Matronics Email Lists Forum Index Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
 
 Get Email Distribution Too!Get Email Distribution Too!    FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

EFIS Comparisons
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
brian



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:24 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Bruce Gray wrote:

Quote:
problem. But if you're 300 AGL on the ILS?? This is the main reason for dual
systems/electronic comparator/3rd gyro, to give you a chance to survive when
time is of the essence.

You're free to fly with whatever you want as long as it fits your comfort
level. But when I see builders wanting to charge off into hard IFR with a
BMA, T&B, and ASI, I just got to say - Are you sure you want to do this?

I regularly fly to 200' with a vacuum-powered AI, HI, and an electric
T&SI. OK, I have a standby vacuum source. Frankly, a backup AI makes a
lot more sense to me than a T&SI but that is not the way most GA
aircraft are equipped.

The current crop of electronic PFDs should be more reliable than iron
gyros. And as for visually/mentally comparing two displays, you should
know what the airplane is doing and can tell which display makes sense
and which doesn't. You probably don't need to immediately react if you
don't have an airspeed trend or a VSI trend.

Also remember that without a third AHRS your comparator doesn't know
which one is bad and which is good. It only knows they disagree.

BTW, most AI's fail slowly. You know they are going long before they
finally fail. I did experience one catastrophic failure of an AI tho'. I
had one where the bearings failed and allowed the rotor to depart the
gimbals. The "bang" was so loud I thought the engine had thrown a rod.
But the engine kept running and the AI display began a very interesting
'dance of death'. Fortunately I was VFR at the time.

--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
George W Braly



Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:16 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

There are persistent reports that some of the certified "five tube"
Honeywell displays in one of the high end turbo props are going "dark" -
- simultaneously. One pilot reported three such events on different
trips over a period of months, for which he was present, and two other
events in the same airframe when others were flying.

--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:57 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Good Morning George,

Another reason to keep a standard old fashioned, needle type, Turn and Bank
instrument on the panel. It is the cheapest reliable instrument that can be
purchased by most of us.

I hope to be able to move to glass when it is proven, but, in the meantime,
when I am IFR, I want something reliable to fall back on. I know that many
folks are promoting an artificial horizon for such back up duty. They are MUCH
more expensive, heavier, and for the ones in our price range, less reliable.

Just because it is ancient doesn't make it bad.

I have no data, but it seems the incidence of loss of control accidents has
increased drastically in the days since the use of the T&B has been
de-emphasized.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503


In a message dated 1/15/2006 8:18:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly(at)gami.com writes:

There are persistent reports that some of the certified "five tube"
Honeywell displays in one of the high end turbo props are going "dark" -
- simultaneously. One pilot reported three such events on different
trips over a period of months, for which he was present, and two other
events in the same airframe when others were flying.


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
Bruce(at)glasair.org
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:19 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

That must be a confidence building experience.

Bruce
www.glasair.org


--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
mlas(at)cox.net
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:33 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Bob,

I do not agree with what you have to say about the T&B vs. a back up
attitude indicator. Yes it costs more and may weigh a few ounces more,
but what is your life worth. As far as reliability, the back up
attitude indicator isn't the problem with failure. The vacuum system
that most people use to power it is the common point of failure. It is
my 25+ years of active flying and teaching that supports my position
that the average general aviation pilot can not fly needle and ball well
enough to stake their life on it. As far as when will "glass prove"
itself. Well I have been flying behind glass since 1988 and have not
had an undetectable failure yet. When glass fails (very uncommon
compared to the old fashioned stuff.) it quits, no slow roll over or
false info. Now I'll admit that some of these new cheap EFIS system may
not offer the same level of fault protection as the higher priced stuff
I normally use. But I would bet the newer EFIS systems are better then
the 1960 Edo air attitude indicator found in most old Pipers and
Cessnas.

Mike Larkin

--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:05 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Good Morning Mike,


I recommend the T&B because I think it is a much better back up than the
artificial horizon.

