AK-HUNT wrote:

roamak wrote:With Mikes comment above about the 121.5, thats the only way I found out my old kannad elt was full of water and corrosion. CAP picked it up while they where out doing touch and go's, landed, then tracked it to my plane. I would have never known my elt was junk until i either pushed the test button or sat on a gravel bar for days waiting for help that never showed.
Sounds like your going to have a nice ride!! Enjoy!

Pretty sure I worked yours. 121.5 was transmitting but the 406 not? Had Ray leave deactivate?
That was one of the anomalies. Nobody had ever even heard of that.

Yep thats mine. Thank you for all you guys do for us.
Greg

mtv wrote:

AK-HUNT wrote:EPIRBs/PLBs---All 406 - a decade now probably? The holdouts are in aviation…I don't get that part. After lives are lost every year and some make this very website…. Still?

I personally contribute it to the level of non-factual data on the internet (tho thats gotten better I suppose). Needing 121.5 is one of those.

Yep, there you go....that right there is more of that internet non factual data....

In matter of fact, virtually ALL the PLBs and EPIRBs currently being produced transmit on both 406 and 121.5. In fact, that E.L.T. beacon is the only ELT/PLB/EPIRB I've found that DOESN"T transmit on 121.5.

Holdouts in aviation, eh???

Must be some valid reason these manufacturers almost all still install a dual transmitter. They all refer to the 121.5 frequency as a "homing" frequency.

Go figure.

MTV

MTV

I was implying there aren't any 121.5 ONLY except aviation holdouts, but you cherry picked…

What do you believe the reason is, then? Cause the manufacturer installed it? Insert one of your cute rolling eyes emoticons here.

So all I can tell you is that I don't remember using it to rescue anyone --actually rescuing people -- nor do I know of any other guys who have -- nor have I heard of it while working at the RCC. 100+ 406's easy, probably double that. I know the system operations thoroughly because I get paid to and have been trained to as a professional in the field. I hold an AP/IA with avionics background and have installed/annualed/troubleshot several different models. I've given several presentations to a variety of agencies/groups/companies and answered their questions.

Like I said; there are limited specific circumstances that come to mind---- none of which are actual rescues….
I actually started to type up a detailed explanation with the how/why but you just wanna be right whether factual or not. You win. I'm a busy guy.
The bottom line is this; If you knew what you were talking about we would not be having this conversation.

I really do encourage anyone who gets 30 free minutes in Anchorage to go over and get the nickel tour. You won't regret it. (A few of Mikes old coworkers have….) It'll take you 5 minutes to go "OHHHHH" and really understand. Its good stuff.

Hey, I'll be in Bozeman in a couple weeks.
Want me to bring a .ppt and laptop and teach you how this stuff works?

Where do we sign up for the nickel tour? I bet I can find 30 minutes.

Ak hunt, just to clarify what you're saying, you have never had to home in in 121.5 ELT for rescue? Or just on a ELT with both frequencies?

AK-HUNT wrote:Hey, I'll be in Bozeman in a couple weeks.
Want me to bring a .ppt and laptop and teach you how this stuff works?

Hey, by all means, get in touch if near BZN.

You claim I misquoted you, but read what you wrote....."imply" doesn't work very well in the Internet.

And, I know EXACTLY how the system works. I am not for a moment doubting that the 406 transition was absolutely the best thing ever for SAR. I have done a lot of research on the devices available and the system including long discussions with the RCC folks in Florida and three different manufacturers of these devices. I've given a number of safety seminars on this topic for the FAA, the primary theme of those has been to equip with 406 because that system WORKS. I've also been a big proponent of connecting GPS data to a 406 box, because that makes them even more effective.

I also am not claiming that the 121.5 MHz frequency has much if ANY utility in this day and age, as long as a 406 beacon is on board.

However, I have to wonder why manufacturers of these devices continue to include a 121.5 functionality to these devices, even in the newest models being introduced. I don't know why they do so, but clearly it's not required, and clearly doing so costs money and decreases battery life.

I did a search of a number of devices yesterday on the Internet, and the ONLY ELT/PLB/EPIRB I could find that doesn't include a 121.5 transmitter is the E.L.T. device previously noted.

