+++ #503 Subject: Instrument Panel Planner....... From: Tim Goto> http://www.panelplanner.com click on 'samples. Some nice examples of sofeware which supports panel planning for instrument layout.....dudes! +++ #3551 From: Russ Erb Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] How to Buy an Engine from Bob Barrows So Dave would call me a heretic. I've been called worse. Not only will my Bearhawk have an electrical system, landing and taxi lights in the wing leading edge, but will also be night IFR equipped. Note to those planning to follow me to weight accumulation hell: Before you buy that new Apollo stack that your EAA buddies are swooning over, take a hard look at just how small the instrument panel of the Bearhawk is. About 1/2 the height of a 172 or Bonanza. That Apollo stack won't fit, at least not all in one column. The Garmin stack with the Garmin 530 won't fit either. There just ain't much room. Part of the reason that the Bearhawk gets the performance that it does is that the cabin height (floor to roof) is significantly smaller than a Cessna 172 or 180. If you tried to make the panel deeper, it would need cutouts for your thighs. +++ #5359 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Tig Special - Sun and Fun Funny enough, Most of the avionics companies have finally moved to solid state transponders after decades of using an old tube style cavity. The reason is that the solid state systems are cheapre to repair and last a lot longer. Having had to pay for 2 replacement cavities in our old KT-76 transponder over a 10 year period, I can tell you that we spent about $600 CAD each time. Certainly not a cheap repair. With solid state components there is no "wear" associated with the components as there is with other technologies (I'm not sure what was used in non-solid state welders). The boards either work or they don't. Generally if they don't break in the first 20-40 hrs of operation, they will last indefinitely. We see that trend with computer equipment all the time. Our highest failure rate occurs in the first week or two. Then it drops to almost nothing. Repair to solid state equipment is generally just a board swap (ie. buy the support package if it's available) +++ #5554 From: rsmith@a... Subject: Panelbuilder Check out this website http://sonexlinks.com/panelbuilder.htm . They don't have a Bearhawk panel but there is a link to request new panels. At Sun & Fun I will get the exact measurements and submit them, or someone else may want to beat me to it as I wont be returning from Florida for a couple weeks. [ followed by ] Wow! I must be having a bad day. This one is right, I'm sure! http://sonexlinks.com/panelbuilder Rod Smith #246 Wasilla, AK +++ #6357 From: "Donald Schindler" Subject: Bearhawk panel Could someone tell me the relative distance between the back of the Bearhawk panel and the fuselage? I made a promise to myself that my next one would have a sliding panel ala Marchetti SF 260. What do you think the relative pain factor will be when working on the instruments? I can see that the panel is not large but what is the depth? Thanks, Don 068 +++ #6358 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk panel It's plenty deep enough to put anythng you want in it. Also, it's a little far forward from the seating position, so could even be slid towards the pilot a little. bd +++ #6997 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:42:06 -0400 From: "Michael P. Snow" michael.snow@ Subject: New panel building site Hello everyone, Go check out this site and take a look at what it can do for you. http://vondane.tripod.com/expb/old/ It's a panel building tool Michael P. Snow +++ #7000 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:49:46 EDT From: pfflyerz@ Subject: Re: Re: New panel building site > That reminds me that I got the Bearhawk panel dimensions while > at Sun&Fun to send them for the next update and still need to > do that. What was the height dimension? I am trying to weld tabs for power controls and getting an idea of what I want to put in my panel. I am guessing the panel is about 8 inches tall, based on the plans and Bearhawk CD pictures but figured I wouldn't really know until the firewall and nose bowl were fitted. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #7003 Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 14:43:50 -0000 From: rsmith@ Subject: Re: New panel building site It was about 10" tall at the center. From that you need to subtract the 3/4" tube that runs behind the base of the panel. Also you cannot mount anything beneath that tube or it will interfere with the control sticks. Rod Smith +++ #7066 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 08:02:35 -0600 From: Brian Cox bcox@ Subject: RE: Re: weight versus strength Take a look at the UPS Aviation Technologies slimline radios. They could offer a much shorter radio stack. Maybe on GPS Comm and another VOR-NavComm. Their website is www.upsat.com, check out the slimline series. If you install the IFR approved GPS and forego ADF and DME, here's a neat stack, with retail prices: SL 10 audio control panel with built in intercom and marker beacons: $1495 SL60 IFR approved GPS-Comm: $3125 SL30 Nav-Comm: $1495 SL70 Transponder: $2295 Total: $8410 All radios are standard 6.25" width and are 