Question For Jim Weir

[W P Dixon]

Jim,
Is it practical, possible and legal to build a radio for your own homebuilt
airplane? I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit for a
volksplane.

--
Patrick Dixon
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Morgans]

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> Jim,
> Is it practical, possible and legal to build a radio for your own
homebuilt
> airplane? I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit for a
> volksplane.

Yeah, I see a future Kitplanes article! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Vaughn]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
> Is it practical, possible and legal to build a radio for your own homebuilt
> airplane?
Practical? No. I have been in the radio business all my life and I would not
even consider it, probably not even a kit.

Possible? Yes.

Legal? I don't think so.

I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit for a
> volksplane.

Use a portable. Fasten it on the side of your cockpit and use a headset.
I have flown gliders for hundreds of hours with a tiny portable on a light
lanyard around my neck, but that may not work well over engine noise.

Vaughn



>
> --
> Patrick Dixon
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

[Netgeek]

> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message

> Practical? No. I have been in the radio business all my life and I would
not
> even consider it, probably not even a kit.

Absolutely agree! I've got a couple of receiver protos I've lashed together
and have been playing with. Great fun but not very practical. There are a
few cheapo kit receivers out there (e.g. Ramseyelectronics.com,
Hamtronics.com...) but not exactly "industrial" - and not adequate for
aircraft use. You could build something much better but the search for
decent components is a real hassle.

> Possible? Yes.

Certainly possible (as noted above) but for a one-off you'll have way
more than the $1000 in it when you're done (and that's counting your
time at a mere $0.50 per hour 8-)....... Even then, you'll probably be
disappointed in the result.

> Legal? I don't think so.

And this is the major rub. You can build receivers all day long and
pretty much do whatever you want with them (most of mine will
become paperweights!)... but then there's the transmitter! You'll need
lots of expertise and *FCC approval* - which is where the whole concept
comes to a screeching halt. Licensed hams can build their own
transmitters *for use in the ham bands* - but the FCC and FAA are
understandably concerned about what happens in the aviation bands.

The only "kits" I've ever seen were from RST and I actually built one
some 20 years ago. BUT - it stopped being a kit when you finished
the construction because, to be *legal*, it had to be returned to RST
for alignment, checkout and - most importantly - provision of the FCC
label that was then attached. Maybe Jim can enlighten us as to how he
managed to pull this off - and how much hassle it was...........8-)

> Use a portable. Fasten it on the side of your cockpit and use a
headset.
> I have flown gliders for hundreds of hours with a tiny portable on a light
> lanyard around my neck, but that may not work well over engine noise.

A reasonable "kit" might be something that made the handheld more
"permanent like" (tied in to the intercom, better audio, clean power, etc.)
but it would no doubt have to involve NO modifications to the portable
(or you're back to the FCC certifcation problems)...

Bill

[Ron Natalie]

Vaughn wrote:

> Practical? No. I have been in the radio business all my life and I would not
> even consider it, probably not even a kit.
>
> Possible? Yes.
>
> Legal? I don't think so.

Back a long time ago, in the first incarnation of RST, Jim actually did
have a kit radio. The "legality" was dealt with by sending the radio
off to RST after you finished building it for it's test and alignment
stage. Jim has felt the market out for radios again a few times over
the years, but it's a hard market.

Frankly, what I suggested to him maybe 10 years ago, and I think would
still be intersting in pursuing is to have a com radio unit where the
radio parts were preassembled/certificated but with no real user
interface parts, just a digital interface of some sort that avionics
hackers could integrate with their own electronic panel.

>
> Use a portable. Fasten it on the side of your cockpit and use a headset.
> I have flown gliders for hundreds of hours with a tiny portable on a light
> lanyard around my neck, but that may not work well over engine noise.
>
I ferried my Navion around (it was between having the new panel cut at
one shop and the radios installed at another) with my headphones, a
portable intercom and my Yazoo handheld. Worked passably (would have
been better with a real antenna rather than the rubber coated dummy
load), but such would work well in a homebuilt.

Cabin noise you fix with a headset. The bigger problem with a lot of
these small planes is ignition noise. That can lay waste to the AM
signal in any radio.

[W P Dixon]

Yeah I worry about the small cockpit in the VP and just not having alot of
space to put things on the sides of the cockpit..after all there has to be
room for me in there too! ;) I'd really like to have a panel mount. Not only
for the reason above but for better performance in general. I have not seen
any portable units installed using a real antenna to compare , just the
little rubber whip things that I do not like.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Netgeek]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message

> Frankly, what I suggested to him maybe 10 years ago, and I think would
> still be intersting in pursuing is to have a com radio unit where the
> radio parts were preassembled/certificated but with no real user
> interface parts, just a digital interface of some sort that avionics
> hackers could integrate with their own electronic panel.

This is exactly what got me started on my own project! What I really
wanted was a set of very small "modules" (e.g. Com, Nav, GPS, etc.)
that were "headless" black boxes. No user interface - rather a serial
(Rs232/422) or, preferably, CAN I/O scheme. Then the user control,
display, et. al. can be as simple or as sophisticated as you'd like.

Advantages are that the modules can be mounted anywhere it's
convenient while taking up very little space. The panel space needed
can be user selectable dpending on how fancy they want to get. And
the level of integration with other systems opens up some really
interesting possibilities.

Still working on it - but who knows if it will go anywhere. The
possibilities
are really intriguing however so I continue to bash on the things. In a
perfect world if I could get someone like Jim to collaborate and/or
critique the RF portions I'd be *very* tempted to move forward with
the FCC and other certifications. Surely there are others who could
use these widgets - particularly if the cost can be held to some
reasonable level. Would probably always be a niche market with
relatively modest volumes but that's fine with me.......8-) Already did
the big-ticket, high-volume drill for years and don't care to go back!

If anyone here has any comments or wants to get involved let me
know........

Bill

[LCT Paintball]

> If anyone here has any comments or wants to get involved let me
> know........

I know absolutely nothing about electronics, but I'm an expert at plastic
injection molds. Let me know if you need some help with your cases.

[Netgeek]

"LCT Paintball"

> I know absolutely nothing about electronics, but I'm an expert at plastic
> injection molds. Let me know if you need some help with your cases.

Great! Maybe we can start a grassroots movement to build widgets.
Drop me an email and maybe we can see how to get started.............
Aren't you the one in San Diego?

Bill

[W P Dixon]

Nothing About Electronics...I can relate. That is one reason I want to
experiment with building some things such as a radio. To get a better
understanding of them. I am going to build Jim's magneto timer from his
Kitplane's article to start getting a feel for the stuff! I don't know why
it intimidates me so much but it DOES :)
Doing the schematic refresher , now finding all the parts for the magneto
timer. hey and buying and or building tools is always fun. LIKE A KID IN A
CANDY STORE!!!!!!!

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Netgeek]

"W P Dixon" wrote in message:

> Nothing About Electronics...I can relate. That is one reason I want to
> experiment with building some things such as a radio. To get a better
> understanding of them.

This is jumping into the deep end like you wouldn't believe..8-) A better
hack at some first time projects would be something around audio
frequencies or so. Better probability of success and likely something you
can actually use and enjoy. I am not trying to discourage you at all. But
there's a reason that there are so few "really good" RF guys around - they
live in a different world from the vast majority of day-to-day grunts who
are product designers/EE's cranking out widgets for the masses.

I was involved in product development for more than 25 years and
still hold purely "analog" guys (and "RF guys" in particular - as a
subspecies of the analog types) with some degree of suspicion 8-)...
and a fair amount of awe. You have to love it apparently, and you
have to really bust your nuts to master it.

But - it ain't "rocket science". It's "radio science". I don't know which
is worse...8-)............. I'm starting to dabble in it a little 'cause I
don't
have anything better to do - and because I've probably already
gotten as "twisted" as possible - and this can't make it worse.

YMMV - and it *will* - I promise...8-).....

[Rip]

Hey, thanks for the kudos! (I'll take anything I can get). I just (as in
2 weeks ago) quit my job with Hewlett Packard/Agilent, where I was a
Senior RF/Microwave engineer. I've been in the field for 25+ years, and
now it's time to be an A&P. I've been through the FCC, FAA, TSO, PMA
hastle, and would second the idea that a transciever is not the medium
for learning electronics (at least not if you really intend to transmit
with it). Decades ago RF design was slide rules and Smith charts, but it
has devolved to "plug and play" modules that any EE can make sing
together. The day of the 10 picofarad calibrated wet finger is
dead,(your finger may vary) or at least on it's last legs. But by gum,
if it interests you, do it! The world need inventive, curious people
just as it alsways has!

