Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

patrick.pulis(at)seagas.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

patrick.pulis(at)seagas.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Could anyone please indicate their thoughts regarding the deletion of

the Vans stall warning vane and micro-switch in favour of installing

only an angle of attack device.



I have purchased the Advanced Flight Systems Angle of Attack Pro and the

features of this device seem to negate the need to install the Vans

stall warning vane and buzzer.



If anyone out there has adopted this configuration I would very much

like to hear from you, with a view to gauging your thoughts regarding

the success or otherwise of this approach.



Thanks in advance from downunder.



PATRICK PULIS

RV-10 #40299

Adelaide, South Australia

Email:	patrick.pulis(at)seagas.com.au



Do Not Archive

ScooterF15

Joined: 19 Jun 2006
Posts: 136

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:29 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

I have both. I have the AFS AOA Sport version. Once calibrated the wing  stall warning vane works great, besides the buzzer I also added a light on the  panel; I like the way it works and think it's a good idea to have on the plane.  The AOA, on the other hand, can be used for more than just stall detection,  but I have had trouble with mine. I get error messages which  have required recalibration every few flights, so I've learned not to count  on it working. Recalibration has never failed to clear the errors, but I've  gotten tired of taking the 10 minutes out of my flight to perform the  calibration procedure and stopped using it. (Nothing against AFS, as I haven't  taken the time to report this to them, so I haven't given them a chance to help  me fix it yet). 

  

 So, I suggest keeping the wing stall detector on there per the plans, but  install the AOA Pro for it's added functionality.

  

 -Jim

 40134 - 1st Annual Complete - Flying Again!

  

  Jim "Scooter"  McGrew

http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew  



  

 In a message dated 10/7/2007 9:54:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  patrick.pulis(at)seagas.com.au writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  -->    RV10-List message posted by: "Patrick Pulis"    <patrick.pulis(at)seagas.com.au>



Could anyone please indicate their    thoughts regarding the deletion of

the Vans stall warning vane and    micro-switch in favour of installing

only an angle of attack    device.



I have purchased the Advanced Flight Systems Angle of Attack    Pro and the

features of this device seem to negate the need to install the    Vans

stall warning vane and buzzer.



If anyone out there has adopted    this configuration I would very much

like to hear from you, with a view to    gauging your thoughts regarding

the success or otherwise of this    approach.



Thanks in advance from downunder.



PATRICK    PULIS

RV-10 #40299

Adelaide, South Australia

	


 



  

  



  [quote][b]

DAVELEIKAM(at)wi.rr.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:48 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

I am installing the AFS Sport and will not install the stall warning from 

Van's.  I think the AOA is a much better device.  Just makes more sense.  I 

will install the indicator on my panel where it will be as easy to see as 

possible.  I have not flown an AOA equipped plane yet but I expect to use 

that indicator on takeoff and landing almost more than airspeed.



Dave Leikam

40496

wing guts

N89DA reserved

---

rv10builder(at)verizon.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

With everyone talking redundancy- I see this as redundant and more important 

to me than counting on the AOA alone. Should I chose not to use it later- 

fine, I can disable the buzzer but at least I'll have it until than as a 

backup to the AOA, or vice versa.



Pascal

Do not archive



---

ricksked(at)embarqmail.co
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Patrick,



I have a light, the horn and the AOA on the 3500, I figure if one or the other fails, there is still a backup. I was not planning on using the AOA as a primary stall indicator but for a more stabilized approach. Anyone who has flow the RV-10 can tell you it has plenty of stall warning through the seat of your pants let alone all the other goodies we can put in it. I can pull the CB on the stall vane system if it gets too annoying. And besides, it came with the kit and I would hate to let Van know he sold something to me and I didn't install and use it, that would be like selling someone something they didn't need!!  



Rick S.

40185

---

patrick.pulis(at)seagas.c
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:58 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Thanks for all your great responses guys.



Regards



Pat



Do Not Archive 



--

acs(at)acspropeller.com.a
Guest

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Pat, also check this out in Part 101 Australian CAO 's for Amateur Built

category, Airworthiness Certification requirements( probably similar

existence in the FARs ).

If any Aussies need the full Part 101 copy contact me off-list.

Make of it what you will.

John 40315



"3.11 Stall warning

There must be a clear and distinctive stall warning with wing flaps and

landing gear in any normal position, in both straight and turning flight,

sufficiently in advance of the stall to provide the pilot with adequate

warning.

Note: The warning may be furnished either through inherent aerodynamic

qualities of the aeroplane or by a device that will give clearly

distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a

visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within

the cockpit is not acceptable by itself".

--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:37 am Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

I have installed the AOA Pro from AFS and left out the stall vane from

vans. I figured the AOA will let me know when I am getting close and the

seat of my pants will tell me when I am falling off the edge. 

Dan

N289DT RV10E Flying  



--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Does this mean the buffet from approaching stall, coupled with the

visual indication and audible warning from the AOA will meet the

requirement? This worked for the FAA on my plane, but as we know in the

US it is entirely dependant on which inspector you get.