1.3" tall, giving a total stack height of 5.2" - right above the throttle, prop, mixture. That leaves plenty of room for the sacred six flight instruments on the left, plus a clock. An HSI in place of the directional gyro would be a great way to save the space normally reserved for the OBS-Glide slope indicator. Using a combination CHT, Oil temp, Oil pressure gauge will reduce the panel space requirements for engine instruments. Then add a tach, EGT gauge, ammeter, vacuum gauge on the right. Still need room for circuit breakers on the panel, probably an integrated board. If you want a moving map, use the serial output from the GPS and wire it to a DB-9 connector on the panel. Connect this to a laptop or PDA running one of the moving map programs. The color Compaq iPAQ is now about $500 and moving map software is available for less than $300. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #7082 Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 18:01:27 -0700 From: Russ and Penny Erb erbman@ Subject: RE: Re: weight versus strength I didn't go into detail, but what I'd like right now is the UPSAT stack with the MX20 MFD. Unlike "The Bob", I'm a computer geek and like the technology. There's a lot to like about the Garmin offerings, but they fall short in some areas like the terrain database. The Garmin 530 and especially 430 are display limited. In some preliminary drawings I've made the UPSAT stack fit, but it requires breaking the "stack" into 2 stacks. An IFR GPS is an acceptable substitute for DME on approaches, so DME is not required. I've not found any reason to install ADF unless you want to use it to listen to Rush Limbaugh or your favorite program. An AM radio would be a lot cheaper. Also, if you really study the failure modes, you'll find that circuit breakers don't offer any benefits above fuses, unless you like paying more to carry more weight. Resetting the circuit breaker almost never solves the problem. At the most you may find one or two circuits that need a circuit breaker on the panel--you definitely won't need a square foot of panel space full of breakers, regardless of how the military designs its airplanes. I plan to use primarily fuses in a location accessible on the ground--not on the panel. Why do I feel like I just pulled the pin on a hand grenade and rolled it down the aisle... If you think there are a lot of differing opinions on engines, don't start asking questions about avionics...hint: don't buy your avionics until the last possible moment--they'll still be obsolete by your first flight. Russ Erb +++ #7445 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:18:39 EDT From: pfflyerz@ Subject: instrument panel Since Planter brought up instrument panels it got me wondering about the .032 Bob calls out for the panel. I would have thought it would be 1/8 plate or something more substantial. What is the consensus, is .032 enough material to hang all that stuff on without any doublers? Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #7446 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:25:17 -0400 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" wjohnson@ Subject: RE: instrument panel I intend to use .050 or something close - but I also intend to put an IFR panel with lots of 'stuff' . . . +++ #7451 ate: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:11:26 -0700 From: Russ and Penny Erb erbman@ Subject: RE: instrument panel > Since Planter brought up instrument panels it got me wondering > about the .032 Bob calls out for the panel. I had never noticed that before. Maybe when you have an electric free basic VFR airplane like "The Bob" you can get away with that. Every instrument panel I've ever seen was .125 aluminum. Russ Erb +++ #7460 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 00:25:20 EDT From: bearhwk272@ Subject: Re: instrument panel Well the answer to the thickness depends how much you are going to hang in it. I think that .093 is a pretty good choice for a full up panel. A stiffener mid panel where that Garmin is going to stick out, should be OK. Kevin +++ #7464 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 08:58:09 -0700 From: "Kent White" kent@ Subject: RE: instrument panel I have repaired a few panels over the years, and from the light single-engined pre-1960 stuff, I see .063, .050 and .040" in 3003 and 5052 half hard tempers. Tin Man +++ #7471 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 11:48:49 -0400 From: "Tim Walker" navionflyer@ Subject: RE: instrument panel I am finishing up a new instrument panel in mt 1947 Navion. The original was aprox 0.063" aluminum and as close as I can guess was about 2024-T3. The original panel had some flanges bent in it for stiffness. The new panel (IFR) that I made was from 2024-T3 0.100" thick with no stiffeners except for the radio stack angles. I work for an FBO that does mostly corporate jet work and most of the panels in them are 0.100" to 0.125" (the Falcon 50 uses a 2" thick billet machined to aprox .0125 with stiffening ribs in it). Also other piston engine aircraft I have seen (Piper Malibu and Cessna 310) have the same panel thickness. I guess what I'm saying is that if you're going to put in an IFR panel, make sure it will stand up to the weight of all those instruments. On a similar note, I shock