Netgeek wrote:
> "W P Dixon" wrote in message:
>
> > Nothing About Electronics...I can relate. That is one reason I want to
>
>>experiment with building some things such as a radio. To get a better
>>understanding of them.
>
>
> This is jumping into the deep end like you wouldn't believe..8-) A better
> hack at some first time projects would be something around audio
> frequencies or so. Better probability of success and likely something you
> can actually use and enjoy. I am not trying to discourage you at all. But
> there's a reason that there are so few "really good" RF guys around - they
> live in a different world from the vast majority of day-to-day grunts who
> are product designers/EE's cranking out widgets for the masses.
>
> I was involved in product development for more than 25 years and
> still hold purely "analog" guys (and "RF guys" in particular - as a
> subspecies of the analog types) with some degree of suspicion 8-)...
> and a fair amount of awe. You have to love it apparently, and you
> have to really bust your nuts to master it.
>
> But - it ain't "rocket science". It's "radio science". I don't know which
> is worse...8-)............. I'm starting to dabble in it a little 'cause I
> don't
> have anything better to do - and because I've probably already
> gotten as "twisted" as possible - and this can't make it worse.
>
> YMMV - and it *will* - I promise...8-).....
>
>

[W P Dixon]

Thanks for all the advice. I know it is probably beyond my electronic
capability but it sure is something I may try later on. I'll start out with
Jim Weir's Magneto Timer Kit and do some more projects that I may have use
for and just get alot of practice in. Who knows, before I die I may actually
build a decent radio ! ;) Are there any other little electronic projects
that may be a good learning experience for me? Of course things for my plane
or tools/testers are of interest. I have no desire to build a robot or
crawling thingamybob. ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[Highflyer]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
> Is it practical, possible and legal to build a radio for your own
> homebuilt airplane? I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit
> for a volksplane.
>
> --
> Patrick Dixon
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech
>

Patrick,

For many reasons a homebuilt aircraft radio is a basket of worms best left
unopened.

The cheapest and easiest solution is a standard hand held aircraft
transceiver. They can be purchased for a couple of hundred bucks and work
well. Especially if you provide them with an external antenna.

A number of the guys around here have purchased the radio and the optional
alkaline battery holder. It is just a plastic box that fits onto the radio
so it is pretty cheap. Then they cut the bottom off the box just leaving
the attachment part with the contacts the make the connection from the
batteries to the radio. They wire this into the airplane on the panel so
they can see the face of the radio and punch the buttons when the radio is
slid onto the adaptor. Then they plug in the aircraft antenna with the
appropriate BNC or other antenna connector and they have an FCC certified
"panel" mount radio for their homebuilt.

Works great and is a lot cheaper than a regular panel mount. Plus, you can
disconnect the antenna BNC and slide the radio off the adaptor on the panel
and reconnect the rubber duckie and the original battery and use it as a
handheld as well.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Netgeek]

"W P Dixon" wrote in message:

> Thanks for all the advice. I know it is probably beyond my electronic
> capability but it sure is something I may try later on.

For lots of folks kits are sometimes a great way to get started. You
might be interested in something like this:

www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=AR1C

It's a pretty straightforward little airband receiver (single conversion,
manual/varactor tuning). It's cheap and hard to go wrong. There's also
*plenty* of room for improvements and customization while you're
learning and experimenting 8-)... You'll instantly learn about the value of
an antenna and what phrases like "selectivity" mean. There are many
small mods you can make and - even if you manage to toast it - easy to
fix and you're only out a few bucks anyway.

When you get bored with it you can stick it out in your garage or
workshop and listen to the local traffic - not *really* exciting, but beats
listening to "elevator music"...........8-)

Beyond that - there are *zillions* of widgets, tools and doodads you
can build (Jim's being among some of the more useful, BTW)...

Bill

[Netgeek]

"Rip" wrote in message:

> Hey, thanks for the kudos! (I'll take anything I can get). I just (as in
> 2 weeks ago) quit my job with Hewlett Packard/Agilent, where I was a
> Senior RF/Microwave engineer.

Wow! So - you must be *really* weird by now??! 8-).....

<snip>

> Decades ago RF design was slide rules and Smith charts, but it
> has devolved to "plug and play" modules that any EE can make sing
> together.

