Soleair Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 I've finally got to the pre-covering assembly/inspection stage. I put it all together under some trees to hide from the sun yesterday. Next - covering: another new eperience 13 3
daza Posted December 20, 2015 Posted December 20, 2015 Beudiful mate Must be good to get to a point like that where you can see a real step forward Keep up the good work! Daza 1 2
Marty_d Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Looks fantastic. Love the wood-trim "office"! 1
Soleair Posted December 21, 2015 Author Posted December 21, 2015 Thanks guys! I'm almost reluctant to cover all the wood - it looks so nice naked! And if I used Mylar I would improve downward visibility with see-through wings. . . Bruce 1
winsor68 Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Beeeeeautiful! Did you build from plans or kit?
cscotthendry Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Soleair: What a beautiful machine! Your work leaves me speechless ... As does your choice of radio. Why put so much effort into a project and then cut corners with an el-cheapo handheld radio? I get really frustrated every time I hear "mmmmfffgffggf fghdfdvd ddgdgteg gshdgdvd traffic" on the radio! Please please put a proper radio in your airplane so that the rest of us can hear and understand your calls and tell where you are and what you're doing.
old man emu Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Bruce, Have a read of this: https://oldmanemu1.wordpress.com Old Man Emu 1 2
Head in the clouds Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 Soleair:What a beautiful machine! Your work leaves me speechless ... As does your choice of radio. Why put so much effort into a project and then cut corners with an el-cheapo handheld radio? I get really frustrated every time I hear "mmmmfffgffggf fghdfdvd ddgdgteg gshdgdvd traffic" on the radio! Please please put a proper radio in your airplane so that the rest of us can hear and understand your calls and tell where you are and what you're doing. I quite agree about the excellent workmanship. Can't agree, though, about the comment about the radio. I've used an identical handheld Icom as a backup radio for, hell, it's decades now ... and it has clearer transmission and reception than the Bendix-King panel mount. Whether a radio transmits loud and clear or "mmmmfffgffggf fghdfdvd ddgdgteg gshdgdvd traffic" has very little to do with the owner's choice of hardware (or budget come to that) and everything to do with the antenna and its installation. I'd really rather see someone spend extra on a good antenna and tuning it, than on a better or newer radio head. Many of us (including me and DooMaw) have to make do with a budget panel to begin with, building a plane is an expensive exercise and the panel can always be added to later. 10
Soleair Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 Thanks again to all for your kind words To answer specifics: Winsor, although I bought a 'kit' it would be fair to say that I built it from plans using materials supplied. The only preformed items were the welded main gear & the GRP cowling (nosebowl only shown in pix). The 'kit' has the advantage that the wood is supplied planed to finished cross sectional dimensions, and all the fasteners & the few bits of metal required are supplied as raw material So the hassle of sourcing 200mm of 1" x 1/2" 10swg channel (how's that for mixed units?) is avoided, or of having to buy a 4 metre length of 1/2" dia 0.056" 6061 tubing when all you want is 12". Or 300mm if you don't believe in building an imperial plane. The major elements are built over a pattern drawn full size in felt tip on the work bench, and I made the rib jig. Cscott, the reason I went for the small handheld radio is twofold. Firstly, there simply is not sufficient space in the panel for a full size radio - see pic. Secondly, I can't afford one: I spent all my money on bits of wood, a new engine, and all the misc items that constantly need buying. I will see how this setup works after initial flight trials, but see HIC's comment. OME, that looks a very useful article. I will read it in greater depth & come back with some annoying questions later - thanks. HIC, good to know I'm not alone in my build philosophy! Re the antenna, I have built a half wave dipole (with a Pawsey stub) into the fin. You can't really see it in the photos, but I will take a closeup shot & post it later. Haven't field tested it yet. Next thing I need is a headset. Again, my finances don't permit top of the range equipment - I was considering Ian's 250 series Recreational headset, here:http://www.clearprop.com.au/headsets/passive-headsets/250-series-recreational-flying-headset/ Anyone have a view on this? Thanks once again to all for your encouragement. Bruce 5
Marty_d Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Bruce, while it doesn't compare with the massive job you've just done, the structure looks very similar to the r/c models I used to build - so I understand when you say it's a shame to cover up all that lovely work! I think you should sit back, crack a beer, admire your handiwork and have a proper FIGJAM moment.
