From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:57:30 -0600 (CST) Subject: COZY: Radio choice - IFR Com: Ability to flip/flop 2 freq's and 2 radios very desirable. Can set up ATIS, approach, tower, and ground well in advance. You'll be busy enough near the end, trying to keep ILS needles centered, looking for runway, gear down, etc. Also ability of flip to previous freq. important when you are handed off and freq. is dead (someone stuck mic, bad radio on ground, or you got wrong freq.) 2 Separate radios in case one goes bad. VOR: Airway navigation seems to give lowest work load. Need 2 vor's to identify intersections, and on short legs grab the next VOR. Flip/flops are nice, but not necessary here. Your charts and DUATs flight plan will identify, rarely will a controller give you a freq. unless you ask, and that should never happen if you do reasonable flight planning. ADF: Needed for some ILS that have compass locator. Good for finding where you are along an airway, lots of small airports have a NDB and are located on charts. Good low and in mountains. GPS: I have an old IImorrow flybuddy 820. It is not IFR certified, nor moving map. As a result I cannot file direct, but the work around is use the GPS to determine a heading to your destination, then request that heading "until able" receive your destination VOR. Many times it will be granted, but I have had it granted and taken back, with then to some intersection, that was really hard since we were near the intersection, tuning radios, and figuring where you were was time consuming. OH!! Remember the COZY's are cruising over 200 MPH, this is covering a lot of ground, and it is necessary to do your planning on the ground, and stay ahead of things. In a C-172 you could relax and still no problem. I had going into the Boston area once, from 11,000' and 2 VOR's, and almost lined up with the ILS, changed to add 2 intersections, making all 5 minute legs, 3 controllers, and 4 altitude assignments, I hate to say, but when we landed, I hadn't time to check out the missed approach procedure! What I like about this one its simple to use, can find distance /direction to anywhere without disrupting inuse navigation including autopilot couple. Most of the time, we keep track of progress with the emergency nearest search, without disrupting navigation. Coupled to the Navaid, it generally is within 0.2 mile of course, and we have many times flown the same route, with passing almost exactly over the same landmarks without touching any thing after an hour. For ILS program the outermarker and airport as a flight plan, activate, ad offset from the ILS and distance to the marker and then airport are shown, NEAT! Heading hold and intecept would be nice, and can be done. GPS has encoded altitude input, uses as a satelite if only a few are available. THere have been times that that system has been down in areas (including New England area was jammed), don't rely on as only! MArker Beacon: Needed for ILS Transponder: Altitude encoder should be same if you have digital readout, then you will become aware of an encoder failure. CANADA: Has some strict equipment regulations including a whiskey glass compass, no vertical cards, and in some instances a range receiver. A topic for a nother day, if there is interest let me know in a week or so. Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 09:18:18 -0500 From: bil kleb Subject: Re: COZY: Radio choice - IFR cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > GPS: I have an old IImorrow flybuddy 820. It is not IFR certified, > nor moving map. As a result I cannot file direct [...] there is nothing in the regs that say you can't file direct. afaik, ifr dead reckoning is not illegal. take in deakin's article on flying with an ifr-certified, tso'd #2 pencil (and a vfr gps). http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0011.html (warning: you'll need to "join" avweb to read) -- bil ps: while you're there, you high altitude oxygen humans might want to take a look at his home-brew oxygen article as well... http://www.avweb.com/articles/pelperch/pelp0013.html (note: please change the subject line if you reply on this point.) From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 09:09:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: Radio choice - IFR Bil Kleb wrote Agreed, I think the regulation says something like "equipment required appropriate to the facilities used>. Then if you are going to fly a heading say to VFR conditions, all you need is a com radio with the controller. My comments were more based on my experiences with controllers in the air. Coming home at night last fall, IFR Clearance, CAVU, I was not allowed a request my navigation, direct outer marker, then the ILS inbound, it wasn't said, but I had intended to maintain vectoring altitude until established inbound, which would have been 300' above the glideslope at the marker. I was vectored for the normal 30 degree intercept. Would have canceled earlier, but wanted to be found if went down, within 10 miles of home, there was nobody else that would have missed us! From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 06:44:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: COZY: GPS as only nav radio For those that are considering GPS as infallible, and their only navigation radio, here is a notam from the DUATS this morning. Similar ones appear at random times, all over the country. !GPS 03/015 ZOB GPS UNRELIABLE WITH IN A 160 NM RADIUS OF SYRACUSE VORTAC (SYR) AT FL400. AFFECTED AREA WILL DECREASE WITH ALTITUDE TO A 130 NM RADIUS AT 10000 FT AGL AND A 50 NM RADIUS AT THE SURFACE. IFR OPERATIONS BASED UPON GPS NAVIGATION SHOULD NOT BE PLANNED IN THE AFFECTED AREA DURING THE PERIODS INDICATED. THESE OPERATIONS INCLUDE DOMESTIC RNAV OR LONG-RANGE NAVIGATION REQUIRING GPS. THESE OPERATIONS ALSO INCLUDE GPS STANDALONE AND OVERLAY INSTRUMENT APPROACH OPERATIONS. WEF 9903090501-9903091100 Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 07:39:25 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: COZY: GPS as only nav radio Perhaps you misinterpret this NOTAM. It means GPS navigation may be affected in places least likely to affect others AND where you may not have conventional navigation sources anyway. It is NOT an indication that GPS in not reliable. Ron Lee At 06:44 AM 3/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >For those that are considering GPS as infallible, and their only navigation radio, here is a notam from the DUATS this >morning. Similar ones appear at random times, all over the country. > >!GPS 03/015 ZOB GPS UNRELIABLE WITH IN A 160 NM RADIUS OF >SYRACUSE VORTAC (SYR) AT FL400. AFFECTED AREA WILL DECREASE WITH >ALTITUDE TO A 130 NM RADIUS AT 10000 FT AGL AND A 50 NM RADIUS AT >THE SURFACE. IFR OPERATIONS BASED UPON GPS NAVIGATION SHOULD NOT >BE PLANNED IN THE AFFECTED AREA DURING THE PERIODS INDICATED. >THESE OPERATIONS INCLUDE DOMESTIC RNAV OR LONG-RANGE NAVIGATION >REQUIRING GPS. THESE OPERATIONS ALSO INCLUDE GPS STANDALONE AND >OVERLAY INSTRUMENT APPROACH OPERATIONS. WEF 9903090501-9903091100 > > > From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sun, 7 Mar 1999 10:18:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: COZY: GPS as only nav radio On 03/07/99 07:39:25 you wrote: > >Perhaps you misinterpret this NOTAM. It means GPS navigation may >be affected in places least likely to affect others AND where you >may not have conventional navigation sources anyway. > >It is NOT an indication that GPS in not reliable. > >Ron Lee > Definition of reliability from "Webster" : "That may be relied upon." The message I was trying to relay: There are occasions that the GPS or any other navaid may not be available for a variety of reasons. Given the less vigorous flight planning that many (I'm included) have adapted in this day. Its prudent to have a backup navaid available. In my case I have dual VOR's, GPS, ADF, and a handheld navcom. Originally the GPS had an intermittent antenna that once in several months would unlock, but for several years has been near fully available. The navaid, including GPS failure could be on either end of the system. Note that if a GPS loses power for whatever reason, it can be minutes before it is usable. Thats unacceptable during approaches, and a backup should be set up to transition to. Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 09:28:47 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: RE: COZY: GPS as only nav radio Jim, you correctly identify an apparent conflict. However, GPS users must recognize that GPS was initially designed for military use. They must equip and train for GPS usa in a variety of circumstances. The testing last week was part of that and was approved by civil authorities...including the FAA However, the notion that GPS and its augmentations (such as WAAS and LAAS) will be sole means appears to be unlikely...based upon recent comments by Garvey. There is a FAA Navigation User Forum series of meetings in DC now that discusses these issues. IT is possible that a significant portion of the current ground navaids MAY be retained indefinitely. Many issues and viewpoints will factor into this. So what does all this mean to us GA pilots? In my opinion, GPS navigation...whether sole or primary means..is here. Buying a WAAS receiver...preferably one that will accept the teo new civil signals at 1227 and 1176 MHz, would be desirable. That should allow excellent enroute flight as well as reasonably robust NPA and precision like approaches. There are rumors of a relatively cheap inertial unit ($500-1000) that may be available within a few years. That can mitigate much of the now relatively small interference issues. In addition, my opinion is that LORAN-C can be a valuable supplement/backup/complement to GPS aviation for GA folks. It may not be adequate YET for NPA but it should be ok for en route. Megapulse has come out with an antenna that reportedly solves much of the IFR flight static problems. My suggestion is that if you feel strongly about the navaid architecture that we will have to live with for decades, contact the FAA or AOPA, who is invlved in this process. Note that the air carriers and some equipment manufacturers do not want LORAN as a backup. This is indicative of the rice bowls you will encounter. My opinion is that LORAN is OK for GA. Let the air carriers equip with inertial, FMSs and DME. We do not have to have ONE solution that everyone must comply with. LORAN would be cheaper for GA. Time to end this rambling. Get involved now if you want to help guide the navaid solution. Ron Lee At 10:15 AM 3/7/99 -0500, you wrote: >> For those that are considering GPS as infallible, and their only >> navigation radio, here is a notam from the DUATS this >> morning. Similar ones appear at random times, all over the country. >> >> !GPS 03/015 ZOB GPS UNRELIABLE WITH IN A 160 NM RADIUS OF > > > >What's happening is that our military, in their infinite wisdom, is >jamming the GPS signal so that their personnel can learn to identify >the problem and practice navigating without GPS. There was something >in AVWEB about this a few weeks ago. Seems kind of silly that one >arm of the government is promoting GPS as a sole means of navigation, >and another arm of the government is jamming the signal. Sounds like > a good time to start writing elected officials. > > >Jim Hocut >jhocut@mindspring.com > > > > Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 10:17:23 -0700 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: COZY: GPS as only nav radio >The issue of "reliability" here is somewhat semantics. It really >is no different than seeing a NOTAM that a VOR you need to fly from >point A to B is unavailable. If another post I made gets through, >you will have a better grasp of the larger issues that will impact >Cozy builders (and all pilots) in the future. > >My suggestion is to take a look at the following web site and read >the materials on navaid architecture...especially the Navigation User >Forum link: > >http://www.faa.gov/asd/ > >The point that builders here should be aware of is that the navigation >infrastructure is almost certain to undergo significant change over >the next decade. That may impact the navigation avionics that you install. >For example, ADFs may be rapidly decommissioned in favor of the vast >benefits offered by GPS/WAAS/LAAS. > >Each pilot has to make the decision on equipage based upon their needs, >but I suspect that GPS and its augmentations will rapidly replace >many (but maybe not all!!!!!!) conventional ground navaids. > >Ron Lee > > > > > > > >At 10:18 AM 3/7/99 -0600, you wrote: >>On 03/07/99 07:39:25 you wrote: >>> >>>Perhaps you misinterpret this NOTAM. It means GPS navigation may >>>be affected in places least likely to affect others AND where you >>>may not have conventional navigation sources anyway. >>> >>>It is NOT an indication that GPS in not reliable. >>> >>>Ron Lee >>> >>Definition of reliability from "Webster" : "That may be relied upon." >>The message I was trying to relay: There are occasions that the GPS or any >other navaid may not be available for a variety of >>reasons. Given the less vigorous flight planning that many (I'm included) >have adapted in this day. Its prudent to have a >>backup navaid available. In my case I have dual VOR's, GPS, ADF, and a >handheld navcom. Originally the GPS had an intermittent >>antenna that once in several months would unlock, but for several years >has been near fully available. The navaid, including >>GPS failure could be on either end of the system. >> >>Note that if a GPS loses power for whatever reason, it can be minutes >before it is usable. Thats unacceptable during >>approaches, and a backup should be set up to transition to. >> >> > Date: Sun, 07 Mar 1999 16:19:28 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: GPS as only nav radio Carl, re "For those that are considering GPS as infallible...." Nothing is infallible, Carl, least of all GPS, our 40 year old VOR system, or for that matter, the FAA radar and com systems and the electric power that hold it all together. A couple years ago I was working a flight from Boston to St. Louis just passing New York when the controller cleared us to the Broadway VOR to hold at 35,000 feet. I asked what was going on and he said they lost ALL radar. The hold was indefinite and he asked me what my intentions were....I said standby, I'll call you back. (I certainly was not going to orbit there until I ran out of fuel.) I checked with company dispatcher (they kind of like to know what's going on) and he suggested landing in Philly. I thought that was a rather dumb idea since we'd have to descend through 6 miles of airspace uncontrolled without a clue as to how many other guys were doing likewise. The F/O and I decided to hell with it, we'll proceed westbound VFR at our assigned altitude, since we were in the clear, until we got into Cleveland's airspace and then resume our flight IFR. About that time, the New York controller called and advised us to take up a heading of 270°, they were about to get primary radar back (no transponder returns). The point is, we can not rely on any of these systems exclusively. There must be completely separate backups and when all else fails, the human brain has to take over. The worst case scenario is when the FAA has a power failure and the backup system does not kick in. And it happens a couple times a year...no radar....no com. It is not a comforting feeling knowing you are one of about 100 other flights going to the same place in soup under these circumstances. There are procedures for individual aircraft com failures...there are NO procedures for a complete shutdown of ATC radar and communications. Hang loose, Carl, and keep doing your IFR VOR check. GPS is great but for sure it ain't the last word, as I'm sure you are aware. dd (retired 2/22/99 and liking it much....presently languishing on Sanibel Island for 30 days...hope to have my overhauled engine reinstalled by 4/15 and flying Cozy again soon after...keep mixing that glue guys, you'll love flying this airplane) From: Epplin John A Subject: COZY: Slaved Gyro Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:04:54 -0500 Has anyone installed a remote slaved gyro in a Cozy? I am looking at a Collins PN101 HSI. If you consider that it replaces the DG and a VOR indicator the additional weight is not terrible. I have made provisions in the strake tip for the flux sensor. Don't know just where to install the gyro. There is room in front of the right side rudder peddles but I seem to remember that the ideal location is as near to CG as practical. It is too big to stuff into the center spar. There is a system available that has the gyro in the panel mounted instrument but it is kind of pricey. Would rather go with a used PN101 system, used these in our corporate 310's years ago and had no failures in thousands of hours. John Epplin Mk4 #467 N100EP From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 13:59:54 +0200 Subject: COZY: Installation of HSI Canardians, I have a question for installation avionics experts?.. I have a King KCS 55A HSI model to be installed on my Cosy Classic. It is a classic HSI system with remote Magnetic Slaving Transmitter. My problem is finding the right place where to install this device far enough from any magnetic field. Are there distance limitations? I think there are many different solutions: inside the lower winglets (may be too far), inside the strakes, inside the main spar, somewhere inside the fuselage?.. Can someone suggest me the right solution or another better place for this device? Thanks in advance CIAO to all Massimo Bonicelli Cosy Classic (I-COSI reserved) From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 21:20:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter My Navaid autopilot kicks the plane into a bank when a push to talk switch is released. The suggested diode from the switch is installed. The coax cables have BNC inline connectors within 9" of the radios. Switching the antennas at these connectors, the problem stays with the antenna lead, the other only moves the stick very slightly. Moving the coax's has slight effect. THis problem has been with the plane since day one. Anyone have any ideas?? From: "Tom Jacobs" Subject: Re: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 22:44:38 -0500 Restating the problem to make sure I understand it -- The problem occurs when you use one antenna but not another. I can think of three reasons. 1. The problem antenna is closer to some part of the autopilot system. (Both antennas are working properly, the autopilot is sensitive to RF, it is just a coincidence that the RF from one antenna interferes with the autopilot.) 2. The coax for the problem antenna is positioned near or touching some part of the autopilot system. 3. Something is wrong with the problem antenna. Broken ferrite beads, BNC connector making poor contact. Broken foil, wire, or solder joint. If this is the case, your problem antenna should have more problems. HTH. - --- -- Tom Jacobs tjacobs@madison.tds.net -----Original Message----- From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com To: cozy_builders@canard.com Date: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 9:51 PM Subject: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter >My Navaid autopilot kicks the plane into a bank when a push to talk switch is released. The >suggested diode from the switch is installed. The coax cables have BNC inline connectors within 9" >of the radios. Switching the antennas at these connectors, the problem stays with the antenna lead, >the other only moves the stick very slightly. Moving the coax's has slight effect. THis >problem has been with the plane since day one. Anyone have any ideas?? > Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 23:47:09 -0400 From: Rob Cherney Subject: Re: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter At 09:20 PM 6/1/99 -0500, cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: >My Navaid autopilot kicks the plane into a bank when a push to talk switch >is released. The suggested diode from the switch is installed. The coax >cables have BNC inline connectors within 9" of the radios. Switching the >antennas at these connectors, the problem stays with the antenna lead, the >other only moves the stick very slightly. Moving the coax's has slight >effect. THis problem has been with the plane since day one. Anyone have any >ideas?? Recheck your connections at the BNC cables. If you don't find anything wrong, I'd guess that your coax is radiating due to some mismatch condition. This is not to say that something is really wrong; it is impossible to get a perfect match. I'd try a clamp-on ferrite bead (the type you see on computer monitor cables) over your offending coax cable. I think that you could pick one up at a computer store. If this doesn't work, I'd start looking for ground loops in the wiring of the autopilot. Rob- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert Cherney Home Phone: (410)465-5598 | |Ellicott City, Maryland e-mail: cherney@home.com | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ From: "DL Davis" Subject: RE: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 06:41:54 -0400 Carl, If I understood your message correctly, you get a glitch in roll whenever you key the mike, regardless of which antenna you use. This is a well known problem with the NAVAID. It is susceptible to EMI. I noticed the same problem in my airplane. I also installed the recommended diode in an attempt to cure the problem, but I quickly discovered that the diode is not a fix. If I remember correctly, the diode connection from the PTT signal was an attempt to workaround the problem by temporarily disabling the control signal to the autopilot for the duration of the transmission. In theory, this would leave the aiplane straight and level for a few seconds, and then the autopilot would be free to make whatever corrections are needed after the call. In practice however, I have found that it is just as likely to exaggerate the problem. If the mike is keyed just as the autopilot has entered some correction to roll, then it just freezes there for the duration of the transmission. So a blip of a control signal that was intended to last 20 milliseconds, ends up lasting several seconds instead, and the airplane begins to roll off to one side. As soon as I let go of the mike, the airplane corrects immediately. But it is annoying to have the airplane roll off 20 degrees to one side or the other whenever you key the mike. This will happen randomly and unpredictably if you have the diode installed. If you leave the diode out, then it happens all the time in one direction, usually with a fixed amount of roll. So, if you really want to test the effects of switching the antenna, I believe you should DISCONNECT the diode. Because the way it works now, you are going to get a glitch on keying the mike, even if your radio doesn't transmit a thing. It is possible that one comm antenna may work better than another, because it generates less noise on the autopilot lines, but you won't be able to see the difference unless you disconnect the PTT circuit that disables the autopilot control. Sorry about the lengthy message. Let me know if you have any luck with it. Dewey Davis > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com > [mailto:owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com]On Behalf Of cdenk@ix.netcom.