Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
AviationLearningIFRHomebuiltSoaringUltralightRotary-wing
Country Specific
Australian GroupUK Group
Related Topics
BoatsCarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ...

Aviation Forum / General / IFR / September 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

KFC225 failures - a probable explanation found

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Peter - 22 Sep 2008 20:57 GMT
An amazing discovery.

Two failures in exactly the same place in France, and a third one
probably in the same place.

http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kfc225/index.html
David Lesher - 22 Sep 2008 23:57 GMT
>An amazing discovery.

>Two failures in exactly the same place in France, and a third one
>probably in the same place.

Black holes...

Signature

A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Gig 601Xl Builder - 23 Sep 2008 17:45 GMT
> An amazing discovery.
>
> Two failures in exactly the same place in France, and a third one
> probably in the same place.
>
> http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kfc225/index.html

Some how all this...

43.708445 -1.242245 0 10058 39711.37719 20/09/2008 09:03:09

calculates out to a number very close to 666. You only have to change
the loan Zero.

Show your work.
Mike - 25 Sep 2008 21:42 GMT
> An amazing discovery.
>
> Two failures in exactly the same place in France, and a third one
> probably in the same place.
>
> http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kfc225/index.html

I wouldn't suspect any type of ATC radar as the culprit.  All ATC radars are
pulsed and although they produce a very high peak power output, the average
power is quite low due to the duty cycle.  Of course, many fire control
radars are CW, but I can't imagine the power at altitude being strong enough
to do any damage.  The KFC225 is just a piece of crap as far as the
experiences I've had with them.  Just the other day I picked up a KFC225
equipped aircraft from the avionics shop.  The computer had to be replaced
because an A&P at some point (we not sure when or where) adjusted the roll
pot past it's limits and broke it.  So we're out $3,000 US to replace the
computer with an overhauled unit all for a $2 potentiometer.  With all the
problems you've had, I'm surprised you haven't cut your losses with the King
autopilot and installed something else, but I have no idea if there are
other options with the Socata.
Peter - 28 Sep 2008 10:26 GMT
>> An amazing discovery.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>autopilot and installed something else, but I have no idea if there are
>other options with the Socata.

I agree it probably isn't ATC radar. I have flown through countless
ATC radars and none TMK did any harm.

However, looking at the KS27x servo design defect in the current limit
circuit, I cannot rule out the possibility that a *brief* current
limit condition might get prolonged (because the current limit circuit
is not stable as a control loop) until the whole lot burns out. More
likely however, a continuous upset lasting the required few seconds
would be the cause.

You would not need much power to upset the servo. I looked at the
schematic of the input amp (will update the website soon with that)
any RF above ~ 1MHz will go straight in - there is no passive
filtering at all. Really negligent design.

The thing about the $2 pot is just a standard problem in avionics. If
there is no authorised repair procedure, you have to replace the whole
instrument. I have just been quoted $1350 for a LCD for a KLN94. The
KLN94 is beautifully built internally, with excellent design practices
(loads of filtering etc) and normally they are very reliable, so it
was a shame to see this. But I had bought a spare one a while ago.

You could have bought a refurb KC225 for far less than $3k - I have
just bought two of them.

There is an STC for the STEC 55x but speaking to avionics installers
who fit them, they have as much trouble with them. Apparently, pitch
instability is a common problem. Also, the STEC servos have the cable
wrapped around the servo pulley so changing the servo (e.g. to service
the motor brushes) needs that to be undone - a lot of work.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.