Why is this? I have no idea. Maybe it's just an abundance of caution, a reluctance to change, or??

Nevertheless, for SOME reason, virtually all these devices still transmit on both frequencies. That was the only point I was making in the first place.

Seriously, if you're in BZN, give me a shout, I'll buy you a beer and we can argue about ping pong or something we actually disagree on...
MTV

mtv wrote:... we can argue about ping pong or something we actually disagree on...
MTV

Now that's funny. I mean you have Ping and you have Pong, so I guess one person can take the position of Ping and the other Pong's position. Is it okay if I fly up and kibitz? I think unwanted advice would make for an even livelier argument.

Thread drift back to the 185 mods for a moment. Forgot to mention that Burl's Firewall Battery kit weighs about 1.75 pounds. I'd tell you guys what battery I'm putting in but that would start a discussion that would never end, so you'll just have to wait for the pictures.

Flat floor for the extended baggage is ordered. I decided to go with the carbon fiber one from Airglas via Hitchcock Aviation instead of the one from Selkirk. I've installed a lot of Selkirk in the 185 and like the product, but they take a lot of grinding and heating to fit. The Airglas one is 1 1/2 pounds lighter, not a big deal, but hoping it will install with less work. It's also a couple of hundred dollars more expensive. Time will tell if I made a smart decision.

http://hitchcockaviation.com/detail.php?item=31&cat=Cargo%20Pods

http://www.selkirk-aviation.com/extend_bag.html

Antigravity Batteries Micro-Start arrived. Everything you see here weighs under two pounds.

Barnstormer wrote:I decided to go with the carbon fiber one from Airglas via Hitchcock Aviation instead of the one from Selkirk. I've installed a lot of Selkirk in the 185 and like the product, but they take a lot of grinding and heating to fit. ......Time will tell if I made a smart decision.

For sure you made the right decision! No comparison at all... Mine just dropped in w/ no fuss.

Curious... The weight difference is much more than 1.5lbs... The Selkirk kit is 11lbs where as the Airglas is like 5.

Two pieces. The back wall and the floor. Looks like you are right about the weight. I was looking at the wrong numbers. Cool. Even better.

Barnstormer wrote:Flat floor for the extended baggage is ordered. I decided to go with the carbon fiber one from Airglas via Hitchcock Aviation instead of the one from Selkirk. I've installed a lot of Selkirk in the 185 and like the product, but they take a lot of grinding and heating to fit. The Airglas one is 1 1/2 pounds lighter, not a big deal, but hoping it will install with less work. It's also a couple of hundred dollars more expensive. Time will tell if I made a smart decision.

http://hitchcockaviation.com/detail.php?item=31&cat=Cargo%20Pods

http://www.selkirk-aviation.com/extend_bag.html

Does Hitchcock offer a flat floor version like Selkirk or does it only mimic the late model factory raised extended baggage. And does it offer side panels like Selkirk?

JamieG wrote:Does Hitchcock offer a flat floor version like Selkirk or does it only mimic the late model factory raised extended baggage. And does it offer side panels like Selkirk?

The Hitchcock is the flat floor version. As far as I know they don't offer side panels as Selkirk does.

When I redid the interior of the 185 with Selkirk (my 185 came with extended baggage from the factory) I bought their entire interior kit which included the back panel and side panels (and front panel) for the extended baggage area. I replaced the factory canvas back panel with the Selkirk back panel but decided to not install the side panels so I'd have extra room in the extended baggage area. I did glue in half-inch foam insulation pieces, purchased from Selkirk (as I did behind all the Selkirk panels as well), to provide protection to the aircraft skin in case something in the extended baggage hit it, and to provide insulation and sound deadening, and prevent oil-canning.

Instead of putting in the front Selkirk panel I installed a cargo net. Here is a photo (taken by Zzz) of the end result. You can see the Selkirk back panel and the foam on the sidewalls and top.

Did you guys know that the dot flooring material weighs 5.4 POUNDS per square yard??? Or is it meter? Anyway, I'm not putting any of that in the Zenith even if they're giving it away. There's a stick on anti-skid material used on boats that I had out in the weather for years without deterioration. My application is experimental of course. There is also Zolatone.

