all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is >> very small, equivalent to the tail >> light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the >> U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the >> ordinary background radio noise thats all around us all of the time." >> >> >> So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought is: >> "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are >> transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? >> At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" >> >> And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted >> horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then >> which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you >> happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So >> some of them aren't worth seeing. >> >> I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, but >> to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. And >> nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's good >> experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a universal >> acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting >> and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like Garmin >> and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an answer. >> If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the advice. >> I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna >> makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to >> try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same >> reliability as the certified planes could have. >> >> Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, >> may as well give it a try". >> >> >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >> >> >> >> Deems Davis wrote: >>> >>> >>> John W. Cox wrote: >>> >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you >>> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >>> >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is >>> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a >>> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? >>> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite >>> based systems. >>> >>> Deems Davis # 406 >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >>> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 04:34:58 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: wiring runs and aC43.13-1B Chapter 11-Section 11-clamping From: "tomhanaway" I see most builders run their wing wiring through the grommets in the wings and in the side panels. Especially where surrounded by conduit. Makes sense to me. I'm trying to figure out Section 11 of "acceptable methods" Aircraft Inspection, Repair and Alterations which seems to call for a cushion clamp even when running through a grommet where the wires are less than 3/8" from the hole edge. Could someone give me some guidance. Thanks, Tom Hanaway Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134733#134733 ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 04:46:49 PM PST US From: "Kelly McMullen" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement Well, I don't know about any of this. I use a little bluetooth GPS that I toss on the passenger seat. Sometimes I forget and lay my aluminum lapboard on top of it. Oh, and I have an aluminum roof with steel chrome moly tubing supporting it. But, I consistently see, 8-9 satellites, no problem. Works the same laying it on the console in my car. The current generation GPS chips are truly amazing..oh, and it cost me less than $100 and it feeds my Anywhere Map just fine. No, nothing certified...but it sure makes my performance using those antique tools like VOR and NDB look good. ;-) And center didn't ask any questions how my /U airplane was going IFR direct between 2 VORs 200nm apart. On 9/16/07, Tim Olson wrote: > > > Well, I don't know that you're going to find some place to get > a specific factor of attenuation from having a specified layer of > fiberglass. I was just sorting out some antenna boxes in prep > for sending back my piece of crap Comant 401-620 though, and > read through some install docs where they actually specify things > like installation of the antenna near the leading edge of high-wing > wings, so that during climb they aren't shaded by the wing, > and they specify to mount it where things like the propeller > arc aren't in the way of the antenna's forward and upward view > too. It would seem that during climb, a firewall mounted antenna > could be shaded quite a bit by the engine, and your comments > don't address at all the factors of electrical noise of the > ignition system. It's all just food for thought, since a builder > can do whatever they want. > > The sad part is, when looks become more important than function, > it can just lead to someone remarking later after they hear the > bad news "Gosh, and that was such a beautiful plane, too." > > The 396/496 w/weather and glareshield mounted antenna's don't even > begin to approach the suitability of a WAAS approved GPS antenna > for flying approaches. Consider that the update rate for doing the > calculations is so much higher, that the receiver really needs to > make sure it has a good incoming data stream, whereas a lesser > performing GPS may get by with more sporadic signals. > > Regarding the attenuation, keep in mind that the attenuation in > the cable is going to happen AFTER the active antenna has done > it's notch filtering to reduce the external noise and non-on-freq > "stuff" coming down the pipe. > > Oh, and, if the GPS signal quality weren't an issue, why would > Xbow make such noise about how they really want to see people use > some specific models of antenna, mounted in some good locations, > using proper techniques. Seems we have actual known experiences > with their AHRS driving EFIS's screwy from lower-quality GPS > signalling. > > It really doesn't matter personally to me how someone does it, as long > as they've thought it through and made an informed choice. Just try > to put yourself into the future though, and say 50 hours into it > you start noticing the GPS just isn't what it should be....how much > harder will it be to RE-mount that stuff in a different location? > If it's no fun now, it's really gonna suck later. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > Deems Davis wrote: > > > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how much > > attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed anywhere > > in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant > > Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne > > installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a gain of > > 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db > > (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some > > additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the amount > > available through several different types and lengths (feet & yards) o f > > coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down to th e > > 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you may > > use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my > > choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it > > away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). > > > > If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl is not > > an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking restrictions, > > then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation > > cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 > > Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas with th e > > same issues. > > > > Deems Davis # 406 > > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > > > Tim Olson wrote: > >> > >> I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to choose > >> an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're > >> shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I never > >> understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that we prid e > >> as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely > >> sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their > >> installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that > someone > >> would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really > >> makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna > >> is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and > the > >> signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. > >> > >> Here's something I dug up recently: > >> > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofi ng.html > >> > >> > >> "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is about > >> '160dBw (1 x 10'16 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a > >> 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal > >> can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receiver's > >> antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of > >> a similar frequency but greater strength. " > >> > >> So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an > >> airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark > >> plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount > >> the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get > >> scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years > >> ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're > >> *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, bu t > >> if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR > >> approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? > >> If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the > >> actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with > >> an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY > >> endorsing that thinking) > >> > >> > >> http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html > >> "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) > >> signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to > >> allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, > >> GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight > >> to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered > >> by foliage is generally quite poor" > >> > >> http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm > >> "This is an extremely