Those days are coming back. All the semiconductor makers are
obsoleting those "plug and play" modules so it's back to buckets of
discrete components if you really want to build something (and can't
afford custom silicon). Hmmmm.....I predict a lucrative second
career for you as a consultant if you want to stay in the game 8-)

> The day of the 10 picofarad calibrated wet finger is
> dead,(your finger may vary) or at least on it's last legs.

I always thought I could make a fortune if I could come up with a
solid state "finger simulator" - you know - something you clip on to
the rabbit ears so the family doesn't have to argue about who gets to
stand beside the TV and hold the damn things...8-) Everyone would
want one!!! Then along comes cable... <sigh>...

Bill

[Ken Moffett]

"Netgeek" > wrote in
:

>
> "W P Dixon" wrote in message:
>
>> Thanks for all the advice. I know it is probably beyond my electronic
>> capability but it sure is something I may try later on.
>
> For lots of folks kits are sometimes a great way to get started. You
> might be interested in something like this:
>
> www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerce.exe?preadd=action&key=AR1C
>
> It's a pretty straightforward little airband receiver (single
> conversion, manual/varactor tuning). It's cheap and hard to go wrong.
> There's also *plenty* of room for improvements and customization while
> you're learning and experimenting 8-)... You'll instantly learn about
> the value of an antenna and what phrases like "selectivity" mean.
> There are many small mods you can make and - even if you manage to
> toast it - easy to fix and you're only out a few bucks anyway.
>
> When you get bored with it you can stick it out in your garage or
> workshop and listen to the local traffic - not *really* exciting, but
> beats listening to "elevator music"...........8-)
>
> Beyond that - there are *zillions* of widgets, tools and doodads you
> can build (Jim's being among some of the more useful, BTW)...
>
> Bill
>
>
>

I assembled one of these several years ago. Your right about the
customization. It started by hooking the my o-scope's horizontal to the
tuning pot and rapidly swinging it through it's range, while listening, and
watching the audio on the vertical. I then could mark the known frequencies
around the pot's knob. OK, it's not extremely precise, but it sure did
show where the activity was. I then made a simple sawtooth generator to
drive the varicap, and the scope's horizontal input, and schazam!...an
"aircraft band spectrum analyzer". (I live less than 2 miles out on the
approach end of 12R at MSP.)

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Vaughn wrote:
>
> > Practical? No. I have been in the radio business all my life and
I would not
> > even consider it, probably not even a kit.
> >
> > Possible? Yes.
> >
> > Legal? I don't think so.
>
> Back a long time ago, in the first incarnation of RST, Jim actually
did
> have a kit radio. The "legality" was dealt with by sending the radio

> off to RST after you finished building it for it's test and alignment

> stage. Jim has felt the market out for radios again a few times
over
> the years, but it's a hard market.
>
> Frankly, what I suggested to him maybe 10 years ago, and I think
would
> still be intersting in pursuing is to have a com radio unit where the
> radio parts were preassembled/certificated but with no real user
> interface parts, just a digital interface of some sort that avionics
> hackers could integrate with their own electronic panel.
>
> >
> > Use a portable. Fasten it on the side of your cockpit and use
a headset.
> > I have flown gliders for hundreds of hours with a tiny portable on
a light
> > lanyard around my neck, but that may not work well over engine
noise.
> >
> I ferried my Navion around (it was between having the new panel cut
at
> one shop and the radios installed at another) with my headphones, a
> portable intercom and my Yazoo handheld. Worked passably (would
have
> been better with a real antenna rather than the rubber coated dummy
> load), but such would work well in a homebuilt.
>
> Cabin noise you fix with a headset. The bigger problem with a lot of

> these small planes is ignition noise. That can lay waste to the AM
> signal in any radio.



************************************************** **********************************
Ron;

Back in 1983 I built one of RST's 360 Nav / Com radios. It was a fun
job with over 1000 parts on 9 circuit boards,as I remember. I sent it
back for calibration/certification and they found I had a couple of
diodes installed backward - otherwise OK. I flew our Rv-4 for 700
hours with it and a Communications Specialists handheld, with a
slide-in can and connections for power and antenna and wired into my
intercom.
Bob Olds RV-4
Charleston,Arkansas


************************************************** **********************************

[RST Engineering]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
> Is it practical,

No.


possible

Yes.



and legal

Yes.


to build a radio for your own homebuilt
> airplane? I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit for a
> volksplane.

