[First post after lurking for quite some time...8-)...]

MANY years ago I built up quite a few kits that I got from RST (thanks to
Jim Weir!) and really enjoyed it while learning alot. But that was more than
20 years ago. In looking around lately I can find very little that would be
suitable for DIY. As a product designer for the last 25 years I realize
that much of the technology has moved beyond the capabilities of the average
DIY type (surface mount, custom ASICs, etc.) - BUT - is there anything out
there?

I would like to build a number of things (e.g. remotely controlled VHF
receivers, ADS-B, etc.) but it looks like I'll have to go it alone and
design them from scratch. I'd be interested in hearing from any of you about
things you've seen out there as well as any potential interest in getting
involved in DIY avionics.

Sure, most of the off-the-shelf stuff is cheap and available, but if any of
the new NASA/FAA initiatives really come to pass (AGATE, SATS,etc.) there
could be a real need for modular, inexpensive widgets and functional blocks
that could be integrated easily into a custom "system".

Any pointers/comments most welcome!

Regards,

Bill-the-lurker

For VHF stuff, http://www.hamtronics.com
Of course these are geared toward us ham radio guys, but they have
receivers for FM up to 902 MHz, I believe. Fairly simple stuff with
schematics, so it's easy to add capabilities to use them as remote
control receivers, etc. if you are technically inclined, which it sounds
as though you are...

Scott


karel wrote:

> "Netgeek" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[First post after lurking for quite some time...8-)...]
>>
>>MANY years ago I built up quite a few kits that I got from RST (thanks to
>>Jim Weir!) and really enjoyed it while learning alot. But that was more
>
> than
>
>>20 years ago. In looking around lately I can find very little that would
>
> be
>
>>suitable for DIY. As a product designer for the last 25 years I realize
>>that much of the technology has moved beyond the capabilities of the
>
> average
>
>>DIY type (surface mount, custom ASICs, etc.) - BUT - is there anything out
>>there?
>>
>>I would like to build a number of things (e.g. remotely controlled VHF
>>receivers, ADS-B, etc.) but it looks like I'll have to go it alone and
>>design them from scratch. I'd be interested in hearing from any of you
>
> about
>
>>things you've seen out there as well as any potential interest in getting
>>involved in DIY avionics.
>>
>>Sure, most of the off-the-shelf stuff is cheap and available, but if any
>
> of
>
>>the new NASA/FAA initiatives really come to pass (AGATE, SATS,etc.) there
>>could be a real need for modular, inexpensive widgets and functional
>
> blocks
>
>>that could be integrated easily into a custom "system".
>>
>>Any pointers/comments most welcome!
>
>
> Can only say I have been thinking along much the same way.
> Only I am not acquainted of AGATE, SATS and whatever.
> But I have lots of thoughts on a bus system with
> solid state gyro's and pitot/static, GPS, auto-pilot &C
> Lots of thought yes
> and of course not the time to do anything with them...
>
> KA from Europe
>
>
>
>

--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:10:56 +0000, Scott >
wrote:

>For VHF stuff, http://www.hamtronics.com
>Of course these are geared toward us ham radio guys, but they have
>receivers for FM up to 902 MHz, I believe.

Aviation radio is AM ... fwiw

>>>I would like to build a number of things (e.g. remotely controlled VHF
>>>receivers, ADS-B, etc.) but it looks like I'll have to go it alone and
>>>design them from scratch. I'd be interested in hearing from any of you

"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
...
> Aviation radio is AM ... fwiw

Interesting that this is still the case. In fact, the majority of the "old
school" stuff is fairly low tech when you get right down to it. If you take
a look at what is required to interpret ILS signals - fairly simple. Same
with marker beacons, etc. (and alot of it AM still). What I'm interested in
is how to take some of the newer proposals and concepts and make them
simpler/cheaper so that virtually anyone can actually use them (starting
with myself of course 8-)...

As an example - I found an article that mentioned a "SAAS" system proposal
(as part of NASA's SATS program). Basically this is a GPS augmentation
system intended for small airports (Small Airport Augmentation System). We
already have WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation) and I don't know what happened to
LAAS (Local Area Augmentation) - but SAAS was intended to deliver a low-cost
system that could provide a "virtual ILS" at any small airport. The accuracy
was on the order of around 0.2 meters horizontal and 0.3 meters vertical -
allowing approaches to the smallest of airports (or grass strips, I
suppose?) to Category I (1800 ft. runway visual and 200 ft. ceilings)
minimums without mega-bucks worth of additional equipment....Wow!!! - not
far removed from the next step of an autoland system in light aircraft.

Assuming that you already have a decent on-board, panel-mounted processor
and display - you can start with something like the Mountainscope software
for enroute stuff - www.pcavionics.com , then you could add on some
TCAS-like functionality (using an ADS-B receiver) and then some precision
approach capability (using SAAS or equivalent) - and all of this for only a
few thousand bucks...