low-powered system=97so low-powered, in fact, th at > >> the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. The > >> receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using > >> spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in > >> communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." > >> > >> http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf > >> "You'd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us > >> from dozens of satellites in space > >> we'd all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is > >> very small, equivalent to the tail > >> light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the > >> U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the > >> ordinary background radio noise that's all around us all of the time." > >> > >> > >> So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought is: > >> "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are > >> transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? > >> At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" > >> > >> And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted > >> horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then > >> which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you > >> happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So > >> some of them aren't worth seeing. > >> > >> I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, bu t > >> to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. And > >> nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's good > >> experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a universal > >> acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting > >> and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like Garmi n > >> and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an answer .. > >> If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the advice. > >> I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna > >> makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to > >> try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same > >> reliability as the certified planes could have. > >> > >> Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, > >> may as well give it a try". > >> > >> > >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > >> > >> > >> > >> Deems Davis wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> John W. Cox wrote: > >>> > >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent > >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is > >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also > requires > >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier > >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you > >>> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence > >>> > >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have > >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is > >>> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a > >>> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? > >>> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite > >>> based systems. > >>> > >>> Deems Davis # 406 > >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > >>> http://deemsrv10.com/ > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 05:32:29 PM PST US From: Larry Rosen Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident Go easy, I am sure he meant a southern gulf state. So testing my geography that would be Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisianan, and Texas. There are many ways to read something. Larry do not archive Max wrote: > > "Alabama/Mississippi or the like"??? > > If you don't know where she purchased it, I would leave statements like this > out of your comments. You insult the many careful, diligent builders in > those areas. I know of many great builders from "Alabama/Mississippi or the > like." > That said, it would have been good if you had been diligent enough to get > the exact location so no one else would be duped by a lousy builder. > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:26 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident > > "that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like." > > Robin > > > ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 05:36:09 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement Yep, I have a bluetooth GPS on the glareshield that I use with the tablet PC. You're right, the technology has sure gotten good on the radios. But, my arguments are only for dealing with the actual approach certified type stuff like a 430W/530W/480/Freeflight and that sort of GPS antenna. If someone wants to have lesser quality weather reception, or try something with their secondary GPS, I think that's just fine. It's when you want to have the utmost reliability on your primary navigation equipment that I think it's prudent to not try to cut any corners and just follow the manufacturers directions. Your primary nav GPS failing is one of those experiences that when it happens it would forcibly make you work really hard to get things back together again to continue the flight. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Kelly McMullen wrote: > Well, I don't know about any of this. I use a little bluetooth GPS that > I toss on the passenger seat. Sometimes I forget and lay my aluminum > lapboard on top of it. Oh, and I have an aluminum roof with steel chrome > moly tubing supporting it. But, I consistently see, 8-9 satellites, no > problem. Works the same laying it on the console in my car. The current > generation GPS chips are truly amazing..oh, and it cost me less than > $100 and it feeds my Anywhere Map just fine. No, nothing certified...but > it sure makes my performance using those antique tools like VOR and NDB > look good. ;-) And center didn't ask any questions how my /U airplane > was going IFR direct between 2 VORs 200nm apart. > > On 9/16/07, *Tim Olson* > wrote: > > > > > Well, I don't know that you're going to find some place to get > a specific factor of attenuation from having a specified layer of > fiberglass. I was just sorting out some antenna boxes in prep > for sending back my piece of crap Comant 401-620 though, and > read through some install docs where they actually specify things > like installation of the antenna near the leading edge of high-wing > wings, so that during climb they aren't shaded by the wing, > and they specify to mount it where things like the propeller > arc aren't in the way of the antenna's forward and upward view > too. It would seem that during climb, a firewall mounted antenna > could be shaded quite a bit by the engine, and your comments > don't address at all the factors of electrical noise of the > ignition system. It's all just food for thought, since a builder > can do whatever they want. > > The sad part is, when looks become more important than function, > it can just lead to someone remarking later after they hear the > bad news "Gosh, and that was such a beautiful plane, too." > > The 396/496 w/weather and glareshield mounted antenna's don't even > begin to approach the suitability of a WAAS approved GPS antenna > for flying approaches. Consider that the update rate for doing the > calculations is so much higher, that the receiver really needs to > make sure it has a good incoming data stream, whereas a lesser > performing GPS may get by with more sporadic signals. > > Regarding the attenuation, keep in mind that the attenuation in > the cable is going to happen AFTER the active antenna has done > it's notch filtering to reduce the external noise and non-on-freq > "stuff" coming down the pipe. > > Oh, and, if the GPS signal quality weren't an issue, why would > Xbow make such noise about how they really want to see people use > some specific models of antenna, mounted in some good locations, > using proper techniques. Seems we have actual known experiences > with their AHRS driving EFIS's screwy from lower-quality GPS > signalling. > > It really doesn't matter personally to me how someone does it, as long > as they've thought it through and made an informed choice. Just try > to put yourself into the future though, and say 50 hours into it > you start noticing the GPS just isn't what it should be....how much > harder will it be to RE-mount that stuff in a different location? > If it's no fun now, it's really gonna suck later. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > Deems Davis wrote: > > > > > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to > how much > > attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed > anywhere > > in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant > > Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne > > installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a > gain of > > 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db > > (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some > > additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the > amount > > available through several different types and lengths (feet & > yards) of > > coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down > to the > > 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you > may > > use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my > > choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it > > away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). > > > > If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl > is not > > an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking > restrictions, > > then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation > > cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 > > Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas > with the > > same issues. > > > > Deems Davis # 406 > > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > > > Tim Olson wrote: > > > >> > >> I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to > choose > >> an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're > >> shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I > never > >> understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that > we pride > >> as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely > >> sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their > >> installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that > someone > >> would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really > >> makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an > antenna > >> is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, > and the > >> signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. > >> > >> Here's something I dug up recently: > >> > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofing.html > >> > >> > >> "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is > about > >> 160dBw (1 x 1016 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a > >> 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal > >> can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receiver's > >> antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a > signal of > >> a similar frequency but greater strength. " > >> > >> So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an > >> airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark > >> plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount > >> the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get > >> scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years > >> ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're > >> *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and > sorry, but > >> if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS > and VOR > >> approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why > sacrifice? > >> If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the > >> actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with > >> an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY > >> endorsing that thinking) > >> > >> > >> http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html > >> "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) > >> signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is > used to > >> allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, > >> GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of > sight > >> to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area > covered > >> by foliage is generally quite poor" > >> > >> http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm > >> "This is an extremely low-powered systemso low-powered, in > fact, that > >> the signal is really buried in the natural background radio > noise. The > >> receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using > >> spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in > >> communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." > >> > >> http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf > > >> "You'd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us > >> from dozens of satellites in space > >> we'd all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS > signal is > >> very small, equivalent to the tail > >> light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the > >> U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the > >> ordinary background radio noise that's all around us all of the > time." > >> > >> > >> So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my > thought is: > >> "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are > >> transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? > >> At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" > >> > >> And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted > >> horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then > >> which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you > >> happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So > >> some of them aren't worth seeing. > >> > >> I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing > airplane, but > >> to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me > wonder. And > >> nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's > good > >> experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a > universal > >> acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting > >> and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like > Garmin > >> and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an > answer. > >> If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the > advice. > >> I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna > >> makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to > >> try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same > >> reliability as the certified planes could have. > >> > >> Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck > yeah, > >> may as well give it a try". > >> > >> > >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > >> > >> > >> > >> Deems Davis wrote: > > > >>> > >>> > >>> John W. Cox wrote: > >>> > >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent > >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal > loss. It is > >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also > requires > >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier > >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication > when you > >>> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence > >>> > >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have > >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If > there is > >>> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what > is a > >>> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums > equally? > >>> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite > >>> based systems. > >>> > >>> Deems Davis # 406 > >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > >>> http://deemsrv10.com/ > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >sp; - The RV10-List Email Forum - content now also > available via the Web Forums! ==================== > > > > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:31 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement From: "John W. Cox" Now you guys are getting with the program. Coax length, inline connectors, combiners, splitters and fiberglas thickness equate to db signal losses. John #600 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:48 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how much attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed anywhere in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a gain of 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the amount available through several different types and lengths (feet & yards) of coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down to the 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you may use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl is not an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking restrictions, then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas with the same issues. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Tim Olson wrote: > > I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to choose > an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're > shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I never > understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that we pride > as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely > sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their > installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that someone > would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really > makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna > is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and the > signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. > > Here's something I dug up recently: > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoof ing.html > > > "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is about > -160dBw (1 x 10-16 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a > 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal > can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receiver's > antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of > a similar frequency but greater strength. " > > So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an > airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark > plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount > the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get > scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years > ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're > *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, but > if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR > approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? > If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the > actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with > an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY > endorsing that thinking) > > > http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html > "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) > signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to > allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, > GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight > to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered > by foliage is generally quite poor" > > http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm > "This is an extremely low-powered system-so low-powered, in fact, that > the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. The > receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using > spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in > communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." > > http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf > "You'd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us > from dozens of satellites in space > we'd all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is > very small, equivalent to the tail > light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the > U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the > ordinary background radio noise that's all around us all of the time." > > > So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought is: > "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are > transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? > At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" > > And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted > horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then > which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you > happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So > some of them aren't worth seeing. > > I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, but > to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. And > nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's good > experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a universal > acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting > and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like Garmin > and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an answer. > If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the advice. > I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna > makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to > try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same > reliability as the certified planes could have. > > Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, > may as well give it a try". > > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > > > Deems Davis wrote: >> >> >> John W. Cox wrote: >> >> . Fiberglass is not transparent >> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also requires >> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you >> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >> >> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is >> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a >> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? >> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite >> based systems. >> >> Deems Davis # 406 >> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> > > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 05:50:16 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted From: "John W. Cox" It was indeed Microsoft. John -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted Superman vision not required..... Just didn't use any products made by Microsoft. ;) Irfanview and Thunderbird, baby! Tim John W. Cox wrote: > I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are > corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to > view them? > > > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Robin Marks > *Sent:* Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: All Painted > > > > I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the > photos? > > When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a > message: File format not supported. > > Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into > Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I > also tried to rename the files with no luck. > > Weird! > > Any photos on the internet to see? > > > > Robin > > Do not archive > > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DejaVu > *Sent:* Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM > *To:* RV10 > *Subject:* RV10-List: All Painted > > > > Guys, > > Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since > first flight. > > Anh > > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > * * > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 05:53:02 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! From: "Chris Johnston" yay! while we're arguing about stuff... could you guys argue about this for me so i can decide? i'm trying to decide on some less leaky inner tubes, and i think it's between Desser's "leak guard", and Michelin's "airstop". what say you all? and is it reasonably self-explanatory to order the right size inner tube? is it possible for me to screw it up? cj #40410 fuse/finishing www.perfectlygoodairplane.net ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 05:54:06 PM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement OK, I just redesigned my antenna installation : atop a 5 foot tall pylon, made of spaceage transpardium mounted in the exact center/top point of the cabin cover, equipped with a gyro stabilized gimble that ensures stability of the antenna in all unusual attitudes. I'm out of here John W. Cox wrote: > > Now you guys are getting with the program. Coax length, inline > connectors, combiners, splitters and fiberglas thickness equate to db > signal losses. > > John #600 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:48 PM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement > > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how much > attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed anywhere > in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant > Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne > installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a gain of > 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db > (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some > additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the amount > available through several different types and lengths (feet & yards) of > > coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down to the > > 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you may > use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my > choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it > away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). > > If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl is not > an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking restrictions, > then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation > cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 > Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas with the > > same issues. > > Deems Davis # 406 > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to choose >> an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're >> shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I never >> understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that we >> > pride > >> as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely >> sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their >> installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that >> > someone > >> would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really >> makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna >> is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and >> > the > >> signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. >> >> Here's something I dug up recently: >> >> > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoof > ing.html > >> "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is about >> > > >> -160dBw (1 x 10-16 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a >> 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal >> can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receiver's >> antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of >> a similar frequency but greater strength. " >> >> So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an >> airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark >> plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount >> the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get >> scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years >> ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're >> *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, >> > but > >> if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR >> approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? >> If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the >> actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with >> an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY >> endorsing that thinking) >> >> >> http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html >> "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) >> signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to >> allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, >> GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight >> to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered >> by foliage is generally quite poor" >> >> http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm >> "This is an extremely low-powered system-so low-powered, in fact, that >> > > >> the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. The >> > > >> receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using >> spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in >> communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." >> >> http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf >> "You'd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us >> from dozens of satellites in space >> we'd all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is >> > > >> very small, equivalent to the tail >> light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the >> U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the >> ordinary background radio noise that's all around us all of the time." >> >> >> So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought is: >> "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are >> transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? >> At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" >> >> And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted >> horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then >> which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you >> happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So >> some of them aren't worth seeing. >> >> I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, >> > but > >> to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. And >> nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's good >> experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a universal >> acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting >> and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like >> > Garmin > >> and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an >> > answer. > >> If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the advice. >> I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna >> makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to >> try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same >> reliability as the certified planes could have. >> >> Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, >> may as well give it a try". >> >> >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >> >> >> >> Deems Davis wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> John W. Cox wrote: >>> >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also >>> > requires > >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when you >>> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >>> >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is >>> > > >>> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a >>> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? >>> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite >>> based systems. >>> >>> Deems Davis # 406 >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' >>> http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 06:17:31 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wi From: "zackrv8" [quote="AV8ORJWC"]I understand you guys (Deems, Zack and Rick) are having an "offline party discussion" but can you share the photos of Rick's OSH aircraft for everyone? The suspense can be fatal. OK John, Here some shots I took of Rick's plane at OSH. You can also view more at the link below. Zack http://rickygray.