You will spend a thousand hours designing such a device and ten thousand
dollars testing and certifying it.. But it IS possible.

Jim

[W P Dixon]

That definitely seems to be the popular answer Jim. Thanks for your input.
May try the handheld contraption in my volksplane. Just would not want an
expensive radio in it . Now the Thatcher CX4 on the other hand ;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

[[email protected]]

In article >, "W P Dixon" > wrote:
You might check out the ICOM A5 Sport. It is the alkaline battery version
without many extras. It goes for about $220.
tom

>That definitely seems to be the popular answer Jim. Thanks for your input.
>May try the handheld contraption in my volksplane. Just would not want an
>expensive radio in it . Now the Thatcher CX4 on the other hand ;)
>
>Patrick
>student SPL
>aircraft structural mech
>

[RST Engineering]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Jim,
> Is it practical,

No.


possible

Yes.


and legal

Yes.


1to build a radio for your own homebuilt
> airplane? I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit for a
> volksplane.


You will spend a thousand hours (literally) designing it, and ten thousand
dollars doing the test and fees to certify it.



Jim

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
W P Dixon > wrote:
>Jim,
> Is it practical, possible and legal to build a radio for your own homebuilt
>airplane? I can't see paying 1000 bucks for a panel mount unit for a
>volksplane.


Is it "possible"? Yes.

Is it 'legal'? Depends on how you do it. The only people that can just
go off and build a transmitter/transceiver are licensed
"amateur radio service" operators, and then *only* for
equipment that operates in the 'ham' bands. *Everything*
else requires FCC approval, in one form or another -- unless
it is _very_ low power, operating in specified frequency
ranges.

Is is "practical"? Not if the objective is to save money. It would have
to be 'accepted' by the FCC. Either "type accepted",
which would let you do production-line work, and sell
on the open market, Or _individually_ approved, for
that specific radio only,

*either*way*, you're looking at costs that are well
into 5 figures. And probably around two years of
paperwork.

[RST Engineering]

>
> Is it 'legal'? Depends on how you do it. The only people that can just
> go off and build a transmitter/transceiver are licensed
> "amateur radio service" operators, and then *only* for
> equipment that operates in the 'ham' bands. *Everything*
> else requires FCC approval, in one form or another -- unless
> it is _very_ low power, operating in specified frequency
> ranges.

That is NOT true, elsewise how would we be able to build the prototypes that
we test for the type acceptace procedure. That is, if I can't build an
aircraft band transceiver then I can't test it to get type acceptance which
means that I can't produce them, and if I can't produce them, then I can't
sell them... Get the circular argument?

There ARE provisions in the rules for a legitimate manufacturer to build and
test prototypes for licensing procedures.




>
> Is is "practical"? Not if the objective is to save money. It would have
> to be 'accepted' by the FCC. Either "type accepted",
> which would let you do production-line work, and sell
> on the open market, Or _individually_ approved, for
> that specific radio only,

I am not aware of anything in parts 1, 15, or 87 that allow single-unit
approvals.


>
> *either*way*, you're looking at costs that are well
> into 5 figures. And probably around two years of
> paperwork.

Well, not really. I've done half a dozen type acceptances where the costs
(excluding my labor) are well under a thousand dollars. HOWEVER, you have
to be very creative about how you do it.

Jim

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
RST Engineering > wrote:
>>
>> Is it 'legal'? Depends on how you do it. The only people that can just
>> go off and build a transmitter/transceiver are licensed
>> "amateur radio service" operators, and then *only* for
>> equipment that operates in the 'ham' bands. *Everything*
>> else requires FCC approval, in one form or another -- unless
>> it is _very_ low power, operating in specified frequency
>> ranges.
>
>That is NOT true, elsewise how would we be able to build the prototypes that
>we test for the type acceptace procedure. That is, if I can't build an
>aircraft band transceiver then I can't test it to get type acceptance which
>means that I can't produce them, and if I can't produce them, then I can't
>sell them... Get the circular argument?
>
>There ARE provisions in the rules for a legitimate manufacturer to build and
>test prototypes for licensing procedures.