mounted my Navion panel. I'm not sure if it will be worth it (5 shock mounts at $15 each), but maybe the gyros will last longer. On the Navion panel, we painted it with Polane from Sherwin Williams. We have been using it at work from about 6 months and it is great. It is extremely tough. Doesn't chip and looks great. It's a little tricky to spray and primer is critical, but done right it is nearly solvent proof. Tim Walker +++ #7485 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 16:42:06 -0700 From: "Kent White" kent@ Subject: RE: instrument panel > On the Navion panel, we painted it with Polane from Sherwin > Williams. Is this Polane T, or regular Polane?? Good product. Have shot loads of it, in colors and textures. Is the Sherwin Williams Grey Wash primer still available?? Kent White +++ #7490 Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 08:04:37 -0400 From: "Tim Walker" >> 2mar02 #7686-9153 +++ #8178 From: Tony Dean Subject: Panel Questions I've seen a lot of discussion about many topics here but panels do not seem to have had much discussion. I have not seen any of the completed Bearhawks in person. What are they outfitted with in terms of avionics? Something tells me to think "Spartan" but it seems that a number of builders are building to a mission that might demand more. I have a friend that uses only handheld radios as he likes to "take them with" when he leaves. Something about losing a radio in the past when parked somewhere. What sparked this line of thought was the new Sporty's holiday edition catalog just arrived and I am trying to figure out just what my wife wants to get me for Christmas. The handheld Nav/Coms seem to be dropping in price as well as many of the GPS units. Would anyone here consider a handheld nav/com as a main or backup radio? If so what brands are recommended and why (features, performance, reliability, and cost)? What about GPS for the people planning lots of cross country? Hand held or panel mounted? If do which models do people like? Regards Tony Dean +++ #8181 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Panel Questions When we finally get our demonstrators flying, one will have the normal nav/comm stack and the other, the one based in AZ, is likely to be IFR and then some. So far, everyone who is flying has followed Bob's lead in which a road map and handheld comm is the limit of complexity. He now has ahandheld GPS as well, so the road map is kept folded, but handy. bd +++ #8189 From: rsmith@a Subject: Re: Panel Questions Eventually my Bearhawk will have a full IFR panel. I have the rating and I have had the experience of unexpected IFR flight. My current favorite set up is the EFIS/Moving map by www.bluemountainavionics.com Also check out www.dynondevelopment.com for a really reasonable priced EFIS. Having said that, I envision my initial panel as being pretty basic while trying to financially recover from purchasing whatever engine/prop combination I end up with, plus tundra tires and or floats. I may well use a handheld comm and GPS. I love my friend Terry's Garmin 295 color handheld GPS. He uses it in his supercub and in the Blackhawk helicopter he flies for the guard. He says it is much more accurate than the inertial system in the Blackhawk. It isn't authorized equipment in the Blackhawk however and one of his co- pilots ratted on him. Rod Smith #246 +++ #8195 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Re: Panel Questions I, too, am planning for an IFR panel eventually. Anyone who's tried laying out a panel design has run up against one of the down sides of The Bob's philosophy of aircraft design. Ever wonder why the Bearhawk is faster than similarly powered four-place airplanes? It's the same reason why Mooneys are faster than Cessnas and Pipers. It's called "frontal area". Reduced frontal area equates to reduced drag. While the Bearhawk fuselage is as wide as other airplanes, it's nowhere near as tall. Sitting in a Cessna is similar to sitting in a sedan--your lower legs are mostly vertical. Sitting in a Bearhawk is more like sitting in a sports car--your lower legs are mostly horizontal, because you're almost sitting on the floor. What does this have to do with the instrument panel? The result is that the instrument panel is wide but it's not very tall! It's tall enough to only hold two rows of standard 3-1/4 inch instruments, whereas a typical Cessna panel will hold three rows with room to spare. This can make it tough to fit stuff in. For instance, I've looked at the UPSAT stack with the MX-20 MFD. With the current panel size, this group of avionics cannot be installed in a single stack--it requires at least two columns, which moves some of the equipment farther away from the pilot, so you'll need longer arms. In fact, without today's avionics integration, it might be tough to get an IFR setup on this small of a panel. Think you might just extend the panel downward? Might be tough, since that's where your legs and the control sticks are. budd has said that he will put an IFR panel in the Phoenix demonstrator. I'm looking for someone to figure out either how to squeeze everything into the small panel or else how to increase the size of the panel without upsetting the rest of the design. Russ Erb +++ #8201 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Panel