I agree that when it comes to preservation of life, price is a secondary
consideration.

If the T&B cost ten times as much as an artificial horizon, I would still
say it is a better choice.


Obviously, I disagree with most of what you say, but isn't that the nice
thing about experimental aircraft? You get to make your own choices!

One of the tough things about discussing things such as this on a list d
evoted to electrical systems is that a full explanation would take up an awful
lot of bandwidth.

The reason I feel as I do have been stated on this list many times in the
past. If you care, I could send some of the data to you directly.

Here is one place that I think we may agree. If a person has not learned to
fly partial panel to the competency required by the regulations, he or she
should not be flying IFR.

I do have hopes that there will be a solid state device developed that will
be a better backup than the T&B, but I have not yet seen one on which I wish
to stake my future.

You state that most T&Bs are powered by vacuum. That may be true. But then
again, it may not! I'll bet a milk shake that there are more electrically
powered T&Bs in service today than there are vacuum powered ones.

One discussion that is common on, and quite pertinent to, this list,
concerns developing an airplane that meets the operators desire for redundancy by
providing back up electrical choices.

The all electric airplane.

All facets of life contain risk. For certified airplanes, the FAA has
developed regulations that specify some of the allowable risks. Requiring a
redundant power source for instrumentation was not an FAA requirement until very
recently.

Such redundancy is not required for the vast majority of airplanes flying
today. It is only required for certification of new designs and that
requirement is not retroactive to the majority of the certified fleet.

I have many pilot friends who feel that anyone flying a single engine
airplane without a sophisticated ejection seat is stark raving mad.

Personally, I am glad the FAA does not require such an escape device.

Homebuilders are still allowed to choose the redundancy level they are
comfortable with.

So are we folks who currently fly most certified machines!

When I bought my first Bonanza in 1954, it had all of instrumentation
required by the CAA for IFR flight plus one instrument that was not required.

It had a gyroscopic directional indicator!

There was no requirement for an artificial horizon and my airplane was not
so equipped. Both the T&B and the DG were vacuum driven

By the time I bought that machine, I had been an active flight instructor
for five years and had been flying a lot of actual IFR. I wanted more redundancy
than the CAA required so I installed a back up electric T&B. My choice, not
a requirement!

You mention that you have been flying for twenty-five years. That's great
and I hope you fly safely for many more years, but may I respectfully say that
the years one has flown means very little?

I have a medical doctor friend who makes the following statement concerning
his associates. "Some doctors have one year of experience. Others have twenty
years. Still others have one year of experience twenty times over!"

The same can be said of aviators.

Not everybody gains greater proficiency with greater exposure. Me included!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive


In a message dated 1/16/2006 12:24:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mlas(at)cox.net writes:

I do not agree with what you have to say about the T&B vs. a back up
attitude indicator. Yes it costs more and may weigh a few ounces more,
but what is your life worth. As far as reliability, the back up
attitude indicator isn't the problem with failure.


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:17 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Hi all,

I mostly lurk but sometimes have an opinion itch.
I find the all solid state gyro developments exciting and disappointing.
I agree with Bruce of Glasair - unless you have triple redundancy with
automatic notification of discrepancy you probably don't get an
improvement in safety. Comparison and notification is so easy to do with
digital electronics that it should be a large part of the reason to go
solid state in the first place. It is silly to have various digital
electronics boxes working with the human operator doing the only
cross-checking available. But that seems to be what the manufacturers
expect of us sofar.
I see a lot of features, display options and what have you on the
websites but no output message specifications.

The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S' does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role in a
system. It should not be bought.

If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).

Not holding my breath much longer.
Cheers,
Jan de Jong


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
kjsifer



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1
Location: Kansas City Area

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:28 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Jan,
Can you repeat that in English? :>)

You sound like you know what you are talking about, but us
non-electrical engineers do not.