*sigh* "requires FCC approval, in one form or another" would include FCC
provisions granting limited operations privileges -- for testing, etc., even
on a 'blanket' basis -- under the auspices of a properly licensed engineer.
The stock 'restricted' radio operator's license of a pilot isn't sufficient.

The situation is not as extreme as aircraft manufacture, where you have to
have a design cert. first, and then a separate cert. for the production line.
admittedly. But "Joe Sixpack" off the street does have to jump through
hoops before he qualifies as a 'legitimate manufacturer'. That's what
earns him the 'FCC approval' to build "test"/"prototype" radios. :)

Or, if you prefer, I'll modify the statement to to "the only people that
can just go off and build a transmitter/receiver _and_put_it_into_'everyday_
_use'_operation_, are ham operators."

>>
>> Is is "practical"? Not if the objective is to save money. It would have
>> to be 'accepted' by the FCC. Either "type accepted",
>> which would let you do production-line work, and sell
>> on the open market, Or _individually_ approved, for
>> that specific radio only,
>
>I am not aware of anything in parts 1, 15, or 87 that allow single-unit
>approvals.

I know of experimental one-of-a-kind transmitters that were granted operating
licenses. Without "type approval". These were, admittedly, _not_ on
aircraft band.
>
>>
>> *either*way*, you're looking at costs that are well
>> into 5 figures. And probably around two years of
>> paperwork.
>
>Well, not really. I've done half a dozen type acceptances where the costs
>(excluding my labor) are well under a thousand dollars. HOWEVER, you have
>to be very creative about how you do it.

If you got out for "under a thousand dollars" excluding your labor, it
sounds like you have/own/operate your own FCC-certified testing facility,
is that correct?

If one has "resources already in place", that have been amortized as "sunk
costs" from 'doing it previously' on other work, and hold the requisite
professional engineering accreditations so that you don't have to out-source
the technical requirements, I'll grant the sub-$1,000 (exclusive of labor)
possibility. For a _first-time_ effort, however -- as the original
poster was proposing -- using that accounting methodology, one must include
_all_ the costs of getting those resources in place, That's _how_ they
get to be 'sunk' costs for the subsequent projects :)

Would you care to estimate what your 'first time' costs would be, starting
from having just a basic set of 'hobbiest' tools?



You, yourself, said in another post, that it would take the OP more than
"a thousand hours, and ten thousand dollars", to 'legally' do his project.

Since labor has been excluded, if the OP does the design work himself,
it's "free". there's maybe a couple of hundred dollars in parts. and
he assembles it himself (that's "free" labor, too.)

[RST Engineering]

"Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,

> *sigh* "requires FCC approval, in one form or another" would include FCC
> provisions granting limited operations privileges -- for testing, etc.,
> even
> on a 'blanket' basis -- under the auspices of a properly licensed
> engineer.
> The stock 'restricted' radio operator's license of a pilot isn't
> sufficient.

Double *sigh*. There is no such thing as a "properly licensed
engineer". Nor is a restricted radio operator's license a reality in
today's pilot world. Where have you been for thirty years?

>
> If you got out for "under a thousand dollars" excluding your labor, it
> sounds like you have/own/operate your own FCC-certified testing facility,
> is that correct?

That is correct.



>
> If one has "resources already in place", that have been amortized as "sunk
> costs" from 'doing it previously' on other work, and hold the requisite
> professional engineering accreditations so that you don't have to
> out-source
> the technical requirements, I'll grant the sub-$1,000 (exclusive of labor)
> possibility. For a _first-time_ effort, however -- as the original
> poster was proposing -- using that accounting methodology, one must
> include
> _all_ the costs of getting those resources in place, That's _how_ they
> get to be 'sunk' costs for the subsequent projects :)
>
> Would you care to estimate what your 'first time' costs would be, starting
> from having just a basic set of 'hobbiest' tools?

Sure. Spectrum analyzer through 4 GHz. on the surplus market $800.
Antennas from 30 to 3000 MHz. using water pipe and copper foil another $50.
Antenna masts using 4x4 doug fir another $50. Low freq receiver to do the
30 kHz. through 30 MHz. stuff another $200. 12 volt batteries to obviate
the line filters $50. Switching power supplies to power the test equipment
$50. Frequency counters on the used market $50. Oscilloscopes another
$200. Sig gen another $200. What are we up to? Less than $2K? And this
is the FIRST time around. Next time is simply the expendables.