Questions Re: panels The good news is that your head is so high above the panel, even in a 3-point position, that going up a couple of inches on the top of the panelwon't compromise anything. I haven't sat down and played with it, but I'd guess that going down as much as the sticks, etc. will let you (I'm guessing an inch, what does anyone else say) and going up a couple of inches should give plenty of room and that much may not be necessary. Remember the note we got from Brian Cox: Take a look at the UPS Aviation Technologies slimline radios. They could offer a much shorter radio stack. Maybe on GPS Comm and another VOR-NavComm. Their website is www.upsat.com, check out the slimline series. If you install the IFR approved GPS and forego ADF and DME, here's a neat stack, with retail prices: SL 10 audio control panel with built in intercom and marker beacons: $1495 SL60 IFR approved GPS-Comm: $3125 SL30 Nav-Comm: $1495 SL70 Transponder: $2295 Total: $8410 All radios are standard 6.25" width and are 1.3" tall, giving a total stack height of 5.2" - right above the throttle, prop, mixture. That leaves plenty of room for the sacred six flight instruments on the left, plus a clock. An HSI in place of the directional gyro would be a great way to save the space normally reserved for the OBS-Glide slope indicator. Using a combination CHT, Oil temp, Oil pressure gauge will reduce the panel space requirements for engine instruments. Then add a tach, EGT gauge, ammeter, vacuum gauge on the right. Still need room for circuit breakers on the panel, probably an integrated board. If you want a moving map, use the serial output from the GPS and wire it to a DB-9 connector on the panel. Connect this to a laptop or PDA running one of the moving map programs. The color Compaq iPAQ is now about $500 and moving map software is available for less than $300. Brian Cox, #478 There's a way to skin this cat without hurting things too much. Has anyone done any computer layouts they could share with us? bd +++ #8202 From: "Del Rawlins" Subject: Re: Re: Panel Questions To save a little space on the panel, would it be practical to build an overhead panel for the switches and circuit breakers? You could also put the serial connector for the moving map display up there, and a hinged mount for the moving map so it could be folded up out of the way when you want more outside visibility. That would probably screw up any plans for a skylight, however. Del Rawlins +++ #8205 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Re: Panel Questions Regarding circuit breakers: Bob Nuckolls makes a convincing case that most circuit breakers do not need to be on the panel or even accessible in flight. Also, fuses are a lot cheaper and plenty adequate. Without repeating the whole thing, think about this: How often do you replace fuses in your car? They're not even accessible while driving. Very few electrical items are critical for continued flight. Russ Erb +++ #8206 From: "Del Rawlins" Subject: RE: Re: Panel Questions That raises an interesting point. If your airplane has fuses instead of circuit breakers, and they are not accessible in flight, are you still required to carry a spare set of fuses when flying at night? 8^) Del Rawlins +++ #8207 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Re: Panel Questions The quote from Part 91: "6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight. " Does that mean the spares have to be accessible or that you only need spares for fuses that are accessible? In any case, the key point is that the fuse panels are not required to be accessible in flight. Russ Erb +++ #8209 From: Roger & Chachi Ritter Subject: Re: Digest Number 610 I've been using a Delcom 960 handheld comm radio as the only comm radio in my non-electrical Luscombe for about ten years now. It's worked fine, for the most part, and although I don't get as much range as a built-in unit might, it's more than sufficient to work with ATC. I used to be based at a Class-C airspace airport (Manchester, NH), and I would contact them 15-20 miles out to give them time to accomodate my return. The only problems I've had is that it usually doesn't have the range to contact flight services stations to open or close flight plans. I just tell them that I'm an assumed departure and that I'll contact them by landline if I can't depart on time. That way I get a flight plan opened without being able to contact Flight Service by radio. Handhelds can work quite nicely as the only comm radio aboard. Roger +++ #8215 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: Re: Panel Questions > To save a little space on the panel, would it be practical to > build an overhead panel for the switches and circuit breakers? I thought about putting some electricals in my overhead panel, but didn't care for all the wiring that needed to be run up the door piller. I am now considering going the other direction and putting a fold down fuse panel under the instrument panel. A previous discussion said fuses were lighter, cheaper, and more practical, since few inflight failures could really be fixed by resetting the circuit breakers. In that case, no need to have them readily accesible in flight, although in a pinch, the panel could be dropped in flight. There is precious little space to do anything below the instrument panel that won't interfere with the sticks. As drawn by Bob, I may have to chop an inch off the top of my sticks just to use a push to talk button on the top. However, Will Graff redesigned his sticks in some way that allowed him to mount a full panel of switches and breakers underneath the panel. I didn't get a chance to really study what he did, but it would be worth investigating. The panel could easily be raised to allow another row of instruments, there is that much visiblilty available. I would really wonder how the revised line of the top cowling would look. I don't think I would care for it. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8216 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: Re: Panel Questions Wil Graf did something really slick with his panel. Rather than try to fit many of the fuses (I think he had fuses) and switches on the panel, he just mounted them on recessed 1" "L" brackets under the panel. That set them back about an inch from the face of the panel, freed up gobs of panel space, and really made for a neat, organized feel. If I remember from the Bearhawk Fly-In, someone took a picture of it. Can't remember who it was at this point. My gut feel is I'd like my fuses to be accessible in flight. I can think of several scenarios where I'd rather be able to get to them, and frankly if one spends enough time on panel design there's no reason to tuck them anywhere else other than where you can reach 'em. Planter Bob +++ #8219 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Panel Questions making the fuses/circuit breakers accessible in flight would probably not be a bad idea, besides, how many is the normal BH likely to have? Probably no more than four. It would be easy enough to put them facing vertically behind the panel or in an aux panel mounted in a wing root. bd +++ #8220 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Panel Questions > The panel could easily be raised to allow another row of > instruments, don't change the cowling line, just bend it up at > the windshield. Would barely be noticeable from outside. bd +++ #8221 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: Re: Panel Questions I have a picture of Will's panel, showing the bracket under the instrument panel. It is a good looking installation, but I don't know if it will clear the sticks without shortneing or modifying them. Will's sticks, which I didn't take a picture of, are modified slightly in shape, which is how he got his clearance. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA +++ #8236 From: bcox@a... Subject: Re: Panel Questions The December issue of AOPA Pilot just arrived, with a really good article about hte Piper Clipper. Check out page 90, which shows a great picture of the panel. This looks to be similar in size to a Bearhawk panel. My panel will be more than bare minimum VFR, but will not be IFR. I have a Brittain turn coordinator that runs on vacuum with electrical backup - scavenged when I uninstalled the B-5 autopilot from my 310. I also have an Airspeed and VSI, and am scrounging for a good deal on an altimeter. I don't intend to initially install a DG or AI, but will leave space in case I change my mind. I'll use a GPS-Comm, and add a second VHF antenna mounted on the airframe. Also will need a transponder. With minimal radios, some have a built in intercom, so won't necessarily need an audio panel. Backups will be a handheld GPS and Comm radio. I have an older Sporty's model that I've had for quite a while, and it works fine. I also have an older Lowrance AirMap that I've been using for about 6 years. If someone wants to go full IFR, I'd stick with my earlier comments about the UPS slimline stack, and use a Sandel SN3308 HSI. It's smaller than other MFDs and functions as not only an HSI, but also a GPS moving map and Stormscope display. Check this out on page 112 of the December AOPA Pilot. That should be more than adequate for my needs. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8488 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Cutting spar blanks > Just to clarify: the router bit doesn't have to be anything > special. Get a Formica edging bit from Home Depot. A 3/8 with > 1/4 shaft carbide one costs fifteen bucks. Two flute works > best. This is also a good way to cut out your instrument panel. Once you are satisfied with the layout in plywood, then use your router to trace it onto the good stuff. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #8886 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: baffle bushed Do know of anyone who has dies to punch the rectangular holes needed for most rocker switches? Bruce A. Frank +++ #8891 From: Brian Cox Subject: RE: baffle bushed McMaster-Carr carries them, but the price may be frightening. They have general purpose square punches that can create what you want. 1/2" and 5/8" ones are $144 and they go all the way up to 1" at $200. They also have four sizes of "relay" punches for between $200 and $300. They are in the catalog index under Chassis Punches. You might also try Grainger. Brian Cox, #478 +++ #8952 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Panel layout For those of you getting close to panel layouts, I came across this interesting and useful