Original Posted By: shad bell
This just came in a AVwebAlert email. I guess we're having too much fun, and federalgovernment can't allow that. I could say more, but the proper words neededto describe this FCC action are not printable. PaulFCC BANS 121.5 ELTSThe Federal Communications Commission took the general aviation world by surprisewhen it said in a recent report it will prohibit the sale or use of 121.5 MHzemergency locator transmitters, effective in August. The Aircraft ElectronicsAssociation said it just learned of the new rule today, and has begun workingwith the FAA, FCC and others to allow for timely compliance without groundingthousands of general aviation aircraft. The 121.5 ELTs are allowed under FAArules. The FCC said its rules have been amended to "prohibit further certification,manufacture, importation, sale or use of 121.5 MHz ELTs." The FCC saysthat if the 121.5 units are no longer available, aircraft owners and operatorswill "migrate" to the newer 406.0-406.1 MHz ELTs, which are monitored by satellite,while the 121.5 frequency is not. "Were we to permit continued marketingand use of 121.5 MHz ELTs ... it would engender the risk that aircraft ownersand operators would mistakenly rely on those ELTs for the relay of distressalerts," the FCC says. AOPA said today it is opposed to the rule change."The FCC is making a regulatory change that would impose an extra cost on GA operators,without properly communicating with the industry or understanding theimplications of its action," said AOPA Vice President of Regulatory Affairs RobHackman. "There is no FAA requirement to replace 121.5 MHz units with 406 MHztechnology. When two government agencies don't coordinate, GA can suffer."The AEA said dealers should refrain from selling any new 121.5 MHz ELTs "untilfurther understanding of this new prohibition can be understood and a realistictimeline for transition can be established."Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 19:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Pietenpol-List: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: "skellytown flyer"
OK help me guys- I have come to a point where I have about 99% of the airplaneis together. lacking a lot of screws and a few strips of gap seal. but had tosee where I was at with my weight and balance.and the talk about more aft CG givingbetter speed with less down elevator required.or at least that is what Ithink I heard. and I hear of a lot of birds flying with 30 to 50 pounds on thetail.I ran my numbers several times and every way I figured it fits within thelimits of 22% to 34% of chord but close to the back. I am waiting till aboutthe last thing to permanently install the battery because by my thinking itis easier to shift it than add needless weight.anyway- I'll admit it-I am at 13pounds tail weight empty and that sounds extremely low to me.I have done everythingI can to level the plane and repeat weigh it and use different scalesbut the tail wheel is that light. maybe due to the distance from the wing to thetail being a GN-1 and altered some by DJ it would be different.I was even lighterand I removed the nose tank and made and installed a center section tankand it is just bugging me that maybe I'm missing something here.but if anyoneis willing to e-mail me and check my figures I would appreciate a second opinion.forwhat it's worth- they are as follows. datum firewall. leading edge 18"back. main wheels 24 1/4" back tail-wheel 185 1/2" back. passenger arm 37 1/2"pilot arm 71" fuel arm 42 1/2" it will hold 15 gallons.I weigh 210 and figureda 180# passenger for full load and most rear CG with full fuel. thanks forany help. RaymondRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
OK help me guys- I have come to a point where I have about 99% of the airplaneis together. lacking a lot of screws and a few strips of gap seal. but had tosee where I was at with my weight and balance.and the talk about more aft CG givingbetter speed with less down elevator required.or at least that is what Ithink I heard. and I hear of a lot of birds flying with 30 to 50 pounds on thetail.I ran my numbers several times and every way I figured it fits within thelimits of 22% to 34% of chord but close to the back. I am waiting till aboutthe last thing to permanently install the battery because by my thinking itis easier to shift it than add needless weight.anyway- I'll admit it-I am at 13pounds tail weight empty and that sounds extremely low to me.I have done everythingI can to level the plane and repeat weigh it and use different scalesbut the tail wheel is that light. maybe due to the distance from the wing to thetail being a GN-1 and altered some by DJ it would be different.I was even lighterand I removed the nose tank and made and installed a center section tankand it is just bugging me that maybe I'm missing something here.but if anyoneis willing to e-mail me and check my figures I would appreciate a second opinion.forwhat it's worth- they are as follows. datum firewall. leading edge 18"back. main wheels 24 1/4" back tail-wheel 185 1/2" back. passenger arm 37 1/2"pilot arm 71" fuel arm 42 1/2" it will hold 15 gallons.I weigh 210 and figureda 180# passenger for full load and most rear CG with full fuel. thanks forany help. RaymondRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: "Perry Rhoads"
I don't know if this will allow me to go ahead and get my phase 1 Airworthinesswithout going bankrupt or not-but here may be one loophole for me at the start.There may be another loop-hole. FAR 91.207 (f)(3)...(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operationsbegan;Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
I don't know if this will allow me to go ahead and get my phase 1 Airworthinesswithout going bankrupt or not-but here may be one loophole for me at the start.There may be another loop-hole. FAR 91.207 (f)(3)...(f) Paragraph (a) of this section does not apply to(3) Aircraft while engaged in training operations conducted entirely within a50-nautical mile radius of the airport from which such local flight operationsbegan;Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: Ryan Mueller
You know I was thinking I left that out as soon as I hit send. the right is 373#and left 365#.she is a Sow but still I think flight is possible.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:27:17 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
You know I was thinking I left that out as soon as I hit send. the right is 373#and left 365#.she is a Sow but still I think flight is possible.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 16:27:17 -0500Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: "Jeff Boatright"
An extra long tongue----- Original Message -----
An extra long tongue----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: helspersew(at)aol.com
Interesting to know how potention air attacks were detected before Radar. Some of you may have used this equipment, but it was considerably before my time.