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 10:21 PM > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter > > > My Navaid autopilot kicks the plane into a bank when a push to > talk switch is released. The > suggested diode from the switch is installed. The coax cables > have BNC inline connectors within 9" > of the radios. Switching the antennas at these connectors, the > problem stays with the antenna lead, > the other only moves the stick very slightly. Moving the coax's > has slight effect. THis > problem has been with the plane since day one. Anyone have any ideas?? > Date: Wed, 02 Jun 1999 08:30 -0500 (CDT) From: Michael Pollock Subject: RE: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter Carl, Is it possible that the RF from the transmitter antenna is getting back into the power lead of the Navaid? Perhaps a .1uF capacitor added across the power leads as close to the Navaid as possible will help the problem if it is RF into the power leads. Michael.Pollock@mci.com Flying Velocity N173DT Building Cozy MKIV #643 From: Epplin John A Subject: RE: COZY: Installation of HSI Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 15:26:05 -0500 Have not got there yet but I left provisions to install the transmitter outboard of the fuel tank area, just forward of the spar. I put a inspection cover in the lower skin, several plies of BID around the edge for about 1" and made a flush fitting round cover. There is supposed to be foam out there just to fair the strake to the wing. I attached the wing and made the strake to fit it. I intend to mount the transmitter to a bracket attached to the diagonal rib. The Classic may be different than the MK4 here, don't know the details. One thing I have not found yet is non-magnetic hardware to attach the cover. I have seen plate nuts made of aluminum but cannot find any at our local FBO or Wicks catalog. Hate to use Rivnuts as there is no safety device. John Epplin Mk4 #467, N100EP > -----Original Message----- > From: mfacchinelli@sogei.it [SMTP:mfacchinelli@sogei.it] > Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 7:00 AM > To: cozy_builders@canard.com > Subject: COZY: Installation of HSI > > Canardians, > > I have a question for installation avionics experts?.. > I have a King KCS 55A HSI model to be installed on my Cosy Classic. > It is a classic HSI system with remote Magnetic Slaving Transmitter. > My problem is finding the right place where to install this device far > enough from any magnetic field. Are there distance limitations? > I think there are many different solutions: inside the lower winglets > (may > be too far), inside the strakes, inside the main spar, somewhere inside > the > fuselage?.. > Can someone suggest me the right solution or another better place for this > device? > > Thanks in advance > > CIAO to all > > Massimo Bonicelli > Cosy Classic (I-COSI reserved) > From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 21:32:25 -0500 (CDT) Subject: COZY: Navaid - transmitter Several have suggested a problem with transmitter antenna coax and BNC connectors among other issues. I plan to ring out the coax's with an Ohmmeter, looking for continuity and shorts between the shield and center conductor. It should be easy to the wing/strake connectors. I have access to one antenna leads at the antenna, and will check that location also. Can I use a CB radio SWR meter with short leads with BNC connectors on the transmitter leads. THe frequencies are similar, near VHF TV, and FM radio. Just would use as a indicator of major problems, comparing one antenna to the other. Or need I get to a aircraft radio shop that has a meter that measures radiated energy? From: Lee810@aol.com Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 23:46:34 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Navaid - transmitter In a message dated 6/2/99 8:38:30 PM Mountain Daylight Time, cdenk@ix.netcom.com writes: > Can I use a CB radio SWR meter with short leads with BNC connectors on the > transmitter leads. THe frequencies are similar, > near VHF TV, and FM radio. Just would use as a indicator of major problems, > comparing one antenna to the other. Or need I get > to a aircraft radio shop that has a meter that measures radiated energy? Find a ham radio enthusiast in your area and ask him if he has (or knows someone how has) an MFJ259 SWR meter that you can borrow. I have one and after my ham buddies used it, they all ran out and bought their own. I actually bought it for installing the foil antennas in my Cozy and it worked just great. They cost around $200. Alternately, you can get a 144/440 Mhz SWR/Power meter at Radio Shack for around $30. These aren't as flexible as the MFJ meter, but they are likely to work OK in the aircraft band which is close to 144 Mhz at the high end. CB frequencies are not similar to aviation band frequencies as they are HF and aviation is VHF (27Mhz vs 108-135Mhz) so I wouldn't use anything designed for CB unless it wasn't specific to the CB frequency range. I would really try to determine if it's energy that is 'leaking' from the coax in close proximity to the Navaid or if the Navaid is sensitive to RF in the aviation band in general. You can try keying a handheld around your panel and see if the problem still persists. If not, then it's probably related to the leaky coax like you suspect. Also, if the servo wires for the A/P run parallel to the coax for long lengths, that could also couple RF energy into the system if it's leaking on the coax shield. Lee Devlin Greeley, CO Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:56:35 -0700 From: Wayne Lanza Subject: Re: COZY: Navaid affected by transmitter Hi Carl, What type of wiring do you have going from the AP head back to the servo? The servo recieves a pulse width modulated signal as position input. You might be coupling enough of an RF glitch into the servo to corrupt the PWM signal. I've flown with many installations, mostly Velocitys, and haven't experienced this. I'd like to suggest that you try two things: 1- Run the +12, GND & Signal wires in a shielded bundle. Ground the shield at the AP end to your GND bus using an 18 or 16 gauge wire. If you can't find any suitable cable, let me know, I'll get you some. 2- Also ground the cases of the AP head and servo to a GOOD ground. Let me know what gives, Wayne Lanza __________________________________________________________________________ cdenk@ix.netcom.com wrote: > > My Navaid autopilot kicks the plane into a bank when a push to talk switch is released. The > suggested diode from the switch is installed. The coax cables have BNC inline connectors within 9" > of the radios. Switching the antennas at these connectors, the problem stays with the antenna lead, > the other only moves the stick very slightly. Moving the coax's has slight effect. THis > problem has been with the plane since day one. Anyone have any ideas?? Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 09:37:49 -0500 From: "Scott Christensen" Subject: COZY: [c-a] AutoPilot question -Reply Todd, Back some 20 years ago, there were a series of articles in Sport Aviation detailing how to build your own autopilot. NASA did research using "electro-fluidic" rate sensors instead of gyros, and Don Hewes / Doug Garner adapted this technology to a "Poor Man's VFR autopilot." The articles are pretty interesting to read for the "gadget freak" such as myself. I this unit could be build for less than $100. A couple EZ driver's here in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, have built and installed this system. They have been using it for about a decade with positive results. Here are the issues of Sport Aviation: Mar 74 May 78 Jun 78 *** Mar 79 Aug 80 *** Feb 80 Nov 81 Apr 81 *** Dec 81 The key ones have *** behind them. Scott >>> Todd Carrico 07/12/99 07:03pm >>> [The Canard Aviators's Mailing list] I have seen some reference to Navaid autopilots. Are there others that we are using? I am looking for opinions here. I would like some relief from normal piloting duties, and I am a self diagnosed gadget freak. Any opinion would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Todd Carrico COZY #789 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:37:20 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: AutoPilot question I along with many use the Navaid. I couple it to the IImorrow GPS, King VOR/Loc, and recently doing some testing for Jim Ham of Porcine Assoc. of a coupler to the directional gyro. GPS tracks within 0.2 mile of course for hours at a time, and is repeatable to that accuracy. Set the CDI sensativity to smallest per tick mark. VOR - if the needle wags, well the roll rate is fast, and it will bank quickly with it. Loc - will track within half a full needle, acceptable for approach. DG - fine tuning response. If with 30 degrees of heading, will capture the heading and hold it OK. Would be nice to have altitude hold, but the plane is quite stable. S-tec has been installed in some, I'm sure it would be more smooth, probably more weight and many more $$. From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:07:44 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: RE: PMA4000 I have a Flightcom 403D that I am happy with. It is Stereo, and have a walkman hooked to it for long boring flights. It is mounted above the upper stiffner channel, and fits nicely there. From: Allan Aaron Subject: COZY: Wiring radios Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 12:20:26 +1000 I have an oldish Narco com and a Bendix King nav/com. I bought a new softcom panel mount intercom at Oshkosh this year. I don't have an audio panel. Can I simply wire the microphone leads from both radios into a dpdt switch on the panel and then to the intercom? Can I combine the headset output leads (from the two coms and