site.... http://www.glasairnews.com/Site/acad_drawings/ Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #895 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Panel Layout Saw this bit mentioned in the Feb '02 Experimenter -- It claims to require InternetExploiter v5, and I wasn't able, with nominal effort, to get it to work with my Brand-M browser, so set it aside. Your results might be better. Benton 14feb02 +++ #8954 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: re: Panel Layout This one does not specifically mention the Bearhawk panel, but it is probably worth playing with. It requires the Internet Explorer browser to work. http://vondane.tripod.com/expb/old/ Bruce A. Frank +++ #8972 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: re: Panel Layout > Saw this bit mentioned in the Feb '02 Experimenter -- > This is a good site and someone has put up a Bearhawk panel since the last time I checked it out. It is listed as R&B Aircraft Bearhawk. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom CA >>> 4sep02 #9154-11297 +++ #10395 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: This, budd, 's for you... You may recall a while back that Pat Fagan said he had just finished machine turning his instrument panel. budd got all excited and wanted to see a picture. Well, now's your chance. Go to the Yahoo Groups Bearhawk site and check out the new photo album titled "Fagan Panel and Trim". Besides the panel, you will also see photos of Pat's trim system. Pat decided to use a lever trim system instead of a wheel. While looking at the trim system you will also see how Pat set up his skylight. I was down at Pat's today using his lathe. Everything on his Bearhawk is covered and he is finishing up the Poly Spray. Looking better each day! +++ #10880 From: "Del Rawlins" del@r... Subject: RE: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? > ADF? Why? So you can listen to Rush Limbaugh while you're flying? > That's all we ever used it for, other than setting the target altitude > on the indicator. There are a number of NDBs still in operation in Alaska. One of the instrument approaches here into CDV is an NDB approach, which might be handy if your GPS decides to crap out. +++ #10882 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? ADF for two reasons......Rush Limbaugh and a poor man's storm detector. >>> 20may03 #11298-18250 +++ #12870 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: RE: Re: tandem/control sticks > budd--are you also going to mount the radios and nav equipment on > the left door so the left seat pilot doesn't have to keep switching > hands on the stick to adjust them? The simple solution for this is: fly from the right! Actually, I've seen several side-by-side stick controlled aircraft that are set up to fly from the right for that very reason (stick in the right, throttle in the left). BTW, all the Citabrias I've seen all have the radios either centered or on the right. Most annoying. At least the Christavia has center mounted radios. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) +++ #13069 From: "jrm_nh" Subject: Re: OT: Avionics as a career You bet ! Check http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyGlassCockpit/ But you have to build your own! Jim M +++ #13071 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: Glass Cockpits (was: OT: Avionics as a career) > Anyone out there interested in a "glass-cockpit" in a Bearhawk? There's also Al Wick's site, mentioned here sometime back. Al has written up his Subaru conversion, and home-made prop work as well as his glass cockpit at . He keeps his Cozy at Scappoose, OR. Benton +++ #13077 From: Alan Nauman Subject: Re: Re: OT: glass cockpit > Neat idea but there is no way that I would consider flying with > software whose most well known feature is "The Blue Screen of > Death". I looked at that page a long time ago and I thought the same thing. I am a Unix administrator as a profession and I would never consider trusting windows to that extent. If I were going to run a similar device, I would want it to run from memory. I have worked with a linux install that booted from a floppy and ran completely from memory. It was fast and stable. The real problem is the availability. You can get the moving map software for an IPaq , but not for linux. Go figure. I like the idea, but the platform needs some work. Alan +++ #13085 From: "kb8rnu" Subject: Re: Glass Cockpits (was: OT: Avionics as a career) I'm a systems admin as well (seems like there are quite a few of us out there). I tossed around building a glass cockpit but decided against it. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something. 1) Laptops are not designed to handle serious vibration/shock/temperature. If I was going to do it, I'd use an embedded systems board designed for industrial control, and seriously look at potting the board. 