Kevin

--
Kevin Seuferer -- http://www.bearhawkin.com -- Bearhawk Serial #774 -- N774KD

The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out

their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S' does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role in a
system. It should not be bought.

If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Kevin Seuferer
Bearhawk Serial Number 774
N774KD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:59 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

On 16 Jan 2006, at 10:19, Jan de Jong wrote:

Quote:

<jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl>

The inexpensive EFIS-es would be much more useful if they all put out
their measured magnitudes in real time in a PUBLICISED (and
standardised, not proprietary) way and acknowledge that the 'S'
does not
mean 'System' but at most 'Subsystem'. I will go further: an
electronic
box that measures a well defined magnitude and doesn't produce it on a
serial output should be considered crippled. It cannot play a role
in a
system. It should not be bought.

If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
real
time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
results (have a backup for this too).

The Dynon D-10/D-100 series EFISs output attitude, airspeed,
altitude, heading, etc in text format on a serial data bus at 64
Hz.The data format is described in the operator's manual, which is
publicly available on Dynon's web site. The format is bog standard
ASCII data on an RS-232 serial bus. No propriatary stuff at all. It
would theoretically be possible to decode that data and use it to
feed an instrument comparator.

But, how do we know there aren't failure modes that freezes the
display (or has it display bad data), yet keeps spitting the correct
data out the serial bus? We can't expect to get iron clad assurances
for the amount of money we pay for the Dynon (or any other of the non-
TSO'd EFIS systems).

Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
brian



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Kevin Horton wrote:

Go away for a couple of days and you drown in messages.
Quote:
>If manufacturers did start to make a habit of publicly reproducing
>real
>time magnitudes on a serial output then the step from boxes to system
>would be simple. As a start just add comparison, alarm and display of
>results (have a backup for this too).

There is such a standard. It is ARINC-429.

Quote:
The Dynon D-10/D-100 series EFISs output attitude, airspeed,
altitude, heading, etc in text format on a serial data bus at 64
Hz.The data format is described in the operator's manual, which is
publicly available on Dynon's web site. The format is bog standard
ASCII data on an RS-232 serial bus. No propriatary stuff at all. It
would theoretically be possible to decode that data and use it to
feed an instrument comparator.

There is no such thing as "bog standard ASCII data on an RS-232 serial
bus" in an aircraft (or anywhere else for that matter which is why we
created SLIP and PPP in the internet world many moon back). The closest
thing to something like that is ARINC-429. There you have a standard
electrical bus, similar to RS-422, and a standard set of sentences
and/or messages which transfer various bits of status information. I
believe that just about everything your AHARS would output has an
ARINC-429 message associated with it. (And it is the AHRS data whose
integrity that you are interested in ensuring.)

Quote:
But, how do we know there aren't failure modes that freezes the
display (or has it display bad data), yet keeps spitting the correct
data out the serial bus? We can't expect to get iron clad assurances
for the amount of money we pay for the Dynon (or any other of the non-
TSO'd EFIS systems).

I know I am coming at this backward as there are a *bunch* of messages
on this subject going back a couple of days that I haven't read yet but
I am going to go ahead from here anyway.

These are systems badly done (from a systems perspective) as are most
things in the cockpit of most aircraft. Boeing and Airbus are only just
recently starting to adopt the advantages learned in building large
computer networks. Airbus has adopted switched 100Mbps ethernet as its
data bus of choice (a very sensible move IMHO). ARINC-429 works but, boy
is that ancient technology.

The key point is that you have sensors that output standard messages on
the bus, e.g. AHRS, air data sensors, engine data sensors, etc.; you
have processing units; and you have display/control units. Virtually all
of the systems out there have adopted an "all-in-one" approach because
it is cheaper rather than better. But because they are "all-in-one" they
don't have to try to be interoperable with other devices. At least with
ARINC-429 there is some semblance of consistency and interoperability
even if it is ancient, ugly technology.