the nav) into the intercom? Will I have any problems with signal loss or feedback or anything else that will drive those electrons crazy? Thanks Allan Aaron "Cozy still under construction and Mustang really close to flying" From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:15:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Wiring radios Was Said Most of the older radios are illegal to transmit with. More frequencies, and tighter tolerances. Check if they are legal before going further. From: Lee810@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 23:50:53 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Wiring radios In a message dated 8/19/99 8:22:52 PM Mountain Daylight Time, aaaron@tvp.com.au writes: > have an oldish Narco com and a Bendix King nav/com. I bought a new > softcom panel mount intercom at Oshkosh this year. I don't have an audio > panel. > > Can I simply wire the microphone leads from both radios into a dpdt switch > on the panel and then to the intercom? Can I combine the headset output > leads (from the two coms and the nav) into the intercom? Will I have any > problems with signal loss or feedback or anything else that will drive those > electrons crazy? With the possibility of GPS replacing all other forms of navigation radios, I often wonder about the future of the audio panel. Typically, these panels are used to combine as many as 8 audio sources (COM 1, COM 2, ADF, AUX, DME, NAV 1, NAV 2, and MKR) into the intercom. I can forsee a time when ADF, DME, NAV1 and NAV2, and MKR signal may become unnecessary which would greatly simplify the audio panel. >From an electrical standpoint, it would not hurt radios to combine the audio outputs of the radios provided each has enough output impedance so you're not electrically shorting one output with the other. You can test this by incrementally adding headset loads (or equivalent resistance) to see what kind of voltage difference you get while holding the volume control constant. If you don't get much voltage drop, then the output circuit probably doesn't have much output impedance and you may harm the output amplifier if the radio's outputs are combined. If this is case, you can build a simple summing circuit to combine the outputs together into an audio amplifier. As for input, it would probably be best to use a DPDT switch to switch the mic input and PTT simultaneously between radios. That way you don't have to worry about multiple bias circuits acting on the electret mic simultaneously. Lee Devlin Greeley, CO From: "Olson's" Subject: COZY: Re: Wiring radios Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 19:59:08 -0500 Allen, The note you got about the old radios is right on. Most old radios have to wide a band width. As far as your question about wireing. Yes and NO. Yes you can wire the mike output from the intercom which is ment to go to the audio panel or a mike input to a radio through a switch. I would suggest going through a switch with both the mike audio and the key line. This will require a double pole double through switch. Now comes the harder part. I would also recomend that you wire the come receive audio through an additional pole on that same switch. That way you will be sure to be transmitting on the radio you are listening to. That is a down and dirty way to copy an audio panels switching. You should also provide a seperate single pole single through switch for the nav receiver. A lot of navs will not turn the audio all the way down with the volume pot and you will soon go crazy listening to the morse code mixed with the other noise. You should also wire a 500 ohm resistor in line with each of the audio outputs so that you can reduce the loading effect of two or more audio output connected in paralel. If you would like I could send a simple schematic of the recomended hook up. I have been a Avionics Tech for about 10 years and the above layout is what we would do if a customer refused to install an audio panel. Dean Olson Rebuilding a bent MM II -----Original Message----- From: Allan Aaron To: cozy_builders@canard.com ; mustang-list@n9.org Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 9:21 PM Subject: Wiring radios >I have an oldish Narco com and a Bendix King nav/com. I bought a new >softcom panel mount intercom at Oshkosh this year. I don't have an audio >panel. > >Can I simply wire the microphone leads from both radios into a dpdt switch >on the panel and then to the intercom? Can I combine the headset output >leads (from the two coms and the nav) into the intercom? Will I have any >problems with signal loss or feedback or anything else that will drive those >electrons crazy? > >Thanks >Allan Aaron >"Cozy still under construction and Mustang really close to flying" > > From: alwick@juno.com Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 18:24:48 -0700 Subject: Re: COZY: intercom kit I built the Jim Weir intercom kit this winter. It was lots of fun, took about 8 hours. I modified it to fit inside the headrest. Very pleased with it except perhaps that it's not stereo. Jim has website. Happy building! -al wick Canopy Latch System guy. Artificial intelligence in Cockpit Cozy sn 389 driven by stock Subaru 2.5 ltr 101% complete. On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 18:35:45 -0400 dewayne morgan writes: > Also, a while back i saw a shematic/kit in an electronic magazine or > maybe a kitplane/eaa magazine about a intercom kit that you could build > yourself. If anyone remembers this article please let me know. > > thanks > > dewayne ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From: "Nat Puffer" Subject: Re: COZY: eating an elephant Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 19:05:02 -0500 Builders, I built Jim Weir's intocom sets for two of my airplanes. It was a lot of fun, not much work, and less expensive that one already assembled. I was in a hurry on the 4-place plans model, so bought one already built. Regards, Nat Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 22:22:46 -0500 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: Coax Cable >Thanks for the helpful advice. . . . . . Maybe >you might expand on your explanation and suggest or remind those >interested that a stranded center conductor coaxial cable is the best way >to go in a mobile installation. Excellent point. About 33 years ago we had a rash of VOR antenna system failures in the Cessna singles. Seems the coax cable from panel to antenna back on the vertical fin became shorted. It took some digging to figure out why. The coax had been routed through an area of structure where the bend radius was too tight. Over time, the pressure of a single strand conductor on the plastic caused the wire to cold-flow through the insulation and short out on the outer conductor! Replacment of the coax with stranded center conductor -AND- rerouting for a larger bend radius prevented this from happening again . . . Further, a stranded conductor is more resistant to breakage from flexing and is preferable for that reason also. Thanks for the reminder! Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1999 08:43:41 -0500 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: Coax Cable >I have a Narco Transponder on my Europa, connected to its aerial on a >ground plane about 6 foot away. Although my VHF radio (Garmin GNC 250) is >fed from a separate bus, with widely separated aerial cables, I get >intermittent interference when the Narco responds to a radar - just a short >buzz as the identification lamp lights on the Transponder. >Any ideas on what I can do to suppress the interference? A very common problem . . . especially with "plastic" airplanes. Your transponder puts out a stream of very narrow, high power pulses that carry the digitally encoded data for your squawk, altitude, etc. Common propogation modes for the transponder to interfere with other radios are coupling between antenna feedlines (not case here because you've separated them), direct radiation of transponder energy into the antenna of the victim radio and radiation of transponder energy into wiring associated with victim radio. Try turning down the volume on your VHF comm and see if the transponder noise is still there (of course you have to do this while the transponder is being iterrogated by a ground radar). If the noise goes away, then it's most likely getting into the comm receiver's antenna. Moving either or both of the antennas to increase separation may do the trick. If the noise does NOT go away, then it's getting into the wiring. You can try ferrite filter "beads" on wire bundle going into back of comm receiver, also shielding may help. If push comes to shove, a filter assembly consisting of inductors and capacitors on each pin of the wiring to the comm receiver may be necessary. Metal airplanes dont have the latter problem very often due to the isolating effect of the aircraft's skin . . . Wish there was a "magic bullet" but what you're experiencing can be one of the hardest problems to fix. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 21:33:32 -0500 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: Coax Cable for transponders >>>Can you tell me the difference between RG142 and RG400 >>>cable except that one has solid center conductor and the >>>other stranded. >> >>bn: Why use either of these cables? > >Well, for one reason, the Bendix/King KLX-135A Installation Manual >specifies that if the length of the coax is to be longer than 9 feet (as I >recall), RG-142 or RG-400 is to be used. > > >bn: The modern RG cables like 400 and 142 are still >bn: small diameter cables and have losses comparable >bn: to RG-58. > >NOT TRUE. >RG58 has a nominal attenuation of 20db per 100 feet at 1GHz. >RG142 has a nominal attenuation of 13db per 100 feet at 1GHz. bn: I stand corrected . . . but for a run of say 15' (very long in a single engine airplane) we're talking 3db for RG58 versus 2db for RG142 . . . which is still trivial. I encourage my readers to put the xponder antenna as close to the instrument panel as they can. Given that very few antennas are on the belly of any airplane, a coax length of 5-6 feet is possible for most airplanes . . . a GOOD thing to shoot for irrespective of the kind of coax you use. Losses in this length of coax are insignificant. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com From: "dewayne morgan" Subject: COZY: intercoms Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 09:49:41 -0400 I found a four place intercom in the october 1998 issue of kitplanes that can be built for around 29.00 from standard (radio shack) parts. It runs on a standard 9 volt battery It is possible to customize it suit your needs. I will build it shortly and let everyone know how well it operates. Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 00:18:28 -0500 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: CHEEP GPS At 09:05 PM 9/23/99 -0400, you wrote: > Someone was asking about simple GPS 's that are available. I have the >cheep Magelland which sells for $99.00 dollars at walmart or Kmart. I have >used it to fly my cessna all arround the northeast and find it to be the >best of both worlds. It has no data base, but has 100 memories and is very >easy to program and use. It has route capability, shows actual heading and >speed. It will even display your time of arrival based on your speed. The >best thing is it gives you a simple compass rose with a needle and you use >it as if you were using a VOR. No buttons to play with while flying and >you can be looking out windshield like you should be. It runs for 48 hrs >on two AA batteries. Its been very reliable. NY I wrote an article for Sport Aviation several years back about the little boater/hiker hand-helds. I've had several of the Magellan handhelds, the GPS2000 is still my favorite but they all work fine. Haven't even turned a VOR receiver ON in over two years. Once you've gone cross country direct to hit a waypoint 1 mile off the approach end of the runway with a $100 radio, it's hard to go back! There's a copy of the article available at: http://home.kscable.com/aeroelectric/articles/nailgun.pdf Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 08:01:46 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... I finally was able to flight check the S-Tec altitude hold system last evening. It works great! It took about 4 days to install the servo, the sensor, the processor and 3 switches. The servo is mounted to F22 with a push rod coming aft to an arm attached to the elevator torque tube, the sensor and processor are under my seat, and the switches, one power, one engage, and one disconnect, on the panel. Any of them will disconnect the servo, plus there is a clutch in the servo that can easily be over ridden by elevator stick force. On the flight check I leveled off at 2000' msl and trimmed the airplane, thinking I really don't need alt hold as it was staying at 2000' be itself, and engaged the unit. It really stayed at 2000' now. I made a turn first at 20° bank and then 30°. It was like glued to 2000'. I then went to 45° and it lost 100' and pulled about a 1.5 g's getting back to 2000'. I rolled out much to quickly for the unit and it gained over 100' but headed back toward 2000' as soon as wings were level. On speed reduction from 140 to 110 it stayed right at 2000'. When the stick force reaches some out of trim limit , the engage switch has an out of trim annunciator telling which way to trim. When back in trim, the annunciator goes out. This unit is very simple but it works as well or better than some very complex systems I worked in a previous life. It does not have vert speed or pre select alt. It just grabs whatever pressure altitude it senses when engaged and stays glued to it. Very appropriate for my airplane - now if I could figure a way to have coffee served.... I am still waiting for the the NavAid portion of the system. They have a big back order jam from OSH and a 3 month delivery schedule. Should have one by the end of October. dd From: "Ugolini, Nick" Subject: RE: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 10:03:16 -0400 Dave, I have the NavAid... for the last few years and I HIGHLY recommend you get the external Smart Coupler II (couples your GPS (serial signal output) to the autopiliot (L/R analogy signal input)) vice the internal type SCII. I did have the NavAid with the internal SCII. Had to send the unit back a few time because the internal unit (an older design) lost the data registers a few time (cause unknown) and would not track headings (like using a compass bug). NavAid was very helpful trying to find the problem, and finally sent me the external type SCII (free). They told me a "few units have this problem" but it does not affect the majority. The external module has been redesigned to eliminate the problem of register losses, but the internal design has not been updated (as of Oshkosh 99). The external unit also includes a LED dimmer (when your running lights are turned on) which is great, as the internal unit does not do this and the LED is too bright for night time flying. When I installed the SCII external unit the NavAid finally flew as advertised perfectly, and has given me no problems in the last 500 hrs. Since you are just ordering your unit, buy it with the SCII External to eliminate any potential issues. When you fly with the NavAid in the tracking mode, set your aileron trim to the max (one way or the other). This will preload your system and prevent hunting back and forth across your track. It is a great system. You will enjoy it. Nick N29TM From: mister@neesnet.com Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 10:39:38 -0500 Subject: Re: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... Dave Domeier wrote about the S-tec altitude hold: Dave, What's the model number and approx. cost of this unit? Bob Misterka Cozy III N342RM http://www.gis.net/~bmist _ ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. New England Electric System Companies ********************************************************************** From: "astrong" Subject: Re: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 08:38:50 -0700 Dave, How the S-tec interface with the Strong Pitch Trim? Regards, Alex -----Original Message----- From: David Domeier To: cozy_builders@canard.com ; Canard mail list Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 6:20 AM Subject: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... > > I finally was able to flight check the S-Tec altitude hold system >last evening. It works great! > > It took about 4 days to install the servo, the sensor, the processor >and 3 switches. The servo is mounted to F22 with a push rod coming aft >to an arm attached to the elevator torque tube, the sensor and processor >are under my seat, and the switches, one power, one engage, and one >disconnect, on the panel. Any of them will disconnect the servo, plus >there is a clutch in the servo that can easily be over ridden by >elevator stick force. > > On the flight check I leveled off at 2000' msl and trimmed the >airplane, thinking I really don't need alt hold as it was staying at >2000' be itself, and engaged the unit. It really stayed at 2000' now. >I made a turn first at 20° bank and then 30°. It was like glued to >2000'. I then went to 45° and it lost 100' and pulled about a 1.5 g's >getting back to 2000'. I rolled out much to quickly for the unit and it >gained over 100' but headed back toward 2000' as soon as wings were >level. On speed reduction from 140 to 110 it stayed right at 2000'. >When the stick force reaches some out of trim limit , the engage switch >has an out of trim annunciator telling which way to trim. When back in >trim, the annunciator goes out. > > This unit is very simple but it works as well or better than some >very complex systems I worked in a previous life. It does not have vert >speed or pre select alt. It just grabs whatever pressure altitude it >senses when engaged and stays glued to it. Very appropriate for my >airplane - now if I could figure a way to have coffee served.... > > I am still waiting for the the NavAid portion of the system. They >have a big back order jam from OSH and a 3 month delivery schedule. >Should have one by the end of October. > >dd > > Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 13:24:03 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: S-Tec alt hold($$) I've had about a half dozen requests for the price of the unit (System 30 ALT). I don't like talking about $$$ 'cause then everyone will know I am spending mine like water and I'll get on some list....but anyway, here's the scoop. It isn't cheap but it is certified for you IFR types. I went to a local dealer to inquire about a stand alone altitude hold to go along with the NavAid Device. The price was $3300 list which he discounted to $2600. But then there was a $800 up charge for all the parts to make it work in a LEZ. S-Tech is very involved in providing there product to experimental airplanes and has kits for many of the high end machines. Someone had previously set the standard for the LEZ which works real well in the Cozy. I think they've figured out the force and correct arm length needed for each airplane and set up the servo and control unit according. It is very smooth and as I said, works. The special parts, such as the bell crank arm which attaches to the elevator torque tube and push rod plus fittings, are of very high quality, but I think any home builder could make them for much less $$. The wire harness is made special for your airplane after you return the schematic with dimensions. It has to be wired correctly or the system won't know up from down, nor will the annunciator work properly. This morning, just out of curiosity, I looked up auto pilot in the ACS catalogue - the damn thing is for sale there for $2200! If I weren't spending my kids inheritance I would really be ticked! Who would have thought such a price difference from ACS? There may be more to it, I haven't called to check it out. I know NavAid Devices is working on an alt hold system, but what they've tried so far has not worked. I have a feeling the sensor and processor are rather pricey because this thing does sense the minutest changes in pressure and has enough brain not to go bonkers over any change...it is smooth. dd From: CCady@aol.com Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:52:08 EDT Subject: COZY: Re: [c-a] S-Tec alt hold... Dave, For those with a panel mount GPS no other interface is generally required to the Navaid. I checked with Navaid prior to installing mine and it connects directly with a few wires. I have a Apollo 360 round GPS and the Navaid tracks perfectly with it. I never had to make any adjustments to the Navaid. It's a nice unit. I have found no tendency to hunt and no trim set to one side but I have a bit of friction in my control system. Cliff From: "astrong" Subject: COZY: Re: S-tec Alt hold!! Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 15:31:18 -0700 Dave, I have a Garmin-90 hand held coupled to a Nav-Aid through an external coupler, works very well. Regards, Alex Homepage http://www.canard.com/trim "Live your life so you can look anybody in the eye, and tell him to go to blazes!!" Dr. James Walter Strong (1874-1950) Date: Sat, 02 Oct 1999 08:39:17 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: COZY: S-Tec @ twelve-five I took the MKIV up to twelve five yesterday to see how the system worked at that altitude. It is a bit more sensitive but did a respectable job. The air was very smooth and the altitude varied about 40' as I made a number of turns getting some GPS GS/Track numbers. Incidentally, I used 2 of the GPS/TAS computers on the RV forum and the speed and w/v came out with 2 knots. I like the Applet formula best. It requires 3 inputs from cardinal headings and that's it. The Applet program can not downed as near as I can tell, but easy to get to get to if anyone is interested. http://www.reacomp.com/TrueAirspeed/index.html I did down load the code for that program it was some 4 pages of stuff. The other program was written by a guy from Australia in Excel and probably most of you have seen it. It's been around awhile. dd True Airspeed Applet