cscotthendry Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I quite agree about the excellent workmanship.Can't agree, though, about the comment about the radio. I've used an identical handheld Icom as a backup radio for, hell, it's decades now ... and it has clearer transmission and reception than the Bendix-King panel mount. Whether a radio transmits loud and clear or "mmmmfffgffggf fghdfdvd ddgdgteg gshdgdvd traffic" has very little to do with the owner's choice of hardware (or budget come to that) and everything to do with the antenna and its installation. I'd really rather see someone spend extra on a good antenna and tuning it, than on a better or newer radio head. Many of us (including me and DooMaw) have to make do with a budget panel to begin with, building a plane is an expensive exercise and the panel can always be added to later. Sorry, but this is an issue I'm particularly passionate about. Apart from the legality of whether these handheld radios are even approved for airborne use, it seems to me that the mindset seems to be "I'm obliged to put a radio in my plane so I'll put in the cheapest one I can find, and if other people can't make out what I'm saying that's their problem". The radio is the only means we have to tell other pilots where we are and what our intentions are. IMO, you want the best thing you can put in there (within a reasonable budget) and handheld radios just don't qualify. For a start, unless it is connected into the aircraft power, you've got battery life issues, both the charge life and the life cycle of the battery. Then you have the quality of the electronics and the quality of the signal. Finally, most handheld outputs are optimised for the little "rubber resistor" antennas rather than proper antennas. You've spent so much on the plane, why not protect it with good comms?
Head in the clouds Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 Sorry, but this is an issue I'm particularly passionate about. Apart from the legality of whether these handheld radios are even approved for airborne use, it seems to me that the mindset seems to be "I'm obliged to put a radio in my plane so I'll put in the cheapest one I can find, and if other people can't make out what I'm saying that's their problem".The radio is the only means we have to tell other pilots where we are and what our intentions are. IMO, you want the best thing you can put in there (within a reasonable budget) and handheld radios just don't qualify. For a start, unless it is connected into the aircraft power, you've got battery life issues, both the charge life and the life cycle of the battery. Then you have the quality of the electronics and the quality of the signal. Finally, most handheld outputs are optimised for the little "rubber resistor" antennas rather than proper antennas. You've spent so much on the plane, why not protect it with good comms? Sorry Scott, you may be passionate about it, but with respect, you're misguided. Those handheld radios aren't that cheap, and they broadcast and receive just as well, if not better, than the TBO'd panel mount units. This is not conjecture, it's something I've checked and verified on a number of occasions as part of my near two decades commercial operations in remote areas. In mining sampling operations, for example, peoples' lives depended on those Icom handhelds, and they work fine as a base or airborne station provided the installation and antenna is right. In fact there have been many times when my fixed installation Icom handheld outperformed the $4K B-K panel unit. As far as the power supply is concerned, if you're familiar with the Icom handheld you'll be aware that the battery pack isn't there in Soleair's installation. When you remove the battery pack those units have a 'hot shoe' that provides connectivity to the aircraft's power system, or alternatively you can plug in the power supply to the charging socket on the side near the base. Now - what about aircraft that don't have a power supply? Many Tiger Moths, VW powered ultralights, in fact just about any sport aircraft that you see being hand-propped doesn't have a battery or charging system - and nor are they required to have. Are you suggesting that they shouldn't be able to use a handheld? Bear in mind that many have been doing so for decades with perfectly acceptable results. They're not 'optimised for rubber-resistor antennas', they simply have a 3W (or whatever) output and you optimise your antenna for the best possible signal strength and directions. From what Soleair has said it sounds like he knows what he's doing. I'll look forward to hearing what his radio sounds like compared to some others ... In any case the poor transmissions you have experienced from time to time are very unlikely to have come from someone using a handheld, it's far more likely that it's someone with an ageing installation of a quality panel mount but with a poor antenna earth, or a broken/corroded antenna core. Or just as likely a microphone that is overdue for replacement, some people seem to think microphones last forever ... As for the legality of using a handheld airborne, you might do a little reading - provided the installation is appropriate there is no restriction against it, since they are a unit that is approved for use in the aviation frequency band, there is no differentiation about where it is used. And since we don't yet, thankfully, require annual release notes on our avionics, the installation is, gladly, left to us as homebuilders. Just watch that change when folks get their wish about CTA ... The other option, for many people, would be to not install a radio at all. I'm sure you're aware that they are not compulsory? Would you prefer that more people didn't carry a radio at all? The primary separation method below A050 and OCTA for all aircraft is still to 'see and be seen', which of course means that the primary means of collision avoidance is looking out the window rather than relying on anyone doing anything with a radio ... consequently, as far as your plane, or yourself are concerned, it's quite impossible to "protect it with good comms". 2 6 2