)Allan Macklem"I have the plans" These look like a joke, but were actual "hearing aids" to detect airplanes..... Before Radar, How Were Air Attacks Detected? With old time hearing aids! STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ON A SWIVEL STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -GERMAN STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ON WHEELS STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ENGLAND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 13:35:00Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 36:00________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTsDate: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:30:19 -0400
Interesting to know how potention air attacks were detected before Radar. Some of you may have used this equipment, but it was considerably before my time.
)Allan Macklem"I have the plans" These look like a joke, but were actual "hearing aids" to detect airplanes..... Before Radar, How Were Air Attacks Detected? With old time hearing aids! STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ON A SWIVEL STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -GERMAN STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ON WHEELS STRANGE ACOUSTIC "EARS" BEFORE RADAR -ENGLAND --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 13:35:00Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 36:00________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTsDate: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 21:30:19 -0400Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: shad bell
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: Matt Wash
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: "Paul N. Peckham"
With power on the inner six ft or so has a much faster andstraighter flow of air over it so may not ever see a stallspeed airflow thus at least a bit of the wing thinks it's stillflying merrily along. ( Now about that radiator!) :-)The Lockheed P3 Orion has half the wingspan behindprop blades. It could be slowed down to a GROUNDSPEEDof considerably less than power off stall. I have talkedto a couple of retired Canadian Forces SAR pilots thatflew these things. This was a routine procedure out offboth coasts on SAR missions. The rpm would be broughtup high with high AOA when there was need to go slow.So much direct flow over the wing they could almosthover. Now wouldn't that be a sight!Clif> >> So the logic goes like this: Let's say you have two identical aircraft, > one weighing 900 lbs and one weighing 1000 lbs. The heavier aircraft will > need higher total lift, given steady state conditions, like cruise at 70 > mph. Since lift varies almost directly with angle of attack, the heavier > one needs a higher angle of attack (more lift) to stay even.>> Airfoils stall at a particular and specific angle of attack regardless of > gross weight. The air flowing over the top of the airfoil separates and > lift goes away and it doesn't matter what the weight is. As you slow the > aircraft down, the angle of attack increases but the heavier aircraft > started with a higher angle so it reaches "stall" first.>> Power-on stall occurs a a slower airspeed because the engine is providing > a significant amount of lift due to the nose high attitude so the airfoil > sees what it thinks is a lighter gross weight. If you have enough power, > you can't induce a power-on stall. I wonder if I can hang one of Sean > Tucker's AEIOU and sometimes Y 580's on my Piet. Would certainly solve > the tail heavy issue once and for all. Might have to drink more beer.>>> Read this topic online here:>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ---Checked by AVG - www.avg.com11:36:00________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
With power on the inner six ft or so has a much faster andstraighter flow of air over it so may not ever see a stallspeed airflow thus at least a bit of the wing thinks it's stillflying merrily along. ( Now about that radiator!) :-)The Lockheed P3 Orion has half the wingspan behindprop blades. It could be slowed down to a GROUNDSPEEDof considerably less than power off stall. I have talkedto a couple of retired Canadian Forces SAR pilots thatflew these things. This was a routine procedure out offboth coasts on SAR missions. The rpm would be broughtup high with high AOA when there was need to go slow.So much direct flow over the wing they could almosthover. Now wouldn't that be a sight!Clif> >> So the logic goes like this: Let's say you have two identical aircraft, > one weighing 900 lbs and one weighing 1000 lbs. The heavier aircraft will > need higher total lift, given steady state conditions, like cruise at 70 > mph. Since lift varies almost directly with angle of attack, the heavier > one needs a higher angle of attack (more lift) to stay even.>> Airfoils stall at a particular and specific angle of attack regardless of > gross weight. The air flowing over the top of the airfoil separates and > lift goes away and it doesn't matter what the weight is. As you slow the > aircraft down, the angle of attack increases but the heavier aircraft > started with a higher angle so it reaches "stall" first.>> Power-on stall occurs a a slower airspeed because the engine is providing > a significant amount of lift due to the nose high attitude so the airfoil > sees what it thinks is a lighter gross weight. If you have enough power, > you can't induce a power-on stall. I wonder if I can hang one of Sean > Tucker's AEIOU and sometimes Y 580's on my Piet. Would certainly solve > the tail heavy issue once and for all. Might have to drink more beer.>>> Read this topic online here:>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ---Checked by AVG - www.avg.com11:36:00________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: "Clif Dawson"
Eloquently stated Dan. I'd like to add another (to paraphrase Davy Crockett):They can all go to hell. I'm going to Brodhead.PaulRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Eloquently stated Dan. I'd like to add another (to paraphrase Davy Crockett):They can all go to hell. I'm going to Brodhead.PaulRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________
Re: Pietenpol-List: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: "Paul N. Peckham"
121.5s have been useless for years, too many going off for the FAA to track down. The 406s must be registered, but I believe you'll be found because of the GPS tracking. I've been carrying a 406 in my boat and airplanes.Tim White----- Original Message -----
121.5s have been useless for years, too many going off for the FAA to track down. The 406s must be registered, but I believe you'll be found because of the GPS tracking. I've been carrying a 406 in my boat and airplanes.Tim White----- Original Message -----
Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: FCC bans 121.5 ELTs
Original Posted By: Jim Ash
> Pietenpol-List: Re: prevent splinters with duct tape
Original Posted By: Ben Charvet
Pietenpol-List: Before Radar
Original Posted By: Jim Ash
________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:30:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
________________________________________________________________________________Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 08:30:57 -0400 (GMT-04:00)