If it speaks ARINC-429 there is some semblance of hope. If it speaks
some kind of proprietary garbage (even if it is "bog standard ASCII
messages documented in the manual") it isn't going to be supported by
anyone else so it is less than useful.

Quote:

Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8














--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
PLaurence(at)the-beach.ne
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Bob,

I have to agree on your take.

I learned to fly partial panel with a turn coordinator ( along with the
other compliments of instruments) which in my opinion is as proficient as a
T&B. However, my guess is that a lot of newer pilots flying today have not
developed this skill.


I recommend the T&B because I think it is a much better back up than the
artificial horizon.

I agree

You state that most T&Bs are powered by vacuum. That may be true. But
then
again, it may not! I'll bet a milk shake that there are more electrically
powered T&Bs in service today than there are vacuum powered ones.
I agree. However, there are probably more turn coordinators installed than
turn and banks.

Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?

Peter Laurence


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:09 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Good Evening Peter,

I have a fairly long missive concerning why I like the T&B better than the
Turn Coordinator, but either one is lighter, cheaper and more reliable than
the attitude indicator. If you are interested in reading my rambling thoughts,
let me know and I will send it off list.

Spin recovery is possible with a T&B. I haven't tried to recover from a spin
with a TC, but have been told that it may or may not work depending on the
type of spin.

Proficiency with either one will save your bacon and both instruments are
non-tumbling.

The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
light and reliable as an instrument can be.

I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I believe
that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!

Thank you for the comment!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503

Do Not Archive


In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
PLaurence(at)the-beach.net writes:

Bob,

I have to agree on your take.

I learned to fly partial panel with a turn coordinator ( along with the
other compliments of instruments) which in my opinion is as proficient as a
T&B. However, my guess is that a lot of newer pilots flying today have not
developed this skill.


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:12 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
PLaurence(at)the-beach.net writes:

Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?

Sorry, I forgot to answer this.

There has been.

Brittain had one that they also used as the sensor for their low cost
autopilot. I do not recall seeing one that was not associated with an autopilot or
wing leveler. Doesn't mean there isn't one though!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

Do Not Archive


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
Kellym



Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1700
Location: Sun Lakes AZ

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:35 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Bob, the Brittain TC-100 you are refering to is both vacuum and electric
powered, and will continue to function as long as either power source is
present. I have one in my Mooney. As for recovering from a spin, while
prepping for my instrument ride 26 years ago my CFI put me in an unusual
attitude under the hood, and gave me the plane. The AH and DG were
tumbled, so I knew I had to level the wings with the TC, and control the
airspeed. Only afterwards, did I find out he put me in a spin...which I
had never done at that point. Much easier recovery if you don't see the
spinning earth out the window.

BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
Quote:



In a message dated 1/16/2006 7:00:07 P.M. Central Standard Time,
PLaurence(at)the-beach.net writes:

Is there such a thing as a vacuum T/C?



Sorry, I forgot to answer this.

There has been.

Brittain had one that they also used as the sensor for their low cost
autopilot. I do not recall seeing one that was not associated with an autopilot or
wing leveler. Doesn't mean there isn't one though!

Happy Skies,

Old Bob

Do Not Archive















- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Grimmonpre'



Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 144
Location: Huntley, Illinois 60142

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:19 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Do Not Archive
Hi Bob ...
Do you know if a 12v electric 2 1/4" needle and ball instrument is
available?
Jerry Grimmonpre'

---


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
brian



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:45 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:

Quote:
The T&B has one or two less fulcrums to fail, but both are about as simple,
light and reliable as an instrument can be.

The internal construction of the TC and the T&SI (T&B) are the same. The
only difference is that the axis of the gyro in the TC is canted so that
the gyro responds to both yaw and roll rather than yaw only as in the T&SI.

Quote:
I have mentioned this often, but I will repeat, I have two T&Bs in my
airplane, one is vacuum powered. The other is driven by electricity. I believe
that is overkill, but they are so cheap, I do it anyway!

Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI.

--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
brian



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:55 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Brinker wrote:
Quote:


The GRT will also display the HSI from the SL30. And will tune the
SL30 from the MFD. Not to mention ILS and Localizer And will display your
engine monitor to either display you choose. Not sure how you get 6k for
engine monitoring. Last I checked a 6cyl was around $1100 with EIS and
probes.

I didn't think that was with the full graphical engine display.

Quote:
GRT is very helpful if there is a way to make it work they will try.
I have a KLN90B gps that Todd is trying figure out if it will work with
they're system now. It looks favorable, I am keeping my fingures and toes
crossed.

The GRT should respond to ARINC-429 messages. If it does, it should be
compatible with any nav system that outputs ARINC-429 nav info, e.g.
CDI, VDI, flags, etc.

--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
brian



Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 643
Location: Sacramento, California, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Bruce Gray wrote:
Quote:
Chelton) remains untested to the extent necessary to pass DO 178, their
hardware is not DO 160 certified. That means you're the beta tester. Do you
want to bet your life in that situation? Mark my words, we're going to have
some experimental airplanes equipped with low cost EFIS systems get into
some serious fatal trouble. That body count is going to raise the level of
visibility of this issue with the FAA and soon big brother will be breathing
down our necks.

Low cost, noncertified EFIS system are OK for VFR airplanes. But stay out of
IFR conditions.

Bruce, there are a lot of airplanes flying IFR with the gyros powered by
a dry vacuum pump and you are worried about how dangerous the current
crop of non-certified PFDs are?

Instrument-rated pilots are supposed to be able to cross check their
gyros and reject those that do not agree. That is part of the standard
skill set.

When things go wrong and you start to chase a dying AI, you know it.
*EVERYTHING* feels wrong and your airspeed and altitude start to move.
You *KNOW* you have a problem. It will pretty quickly become apparent
which instrument(s) are providing you with valid information.

--
Brian Lloyd 2243 Cattle Dr.
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
Brian Lloyd
brian-yak at lloyd dot com
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)

I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mlas(at)cox.net
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:26 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Bob,

Actually I stated that the artificial horizon was vacuum powered not the
T&B. The only T&B that was vacuum powered as a normal course was on the
Mooneys, most were electric. I think you need to read thing a little
more carefully.

As far as meeting the requirement of being able to fly a T&B, most IFR
pilots could do this when licensed but never practice this task again.
You tell me how good you would be 10 years down the road without
spending more then the 5 minutes or so work with the T&B on your BFR in
great weather. Unless youre the one pilot in general aviation that
does go out every 90 days and maintains proficiency at this task. I
think your hiding behind the lack of data showing that pilots do not
practice what they do not like or are not very good at. I'm just being
realistic about the data I have collected about real world proficiency.

Mike

--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
bobsv35b(at)aol.com
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:33 am    Post subject: EFIS Comparisons Reply with quote

Good Morning Brian,

You ask: "Why don't you put in a second AI? Seems to me that would serve you
better than a second T&SI."

Many reasons.

I would need to repeat long treatises on why I prefer the T&B over the TC along with thoughts on how MY mind works. What works for me may not work for others.

On top of that, the T&B is lighter, cheaper and, in my opinion, more reliable.

Incidentally, I have never disassembled either a T&B or a TC, but my local instrument guru tells me that the TC has one more fulcrum point to transfer the data from the canted gyro to the instrument face. Thus a slightly higher parts count and an ever so slightly higher chance of failure.

There is no doubt that, with proper training, either a TC or a T&B can be used successfully for partial panel flight and as a device for recovery from an unusual attitude.

On top of that, neither instrument will tumble as will some attitude gyros.

My love for the T&B is based on it being so much different in appearance from the TC or attitude gyro and the fact that it will show only yaw where the TC shows both roll and yaw.

Happy Skies,

Old Bob


--


- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
 

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group