X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:00:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from carbinge.com ([69.5.27.218] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.2) with SMTP id 5309909 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:25:35 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.5.27.218; envelope-from=jbarrett@carbinge.com Received: (qmail 5546 invoked from network); 18 Dec 2011 18:24:58 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; h=X-Originating-IP:Reply-To:From:To:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:Content-Language; s=default; d=carbinge.com; b=MyaIfwXVIsJi90CGjICRbPSErhvSz2h9BlDojbR4CS9o18Uqpv73MOwgOER/QoD7wIPdAoSdenvzsHkq8PIzoEfpjRJE4kjEHa8w4wBQetb1qead95w+mwwCT4W7aRvXR3YjF6It3roCQLyhE8bGgHJ6Zv6OxErD7Xk+ImDd/+Y=; X-Originating-IP: [24.143.115.170] Reply-To: From: "John Barrett" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Re: MGL back up instrumentr X-Original-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:24:57 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <011301ccbdb2$59512420$0bf36c60$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0114_01CCBD6F.4B2DE420" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acy9kYecbncLheJnRzKAbIV+5xYqTAAIGs/A Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0114_01CCBD6F.4B2DE420 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good question, Jeff. Some more naturally follow: =20 1. Are you stating my backup instruments are unreliable? 2. If so, what do you find unreliable about them? 3. Assuming they are unreliable, what would you replace them with? =20 I guess the real question is what instrument that gives airspeed or = altitude will never fail to provide needed information under any = circumstance? =20 =20 From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Jeff Edwards Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:30 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Re: MGL back up instrumentr =20 Why have unreliable backups?=20 AvSafe=20 Jeff Edwards 314.308.6719 mobile 636.532.5638 office Jeff.edwards@avsafe.com On Dec 16, 2011, at 8:44 AM, "John Barrett" = wrote: Infinity line MGL instruments =E2=80=93 they are intriguing as back up = gauges. =20 =20 Looks like the altimeter is Baro sensitive for input but needs electrons = for output. I spoke with Matt at their US distributor center and = learned that it uses pitot static inputs to pressure sensors that = generate output data for microprocessor to turn into altitude readout. =20 =20 Without electricity the gauge does not function, losing the = microprocessing component as well as the LCD display output. Does this = mean that in order to have good backup one would need to have a totally = mechanical altimeter? =20 Have found that two of my cheap 2.25=E2=80=9D gauges are failed with = case leaks. Have had them awhile but as far as I know they = haven=E2=80=99t been mishandled. I know the airspeed gauge is UMA. I = suspect the altimeter is the same brand. These are the two failed = instruments. =20 Advice welcome. =20 John Barrett =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Regards, =20 John Barrett, CEO Leading Edge Composites PO Box 428 Port Hadlock, WA 98339 =20 www.carbinge.com =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0114_01CCBD6F.4B2DE420 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good question, Jeff.=C2=A0 Some more naturally = follow:

 

1.       = Are you stating my backup instruments are = unreliable?

2.       = If so, what do you find unreliable about = them?

3.       = Assuming they are unreliable, what would you replace them = with?

 

I guess the real question is what instrument that gives airspeed or = altitude will never fail to provide needed information under any = circumstance?

 

 

From:= = Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Jeff Edwards
Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 6:30 = AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Re: MGL = back up instrumentr

 

Why have unreliable = backups? 

AvSafe 

Jeff Edwards

314.308.6719 mobile

636.532.5638 office


On Dec 16, 2011, at 8:44 AM, = "John Barrett" <jbarrett@carbinge.com> = wrote:

Infinity = line MGL instruments =E2=80=93 they are intriguing as back up = gauges. 

 <= /o:p>

Looks like = the altimeter is Baro sensitive for input but needs electrons for = output.  I spoke with Matt at their US distributor center and = learned that it uses pitot static inputs to pressure sensors that = generate output data for microprocessor to turn into altitude = readout. 

 <= /o:p>

Without = electricity the gauge does not function, losing the microprocessing = component as well as the LCD display output.  Does this mean that = in order to have good backup one would need to have a totally  = mechanical altimeter?

 <= /o:p>

Have found = that two of my cheap 2.25=E2=80=9D gauges are failed with case = leaks.  Have had them awhile but as far as I know they = haven=E2=80=99t been mishandled.  I know the airspeed gauge is = UMA.  I suspect the altimeter is the same  brand.  These = are the  two failed instruments.

 <= /o:p>

Advice = welcome.

 <= /o:p>

John = Barrett

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

 <= /o:p>

Regards,

 <= /o:p>

John = Barrett, CEO

Leading = Edge Composites

PO Box = 428

Port = Hadlock, WA 98339

 <= /o:p>

www.carbinge.com

 <= /o:p>

------=_NextPart_000_0114_01CCBD6F.4B2DE420--