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album04 -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134752#134752 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08295_126.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08294_194.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08232_101.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08228_147.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08222_182.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08221_962.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08220_797.jpg ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 06:31:38 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: RV10-List: Chill out!!!!! With all the banter you would think everyone's favorite team lost today... Now, Deem's and Zach...where were we in that "off list conversation"?? :) Like we forgot our cell phones or something, jeeeeezzzz.... Rick S. 40185 do not archive ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:43 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wi Thanks Zach for that link to the pic's....really helpful photos there, Is it OK to browse around them a bit? Rick S. 40185 do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "zackrv8" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:16:50 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: RV10-List: Re: Antenna placement and adequate ground plane or ground wi [quote="AV8ORJWC"]I understand you guys (Deems, Zack and Rick) are having an "offline party discussion" but can you share the photos of Rick's OSH aircraft for everyone? The suspense can be fatal. OK John, Here some shots I took of Rick's plane at OSH. You can also view more at the link below. Zack http://rickygray.myphotoalbum.com/view_album.php?set_albumName=album04 -------- RV8 #80125 RV10 # 40512 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=134752#134752 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08295_126.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08294_194.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08232_101.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08228_147.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08222_182.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08221_962.jpg http://forums.matronics.com//files/dsc08220_797.jpg ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:43 PM PST US From: "bob.kaufmann" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! Just fill it with nitrogen and forget about it. Bob K -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! yay! while we're arguing about stuff... could you guys argue about this for me so i can decide? i'm trying to decide on some less leaky inner tubes, and i think it's between Desser's "leak guard", and Michelin's "airstop". what say you all? and is it reasonably self-explanatory to order the right size inner tube? is it possible for me to screw it up? cj #40410 fuse/finishing www.perfectlygoodairplane.net ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 06:33:53 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! Michelin all the way...they hold air best of any tube I have ever seen and worht the extra dollars. Being cheap I'm going to swap mine out at the first tire change. Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Johnston" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:52:45 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! yay! while we're arguing about stuff... could you guys argue about this for me so i can decide? i'm trying to decide on some less leaky inner tubes, and i think it's between Desser's "leak guard", and Michelin's "airstop". what say you all? and is it reasonably self-explanatory to order the right size inner tube? is it possible for me to screw it up? cj #40410 fuse/finishing www.perfectlygoodairplane.net ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 06:36:36 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted My Outlook 2007 in Windows XP showed them fine. :-) Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted Superman vision not required..... Just didn't use any products made by Microsoft. ;) Irfanview and Thunderbird, baby! Tim John W. Cox wrote: > I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are > corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to > view them? > > > John > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Robin Marks > *Sent:* Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: All Painted > > > I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the > photos? > > When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a > message: File format not supported. > > Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into > Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I > also tried to rename the files with no luck. > > Weird! > > Any photos on the internet to see? > > > Robin > > Do not archive > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DejaVu > *Sent:* Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM > *To:* RV10 > *Subject:* RV10-List: All Painted > > > Guys, > > Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since > first flight. > > Anh > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > * * > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 06:37:33 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident Also TruTrak's -10. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:37 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident This plane was built by John Nys who is in Texas. He has built several RV-10's and is one of the 'build for hire' gang. He had a couple of his plane @ OSH in '06 and they displayed the same workmanship issues noted in Robins e-mail. He boasted to some that he could build a plane in 3 months. To be fair I understand that he also built/assisted in the construction of Alex D.'s -10 which is cosmetically better. Deems Davis # 406 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ Max wrote: > > "Alabama/Mississippi or the like"??? > > If you don't know where she purchased it, I would leave statements like this > out of your comments. You insult the many careful, diligent builders in > those areas. I know of many great builders from "Alabama/Mississippi or the > like." > That said, it would have been good if you had been diligent enough to get > the exact location so no one else would be duped by a lousy builder. > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:26 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident > > "that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like." > > Robin > > ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 06:37:47 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement That was my reason for using the location I picked for my GPS antenna. Although I really like the under the cowl stuff, I also have a 480 and I didn't want any sacrifice in it's GPS capability by degradading the antenna performance even the slightest. I'm not sure if it WOULD under the cowl but I was pretty sure it WOULD NOT mounted on top of the fuselage. Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Olson" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:35:40 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement Yep, I have a bluetooth GPS on the glareshield that I use with the tablet PC. You're right, the technology has sure gotten good on the radios. But, my arguments are only for dealing with the actual approach certified type stuff like a 430W/530W/480/Freeflight and that sort of GPS antenna. If someone wants to have lesser quality weather reception, or try something with their secondary GPS, I think that's just fine. It's when you want to have the utmost reliability on your primary navigation equipment that I think it's prudent to not try to cut any corners and just follow the manufacturers directions. Your primary nav GPS failing is one of those experiences that when it happens it would forcibly make you work really hard to get things back together again to continue the flight. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Kelly McMullen wrote: > Well, I don't know about any of this. I use a little bluetooth GPS that > I toss on the passenger seat. Sometimes I forget and lay my aluminum > lapboard on top of it. Oh, and I have an aluminum roof with steel chrome > moly tubing supporting it. But, I consistently see, 8-9 satellites, no > problem. Works the same laying it on the console in my car. The current > generation GPS chips are truly amazing..oh, and it cost me less than > $100 and it feeds my Anywhere Map just fine. No, nothing certified...but > it sure makes my performance using those antique tools like VOR and NDB > look good. ;-) And center didn't ask any questions how my /U airplane > was going IFR direct between 2 VORs 200nm apart. > > On 9/16/07, *Tim Olson* > wrote: > > > > > Well, I don't know that you're going to find some place to get > a specific factor of attenuation from having a specified layer of > fiberglass. I was just sorting out some antenna boxes in prep > for sending back my piece of crap Comant 401-620 though, and > read through some install docs where they actually specify things > like installation of the antenna near the leading edge of high-wing > wings, so that during climb they aren't shaded by the wing, > and they specify to mount it where things like the propeller > arc aren't in the way of the antenna's forward and upward view > too. It would seem that during climb, a firewall mounted antenna > could be shaded quite a bit by the engine, and your comments > don't address at all the factors of electrical noise of the > ignition system. It's all just food for thought, since a builder > can do whatever they want. > > The sad part is, when looks become more important than function, > it can just lead to someone remarking later after they hear the > bad news "Gosh, and that was such a beautiful plane, too." > > The 396/496 w/weather and glareshield mounted antenna's don't even > begin to approach the suitability of a WAAS approved GPS antenna > for flying approaches. Consider that the update rate for doing the > calculations is so much higher, that the receiver really needs to > make sure it has a good incoming data stream, whereas a lesser > performing GPS may get by with more sporadic signals. > > Regarding the attenuation, keep in mind that the attenuation in > the cable is going to happen AFTER the active antenna has done > it's notch filtering to reduce the external noise and non-on-freq > "stuff" coming down the pipe. > > Oh, and, if the GPS signal quality weren't an issue, why would > Xbow make such noise about how they really want to see people use > some specific models of antenna, mounted in some good locations, > using proper techniques. Seems we have actual known experiences > with their AHRS driving EFIS's screwy from lower-quality GPS > signalling. > > It really doesn't matter personally to me how someone does it, as long > as they've thought it through and made an informed choice. Just try > to put yourself into the future though, and say 50 hours into it > you start noticing the GPS just isn't what it should be....how much > harder will it be to RE-mount that stuff in a different location? > If it's no fun now, it's really gonna suck later. > > Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > do not archive > > > Deems Davis wrote: > > > > > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to > how much > > attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed > anywhere > > in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant > > Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne > > installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a > gain of > > 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db > > (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some > > additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the > amount > > available through several different types and lengths (feet & > yards) of > > coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down > to the > > 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you > may > > use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my > > choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it > > away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). > > > > If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl > is not > > an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking > restrictions, > > then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation > > cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 > > Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas > with the > > same issues. > > > > Deems Davis # 406 > > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > > http://deemsrv10.com/ > > > > Tim Olson wrote: > > > >> > >> I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to > choose > >> an antenna or mounting location....especially important if you're > >> shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. I > never > >> understood why as experimental builders, who build planes that > we pride > >> as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely > >> sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their > >> installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that > someone > >> would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really > >> makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an > antenna > >> is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, > and the > >> signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. > >> > >> Here's something I dug up recently: > >> > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spoofing.html > >> > >> > >> "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is > about > >> 160dBw (1 x 1016 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a > >> 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal > >> can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receiver's > >> antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a > signal of > >> a similar frequency but greater strength. " > >> > >> So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an > >> airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark > >> plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount > >> the antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get > >> scrambled signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years > >> ago....not that the plane is going to be as poor, but we're > >> *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and > sorry, but > >> if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS > and VOR > >> approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why > sacrifice? > >> If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the > >> actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with > >> an autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY > >> endorsing that thinking) > >> > >> > >> http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html > >> "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) > >> signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is > used to > >> allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, > >> GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of > sight > >> to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area > covered > >> by foliage is generally quite poor" > >> > >> http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm > >> "This is an extremely low-powered systemso low-powered, in > fact, that > >> the signal is really buried in the natural background radio > noise. The > >> receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using > >> spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in > >> communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." > >> > >> http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf > > >> "You'd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us > >> from dozens of satellites in space > >> we'd all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS > signal is > >> very small, equivalent to the tail > >> light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the > >> U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the > >> ordinary background radio noise that's all around us all of the > time." > >> > >> > >> So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my > thought is: > >> "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers are > >> transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", 5"? > >> At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it enough?" > >> > >> And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted > >> horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then > >> which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you > >> happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So > >> some of them aren't worth seeing. > >> > >> I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing > airplane, but > >> to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me > wonder. And > >> nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's > good > >> experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a > universal > >> acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce mounting > >> and location questions off the antenna makers and companies like > Garmin > >> and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an > answer. > >> If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the > advice. > >> I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other antenna > >> makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led me to > >> try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same > >> reliability as the certified planes could have. > >> > >> Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck > yeah, > >> may as well give it a try". > >> > >> > >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying > >> > >> > >> > >> Deems Davis wrote: > > > >>> > >>> > >>> John W. Cox wrote: > >>> > >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent > >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal > loss. It is > >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also > requires > >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier > >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication > when you > >>> need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence > >>> > >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have > >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If > there is > >>> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what > is a > >>> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums > equally? > >>> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite > >>> based systems. > >>> > >>> Deems Davis # 406 > >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' > >>> http://deemsrv10.com/ > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >sp; - The RV10-List Email Forum - content now also > available via the Web Forums! ==================== > > > > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:15 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident John is in the Tulsa area. -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Max Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: RE: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident "Alabama/Mississippi or the like"??? If you don't know where she purchased it, I would leave statements like this out of your comments. You insult the many careful, diligent builders in those areas. I know of many great builders from "Alabama/Mississippi or the like." That said, it would have been good if you had been diligent enough to get the exact location so no one else would be duped by a lousy builder. Max -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident "that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like." Robin ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 06:41:29 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! Sorry buddy but although nitrogen molecules are larger than good ol' 79/19 % air mixture you still will get leak down from a cheap tube, now nitrogen for stability and moisture free is a different story. Use nitrogen in your Michelins and your gonna be hard pressed to beat the combo but changing air temps will still cause fluctuation of tire pressures so you can't just "forget about it" Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob.kaufmann" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:32:18 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: RE: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! Just fill it with nitrogen and forget about it. Bob K -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris Johnston Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 4:53 PM Subject: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! yay! while we're arguing about stuff... could you guys argue about this for me so i can decide? i'm trying to decide on some less leaky inner tubes, and i think it's between Desser's "leak guard", and Michelin's "airstop". what say you all? and is it reasonably self-explanatory to order the right size inner tube? is it possible for me to screw it up? cj #40410 fuse/finishing www.perfectlygoodairplane.net ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:35 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted So did mine in Vista with Outlook....long live Bill Gates!!!! Now that should stir the pot with all the Techies out there!!! Rick S. 40185 ----- Original Message ----- From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 6:36:13 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted My Outlook 2007 in Windows XP showed them fine. :-) Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 1:20 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted Superman vision not required..... Just didn't use any products made by Microsoft. ;) Irfanview and Thunderbird, baby! Tim John W. Cox wrote: > I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are > corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to > view them? > > > John > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Robin Marks > *Sent:* Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM > *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: All Painted > > > I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the > photos? > > When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a > message: File format not supported. > > Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into > Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I > also tried to rename the files with no luck. > > Weird! > > Any photos on the internet to see? > > > Robin > > Do not archive > > > *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DejaVu > *Sent:* Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM > *To:* RV10 > *Subject:* RV10-List: All Painted > > > Guys, > > Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since > first flight. > > Anh > > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List* > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > * * > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 06:50:34 PM PST US From: Rick Sked Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident And Ecuador... :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Rosen" Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:30:36 PM (GMT-0800) America/Los_Angeles Subject: Re: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident Go easy, I am sure he meant a southern gulf state. So testing my geography that would be Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisianan, and Texas. There are many ways to read something. Larry do not archive Max wrote: > > "Alabama/Mississippi or the like"??? > > If you don't know where she purchased it, I would leave statements like this > out of your comments. You insult the many careful, diligent builders in > those areas. I know of many great builders from "Alabama/Mississippi or the > like." > That said, it would have been good if you had been diligent enough to get > the exact location so no one else would be duped by a lousy builder. > > Max > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 11:26 AM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: RV10-List: RV-10 Incident > > "that had purchased the plane from Alabama/Mississippi or the like." > > Robin > > > ________________________________ Message 49 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:27 PM PST US From: "Bill Schlatterer" Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted Using Microsoft Picture and Fax viewer and they open perfectly. JPG formats should be no issue at all for any viewer. Just a thought,....Might try checking Folder- options- file types to see what you have the default opening program for JPG files set to. Bill S _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:37 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to view them? John _____ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the photos? When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a message: File format not supported. Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I also tried to rename the files with no luck. Weird! Any photos on the internet to see? Robin Do not archive From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 50 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:13 PM PST US From: "Kelly McMullen" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Desser vs. Michelin... TUBE WARS! Just my experience: 3 Desser leakguards. Mains are great, add air maybe every 6 months. Nose tube...no such ruck. Leaks worse than the standard tube previously there..have to add air every month. On 9/16/07, Chris Johnston wrote: > > yay! while we're arguing about stuff... could you guys argue about this > for me so i can decide? i'm trying to decide on some less leaky inner > tubes, and i think it's between Desser's "leak guard", and Michelin's > "airstop". what say you all? and is it reasonably self-explanatory to > order the right size inner tube? is it possible for me to screw it up? > > cj > #40410 > fuse/finishing > www.perfectlygoodairplane.net > > ________________________________ Message 51 ____________________________________ Time: 07:10:20 PM PST US From: Indran Chelvanayagam Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement After a real world test of holding a handheld GPS under the On 17/09/2007, at 6:47 AM, Deems Davis wrote: > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how > much attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed > anywhere in your clips, and still remains. >>> John W. Cox wrote: >>> >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. ________________________________ Message 52 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:21 PM PST US From: Indran Chelvanayagam Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement After a real world test of holding a handheld GPS under the cabin top then the cowl while watching the Satellite signal strength page, I'm convinced that there is some attenuation from fibreglass - whether it's significant or not is up to the individual builder. Personally I have installed my antennae outside the cabin top. Indran On 17/09/2007, at 6:47 AM, Deems Davis wrote: > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how > much attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed > anywhere in your clips, and still remains. > >>> John W. Cox wrote: >>> >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. >>> ________________________________ Message 53 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:02 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted From: "McGANN, Ron" Something bizarre going on. I could not open the attachments received under Outlook - got the same corrupt file messages as John and Robin etc. Went to Anh's post on the Matronics RV-10 Forum (http://forums.matronics.com ) and the pictures came up fine!!!!???? Beautiful job Anh. cheers, Ron -10 finishing ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Schlatterer Sent: Monday, 17 September 2007 11:22 AM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted Using Microsoft Picture and Fax viewer and they open perfectly. JPG formats should be no issue at all for any viewer. Just a thought,....Might try checking Folder- options- file types to see what you have the default opening program for JPG files set to. Bill S ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 10:37 AM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I've tried all my photo formats and the attachments read they are corrupted. Tim can you tell us how your Superman vision allowed you to view them? John ________________________________ From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robin Marks Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:18 AM To: rv10-list@matronics.com Subject: RE: RV10-List: All Painted I was waiting for someone else to mention that they could not see the photos? When I double click and try to view in Windows Photo Gallery I get a message: File format not supported. Nor can I view them in my Outlook viewer and when I import them into Photoshop I get the message Unknown or invalid JPEG marker type found. I also tried to rename the files with no luck. Weird! Any photos on the internet to see? Robin Do not archive From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of DejaVu Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 9:03 PM To: RV10 Subject: RV10-List: All Painted Guys, Some pictures attached for your viewing after 9 months