True Airspeed Applet

This browser does not appear to support Java applets. Please download an updated version of this browser, or a recent version of Netscape Communicator/Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer.

The True Airspeed applet will allow a pilot to accurately determine the true airspeed of an aircraft using a GPS or loran unit. The airborne procedure requires approximately 10-15 minutes of stabilized flight to collect groundspeeds in three separate directions, and the ground procedure requires only a few minutes to type those groundspeeds into the applet.

Instructions

  1. In the aircraft at the desired altitude, set the aircraft power to the desired setting (e.g., 75 percent). Configure the GPS or loran unit to display groundspeed.
  2. Turn to one of the cardinal headings (north, east, south, or west) and allow the aircraft to stabilize at its trimmed airspeed. Record the cardinal heading and the groundspeed readout from the GPS or loran.
  3. Turn to another cardinal heading and allow the aircraft speed to stabilize. The indicated airspeed should be identical to the indicated airspeed in the previous step. If it is not, you may be in an updraft or downdraft and may need to allow the aircraft more time to stabilize at its trimmed airspeed. Record the cardinal heading and the groundspeed readout.
  4. Turn to a third cardinal heading and allow the aircraft speed to stabilize. Again, the indicated airspeed should be identical to the previous airspeeds. Record the cardinal heading and the groundspeed readout.
  5. On the ground, enter the recorded groundspeeds into the input boxes in the left half of the True Airspeed applet. Enter the groundspeed recorded while heading north in the top box, the groundspeed recorded while heading west in the left box, etc. As you enter the groundspeeds in the input boxes on the left, the groundtrack display on the right will show lines representing the legs of the airborne test. When you have finished entering the three groundspeeds, the groundtrack display will contain a no-wind representation of your groundtrack. For example, if you first flew north, then east, then south, the line displayed would go up first, then right, then back down. (If any of the directions are opposite to the previous direction, its line will draw on top of the line for the previous direction, so it will look as if only two lines have been drawn.)
    • If the groundspeeds are not entered in the same order as the legs were flown in the air, the groundtrack representation will not be accurate. To fix this problem, click the mouse in the input box where the first-flown groundspeed is entered and then press and release the control key (Ctrl) on the keyboard. Repeat the same procedure for the input box where the second-flow groundspeed is entered, then the same for the last-flown groundspeed. At this point the groundtrack display should contain an accurate no-wind representation of your groundtrack. (On some browsers, pressing the control key may not be necessary; clicking the mouse in the input box may be enough to change the order in which the legs are displayed.)
  6. The applet determines the wind and the aircraft's true airspeed by making an initial guess and then continuing to make better guesses until the solution is found. If you want the applet to display only the final solution, uncheck the "Show Iterations" checkbox. Leaving the checkbox checked will cause the applet to display each guess as it is made so that the groundtrack display becomes an animation starting with the applet's initial guess and ending with the final solution. (Since the applet makes a new guess every tenth of a second, there is not a significant performance penalty to leaving the checkbox checked so the applet's progress can be observed.)
  7. Click the "Compute" button with the mouse. This will cause the applet to begin the guessing process and eventually determine the true wind and aircraft airspeed, usually within seconds. The groundtrack display will now contain a wind-corrected representation of your groundtrack, and the values for true airspeed and the wind will be displayed below the groundtrack display.

Back to top

Background

In the February 1995 issue of Kitplanes magazine, David Fox presented a method for determining the true airspeed of an aircraft using a loran or GPS unit and a pocket calculator. David explained that the classical way of determining groundspeed (flying a measured course in opposite directions) could result in errors if a crosswind exists. The new method presented by David involved flying three groundtracks perpendicular to each other, recording the groundspeed on each track. As an example, the first track (not heading) could be north, the second east, and the third south. The first groundspeed is recorded as V1, the second (perpendiclar to the first) as V2, and the third (parallel to the first and perpendicular to the second) as V3. The true airspeed of the aircraft is given by the formula:

  • VTAS = SQRT( V12 + V22 + V32 + V12 * V32 / V22 ) / 2

The wind components in the direction of the first and second tracks (north and east in our example) are given by the formulae:

  • W1 = ( V1 - V3 ) / 2
  • W2 = ( V2 - V1 * V3 / V2 ) / 2

Although the True Airspeed Applet uses the same basic principles as David's method, there are some differences. David's method requires that specific tracks be flown, the Applet requires that specific headings be flown. Because of this, the underlying equations are more complex and not as easily solved. Although the equations can eventually be reduced to a quadratic equation which can be solved exactly, it is more difficult and error-prone. The Applet does not attempt to reduce or solve the equations, but uses iteration to improve on an initial guess until the solution is found. While solving the equations would be quicker and more exact, iteration was chosen because:

  • its speed and accuracy are sufficient for this type of application, and
  • it provides a series of ever-improving solutions which can be displayed on the screen for the user's enjoyment.