skeptic36 Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I had the hand held icom in my first trike and it consistently recieved a 5/5 score, the panel mount in my new trike is already giving trouble although I suspect that may be settings related. 1
Soleair Posted December 22, 2015 Author Posted December 22, 2015 I guess a lot depends on where you fly. I will be operating in fairly uncluttered airspace, and nowhere near CTA. The Icom is powered by the aircraft power system, with a half wave dipole antenna. I will be very surprised if it is not equal to my needs (& those of the very few others I am likely to meet). My preferred alternative is to fly non radio, as I did in the UK's much more crowded home counties airspace, with no problems regarding airmisses. But I'm prepared to do my best within my very limited budget. Bruce 7
Bernie Posted December 22, 2015 Posted December 22, 2015 I have one of Ian's head sets bought back when the Echuca flyin was , Ian will remember date its escapeds me ,but the head set has been a good investment . Bernie . 1
Ungrounded Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 Often a battery powered radio has a cleaner sounding signal. As they escape from unwanted noise entering the radio via the main electrical system. They can still suffer from RF interference but often electrcal noise rides the power supply lines. Very much in agreement that a portable radio needs a good external antenna to perform well. You may also need to be careful with the headphones and microphone (headset) being used. In that they should be electronically "matched" (suitable) for the radio in question. Using a genuine manufacturers accessory for the radio is the safe way to arrive at the desired matched condition. Use something 3rd party and you may need to be careful/experiment with matching the microphone type/impedence and the headphone impedences. Low TX audio and/or RX volume is the common result of a mismatch.
Head in the clouds Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 ..... You may also need to be careful with the headphones and microphone (headset) being used. In that they should be electronically "matched" (suitable) for the radio in question. Using a genuine manufacturers accessory for the radio is the safe way to arrive at the desired matched condition. Use something 3rd party and you may need to be careful/experiment with matching the microphone type/impedence and the headphone impedences. Low TX audio and/or RX volume is the common result of a mismatch. Quite correct about matching impedances and all that Ungrounded, and the handheld Icoms are intended to be used with 'normal' aviation headsets, I've had quite a selection of aviation headsets over the years and they've all worked fine with the Icom handhelds. The reason I say they're 'intended' for use with them is that one of the standard accessories for the handhelds is a cable which plugs into the handheld and on the other end of the cable(s) is a velcro-strapped PTT switch to attach to the control column and a set of sockets to accept the standard aeroplane headset plugs and an adapter for the NATO single plug helicopter headset.
Kyle Communications Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 There is absolutely no reason not to use a HH if you want. Very few drawbacks, the main one being the output power and battery life. Using a switchmode supply can generate noise just like most of the horrible USB cigarette lighter chargers. You can make a "linear" version you just need a reasonable heatsink and you will have no where near any interference issues. A must though is to make sure you go to a external antenna and do not use the rubber duck otherwise you will be up for a lot of RF interferance in all your headset cables. Always use the manufacturers headset adaptor unless you know what you are doing. The only other drawback of course is no intercom for a Pax but thats a personal choise and you can fit one but usually means a bit of stuffing around to get them to work properly. I personally dislike HH in the cockpit but then again I dont like Fords either 1
IBob Posted December 27, 2015 Posted December 27, 2015 There is absolutely no reason not to use a HH if you want. Very few drawbacks, the main one being the output power and battery life. Using a switchmode supply can generate noise just like most of the horrible USB cigarette lighter chargers. You can make a "linear" version you just need a reasonable heatsink and you will have no where near any interference issues. A must though is to make sure you go to a external antenna and do not use the rubber duck otherwise you will be up for a lot of RF interferance in all your headset cables. Always use the manufacturers headset adaptor unless you know what you are doing. The only other drawback of course is no intercom for a Pax but thats a personal choise and you can fit one but usually means a bit of stuffing around to get them to work properly. I personally dislike HH in the cockpit but then again I dont like Fords either M...I can certainly see where a Ford in the cockpit would impact your STOL performance?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now