2) LCD screens are still generally hard to read in direct sunlight. You can certainly get ones that work well, but they cost more. They can freeze, too. 3) Windows is not reliable. Period. Some versions are better than others, but it's still pretty terrible from a reliability standpoint. I'd want it to run Linux or Open/FreeBSD before I'd truly trust it. While I could write a UNIX program to take data in and display it from various instruments and display them however I wanted, the moving map would be some serious work. 4) Analog gauges work well and cost less. 5) You'd need to be very careful to filter your power supply extremely well. Otherwise your computer might reboot when you turned on the strobes. :) 6) I personally think a glass cockpit would be kind of weird in a bush plane. :) I'd be very interested in hearing if anybody has come up with a UNIX moving map solution. I'll probably just stick with my trusty Garmin GPS-90. Jason +++ #13370 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Wardstrom Project Visit - Photos Online > I was glad to see that I had plenty of clearance between the bottom > of the panel and my knees, confirming that I should be able to > include an auxiliary panel for fuses and switches without crowding > my legs (I'm 5'-11" / 150 cm). Mark--the issue with fuses and switches below the cross bar is not leg clearance as much as stick clearance. Depending on how you rig the stick it can pass right under the cross bar in the full nose down position. Check your clearance before committing to a sub panel. Russ Erb +++ #16930 From: "collinc2002" Subject: VSI on a Bearhawk Maybe Pat or someone with a flying Bearhawk can answer my question. I just got the recent newsletter couple of days ago, and it contained the second installment of the owners manual. I was about to order an airspeed indicator for my project so of particular notice was the info about airspeed indicator markings. I was somewhat surprized to see the green arc as 75-160 mph. The green arc being the normal operating range, the lowest number being the power-off stalling speed with the flaps retracted. Surely this is a misprint, I would have thought the VSI on a Bearhawk would have lower numbers than 75. Any commments or should I give The Bob a call? Collin Campbell +++ #16931 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: (A?)VSI on a Bearhawk Did you mean ASI as in airspeed indicator? VSI is Vertical Speed Indicator (rate of climb). I agree that 75 mph seems way too high for flaps up stall speed. Russ Erb +++ #16943 From: Pat Fagan Subject: RE: (A?)VSI on a Bearhawk When I was setting up my airspeed indicator I called Bob to see what speeds to use for the different marks. At the time, he didn't know exactly where to make the arcs, but he gave me some general speeds to use. I had tried studying pictures of the Proto types airpseed indicators to get that info, but discovered they were simply used airspeed indicators with internal markings, having no relation to what would actually be right for the Bearhawk. If 75 mph is not a misprint, perhaps they just copied what the airpseed indicator showed by accident. Now that I finally have my tailwheel spring problem solved I can fly at gross weight and have come up with 45 knots for flaps up stall speed and 35 knots for flaps down. At 45 knots, no flaps, I get a good stall buffet and a gentle break. At 35 knots, with flaps, there is little buffet and a pretty sharp stall break. The stall is straight ahead and easily recoverable. For now, I am using 40 knots as a reference speed and calling 1.3 times that speed, or 52 knots, as my minimum approach speed. I haven't actually approached 52 knots yet as there always seems to be 20 knots of wind blowing every time I fly. If the wind ever stops blowing, I'll try 52 knots, and perhaps 50 knots on final. The other day I departed our local airport solo, but with full fuel. The wind was still blowing 15 knots down the runway. I parked with the mains on the runway end stipe and was airborne by the numbers. The Bearhawk kicks ass. Pat Fagan +++ #16956 From: "Mike Shepherd" Subject: Re: (A?)VSI on a Bearhawk I happened to be playing around with these numbers last night. These give a coefficient of lift of around 3 if I did it right. Is this correct? (Ken B?) C=LBS x 295/(KTS^2 x WINGAREA) = about 3 Thanks Mike Shepherd +++ #17330 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: AOA gauge in #232 ? Back in February, in talking about your early flight testing, you mentioned you were using an AOA indicator in #232. When you have a few minutes, could you expand on this a little for me? I'd be curious to know, on top of any other observations you'd care to toss in, - what brand (or home brew?) - what type/mechanism of sensing - what the calibration procedure was Benton +++ #17331 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: AOA gauge in #232 ? I bought the Proprietary Software Systems AOA gauge. I got the Professional model. It is advertised in all the magazines and it the one with the mutli color, chevron light bars. There are no moving parts. There is a pressure port on the top and the bottom of the left wing and the computer senses the pressure differentials. Calibration consists of telling the computer when the aircraft is at zero G and also when it is at whatever speed you want it to provide an advisory. I am still experimenting with the latter data point. I anticipate that it will be more useful than just as an expensive stall warning indicator. I haven't really put it to the test for short field approaches yet because I can't ever seem to find a calm day to go out and experiment. Besides, it looks cool. Pat +++ $Id: 2.4.3-Interior-Panel,v 1.11 2003/05/22 03:31:19 bentonh Exp $