and 90hrs since first flight. Anh http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List">http://www.matronic s .com/Navigator?RV10-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 54 ____________________________________ Time: 07:50:19 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: All Painted From: Dj Merrill Rick Sked wrote: > > So did mine in Vista with Outlook....long live Bill Gates!!!! Now that should stir the pot with all the Techies out there!!! I've heard of the infamous Bill Watson, but who is this Bill Gates guy? ;-) -Dj do not archive ________________________________ Message 55 ____________________________________ Time: 08:43:34 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Retractable Seat Belt Question From: "Robin Marks" I have a Retractable Seat Belt question especially for Grumpy and Chris Johnston. I was able to assemble a very nice combination to create a retractable seat belt set with a rotary buckle release. My concern is the units weight in at 5 lbs each . I assume the stock vans belts weigh a couple of pounds each (including all hardware). Chris, Grumpy, how much did your retractable units weigh? Anyone else out there using retracts? I can't imagine any retractable systems weighing less than 3.5 lbs due to all the metal in the retract housing so my units may not be out of line but I sure don't want to hang another 20 lbs on my plane (net 12 additional lbs). The good news is that these belts are ~$130.00 per set. Thanks, Robin ________________________________ Message 56 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:33 PM PST US From: "Patrick ONeill" Subject: RE: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement This comes as a huge relief. I thought I was the only one planning to equip their RV-10 with AWACS. Patrick #40715 -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 5:56 PM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement OK, I just redesigned my antenna installation : atop a 5 foot tall pylon, made of spaceage transpardium mounted in the exact center/top point of the cabin cover, equipped with a gyro stabilized gimble that ensures stability of the antenna in all unusual attitudes. I'm out of here John W. Cox wrote: > --> > > Now you guys are getting with the program. Coax length, inline > connectors, combiners, splitters and fiberglas thickness equate to db > signal losses. > > John #600 > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Deems Davis > Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2007 3:48 PM > To: rv10-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Fiberglass and antenna placement > > > OK Tim, I get it, GPS signals are weak. But the question as to how > much > attenuation is attributable to the Fiberglass is not addressed anywhere > in your clips, and still remains. The specified/recommended Commant > Antenna for the HeadsUP XM Weather receiver (used in Avidyne > installations in certified Cirrus 's) comes configured with a gain of > 30-34 db. The receiver itself is preset to expect a gain of 22db > (+/-2db). The installation manual actually _recommends/requires_ some > additional attenuation and provides a formula for figuring the amount > available through several different types and lengths (feet & yards) of > > coax. Turns out that you need quite a bit of coax to get it down to > the > > 22db range (17-58 ' depending on type of coax) Alternatively you may > use a DC bias passing attenuator in line with the cable itself. (my > choice). The only caution from the mfg about placement was to keep it > away from transmitting antennas, (min 36's"). > > If, as James suggests, the fiberglass (1/16 - 3/32") of the cowl is > not > an issue in signal loss, and there are no other blocking restrictions, > then why criticize someone who wants to make the installation > cosmetically attractive as well? the vast majority of the 396/496 > Garmins w/ weather are flying with glareshield mounted antennas with the > > same issues. > > Deems Davis # 406 > 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ > > Tim Olson wrote: > >> >> I've always taken antenna reception quality as THE #1 reason to >> choose an antenna or mounting location....especially important if >> you're shooting for the same quality as a "certified" installation. >> I never understood why as experimental builders, who build planes >> that we >> > pride > >> as being built "better than factory", anyone would build absolutely >> sub-standard to all of the advice by manufacturers regarding their >> installation requirements....on purpose, no less. The fact that >> > someone > >> would bother to hem and haw about a WAAS GPS antenna no less, really >> makes me wonder, as the amount of drag off a small wart of an antenna >> is way less than if you were talking about a Nav or Com antenna, and >> > the > >> signal you're trying to receive is EXTREMELY faint in comparison. >> >> Here's something I dug up recently: >> >> > http://www.homelandsecurity.org/bulletin/Dual%20Benefit/warner_gps_spo > of > ing.html > >> "The GPS signal strength measured at the surface of the Earth is >> about >> > > >> -160dBw (1 x 10-16 watts), which is roughly equivalent to viewing a >> 25-watt light bulb from a distance of 10,000 miles. This weak signal >> can easily be blocked by destroying or shielding the GPS receiver's >> antenna. The GPS signal can also be effectively jammed by a signal of >> a similar frequency but greater strength. " >> >> So then think about the many electrical noise causing things in an >> airplane....probably one of the loudest of which would be the spark >> plugs and ignition system. And then to choose to actually mount the >> antennas CLOSER to those items? I mean, I've seen TV's get scrambled >> signals when a snowmobile drove by the house years ago....not that >> the plane is going to be as poor, but we're >> *really* talking some tiny electrical signals with GPS...and sorry, >> > but > >> if someone even thinks they're going to pass by on flying ILS and VOR >> approaches and instead favor trusting a WAAS approach, why sacrifice? >> If they're going to sacrifice that, then why bother to look at the >> actual LPV-spec GPS units in the first place....just fly them with an >> autopilot or EFIS driven by a 396. (and no, I'm not REALLY endorsing >> that thinking) >> >> >> http://www.nap.edu/html/embedded_everywhere/ch2_b8.html >> "What makes GPS reception difficult is that radio frequency (RF) >> signals from the satellites are very weak. Special coding is used to >> allow receivers to detect these weak signals, but even with coding, >> GPS receivers generally work only if they have a direct line of sight >> to the satellites. Performance inside buildings or in an area covered >> by foliage is generally quite poor" >> >> http://www.wowinfo.com/gps/gps/chapter2n3.htm >> "This is an extremely low-powered system-so low-powered, in fact, >> that >> > > >> the signal is really buried in the natural background radio noise. >> The >> > > >> receiver recovers this weak signal from the satellites by using >> spread-spectrum communication technology, a very tricky concept in >> communication theory that works by means of pseudo-random codes." >> >> http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/surveymanual/gps-operations.pdf >> "You'd think that with all of these radio waves raining down on us >> from dozens of satellites in space >> we'd all glow in the dark. Actually, the strength of the GPS signal is >> > > >> very small, equivalent to the tail >> light of a car seen from 2,500 kilometers away-halfway across the >> U.S.! Weaker, in fact, than the >> ordinary background radio noise that's all around us all of the time." >> >> >> So then thinking about laying it underneath fiberglass, my thought >> is: "Well, if fiberglass is transparent to GPS, then how many layers >> are transparent to the GPS. Can you put it under 1/16", 1/8", 1", >> 5"? At what point do you decide you've hidden the GPS from it >> enough?" >> >> And, if it's under a cowl, or at some other point not mounted >> horizontally with a full view of the sky in all directions, then >> which of the available satellites that are now unavailable are you >> happy to just toss aside from shadowing due to poor mounting? So >> some of them aren't worth seeing. >> >> I understand the love of building a cosmetically pleasing airplane, >> > but > >> to sacrifice life-saving avionics signals really makes me wonder. >> And nothing against Dan Checkoway, but it's amazing how one person's >> good experience with a poor mounting choice can spread to such a >> universal acceptance of the idea. It might be better to bounce >> mounting and location questions off the antenna makers and companies >> like >> > Garmin > >> and see how far they're willing to stick their neck out with an >> > answer. > >> If it were harmless, they'd have no reason to avoid giving the >> advice. I've had many phone calls to Comant and questions to other >> antenna makers throughout the build, which in the end mostly just led >> me to try to be as "conventional" as possible to attempt the same >> reliability as the certified planes could have. >> >> Now, if someone was building a VFR only airplane, I'd say "heck yeah, >> may as well give it a try". >> >> >> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying >> >> >> >> Deems Davis wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> John W. Cox wrote: >>> >>> . Fiberglass is not transparent >>> to RF it creates a false positive and measurable signal loss. It is >>> only translucent with a clearly diminished performance. It also >>> > requires > >>> your output amp to work significantly harder leading to earlier >>> potential failure and often a loss of valuable communication when >>> you need it most - rain fade, cloud obscuration and turbulence >>> >>> John, can you elaborate or point me to a reference source. I have >>> always heard that fiberglass is transparent wrt antennas. If there is >>> > > >>> a loss due to the fiberglass how big of a loss is it? and what is a >>> 'false positive'? Does the fiberglass affect all spectrums equally? >>> Both of the antennas in my case are receive only and are satellite >>> based systems. >>> >>> Deems Davis # 406 >>> 'Its all done....Its just not put together' http://deemsrv10.com/ >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.