I'm planning to start some development on the various blocks so that I have
something to play with: Air Data, AHRS, ADS-B and see where it leads (maybe
nowhere, but what the hell?)...

Thanks for the pointers so far.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:37:44 -0400, "Netgeek" >
wrote:

>
>"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
...
>> Aviation radio is AM ... fwiw
>
>Interesting that this is still the case.

It isn't really a "still the case" issue; the technology for FM is
agreed to be better and to offer many advantages. One if its major
advantages is the very significnat disadvantage that keeps it from
being considered.

FM has that WONDERFUL capture ratio. The stronger signal completely
takes over the receiver. A weaker signal on AM lets the receiver know
that there are 2 signals, considered a safety necessity AFAIK. It
will take some digital modulation with sophisticated algorithms to
replace the antiquated AM here.

>As an example - I found an article that mentioned a "SAAS" system proposal
>(as part of NASA's SATS program). Basically this is a GPS augmentation
>system intended for small airports (Small Airport Augmentation System). We
>already have WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation) and I don't know what happened to
>LAAS (Local Area Augmentation) - but SAAS was intended to deliver a low-cost
>system that could provide a "virtual ILS" at any small airport. The accuracy
>was on the order of around 0.2 meters horizontal and 0.3 meters vertical -
>allowing approaches to the smallest of airports (or grass strips, I
>suppose?) to Category I (1800 ft. runway visual and 200 ft. ceilings)
>minimums without mega-bucks worth of additional equipment....Wow!!! - not
>far removed from the next step of an autoland system in light aircraft.

I believe that will come rather soon. In reality, WAAS is better than
expected, and could likely get you to ground effect 98% of the time
,,, and CFIT 2%. I've never seen my WAAS handheld (non-aviation) off
by more than 20 ft in elevation when it had a full view of the sky ...
South Carolina ... and that, I understand, matters.

George

All of which proves if you repeat an old wive's tale long enough, it will be
believed.

Going to FM (or any other form of modulation not compatible with double sideband
full carrier AM) is NOT a safety measure. It is simply trying to figure out how
to change the entire world's aviation communications system at one precise time.

Jim



GeorgeB >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

A weaker signal on AM lets the receiver know
->that there are 2 signals, considered a safety necessity AFAIK.

->
->George

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> All of which proves if you repeat an old wive's tale long enough, it will
be
> believed.
>
> Going to FM (or any other form of modulation not compatible with double
sideband
> full carrier AM) is NOT a safety measure. It is simply trying to figure
out how
> to change the entire world's aviation communications system at one precise
time.
>
> Jim
>

Point taken - So when are you going to come out with the "new and improved"
VHF AM transceiver we've (or at least "I") have been waiting for? I built a
few of your radios about 18 years ago - been waiting for the "updates"
8-)......

Surely you haven't given up just because a bunch of nerds can't grok how to
do surface mount ???!!!

I'd like a "black box" VHF thingy that can speak (and respond to) something
like CAN bus - if you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them. Perhaps a
direct digital synthesis thing (ala Analog Devices) - or along the lines of
the work being done by flex-radio.com ???

Come on, Jim, jump in there and impart some wisdom (or at least some
cautions)...8-)...

Regards,
Bill

> >"GeorgeB" > wrote in message
> ...

> FM has that WONDERFUL capture ratio. The stronger signal completely
> takes over the receiver. A weaker signal on AM lets the receiver know
> that there are 2 signals, considered a safety necessity AFAIK. It
> will take some digital modulation with sophisticated algorithms to
> replace the antiquated AM here.

Good point - so AM is not going to go away any time soon.... easy stuff,
just sort out the amplitude of different modulated stuff and the ILS
works...great!

>WAAS is better than expected, and could likely get you to ground effect 98%
of the time
> ,,, and CFIT 2%. I've never seen my WAAS handheld (non-aviation) off
> by more than 20 ft in elevation when it had a full view of the sky ...
> South Carolina ... and that, I understand, matters.

Well, that "CFIT 2%" is surely a bother...8-).... Never mind the FAA, I
don't think many pilots would be very happy with that spec either!

So, my questions are:

What happened to LAAS? (Probably dropped once WAAS was implemented - better
results and all)...
Who's working on the SAAS - if anybody? What are the specs and where are
they?

I keep finding announcements from NASA/FAA that there's going to be an SAT
public "demo" this spring in Virginia. But *what* are they going to demo,
*who* is involved, *details/specs* of the technology decided upon (?), and
how do others with an interest participate? If this is all publicly-funded
and all - and intended to promote the public's use of the proposed SATS
system - where are the specs and how do others participate?

All questions that bug me somewhat - but I'd be happy enough if Jim Weir
just jumps in and puts up his $0.02 worth regarding the comms stuff 8-)...!

Regards,
Bill