jakej

Yeah, I know but the truth is out there when you question entrenched theory - we can learn a lot by asking why.:big_grin:

Nev If you read Mike Busch's articles (Avweb) you may change your mind and come over to the new world. :-)

Good advice, Dieselten. I will not buy any of the Chinese instruments for my customers, just not worth the grief with the lack of reliability - I know of one of the altimeters being declared u/s straight out of the box (out of warranty due sitting on shelf while the plane was being built). Wultrad or Falcon, makes no difference - maybe in time they will get better just like the Jap stuff decades ago. I wonder how many of these are in certified aircraft and attempts made at repair ? Most decent 'shops' won't try to repair them as there is no repair/maintenance manual so, then by default, you cannot repair these units and issue a cert under FAA 43 appen F. Maybe a poll should be done to ascertain how many have/or are having problems with these units - I'd suggest a lot. AS I see it the only reason they are fitted is because of the price.

That record goes to the 70 to 72 (not sure now) Tigers at Temora in the early 90's - it was a buzz. Jake J

Mark You could be correct there but the FANS (Future Air Navigation systems) committee would be more relevant than FAI. I don't see any chance of changing over to FM or Digital aviation radios anytime soon. Imagine the cost to us all.

I have some new & used parts 0412 624 723

Hi Mark Understand all that but FAI has really nothing to do with the Radio communication spectrum or regulation of same, here is the quote from their website front page"FAI is the world governing body for air sports and aeronautical world records." Their Technical Commissions on Airspace and Navigation Systems have nothing to do with communications - just wanted to set the record straight Maybe you meant to say ICAO ?

I know who ITU (band 8) is but what does FAI http://www.fai.org/ have to do with aviation communications ? FYI there is talk of digital radio but, for aviation, that would mean everyone changing radios so probably won't happen anytime soon. Jake Mark

Hi Andy Some makers do use better technology but that comes at a price (get what you pay for) so isn't available in sub $1200 radios. Problems with radios can be more basic than the radio itself -more to the point is wiring and installation issues, it's like the foundations on a building, good design etc means no cracks. Take audio shielding for example, the best audio engineers, PS Engineering, (IMO) and others more qualified than most of us say you should not use the shield (braid) as a ground return to reduce 'ground loops' - guess what, Xcom & Microair wiring looms do that, no wonder some people have audio issues. Then there is the practice of using RG58 coax antenna cable, it has/does worked for many for a long time but low loss cable eg RG400 is much better (I won't use any other) as it has a more dense and double layer of shielding. The benfits are more evident on composite airframes. The crimp type coax connectors are much better too - I through away any screw type I get supplied with a radio, just not worth using due to the potential for problems later. Modern avionics are more sensitive, particularly non Tso'd units, to RFI/EMI and therefore need the advantages of quality cabling etc. It's interesting to note that manufacturers of new Part 23 aircraft are not allowed by the FAA to use RG58 anymore. Many other audio/radio problems are caused by poor grounding/bonding of antenna and earths - In my experience most of the problems with radios/audio are as a result of some or all of the above, most radios will work properly out of the box. Jake

A guy has to keep his options open - like retirement, she WMBO wouldn't allow that while I still have an aviation medical

Thanks Kevin. I agree with having the wing tank option especially if you're going on longer distance or to sparsley populated area trips - I find it comforting to know that I can have up to 8 hrs fuel (240L) on board for the times when weather or refuelling, cost and/or availability, is an issue. Those are things I don't have to worry about so I can better concentrate on aviating. Congrats on the purchase, let us know when you start flying your Sierra as I'm sure others would want to know more. Jake J

Hi Garry Just have to say what an excellent handling aircraft I think the Morgan is, many thanks for the trial 'test' flight. I'm also impressed with the adjustable pedals ( not the norm for RA or Homebuilt) and 'toe' brakes which are much more intuiative, and useful in crosswind takeoffs/landings, for those of us that learnt to fly in GA planes. The lower CHT's you have acheived on the Jabby engine is a great to see after hearing the issues some other planes have. Having a closer look at the Sierra while at your factory I was amazed to see the apparent strength of construcion of the fuselage etc and yet it is still is light enough for the category. Thanks again for your hospitality and I look forward to being up there again.

It's called a Trio :-)

I install avionics for a living so offer my opinion based on experience, yours my vary........ Basically you get what you pay for - and good audio/intercom isn't available in 'cheaper' 2 1/4" radios unless you have a good independent intercom eg PS Engineering (considered, by many, to be the best audio people around) or the Sigtronics. BTW ps-engineering.com have some 'auto squelch' models which means you don't have the ability to adjust the squelch, it happens automatically & adjusts each mic to suit whatever different headsets you have. Xcom, in the past, (as from my experience) had 'issues' which were mostly unjustifiably blamed on wiring etc, this may have changed somewhat now that Narco (I believe) are involved in the manufacture of those units. Microair seem to be ok ( I used to throw away the Intercom board on the older models) providing you use a separate Intercom unit, preferably NOT a cheap one. Icom - they make good radios particularly the A200 but the design of the A210 is a shocker !! and it is not a true monitor of the standby frequency it scans it instead. There is no other ,generally used, radio that in order to fit it you have to remove the front panel first to install into the rack & reverse the procedure to remove it. The front panel is connected to the body by a semi rigid 10mm x .5mm (approx) ribbon, Again IMO this has given some Icom owners a headache with having warranty repairs done due to issues with the ribbon cable - also I think the dual watch feature is a poor attempt to mimic the the Garmin SL40 (aka Apollo SL40) you have to 're engage' the dual watch each time someone talks on the active frequency or your pax speaks into their mic. Garmin SL40 - These units are so reliable and troublefree & have 2 years warranty. They really do monitor the standby frequency without any further, after activation, pilot input. The SL40 has only ever had one Service Bulletin issued in it's long history, the same can't be said of others. Some owners tend to blame the equipment however if the wiring, antenna cabling, shielding, grounding & bonding is up to scratch then there should not be any problems other than poor electrical design/ layout. Some prefabricated wiring harnesses can introduce problems too especially when they use the braided shield as an earth return - to be discussed another day :-)

Hi 'kiwi' Mike Great to hear from you, its been a while. Jake J

Hi Alley, & all Have joined up recently & see sme friends here already - that's great. Like amphibone I also have a Glasair but first I had built & flown a CGS Hawk (a single seater) in the early 80's - that was scary with the only lesson beforehand was a briefing then had to fly it. A few years ago I got an RA Licence in a Sportstar, much easier then after having flown many hours in an experimental aircraft. I hope to catch up with some of you, at flyins etc, in the future. Cheers, Jake J

Gidday BB Jake J