Jim






>
>
>
> You, yourself, said in another post, that it would take the OP more than
> "a thousand hours, and ten thousand dollars", to 'legally' do his project.
>
> Since labor has been excluded, if the OP does the design work himself,
> it's "free". there's maybe a couple of hundred dollars in parts. and
> he assembles it himself (that's "free" labor, too.)
>

[Netgeek]

"RST Engineering" > along with
> "Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message

> > If you got out for "under a thousand dollars" excluding your labor, it
> > sounds like you have/own/operate your own FCC-certified testing
facility,
> > is that correct?
>
> That is correct.

As an aside, is this facility/capability available for hire if someone
wanted
to do some pre-certification testing or qualification?

Bill

[RST Engineering]

I did my last certification/type acceptance using this "facility" almost 15
years ago, and have pretty well dismantled it. It could be put back
together in a couple of weeks, but until I have the need to do so, it will
remain dormant.

If you wanted to do the grunt work, I could show you how to do it. It is,
so far as I know, still in the FCC database as an approved pattern range.
You have a couple of holes to dig, some plastic pipe and woodwork to do,
and a couple of tables to build.

The thermal chamber was also discarded...along with the temperature
measuring setup. That would need to be rebuilt. Depending on the size of
your device, it can be trivial or a pain. We used a Coleman cooler with a
light bulb as the thermal source, dry ice as the cooling source, and a
computer fan to keep the chamber at a constant temperature. The
"thermometer" was a diode calibrated at the freezing point of water, the
boiling point of water, and extrapolated to the temperatures we needed. The
reality check was with a real thermometer borrowed from the local college's
chemistry lab.

The answer is that if you want to spend a couple of hard weeks at it, you
are welcome to use it. The calibration curves are still accurate and I have
the exact locations of the antenna masts marked...just not dug and sleeved
for the antenna mast. There are better ways of doing it than 4x4 lumber,
and I might like to explore that.

Jim



"Netgeek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "RST Engineering" > along with
>> "Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
>
>> > If you got out for "under a thousand dollars" excluding your labor, it
>> > sounds like you have/own/operate your own FCC-certified testing
> facility,
>> > is that correct?
>>
>> That is correct.
>
> As an aside, is this facility/capability available for hire if someone
> wanted
> to do some pre-certification testing or qualification?
>
> Bill
>
>

[Netgeek]

Jim,

This is about the best offer I've heard in a long time (and quite
generous on your part)! You're on. It will take me a few months
(minimum) to get my act together and finish off some of these
designs (assuming that I can 8-).... and then I'd be glad to dig
some holes, schlep lumber, whatever.....

"RST Engineering" wrote:

> If you wanted to do the grunt work, I could show you how to do it. It is,
> so far as I know, still in the FCC database as an approved pattern range.
> You have a couple of holes to dig, some plastic pipe and woodwork to do,
> and a couple of tables to build.

It's a deal..............

> The thermal chamber was also discarded...along with the temperature
> measuring setup. That would need to be rebuilt. Depending on the size of
> your device, it can be trivial or a pain. We used a Coleman cooler with a
> light bulb as the thermal source, dry ice as the cooling source, and a
> computer fan to keep the chamber at a constant temperature. The
> "thermometer" was a diode calibrated at the freezing point of water, the
> boiling point of water, and extrapolated to the temperatures we needed.
The
> reality check was with a real thermometer borrowed from the local
college's
> chemistry lab.

I can handle this.... just need to get the beer out of the cooler long
enough
to make it happen. Hmmmmm......might require more than one cooler.

> The answer is that if you want to spend a couple of hard weeks at it, you
> are welcome to use it. The calibration curves are still accurate and I
have
> the exact locations of the antenna masts marked...just not dug and sleeved
> for the antenna mast. There are better ways of doing it than 4x4 lumber,
> and I might like to explore that.

Agreed. Given the choice of sending some units off into the ether to be
tested at some "regular lab" - or camping out in Grass Valley for a 'couple
weeks doing some grunt work - it's a no-brainer... Additional bonus - the
wife can head off to spend some time with her friends in Napa (so it's
an easy sell 8-).....

I'll get in touch as soon as it looks like there's something worth testing.

Thanks again! I'll put you in for an "Elmer Award" with the ARRL and
the EAA...8-)

Bill