Phil,

Did your airplane come without the aft shoulder harnesses? I'd put rear shoulder harnesses high on the list if they weren't already installed. Even the diagonal straps are better than nothing.

MTV

Barnstormer wrote:.......
Instead of putting in the front Selkirk panel I installed a cargo net. Here is a photo (taken by Zzz) of the end result. You can see the Selkirk back panel and the foam on the sidewalls and top.

Where'd ya get that cargo net? I've got a full-height ext baggae in my old 180 & would like something like that. I afro-american-engineered a cargo barrier with a volleyball-net type thing I had laying around, and it looks it-- it works OK but it'd be nice to have something that looked good too.

Mister701 wrote:Did you guys know that the dot flooring material weighs 5.4 POUNDS per square yard??? Or is it meter? Anyway, I'm not putting any of that in the Zenith even if they're giving it away. There's a stick on anti-skid material used on boats that I had out in the weather for years without deterioration. My application is experimental of course. There is also Zolatone.

There are not a lot of square feet in the floor of a wagon. Would be interesting to pull it out and weigh it, just for grins. It's a million times better then carpet for a backcountry plane. Very tough and when my muddy feet get all over it I just unsnap it, hose it off, and snap it back in.

mtv wrote:Phil,
Did your airplane come without the aft shoulder harnesses? I'd put rear shoulder harnesses high on the list if they weren't already installed. Even the diagonal straps are better than nothing.
MTV

No aft harnesses nor signs of their ever being installed. I'm not sure I've seen a wagon with rear shoulder harnesses. In the 400 hours I've had the plane I've had someone in the back seat(s) less then a half dozen times. Planning on putting a cargo net behind the front seats, that should keep the rear passengers in place.

I'm serious about the cargo net, but not with passengers. Thanks Mike, I'll get in touch with BAS and find out what I need to do to install a three-point system for the rear seats.

There are several thicknesses for flooring. There is a thick heavy product that is probably what you are talking about... I went with the lighter stuff. When I pulled the carpet out of my wagon it weighed in at 12 lbs for just the floor alone. The Aerofloor product I installed was just about 3lbs for the entire install.





(From the 170)



Cargo net is sold my Mike Anderson: http://mountainwaveaviation.com/ Extremely well made and worth it. You can order the half net as shown in his airplane, or the full net if you have a flat floor.

He also sells a net for the rear carry thru that is the bomb.

Jim can sell you the shoulder belts, but BAS has no provision for the installation of the seatbelt w/ respect to a mounting point. Depending on what year you have (if a later model) you will have the nutplate and doubler already installed. If not, it is fairly easy to fabricate and install. Jim knows the AmSafe P/N for the rear belts so ordering them is easy, but you will most likely have to order a complete new set.

Here is a pic of Stewart's interior up in AK. You can see the factory mounting points for the center and rear mounts.

The new Hartzell M-Drive starter just arrived. Weight, 7.5 pounds. The TCM Energizer starter that is being replaced weighs 18 pounds. 10+ pound savings (where are the donuts?). The M-Drive, like the Skytech and Iskra starters, is a gear reduction starter. Gear reduction starters won't turn backwards like the old direct drive starters can, so without some form of positive disengagement the starter adapter can be damaged or destroyed.

There are two circumstances when the starter adapters turn backwards. The first is when the engine starts and the starter is still engaged as the engine is now turning faster then the starter. The second is when the engine turns backwards during the starting process, either by backfire, or because of an electrical problem (starter, battery, cabling, etc). We've all seen propellors turn backwards momentarily on aircraft with this issue.

Here is an excellent service letter that explains what is going on and why. And what needs to happen before installing a lightweight starter on a Continental with a starter adapter; old style or new.
http://het.jajodev.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SL_038_M-Drive_TechDiscuss.pdf

Won't help you out hotrod, but I will have the cargo net seen in the photo above up for sale just as soon as these mods are complete.

hotrod180 wrote:...I afro-american-engineered a cargo barrier with a volleyball-net type thing I had laying around, and it looks it-- it works OK but it'd be nice to have something that looked good too.