Back to top

 From ???@??? Sun Oct 03 08:33:05 1999 Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id MAA02416 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 12:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA01294 for cozy_builders-list; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:52:18 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f Received: from polaris.sybercom.net (mail.sybercom.net [209.96.152.12]) by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA01289 for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:52:14 -0400 Received: from geocities.com (233-200.sybercom.net [209.96.233.200]) by polaris.sybercom.net (Vircom SMTPRS 4.1.180) with ESMTP id for ; Sun, 3 Oct 1999 11:49:48 -0400 Message-ID: <37F7765D.D1CFBFC0@geocities.com> Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1999 11:29:33 -0400 From: bil kleb Organization: not by nature X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cozy_builders mailing list Subject: Re: COZY: S-Tec @ twelve-five References: <37F60B03.50B6B9DF@earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: bil kleb X-UIDL: 2add729cf97e6f89d64c89612f6f0705 David Domeier wrote: > > The other program was written by a guy from Australia in Excel and > probably most of you have seen it. It's been around awhile. the mathematically elegant version is at: http://www.hlos.com.au/~doug.gray/home.html it does not require cardinal headings. -- bil From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 1 Oct 1999 19:56:48 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... I have an IIMorrow Flybuddy 820 GPS panelmount coupled directly to the Navaid. I set the CDI display to 0.01 miles per dot, and it tracks perfectly with +/- 0.2 miles anywhere. I will make gentle turns at waypoint changes in direction. I have used it to track the ILS and it will do a decent job and get you to the runway. If the Navaid is coupled to VOR, a combination of the EZ's great roll rate, and VOR scalloping (wiggling of the needle), well, the needle wiggles and the wings do more than wiggle. One big caution, leave the Navaid stabilize for 10 or 15 seconds before switching to track mode, too short of a time will result in a sudden healthy bank. It will go to somewhere near standard rate, but very quickly. The bank may mean an excursion from altitude. Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 21:23:41 -0500 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: S-Tec alt hold... Alex, re "Dave, How the S-tec interface with the Strong Pitch Trim?" The pitch trim is not interfaced electrically with the alt hold system. It could be I suppose, buy I do not know how to do it. The trim changes are not that great on the Cozy. All heavy metal airplanes have automatic pitch trim with alt hold and warning lights when it doesn't work. Your trim system is very much liked by this guy. dd Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 20:40:50 -0700 From: Steve Hagan Subject: COZY: Nav systems selection I'm trying to make some decisions about antenna placement and selection. I've read the entire archive (actually, Marc, I've read every thread of every year at least once, and saved a lot of stupid questions) discussions about antenna placement, but I'd like the groups opinion on what systems are going to be useful 4 years or so from now when I fly. I will be flying VFR (I doubt I'll be able to fly IFR enough to stay safe even if I got the rateing) in the US. Would using GPS with a single VOR backup be the way to go? Will Loran still be used? Would Loran be useful if I were to convert the plane to IFR at some point in the future? At this point in time I'm leaning towards finishing chapter 7 without the Loran ground plane, and putting Comm/Nav antennas in the winglets/wings. Steve Hagan #780, chapter 6 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 23:13:56 -0400 From: Rob Cherney Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection At 08:40 PM 10/20/99 -0700, Steve Hagan wrote: >Would using GPS with a single VOR backup be the way to go? For VFR, it would be fine. >Will Loran still be used? I think the commitment for keeping the Loran stations on the air extends to 2008. Still, Loran is dated technology. You would be hard pressed to find a new one. Go with GPS instead. >Would Loran be useful if I were to convert the plane to IFR at >some point in the future? I feel its use would be limited to cross checking a VOR receiver. An IFR-certified GPS would be more useful and provide some system redundancy. Also, for IFR you might want to get a VOR with a glide slope. >At this point in time I'm leaning towards finishing chapter 7 without >the Loran ground plane, and putting Comm/Nav antennas in the >winglets/wings. That's what I'd do. Rob- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Robert Cherney Home Phone: (410)465-5598 | |Ellicott City, Maryland e-mail: cherney@home.com | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:08:44 -0600 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection Just a different viewpoint: >>Would using GPS with a single VOR backup be the way to go? > >For VFR, it would be fine. Be aware that the FAA plan is to migrate to satellite-based navigation. At one time this meant removing ALL current ground-based navaids such as VOR. My "guess" is that some percentage of the ground-based navaids will remain for many many years. Whether that percentage is 40% or ever gets down to something like 20% will not be known until late in the next decade. >>Will Loran still be used? > >I think the commitment for keeping the Loran stations on the air extends to >2008. Still, Loran is dated technology. You would be hard pressed to find >a new one. Go with GPS instead. Here is where I disagree. LORAN went south when the FAA in their FRP stated that LORAN would end at the end of 1999 (or 2000 - I forget which). Of course people would dump it especially when GPS receivers dropped in price. If you have ever flown with GPS, you would perhaps consider VOR an antiquated system. LORAN on the other hand provides similar point-to-point routing capability. Research with new antenna technology effectively eliminates the rain induces P-static problem. For GA, LORAN offers a better complementary technology to GPS than does VOR. Europeans are placing differential GPS signals on LORAN to improve GPS. Not that it needs to be much better for most VFR flights. I can fly to an airport I have never been to and essentially flight over the middle. Once SA is turned off, accuracy improves from about 65 meters horizontal to around 20 meters. If you can't find an airport even with 65 meters accuracy, you need remedial training :) I suspect the FAA wants to close LORAN because it is not their system. But I believe we are better served keeping it since it is a low cost system. If that decision is made, hybrid GPS/LORAN systems or independent units will provide a very robust nav system. My suggestion is check into the new antennas (H-field or Loop) and install whatever is needed for LORAN. Check the news section at http://www.loran.org/ Also install the VOR antenna since it is cheap and gives you flexibility. >>Would Loran be useful if I were to convert the plane to IFR at >>some point in the future? > >I feel its use would be limited to cross checking a VOR receiver. An >IFR-certified GPS would be more useful and provide some system >redundancy. Also, for IFR you might want to get a VOR with a glide slope. I am not IFR rated but the plan is to have WAAS/LAAS the main instrument approach systems with ILS and VOR/DME as backups. I suspect ADF is going to be rapidly phased out. Just install the essential antenna elements you need while easily done . >>At this point in time I'm leaning towards finishing chapter 7 without >>the Loran ground plane, and putting Comm/Nav antennas in the >>winglets/wings. > >That's what I'd do. See above. Why rule out a viable/inexpensive point to point system? VOR does not do that. Ron Lee Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 10:35:44 -0600 From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection You can get a better understanding of the navigation quandary we are in and the potential for LORAN to be a viable complementary nav system (not just for aviation) by going to the following site and reading the article "The Case for Loran" http://www.loran.org/ Ron Lee From: "Robert Cherney" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 13:19:27 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection Ron: Following your advice I checked . Here are some excerpts from : "This (Coast Guard) "recapitalization" would be sufficient to operate the system through about 2008.." Apparently, there is no firm commitment beyond this date. Moreover, ... "Aviation Subcmte of House Cmte on Transportation & Infrastructure, as part of FAA Reauthorization Bill: "The Secretary shall maintain and upgrade Loran-C navigation facilities throughout the transition period to satellite-based navigation." " This means (and I think that we both agree) that the FAA will support Loran only until GPS WAAS and LAAS are in widespread use. So, even if Loran provides some short-term benefit to augment GPS as you suggest, why should someone commit to using it? I think there is a longer-term commitment to supporting the (admittedly antiquated) VOR system since the installed base is so large. In addition, what avionics manufacturer is selling new Loran receivers? At least I can buy a new VOR radio. Let's be pragmatic. Loran *can* do the job better than VOR, but its days are numbered. GPS is inexpensive, is here today, and will be supported in the future. Lastly, my bet is that the VOR system will outlive Loran. Respectfully, Rob Cherney From: Militch@aol.com Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:05:47 EDT Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection In a message dated 10/21/99 1:43:55 AM, winnydpu@mediaone.net wrote: >At this point in time I'm leaning towards finishing chapter 7 without >the Loran ground plane, and putting Comm/Nav antennas in the >winglets/wings. We used to use Loran equipment to synchronize our timing systems and I was never impressed. On a good day, it was only marginally stable. It may have been impressive in its day (since there was no alternative), but compared to GPS, it is very ancient technology. Why not just use GPS? Regards, Peter Militch From: "Robert Cherney" Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 14:13:17 -0400 Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection >Ron: >Following your advice I checked . Sorry. The above link should be . Rob- From: "Frank Johanson" Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 23:53:55 -0400 Do not bet on VOR out lasting Loran .A FAA Rep. at a air safety meeting said that they would be fazing them out in 3 years. I expect that will be extended, evey thing else fails to meet dead lines. Frank Johanson From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 17:53:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: COZY: Nav systems selection On 10/21/99 23:44:14 you wrote: > >GPS goes down to nothing is with out fault. I like having both on board. >The loran is a great back up. > >Frank Johanson > > > I use VOR, and ADF as backup to the GPS, and have it unlock several times at less than the best time. Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 20:15:29 -0600 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Navaid and DG tracking . . . >I installed the Navaid device in N40VX and am generally satisfied with the >performance. It tracks the SL-70 Apollo GPS well, although at first I >wasn't sure that it did. The manual is not too good, and it took me some >time to realize what I had to do to get it tracking. >I would be grateful in Navaid would provide the ability in the device to >track on a ground path, as if it was tracking on a heading bug on the DG. >This would seem to be a fairly straightforward feature, and I am surprised >that it doesn't seem to be possible with the unit I have.. > See website at http://www.porcine.com/ You can purchase a coupler that will take the heading bug output from a DG and steer your wing leveler with it. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:02:42 -0600 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: COZY: Re: Navaid and DG tracking . . . >I don't have a bug on my DG, and was hoping that the Navaid could >simply track on a heading. Don't see why not. How would it sense what heading you were on? It needs an electrical signal from a device designed to drive the pointer in a CDI instrument (deviation from a radial or ground track) or from a device like heading bug on gyro (deviation from heading). The Navaid has only a rate sensor (like a turn coordinator) that deduces heading deviation by multiplying degrees-per-second turn by seconds and then working to keep that value "zeroed". Rate devices and the electronics that integrate their signals drift, hence variable degrees of ability to hold a true heading with respect to the earth. Even if you had a heading bug on the gyro, it too will drift, abeit more slowly than a rate-based device, unless it is magnetically slaved to the earth. Bob . . . //// (o o) ===========o00o=(_)=o00o========= < Independence Kansas: the > < Jurassic Park of aviation. > < Your source for brand new > < 40 year old airplanes. > ================================= http://www.aeroelectric.com From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:19:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: ADF & Stormscope Was questioned I have a Bendix ADF installed. The sense antenna is mounted in my thigh support with a layer of carbon BID about 12" square as ground plane (not sure it works that well). For a while I had to turn the strobes off to get decent needle indications. A filter capacitor on the stobe supply solved that, but it still doesn't have the range it should. Might make an aluminum ground plane one of these days. The antenna is above the floor and does not show on the outside. Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 23:06:51 -0800 From: Nick Subject: RE: COZY: ADF & Stormscope I have an Insight lightning detector in my plane. Ran in to a ton of problems getting it working. Installing this system is NOT EZ especially when you retrofit an existing plane. You need a good ground plane (copper foil min 4 ft sq.) as distant as possible from EF radiation. The major cause of problems is the power cables to the nose of the LongEZ. With a cozy it would be less of a problem. I would suggest placing the ground plane under the strakes as far out as possible. Use mag filters, alternator filters, and if you use an electronic ignition contact me for info on a filter for that. Nick -----Original Message----- From: Epplin John A [SMTP:EpplinJohnA@jdcorp.deere.com] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 7:46 AM To: 'Cozy_builders' Subject: COZY: ADF & Stormscope Everybody: Has anyone installed an ADF or other low frequency device such as stormscope or strikefinder in a EZ type foam and glass airplane? The ADF does not interest me much but the stormscope may be interesting. I talked to BF Goodrich at OSH about antenna requirements. Their comment was interesting. They said that they do not guarantee success on fiberglass airplanes, but so far they have not failed to get satisfactory results. Don't know how many installations they have working, assume more than one. I think I may be too late in so far as installing ground plane provisions etc. but am interested in not closing too may doors. Hard to predict the exact use of a machine like this, it is capable of so much. John Epplin MK4 #467 From: jhocut@mindspring.com Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 07:29:49 -0500 Subject: Re: RE: COZY: ADF & Stormscope >The major cause of problems is the power cables to >the nose of the LongEZ. I have done a good bit of information prying from both the Sormscope and Strike Finder people. They were both consistent in their answers, in that they said you'd need a ground plane at least 18" to 24" square, and absolutely do not mount the antenna between the battery and alternator (if, for instance, you mount the battery in the nose). They also said to have two or three locations available to try, because it'll be somewhat trial and error as to what works. Jim Hocut Cozy Mk IV #448 - ch 19 Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 15:12:14 -0600 From: tazcat@zebra.net (Lori Cruger) Subject: COZY: Avionics For about two weeks now I've been trying to figure out what avionics and instraments I need, at minimum, to be able to get into the air. I intend to purchase the Garnin 195 GPS for navigation and I have an AV-10 engine monitor on order and hope to recieve it around the first of the new year. What I realy need is the who,what ,where ,why, and how much for radios and flight instruments! Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks Dazed and confused, Dan Cruger #586 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Sat, 18 Dec 1999 21:34:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: Avionics You don't say what type flying you plan to do, VFR, IFR, Day, Night, USA, Canada, Class A or B airspace. Its the same FAR requirements as certified aircraft. May be as simple a a J-3, A compass, altimeter, T & B, etc. or Full IFR. Canada has own requirements, including whiskey glass compass, vertical cards not allowed. The Cozy is a high speed cross country type aircraft, most don't just stay near the home airport. Not unusual to be more than 500 miles from home for a day or weekend, or even 200 miles for lunch. Fronts, etc. are commonly encountered, and ability to go IFR (pop up through a thin layer, or other easy IFR, and not the heavy stuff with icing or thunderstorms near) makes aircraft much more useable. I would plan IFR with dual navcom, and panel GPS. If money doesn't permit initally, then make the holes, wiring, and add as you can. Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 09:02:57 -0600 From: David Domeier Subject: Re: COZY: Avionics Dan, This is what you must have for certification for VFR, VFR night and IFR. Sec. 91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements. (a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of equipment are in operable condition. (b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Airspeed indicator. (2) Altimeter. (3) Magnetic direction indicator. (4) Tachometer for each engine. (5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system. (6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine. (7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine. (8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine. (9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank. (10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable landing gear. (11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system. (12) If the aircraft is operated for hire over water (NA) (13) An approved safety belt with an approved metal-to-metal latching device for each occupant 2 years of age or older. (14) For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness for each front seat. (15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by Sec. 91.207. (c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section. (2) Approved position lights. (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. (4) If the aircraft is operated for hire, one electric landing light. (5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and radio equipment. (6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight. (d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required: (1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section, and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c) of this section. (2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used. (3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator, except on the following aircraft: (i) Airplanes with a third attitude instrument system usable through flight attitudes of 360 degrees of pitch and roll and installed in accordance with the instrument requirements prescribed in Sec. 121.305(j) of this chapter; and (4) Slip-skid indicator. (5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure. (6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second pointer or digital presentation. (7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity. (8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon). (9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent). (e) Flight at and above 24,000 ft. MSL (FL 240). If VOR navigational equipment is required under paragraph (d)(2) of this section, no person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft within the 50 states and the District of Columbia at or above FL 240 unless that aircraft is equipped with approved distance measuring equipment (DME). dd Date: 21 Dec 99 10:20:54 EET From: Cevat SUNOL Subject: COZY: Avionics Hello I am trying to decide for my instruments and avionics for 2 weeks. When I looked in past discussion in group I saw lots of people like to use Vision Microsystem for engine instruments. There are some discussion about to use electric gyro instead of vacuum gyro because they cause problems very often but electric gyro's are very expensive and cause some magnetic problems on panel. I think in long term electric gyro' s are better . I read mail that somebody from group who made hard land because of his airspeed indicator show 15 knot faster I think airspeed indicator is important thing. I asked Pacific Coast Avionics for custom built panel for VFR and IFR. They offered this package to me . I am very glad if you share your opinions with me about this package. Basic VFR Package PCA-400 Żntercom, GNC-250 XL Com/ GPS, GTX -320 Transponder, AK350 Encoder, Sigma-Tec Vacum Gyro's, United Ins. Airspeed and Vertical Speed, Aerosonic Altimeter, 1394T100 Turn Coordinator For IFR They suggest KR-22 Marker, PM1000II ŻNTERCOM, GNS-430/GI-106 Nav/ Com/GPS/ w/Indicator, KY-97 Acom, GTX-320/AK-350 Transponder/Encoder, AK450 ELT as avionics package. For IFR package they want 8700 $ plus for Wiring, panel fabrication, paint and finish ( 150 hour total work). 2880$ plus for VFR. Is it necessary to have a special knowledge to installing and wiring instruments and does it take to much time . Cevat ____________________________________________________________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 17:59:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: COZY: Avionics Was asked Well this depends on your ability to do some elementary wiring, and very important that someone signs off the installation to put the warranty into force. Also this should be your mentor and first line of help. Here are some of the steps: The local radio shop I used, took me on (they later said it was because they thought I would not be bull headed, and open to suggestions) with the agreement I would build up the racks and wire, bring everything in for bench test (cost $50.00 for an hour - one minor issue found), then I install in the airframe, and then bring the airplane to their shop (did the altimeter inspection at the same time) and they signed off the warranty. 1: Make an instrument panel layout, mine is 1/8" aluminum, nearly all the fiberglass is cut out. I think the panel could be thinner, say 0.090", saving a little weight. The layout is important and has to be done in the plane since there are obstructions like elevator trim springs and instrument panel cover slopes lower. You really need all the major (required and must haves) instruments and radios to do this. One can't describe the connectors, wiring clearance, etc. 2: Build up the radio rack stack. This is a no brainer once the layout is set. A small amount of aluminum fabrication. 3: Gather together all the installation manuals, and study very thoughly the diagrams and instructions. The wiring pins names are very similar in general, and make a neat diagram, connecting all the needed points, double and triple check it, have your mentor check it. THis may take almost as much time as the actual wiring. Make drawings of both the front an back of all connectors with which positions will be empty when you are done wiring. 4: The wiring process is rather simple connecting 2 points with a wire, many, many times. Most of the connections are crimped, solder not permitted, others are straight solder. Nearly all should have heat shrink tubing as added insulation and strain relief. Special tools include several crimpers for the various types of terminals, a good wire stripper that grips the wire and pulls it through the die to remove the insulation (special dies for teflon wire), soldering iron in the 35 watt range, and a heat gun, Really nothing very expensive, and most of these you will need for the rest of the airframe. For my installation with (2) KX-155, ADF, GPS, Audio panel, and intercom, there is probably 100 - 150 wires, as I said one at a time. THis probably took me the better part of a week of evenings. For any wires leaving the radio stack, leave plenty of length and label clearly. With an Ohmeter or other continuity tester, check for shorts, continuity and opens to all points and adjacent terminals. Power up with no radios installed, and check for ground, power present where expected and NOWHERE else. 5: Hook up antennas, a speaker and/or headphone up. One at a time install a radio and verify operation, when OK put all in the rack and verify operation again. 6: At this point my radio shop bench tested. 7: Installed into airframe. Unless someone else is doing full installation, this everyone does. Run wires all over and terminate. Final thoughts: Radio warranties are important, in 750 hours, have used GPS warranty several times on unit itself, replaced one GPS antenna, otherwise no problems. Its a little time consuming, but there is big part of that time that must be done at the airframe. I have been building electronic kits for many years, but I don't see anything very difficult, if a wire is damaged or cut too short, just make another. The final result though must be perfect. Read the several bibles that have wiring chapters, discuss and take the advice of a mentor. If one can buid a Cozy, should have the experience and patience to do a good job of radio installation. Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:30:12 -0800 From: Nick Subject: Re: COZY: Avionics > Was asked I would highly recommend doing the wiring yourself. Buy Bob Nuckolls book on aircraft wiring techniques, buy the proper wire and tools and try your hand at it. It is no more difficult than wiring a boat, or a car. It will save you a ton of $$. I wired my LongEZ (full IFR, autopilot, gps etc) in 3 wks after work (once the instruments were set in place). Only had one minor wiring issue which I easily resolved. It was fun. I cant wait to wire the my cozy because of what I learned the first time around. Nick