Dan

N289DT RV10E Flying  



--

johngoodman

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 530
Location: GA

Posted: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: Re: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Patrick,

I am not installing Van's stall warning system. Instead, I am installing two AOA systems. What can I say, I'm a Navy Carrier guy.

The first one is the Dynon heated pitot/AoA tube in place of Van's pitot. This connects to a Dynon EFIS, which will give a visual indication on the screen and will also give an audible alarm at stall.

The second one is the AOA from InAir. They call it the "Lift Reserve Indicator" or LRI. I'm putting it in the right wing. It's purely mechanical and uses a round gauge. I plan on mounting that one where the Navy puts theirs - the upper left corner of the windscreen.



Both systems work on the same principle - one tube of air is more affected than the other due to a change in angle of attack. I've seen other systems that use a small vane on the wingtip that is electric. Any of them should work.



The real advantage of AOA is that it can tell you, stall, approach, L over D max (best lift over drag), best climb, best glide, etc. As the builder you will have to calibrate and calculate that stuff yourself.



John

_________________
#40572 Phase One complete in 2011

RobHickman(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

In a message dated 10/7/2007 7:30:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  JSMcGrew(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  The AOA,    on the other hand, can be used for more than just stall detection, but I    have had trouble with mine. I get error messages which have required    recalibration every few flights, so I've learned not to count on it working.    Recalibration has never failed to clear the errors, but I've gotten tired of    taking the 10 minutes out of my flight to perform the calibration    procedure and stopped using it. (Nothing against AFS, as I haven't taken the    time to report this to them, so I haven't given them a chance to help me fix    it yet). 	


 

  

  

This is not the  norm,  I have had my AOA Pro for the last 400 hours (long before we  purchased the AOA company) and have not had to recalibrate it.  The most  common issue with what you are describing is leaking plumbing.   You should verify the wing ports, static,  and pitot.  To check the wing ports  do the following: 

     Disconnect the tubing from the    CPU   
Suck through the Green and Blue    tubes, are they clear?   
Tape over the top wing port hole    and suck the blue tube,  you    should not get any air.   
Tape over the bottom wing port    hole and suck the green tube,  you    should not get any air. 

  

  

Next thing is to make sure you have a good connection on the red hose to  the pitot and the clear tube to the static.  We have had some people push the ¼”  tubes in to far on the Tee’s and block the cross drilled holes for the small  tubes. 

  

Rarely is there ever a problem with the CPU and they do work really well.   

  

The last major problem we had was with a customers  Lancair 4P,  we had the CPU twice,  he checked the plumbing multiple times and it still acted like you are  describing.  Finally after assuring  me he had checked the plumbing he flew the plane to Oregon so I could look at  it.  Guess what?  The clear tube to the static system was  pinched with a tie strap.    

  

Call me if you need any help any time. 

  

Sincerley, 

  

Rob Hickman    cell  (503) 701-5042 

Advanced Flight Systems





  [quote][b]

ScooterF15

Joined: 19 Jun 2006
Posts: 136

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: Angle of Attack Probe Vs Stall Warning Vane

Thanks. I'll take a look at those things.

  

 -Jim

  

 In a message dated 10/10/2007 8:46:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  RobHickman(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		        In a message dated 10/7/2007 7:30:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,    JSMcGrew(at)aol.com writes:

    	  Quote: 	
		  The      AOA, on the other hand, can be used for more than just stall detection,      but I have had trouble with mine. I get error messages which      have required recalibration every few flights, so I've learned not to      count on it working. Recalibration has never failed to clear the errors, but      I've gotten tired of taking the 10 minutes out of my flight to perform      the calibration procedure and stopped using it. (Nothing against AFS, as I      haven't taken the time to report this to them, so I haven't given them a      chance to help me fix it yet). 	


   

    

      

This is not the    norm,  I have had my AOA Pro for the last 400 hours (long before we    purchased the AOA company) and have not had to recalibrate it.  The most    common issue with what you are describing is leaking plumbing.   You should verify the wing ports,    static, and pitot.  To check the    wing ports do the following:   

         Disconnect the tubing from the      CPU      
Suck through the Green and Blue      tubes, are they clear?      
Tape over the top wing port hole      and suck the blue tube,  you      should not get any air.      
Tape over the bottom wing port      hole and suck the green tube,       you should not get any air.   

    

    

Next thing is to make sure you have a good connection on the red hose    to the pitot and the clear tube to the static.  We have had some people push the ¼”    tubes in to far on the Tee’s and block the cross drilled holes for the small    tubes.   

    

Rarely is there ever a problem with the CPU and they do work really    well.    

    

The last major problem we had was with a customers    Lancair 4P,  we had the CPU twice,    he checked the plumbing multiple times and it still acted like you are    describing.  Finally after    assuring me he had checked the plumbing he flew the plane to Oregon so I could look    at it.  Guess what?  The clear tube to the static system    was pinched with a tie strap.        

    

Call me if you need any help any time.   

    

Sincerley,   

    

Rob Hickman       cell (503) 701-5042   

Advanced Flight Systems

	


 



  

 Jim "Scooter"  McGrew

http://www.mit.edu/~jsmcgrew  



See what's new at ww.aol.com?NCID=AOLCMP00300000001170" target="_blank">AOL.com and

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum