AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bq
February 12, 2003 - February 19, 2003
plumbing is simple, they provide the parts and fittings, and you have a
proven system. Why try to reinvent the wheel? If you desire, you can even
set it up to refill without having to remove the O2 bottle. I have installed
such a system in my FEW Mustang, and am very happy with it. LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Richard" <steve(at)oasissolutions.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oxygen bottle electrics |
I always love simpler and elegant, but my wallet doesn't: The remote valve
alone is over $1,200 (vs. a standard valve: $375). [Unless I'm reading
their catalog wrong?]
Steve Richard
steve(at)oasissolutions.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
LRE2(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Oxygen bottle electrics
Steve,
You know there is a much simpler and more elegant solution to your
problem. Mountain High Oxygen Systems ( www.mtn-high.com )offers very nice
panel mounted regulators, so that you can plumb your O2 bottle to the panel
where you have direct control over not only on/off, but also flow rates. The
plumbing is simple, they provide the parts and fittings, and you have a
proven system. Why try to reinvent the wheel? If you desire, you can even
set it up to refill without having to remove the O2 bottle. I have
installed
such a system in my FEW Mustang, and am very happy with it. LRE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Feild Breaker/ Switch Selection/ |
Nav/Pos Hookup
>
>Hi Bob,
>A few questions if I may. ( All Electric on Budget )
>
>1) I am happy to be using fuse blocks. So happy in fact, I would rather not
>use the 5A breakers you call for in the Alt Field circuits. Why are they
>necessary?
because there are sometimes cases where the crowbar
ov module gets a nuisance trip
>If I must use breakers I will probably mount them on the swing down panel I
>am using to mounting the fuse blocks on. They could be re-set with a short
>reach under the panel.
>
>2) I have seen two ways to set up the Master switch. One using a 2-3 and one
>using a 2-10 . Why is it an advantage to be able to turn on the BAT only in
>the middle position? Does it hurt to have the Bat and ALT Field active when
>you might just want to play with the Radios or GPS and the engine is not
>running?
If you have a crowbar ov module, then you can have a pullable
breaker. If you have a pullable breaker, then you can disable
the alternator for battery only operations and use the
less expensive 2-3 . . . but the 2-10 progressive transfer
works good too.
>3) Speaking of playing with the GPS. Does it make any sense to put the
>Electric Horizon and DG on a separate switch so that they are not spinning
>up every time the Master is turned on and flight is not the intention.
Some folks have done that . . .
>4) I have the strobe/nav/position fixtures from Aeroflash. I see no reason
>not to have the Nav and Position lights come on together, controlled by a
>single toggle. Is there any problem using a single fuse and running a single
>conductor from the switch out to the wingtips and connecting both lamp leads
>to the conductor? Night flying is a rare occurrence and only for a short
>time at the end of a trip. Loss of the Nav/Pos lights would be backed up by
>the strobes and wig-wag Landing Taxi lights.
That would work.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
Bob,
I reviewed my electrical diagram this evening with an
electronic technician who made me notice a few areas
of risk with my diagram. The same features can be
noticed on the Z-11 and Z-12 diagrams.
Should the wire between the contactor and the main bus
be protected via a fuselink or ANL?
Should the wire between the e-Bus and the e-Bus
Alternate Feed switch be protected (at the e-Bus end)?
In this particular case, he showed me that if the
wire was to hang free from the no.1 terminal of the
switch, I'd get a lot of current trying to go down the
path through the diode and the 16AWG wire. He also
told me that diodes can fail in both open and closed
position... so I can't rely on the diode to act like a
fuse.
Michel
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oxygen bottle electrics |
Give them a call, and discuss your needs. My catalogue shows the A34-2ip 2
1/4 remote regulator for $625.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oxygen bottle electrics |
Gang,
I've replaced a lot of OEM and aftermarket PDL actuators. They've been a
prime target for OEM cost-cutting design efforts in recent years. Select
carefully if you're gonna depend on it for your O2 supply.
Dan Horton
(car business since '76)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
>
>Bob,
>
>I reviewed my electrical diagram this evening with an
>electronic technician who made me notice a few areas
>of risk with my diagram. The same features can be
>noticed on the Z-11 and Z-12 diagrams.
>
>Should the wire between the contactor and the main bus
>be protected via a fuselink or ANL?
Fat feeders in light aircraft have traditionally
been installed with 'extra care' and attention
to clearances and potential hazards. Several
hundred thousand airplanes have amassed millions
of flight hours with no incidents suggesting
that this was a bad idea.
>Should the wire between the e-Bus and the e-Bus
>Alternate Feed switch be protected (at the e-Bus end)?
> In this particular case, he showed me that if the
>wire was to hang free from the no.1 terminal of the
>switch, I'd get a lot of current trying to go down the
>path through the diode and the 16AWG wire. He also
>told me that diodes can fail in both open and closed
>position... so I can't rely on the diode to act like a
>fuse.
Get out your hammer, saw and crowbar
and deduce what potential hazard in your
airplane will produce the fault you are concerned
about. Then see if it is practical to eliminate
the hazard as opposed to protecting the wire against
it. For example, the same 200,000 airplanes have exposed
bus bars that run across the back of their breakers.
They're largely left hanging out in the breezes because
there is nothing in immediate proximity that presents
a potential hazard. It's sorta like your propeller . . .
you don't put a safety cage around it because of the
environment in which it is operated reduces hazards
to a level that doesn't require extra-ordinary
safety measures.
Some builders using fuse block battery and e-busses
have used a fuse slot at each end of the alternate
feed path to effect these connections. If you got
plenty of spare slots in your e-bus block, this wouldn't
be a bad idea.
For most installations, the length of wire between
e-bus and alternate feed switch is relatively short
and in well protected wire bundles. I wouldn't loose
any sleep over it but if one wanted to put a fuse
at both ends, it's easy to do . . . you could use
a fusible link too.
Bob . . .
>Michel
>
>
>=====
>----------------------------
>Michel Therrien CH601-HD
> http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
> http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
> http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
>
>
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: To start with, how about sending me
>copies of the
>
> > pertinent pages from the manual so I can familiarize myself
> > with any special requirements for this engine.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > 6936 Bainbridge Road
> > Wichita, KS 67226-1008
>
>Bob:
>Would love to see a well-developed system that does not use the EXPBus for
>the Eggenfellner
>Subaru.
>I intend to use this engine package, but have never gotten quite
>comfortable with the
>EXPBUS, in spite of the well-thought out circuit design given by Gary.
>The redundancy presently built into the electrical system, as shown in the
>manual, must be
>retained....
>(electrically dependent engine, after all).
>The beautifully done installation manual can be downloaded from Jan's site.
>I look forward to the possibility of a robust off-the-shelf electrical
>package that does it
>all., without the EXPBUS
Not a big deal. I'm certain that some variation
on a theme from the architectures already published
can be modified to meet the needs of this engine.
I've got Jan's data . . . he uses pictographic
wiring diagrams which may "simplify" one's needs
to know where the wires go but it makes understanding
how the system works VERY difficult. I'm going
to have to convert his data to schematics so that
the current operational philosophy can be deduced
and analyzed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BUCK AND GLORIA BUCHANAN" <glastar(at)3rivers.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPBUS and Eggenfellner |
Bob and Robert,
I have an Eggenfellner Sube and was planning to go EXBUS only because I'm
quite challenged electrically. I would certainly like a more robust system
that would fulfill the same mission.
Bob, I have your book but it hasn't completely read itself to me yet ;>)
Best regards, Buck Buchanan, Valier, MT
>Just wanted to add my two cents on this. I have a Glastar with the
>Egfgenfellner package. I do not use the EXPBUS. It was quite easy to
>adapt one of Bob's drawings to accomodate the all-electric,
>fuel-injected engine's needs.
> One of the goals that Jan Eggenfellner has espoused is to offer a very
>complete package....something that really appealed to this novice. As
>such, he sees an advantage to having all of his customers using the same
>parts, be it electrical or plumbing or whatever. Makes his job of
>supporting his customers less complicated. I haven't been a
>particitant in his user's group for a while, but when I was there he
>never discouraged the use of alternative electrical approaches. He just
>re-iterated that he couldn't (and shouldn't) answer too many questions
>on systems he didn't design. Maybe that has changed in the past few
>weeks...I don't know.
> As to the warranty, isn't just about every warranty filled with
>loopholes if you alter the product in any way?
>Bill Yamokoski
>very happy with my non-EXPBUS Glastar
Bill, did you document your approach in a way
that's easy to share? I'd like to see what you
did and then perhaps add a figure to the 'Connection
that's unique to the needs of the Eggenfellner
system.
I've looked over his installation manual briefly . . .
mostly good stuff but I think we can help him out
a little here. Let's put our heads together and
see what the elegant solution looks like.
Anyone else out flying the Eggenfellner package
with a non-EXPBUS architecture?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: re: Crowbar Device |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>
> > The multi-meter recorded voltages of 35 to 40 volts depending on
> > rpm, so I shut down the engine.
>
>I am a Europa builder and I intend to fit a 912S. I am curious to see the
>report of over voltages this high. I was under the impression that the
>permanment magnet alternator did not have enough "grunt" to generate a
>significant overvoltage when a battery is connected to the system. Am I
>mistaken in this assumption and should I seriously consider installing a
>crowbar protection device ?
The AC output of these alternators with no load on them can be
on the order of 30-40 volts AC . . . I believe the incident
in question was with the battery switched off. When he sent
me his diagram, it showed that he had wired per Rotax suggestions
with separate battery and alternator switches . . . in my
never humble opinion, a BAD idea.
In subsequent tests, his rectifier/regulator seemed to be
okay but he ordered a new one anyhow and is sending me
his ov module for testing and possible repair (not sure
why he thinks it got toasted . . . but we'll see when
it gets here).
He is going to rewire per Z-16 and include ov protection.
ANY alternator is capable of dangerous voltages on the bus
depending on condition of battery. I wouldn't run without
ov protection on any size alternator.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
Bob writes:
<>
Assume you are protecting an e-bus alternate feed, or an electronic
ignition battery feed, or some other feed where near absolute reliablity is
desired. Would a fusible link be a better choice than a blade fuse or a
breaker, on the grounds that it would be more resistant to short duration
overload (nusiance, inrush, etc), and more resistant to vibration?
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
After the Nashville seminar, I ready to begin acquiring some items.
First some questions:
I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
electrical system?
I have already installed one embedded antenna in my Lancair ES wing
tip using RG-58. The wing tip is removable for maintenance, but not close
enough to disconnect the RG-58. Is it OK and will it help if I splice RG-400
to about 2 feet of RG-58? If yes what BNC connectors should I order?
I was not lucky enough to win a PIDG Crimp tool at Nashville, because
you ran out. Could you let me know what order number of that is along with
the pins I need?
Since I will have an alternators of 60/20amps. do I have to match them
up with the correct shunt? I currently have an EI Volt/AMP gauge which came
with a 100 amp/50millivolt.
Concerning switches. What switch can I order that simply is an ON/OFF
switch? I will have a LT/RT taxi lights, cabin fan, landing light, etc. And,
should I have single throw switches for NAV, POS, Strobes lights?
I will be utilizing the fuse blocks. 20=#1 POWER DISTRIBUTION, 10=#2
POWER DISTRIBUTION, (2) 6'S FOR MAIN AND AUX BAT BUS. What size ring fits
2AWG, 4AWG wire to connect to these boxes?
Moving Forward,
Ed Silvanic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: avionics masters redux |
>
>Comments/Questions: I was lucky enough to attend your Nashville
>Seminar. I sometimes do presentations and want to compliment you on your
>handling of the shuttle loss. You addressed it, worked into your topic
>and moved on. Very skillful. I'm envious.
I wasn't aware of expending any special effort at the
time. It can be a tough call . . . the gravity of such
events certainly underscore risks associated with
leading-edge exploration. One needs only to read
the stories of people like Scott and Shackleton
to understand how close some of us venture to the
edge of death in our quest for knowledge.
Should it be my misfortune to experience
an untimely demise, I hope that people take
note . . . not so much about what just happened
but what has gone on before. It's more important
to me that others carry on from where I leave off.
I bet all of those aboard Columbia were of a
similar mind set.
Further, our time together in Nashville
was limited. Everyone had paid the toll and was
entitled to the best I could deliver in the time
allotted . . .
>I familiar with your ideas on avionics master switches and agree that
>radios should be able to handle transients. I recently ran across an
>article by someone in the avionics biz that took a different
>position. It's at - http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/182015-1.html
>This gentleman doesn't go into the depth that you do. In fact, he doesn't
>go into any detail at all, other than to note the av master switch is a
>single point of failure in the system.
>
>I'd appreciate your thoughts on his article. (By the way, an answer of
>"Reread my article" is perfectly acceptable.)
I've seen this article and several others in the
same vein. As you have observed, they are
remarkable for their lack of data. These writers
are propagandists, no more than living echoes of
ancient dogma.
As a PhD, Mr Rogers is OBLIGATED to expand
on understanding based on data . . . this guy
might just as well be writing ad copy for
breakfast cereal.
If I were to launch a campaign in favor of
the avionics master switch, I would search out
and identify antagonist components. One
then quantifies and qualifies the hazardous
energy and evaluates it against the ability
of a potential victim to withstand the stress.
Of course, once an antagonist is identified,
it seems more practical to filter off the
hazard at the source as opposed to building a
PILOT OPERATED fire-wall between it and
victims.
I have NEVER seen this done in a newsstand
journal . . . and very seldom have I seen
a critical review of the data in a professional
publication.
If you study articles that grace the
pages of aviation journals, it's
easy to see that EVERY article is a rehash
of hundreds that have appeared in
print over the last 50-60 years. I would
hate a job as editor of an aviation
magazine . . . it's impossible to maintain
a flow of truly new material in a marketplace
paralyzed by over-regulation. I hope Av-Web
didn't pay much for Mr. Rogers' article.
If one wants to keep up with the leading
edge of aviation development, it's all happening
on the lists at matronics.com . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob:
>
> After the Nashville seminar, I ready to begin acquiring some items.
>First some questions:
>
> I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
>electrical system?
If you use B&C alternator controllers, low voltage warning
and ov protection for both busses is built in. You don't need
the aux battery management feature. If you use generic regulators,
you'll need to add ov protection and lv warning for both systems.
> I have already installed one embedded antenna in my Lancair ES wing
>tip using RG-58. The wing tip is removable for maintenance, but not close
>enough to disconnect the RG-58. Is it OK and will it help if I splice RG-400
>to about 2 feet of RG-58? If yes what BNC connectors should I order?
Go ahead and run the RG-58 . . . there will be no observable
difference in performance. Differences in longevity will
not be apparent until after you have sold the airplane. If you
want to extend the stub with RG-400, you can do it with
a cable-male/cable-female connectors at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#s605cf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#s605cm
installed with tool at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-2
> I was not lucky enough to win a PIDG Crimp tool at Nashville, because
>you ran out. Could you let me know what order number of that is along with
>the pins I need?
The PIDG tool is for ring and fast-on terminals using technology
described in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
PIDG technology terminals are offered by B&C and others.
B&C offerings are at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> Since I will have an alternators of 60/20amps. do I have to match
> them
>up with the correct shunt? I currently have an EI Volt/AMP gauge which came
>with a 100 amp/50millivolt.
That instrument is calibrated to read out directly in
amps with a full scale range of 100.0 . . . to use that
instrument with Z-14, you'll need to stay with 100A
shunts and keep in mind that the readings are in output
load in amps and not percentage of alternator rating.
You'll need a second 100A shunt for the auxiliary alternator.
> Concerning switches. What switch can I order that simply is an ON/OFF
>switch? I will have a LT/RT taxi lights, cabin fan, landing light, etc. And,
>should I have single throw switches for NAV, POS, Strobes lights?
Use the S700-1-3 or similar. The "extra" terminal is simply
ignored.
> I will be utilizing the fuse blocks. 20=#1 POWER DISTRIBUTION, 10=#2
>POWER DISTRIBUTION, (2) 6'S FOR MAIN AND AUX BAT BUS. What size ring fits
>2AWG, 4AWG wire to connect to these boxes?
The terminal posts on the fuse blocks are 10-32 thread.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselinks for main bus and e-Bus? |
>
>Bob writes:
><use a fusible link too.>>
>
> Assume you are protecting an e-bus alternate feed, or an electronic
>ignition battery feed, or some other feed where near absolute reliablity is
>desired. Would a fusible link be a better choice than a blade fuse or a
>breaker, on the grounds that it would be more resistant to short duration
>overload (nusiance, inrush, etc), and more resistant to vibration?
>
>Dan
The fusible link is indeed a VERY robust device. But given
that all critical systems are by definition, backed up . . .
risks to comfortable completion of flight are not notably
greater for having run such devices through the plug in
fuses.
If it were my airplane, I'd use the fuse blocks where ever
practical and fusible links where shown on the Z-drawings.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lmc.cc.mi.us> |
| Subject: | Re: EXPBUS and Eggenfellner |
Hi Bob,
I have a hand drawing of my schematic that I scanned into a file.
It's not pretty but you should be able to decipher it. I'll attach it
to an email direct to you.
Bill Yamokoski
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
>electrical system?
If you use B&C alternator controllers, low voltage warning
and ov protection for both busses is built in. You don't need
the aux battery management feature. If you use generic regulators,
you'll need to add ov protection and lv warning for both systems.
Alternator controllers: meaning the two LR3's
Since I will have an alternators of 60/20amps. do I have to match
> them
>up with the correct shunt? I currently have an EI Volt/AMP gauge which came
>with a 100 amp/50millivolt.
That instrument is calibrated to read out directly in
amps with a full scale range of 100.0 . . . to use that
instrument with Z-14, you'll need to stay with 100A
shunts and keep in mind that the readings are in output
load in amps and not percentage of alternator rating.
You'll need a second 100A shunt for the auxiliary alternator.
They asked me what shunt I wanted. Read an article months ago about
shunts. I thought from this article that a 100 amp shunt was recommended.
This EI Volt/AMP gauge does not come with any specific shunt, so when they
asked, I said the 100/50 shunt. Your Z-14 shows the 60/50, & 20/50 shunt's
respectively. Are you saying the shunt has to match the alternator and the
gauge? Have not really looked at the gauge close enough to know.
Thanks,
Ed Silvanic
N823MS(at)aol.com
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Karnes" <jpkarnes(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | OV circuit breaker tripping |
Bob,
After a new ov module (yellow lead) and new (rebuilt) alternator, the
OV circuit breaker continues to trip right after the engine starts. My
plane is wired per Z-2, only I have an auto type ignition instead of
magnetos. Please help...I'm desperate. I am about to tear everything out
and start from scratch...
John Karnes
Port Orchard, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV circuit breaker tripping |
>
>Bob,
> After a new ov module (yellow lead) and new (rebuilt) alternator, the
>OV circuit breaker continues to trip right after the engine starts. My
>plane is wired per Z-2, only I have an auto type ignition instead of
>magnetos. Please help...I'm desperate. I am about to tear everything out
>and start from scratch...
Are you sure you don't have an ov condition? Do you have a voltmeter
in the airplane? Try disconnecting the ov module, turn off all radios,
start engine with alternator switch OFF and engine at ramp idle.
With then turn on all heavy loads like landing lights, taxi lights,
pitot heat, and THEN turn on alternator while watching the voltmeter.
If it goes above 15 volts, under these conditions, you have a problem
with the alternator . . shut down immediately. If it doesn't go above
15 volts, then increase RPM to about 2000 while watching voltmeter.
Again, if it goes above 15 volts, you've got an alternator problem -
shut down immediately. If the voltage is still okay, start switching
off the loads one at a time while watching voltmeter. If you get down to
no loads and the bus voltage is still normal (13.8 to 14.6 volts) then
we've confirmed that the alternator is okay.
Do you have the alternator ON while cranking or do you turn it on
after the engine is running?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob:
>
> I will be doing the Z-14. Do you recommend the new ABMM for this
> >electrical system?
>
> If you use B&C alternator controllers, low voltage warning
> and ov protection for both busses is built in. You don't need
> the aux battery management feature. If you use generic regulators,
> you'll need to add ov protection and lv warning for both systems.
>
>
> Alternator controllers: meaning the two LR3's
yes . . .
> They asked me what shunt I wanted. Read an article months ago about
>shunts. I thought from this article that a 100 amp shunt was recommended.
>This EI Volt/AMP gauge does not come with any specific shunt, so when they
>asked, I said the 100/50 shunt. Your Z-14 shows the 60/50, & 20/50 shunt's
>respectively. Are you saying the shunt has to match the alternator and the
>gauge? Have not really looked at the gauge close enough to know.
if you have a "loadmeter" calibrated in percent of alternator output
such as the one we used to sell, then the shunt has to be sized to
the alternator . . . I.e. a 20A alternator needs a shunt that delivers
50 m.v. to an instrument that reads full scale with 50 m.v. applied.
In the case of your ammeter, it reads out in absolute amps . . .
therefore the shunt has to be size to the full scale capability
of the instrument. If you're going to switch the single instrument
between two different alternators, then the instrument's scale
needs to be fixed . . . in this case, 100A full scale . . . and
the same size shunt would be used with both alternators.
So, when reading output of the main alternator, you need to know that
60A is 100% of full output, and full output of the aux alternator
is 20A . . . you would do percentage of full capability mentally.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One Wire" Alternator? |
I acquired an RV6A with a 4.3 L Chevy V6 engine on Tuesday. On Wednesday I was
flying when the voltmeter began indicating 16 volts. It appeared pegged out.
While heading back to the airport I sensed the battery acid smell. Got on the
ground removed and had the alternator tested at O'Reilly's and it is putting
out 25 volts...
I have been reviewing Bob's diagram for OV protection on an internally regulated
alternator
http://216.55.140.222/articles/bleadov.pdf
and am wondering if I can adapt this idea of utilizing a contactor for OV protection
by running a contactor across the "One" wire coming off the alternator so
that it can be either manually isolated or possibly tied to a Crow-bar Over
Voltage Protection Module.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/alterntr/alterntr.html
I already checked with the manufacture, PowereMaster, and they tell me it is not
possible for them to make this alternator an externally regulated model. They
will replace the regulator under warranty. I do think that this is the same
unit that B&C modifies for external regulation. But before spending the extra
$$ on the B&C model I would like to see if I can provide OV protection on this
model (model 8172 5.68 lbs).
http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alternators.html
What do you think?
Thanks,
Ned
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
Thank for explaining the volt/amps vs types of shunts. You explained
that very well, the light went on.
Thanks,
Ed Silvanic
Lancir ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
I have a VR166 voltage regulator which I intend to use to control Van's 35 amp
alternator. However, It has no pin markings & I need to figure out how to connect
it. My VR166 has a pin I'll call pin number 1, on the far left, followed
by a big space to the right, followed by three pins, separated by smaller but
equal spaces, that I'll call pin number 2, 3, and 4 continuing to the right.
Can anyone look at their successful installation and tell me which pin is which?
According to figure Z-23 of Bob's book,
F goes to alternator field terminal
A goes to the + voltage source
S is connected to A
I is not connected to anything
but, these are equally spaced on the figure so you can't tell which pin is which.
Dave Reel, dreel(at)cox.net
RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<<
I've seen this article and several others in the
same vein. As you have observed, they are
remarkable for their lack of data. These writers
are propagandists, no more than living echoes of
ancient dogma.
As a PhD, Mr Rogers is OBLIGATED to expand
on understanding based on data . . . this guy
might just as well be writing ad copy for
breakfast cereal.>>
I dealt with Tom Rogers a number of times when he was doing an installation
in my Cessna (I'll admit it, we installed an avionics master at the time).
While he is very knowledgeable, I would have bet a weeks pay he didn't have
a PhD, at least not in a technical field. His understanding of the
engineering basics was more of an experience-based one than one founded on
the physics and theoretical. He does make a point that some of the
electronic gizmos don't have power switches, so a "master" is the only way
to turn them off. In my uninformed state (read ignorant) state, the reason
for the master was simple - it's easier to remember to turn one thing on and
off than several. Having said all that, the only reason I can think of to
turn off the radios at all is to eliminate the few amps of draw during
cranking to save every bit of energy for the starter. I once owned a
no-master airplane with several others; there were always radios that were
left on and I often tried to transmit through a radio which I hadn't yet
turned on. It would seem to me two masters in parallel would be a
reasonable approach.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One Wire" |
Alternator?
I have been looking in my Aeroelectric book at Z-24 and it appears to me
that the way the OV crowbar works is by creating a "short" on the alternator
field control breaker which is connected to the alternator disconnect
contactor. I guess the OV crowbar just trips the 5 amp breaker? Is this
basically a correct way of looking at this?
Since I have an internally regulated alternator that has no external field
wire I am thinking that the alternator disconnect contactor can get its
control voltage from the bus thru the circuit shown in Z-24. It will just
not have the field wire from the alternator to the alternator disconnect
contactor.
Does this look like it will work correctly?
Thanks,
Ned
PS: My alternator utilizes a regulater that "senses" rotor rpm and self
excites at a predetermined rpm. Therefore the field wire is connected to the
brushes internally.
----- Original Message -----
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One
Wire" Alternator?
>
> I acquired an RV6A with a 4.3 L Chevy V6 engine on Tuesday. On Wednesday I
was flying when the voltmeter began indicating 16 volts. It appeared pegged
out. While heading back to the airport I sensed the battery acid smell.
Got on the ground removed and had the alternator tested at O'Reilly's and it
is putting out 25 volts...
>
> I have been reviewing Bob's diagram for OV protection on an internally
regulated alternator
>
> http://216.55.140.222/articles/bleadov.pdf
>
> and am wondering if I can adapt this idea of utilizing a contactor for OV
protection by running a contactor across the "One" wire coming off the
alternator so that it can be either manually isolated or possibly tied to a
Crow-bar Over Voltage Protection Module.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/alterntr/alterntr.html
>
> I already checked with the manufacture, PowereMaster, and they tell me it
is not possible for them to make this alternator an externally regulated
model. They will replace the regulator under warranty. I do think that
this is the same unit that B&C modifies for external regulation. But before
spending the extra $$ on the B&C model I would like to see if I can provide
OV protection on this model (model 8172 5.68 lbs).
>
>
http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alterna
tors.html
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Ned
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 10324 Bezinque |
> Hi Bob,
>
>I was looking at your microphone and PTT drawing. Is there any reason to
>have a connection to the "tip" of the micropone jack, if you have a stick
>mounted PTT? I am wiring mine up and would really like to only use 1
>shielded wire form the Mic jack to my Microair 760 radio.
If you never use it, then obviously there's no
reason to hook it up. I carry a spare hand-held
mic in my flight bag in case the wheel mounted
switches . . . or the mic supplied with the
airplane decides not to work. In this case,
having the tip wired is a necessity.
It's easy to do, cheap, light weight . . . why not?
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I have a VR166 voltage regulator which I intend to use to control Van's 35
>amp alternator. However, It has no pin markings & I need to figure out
>how to connect it. My VR166 has a pin I'll call pin number 1, on the far
>left, followed by a big space to the right, followed by three pins,
>separated by smaller but equal spaces, that I'll call pin number 2, 3, and
>4 continuing to the right. Can anyone look at their successful
>installation and tell me which pin is which? According to figure Z-23 of
>Bob's book,
>
>F goes to alternator field terminal
>A goes to the + voltage source
>S is connected to A
>I is not connected to anything
>
>but, these are equally spaced on the figure so you can't tell which pin is
>which.
>
>Dave Reel, dreel(at)cox.net
They are in the same order looking down from the top on all
versions of the VR166 . . . terminal "I" is the terminal on
the far left and is the widest spacing from the adjacent
pin. The order is I A S F.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One Wire" |
Alternator?
Now I see another way of connecting the OV module according to Z-8. It
shows the OV module across the alternator contactor control leads. So when
the OV trips the coil is no lnger energized and opens the feed to the field
shutting down the alternator. However, there is no breaker popped to
indicate what happened. Am I looking at this right?
----- Original Message -----
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One
Wire" Alternator?
>
> I have been looking in my Aeroelectric book at Z-24 and it appears to me
> that the way the OV crowbar works is by creating a "short" on the
alternator
> field control breaker which is connected to the alternator disconnect
> contactor. I guess the OV crowbar just trips the 5 amp breaker? Is this
> basically a correct way of looking at this?
>
> Since I have an internally regulated alternator that has no external field
> wire I am thinking that the alternator disconnect contactor can get its
> control voltage from the bus thru the circuit shown in Z-24. It will just
> not have the field wire from the alternator to the alternator disconnect
> contactor.
>
> Does this look like it will work correctly?
>
> Thanks,
> Ned
>
> PS: My alternator utilizes a regulater that "senses" rotor rpm and self
> excites at a predetermined rpm. Therefore the field wire is connected to
the
> brushes internally.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <315(at)cox.net>
> To: "Aeroelectric-List(at)Matronics.Com"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One
> Wire" Alternator?
>
>
> >
> > I acquired an RV6A with a 4.3 L Chevy V6 engine on Tuesday. On Wednesday
I
> was flying when the voltmeter began indicating 16 volts. It appeared
pegged
> out. While heading back to the airport I sensed the battery acid smell.
> Got on the ground removed and had the alternator tested at O'Reilly's and
it
> is putting out 25 volts...
> >
> > I have been reviewing Bob's diagram for OV protection on an internally
> regulated alternator
> >
> > http://216.55.140.222/articles/bleadov.pdf
> >
> > and am wondering if I can adapt this idea of utilizing a contactor for
OV
> protection by running a contactor across the "One" wire coming off the
> alternator so that it can be either manually isolated or possibly tied to
a
> Crow-bar Over Voltage Protection Module.
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/alterntr/alterntr.html
> >
> > I already checked with the manufacture, PowereMaster, and they tell me
it
> is not possible for them to make this alternator an externally regulated
> model. They will replace the regulator under warranty. I do think that
> this is the same unit that B&C modifies for external regulation. But
before
> spending the extra $$ on the B&C model I would like to see if I can
provide
> OV protection on this model (model 8172 5.68 lbs).
> >
> >
>
http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alterna
> tors.html
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ned
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV Protection for Internally Regulated "One Wire" |
Alternator?
>
>I have been looking in my Aeroelectric book at Z-24 and it appears to me
>that the way the OV crowbar works is by creating a "short" on the alternator
>field control breaker which is connected to the alternator disconnect
>contactor. I guess the OV crowbar just trips the 5 amp breaker? Is this
>basically a correct way of looking at this?
yes. for info on internal workings and for testing
info on crowbar ov module see
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/crowbar.pdf
>Since I have an internally regulated alternator that has no external field
>wire I am thinking that the alternator disconnect contactor can get its
>control voltage from the bus thru the circuit shown in Z-24.
yes
> It will just
>not have the field wire from the alternator to the alternator disconnect
>contactor.
correct . . . the little wire going into the back of most
internally regulated alternators is for control only . . .
it does not carry field excitation current and therefore
is able to effect shutdown of a runaway alternator. Since
you have the "one wire" alternator, you still use figure
Z-24 . . . you just don't have a connection from the contactor
coil to the alternator control pin.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV Protection for Internally Regulated |
"One Wire" Alternator?
>
>I acquired an RV6A with a 4.3 L Chevy V6 engine on Tuesday. On Wednesday I
>was flying when the voltmeter began indicating 16 volts. It appeared
>pegged out. While heading back to the airport I sensed the battery acid
>smell. Got on the ground removed and had the alternator tested at
>O'Reilly's and it is putting out 25 volts...
>
>I have been reviewing Bob's diagram for OV protection on an internally
>regulated alternator
>
>http://216.55.140.222/articles/bleadov.pdf
>
>and am wondering if I can adapt this idea of utilizing a contactor for OV
>protection by running a contactor across the "One" wire coming off the
>alternator so that it can be either manually isolated or possibly tied to
>a Crow-bar Over Voltage Protection Module.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/alterntr/alterntr.html
you betcha
>I already checked with the manufacture, PowereMaster, and they tell me it
>is not possible for them to make this alternator an externally regulated
>model. They will replace the regulator under warranty. I do think that
>this is the same unit that B&C modifies for external regulation. But
>before spending the extra $$ on the B&C model I would like to see if I can
>provide OV protection on this model (model 8172 5.68 lbs).
>
>http://www.powermastermotorsports.com/Racing/Denso_Alternators/denso_alternators.html
B&C starts out with new Nipon-Denso alternators with internal
regulators that watch a control wire. They carve out the
internal regulator and machine the casting to install a spacer
to hold things together where some of the regulator parts come out.
They LOOK like a stock ND alternator but the pins in the regulator
connector now connect directly to the hot side of the field.
ND undoubtedly makes some one-wire alternators too . . . but
that's not what B&C starts with.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 2/14/2003 8:10:30 AM Mountain Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> >I was looking at your microphone and PTT drawing. Is there any reason to
> >have a connection to the "tip" of the micropone jack, if you have a stick
> >mounted PTT? I am wiring mine up and would really like to only use 1
> >shielded wire form the Mic jack to my Microair 760 radio.
>
>
> If you never use it, then obviously there's no
> reason to hook it up. I carry a spare hand-held
> mic in my flight bag in case the wheel mounted
> switches . . . or the mic supplied with the
> airplane decides not to work. In this case,
> having the tip wired is a necessity.
>
> It's easy to do, cheap, light weight . . . why not?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
I have had a debate with the guy at PS Engineering when I wired my plane last
month. He insisted I use a shielded wire on all the PTT circuits and then
told me now that I have purchased my PS1000 ll I needed to have them make up
a harness and buy it from them for $ 235.00 US, Thats what the unit almost
cost. And, there is NO warranty unless I do. Now why in the world would one
need a shielded wire on a circuit like that ?????? I sure hope the
intercom is better then their [clever] marketing scheme. Ben Haas N801BH.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Buchanan <sbuc(at)hiwaay.net> |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> >F goes to alternator field terminal
> >A goes to the + voltage source
> >S is connected to A
> >I is not connected to anything
> >
> >but, these are equally spaced on the figure so you can't tell which pin is
> >which.
> >
> >Dave Reel, dreel(at)cox.net
>
> They are in the same order looking down from the top on all
> versions of the VR166 . . . terminal "I" is the terminal on
> the far left and is the widest spacing from the adjacent
> pin. The order is I A S F.
>
> Bob . . .
What is the "I" terminal? Is it for an "Idiot" (low/no voltage) light?
If so, any reason why we couldn't use it for that purpose?
Sam Buchanan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Starter Contactor |
I have an automotive engine with a solenoid controlled starter. I currently do
not have a starter contactor. What is the purpose of the contactor? To remove
high amp from bus? Or? Just wondering if while I'm modifying the wiring for
OV protection if I should add a starter contactor and contactor engaged warning
light..
Thanks,
Ned
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics masters redux |
>
><<
> I've seen this article and several others in the
> same vein. As you have observed, they are
> remarkable for their lack of data. These writers
> are propagandists, no more than living echoes of
> ancient dogma.
>
> As a PhD, Mr Rogers is OBLIGATED to expand
> on understanding based on data . . . this guy
> might just as well be writing ad copy for
> breakfast cereal.>>
>
>I dealt with Tom Rogers a number of times when he was doing an installation
>in my Cessna (I'll admit it, we installed an avionics master at the time).
>While he is very knowledgeable, I would have bet a weeks pay he didn't have
>a PhD, at least not in a technical field. His understanding of the
>engineering basics was more of an experience-based one than one founded on
>the physics and theoretical. He does make a point that some of the
>electronic gizmos don't have power switches, so a "master" is the only way
>to turn them off.
Assuming they NEED to be off.
> In my uninformed state (read ignorant) state, the reason
>for the master was simple - it's easier to remember to turn one thing on and
>off than several.
But you still had to REMEMBER and/or follow the CHECK-LIST.
My experience with rental airplanes has shown me that about
10% of the time, I get into an airplane where the master
switch was left ON from last shutdown. I've never seen a
checklist that says "AVIONICS MASTER - Check OFF" in the
starting procedure . . . the authors assume that it is
off because the pilot followed the checklist for shutdown.
> Having said all that, the only reason I can think of to
>turn off the radios at all is to eliminate the few amps of draw during
>cranking to save every bit of energy for the starter.
Back in the good ol' days of flooded batteries, there
was a modicum of reason for reducing parasitic loads to
a minimum while cranking . . . with RG batteries, it
has become a non-issue . . . especially if one subscribes
to the battery-a-year change out.
> I once owned a
>no-master airplane with several others; there were always radios that were
>left on and I often tried to transmit through a radio which I hadn't yet
>turned on.
We've all been there and done that . . . but the point is
that none of these events has resulted in a smoked
modern radio.
>It would seem to me two masters in parallel would be a
>reasonable approach.
Yup . . . but if you DO have a single point failure for all
radios, you ought to have a backup for it . . .
If I owned a certified ship, I'd put a diode in series
with the avionics master to prevent inadvertent back-feed
of power from A-bus to the main bus. Add an alternate
feedpath from battery to A-bus (it might have to use
a mini-contactor relay near battery because of the
much higher loads associated with A-bus on certified
ships). Doing this makes the A-bus into an E-bus.
I would then move the turn coordinator to the E-bus
and provide for some kind of battery operated
LED flood lighting for the panel. This gives me
95% of what the E-bus does for us in MODERN airplanes.
Hmmm . . . now I have TWO switches to REMEMBER and/or
to include on the check list . . .
There's nothing evil or dumb about having an avionics
master . . . especially if it's backed up. I object
to the premise under which the switch is "required".
At the very least this IS dumb. At the worst,
people who operate under the banners of higher education
have a responsibility to shine the light of
good science in support of their premise.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fastons . . . |
> Bob, I'm buildiing a Glasair Super II FT. As it has a one piece wing,
> the electrical connector strip is under the seatpans.
What happens under the seats? A ground bus? This needs to be
on the firewall . . . Power distribution could be under
the seats. A number of builders have put their fuseblocks
there but it does make for much longer wire runs. Majority
of builders do power distribution from on or behind the
panel.
> You have convinced me that using "Fast-on" connectors are superior to
> the "eye" fasteners. I see that B&C has fast-on grounding strips. Is
> there a supplier of Fast-on strips for the posative side (in other words,
> not ganged together)? Is this a bad idea? Thanks
The "positive strips" are taken care of in the
fuse block. If you're going to use breakers, then
you're better off with ring terminals for
the (+) side of the supply . . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
> >
>
>
> > >F goes to alternator field terminal
> > >A goes to the + voltage source
> > >S is connected to A
> > >I is not connected to anything
> > >
> > >but, these are equally spaced on the figure so you can't tell which pin is
> > >which.
> > >
> > >Dave Reel, dreel(at)cox.net
> >
> > They are in the same order looking down from the top on all
> > versions of the VR166 . . . terminal "I" is the terminal on
> > the far left and is the widest spacing from the adjacent
> > pin. The order is I A S F.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>What is the "I" terminal? Is it for an "Idiot" (low/no voltage) light?
>If so, any reason why we couldn't use it for that purpose?
>
>Sam Buchanan
You could. but if you have active notification of
low voltage, then you're covered. There are failure
modes in the alternator system that go un-annunciated
by the "I" terminal light . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>I have had a debate with the guy at PS Engineering when I wired my plane last
>month. He insisted I use a shielded wire on all the PTT circuits and then
>told me now that I have purchased my PS1000 ll I needed to have them make up
>a harness and buy it from them for $ 235.00 US, Thats what the unit almost
>cost. And, there is NO warranty unless I do. Now why in the world would one
>need a shielded wire on a circuit like that ?????? I sure hope the
>intercom is better then their [clever] marketing scheme. Ben Haas N801BH.
I would avoid PS engineering and send them a letter
telling them why. If their product is at-risk for
warranty issues because of mis-wiring, then they've
not done their homework . . . this puts all other
issues of their engineering and marketing integrity
in doubt.
I would bet that this is simply a marketing ploy
to sell more stuff. . . . they should be ashamed.
To do my part, I have copied PS Engineering on this
reply.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV Protection for Internally Regulated |
"One Wire" Alternator?
>
>Now I see another way of connecting the OV module according to Z-8. It
>shows the OV module across the alternator contactor control leads. So when
>the OV trips the coil is no lnger energized and opens the feed to the field
>shutting down the alternator. However, there is no breaker popped to
>indicate what happened. Am I looking at this right?
ALL my drawings incorporating crowbar OV protection have breakers
in series with the feed line. If I were building an airplane, the
ONLY breakers on my panel would be for alternator control.
see http://216.55.140.222/temp/Switches.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Bob -
I was told by an avionics supplier that PS Engineering makes the audio/intercomm
boxes for Garmin and UPS. The rationale is that they couldn't do it any better
or cheaper. Is this true?
John
2/14/2003 11:47:13 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
>>I have had a debate with the guy at PS Engineering when I wired my plane last
>>month. He insisted I use a shielded wire on all the PTT circuits and then
>>told me now that I have purchased my PS1000 ll I needed to have them make up
>>a harness and buy it from them for $ 235.00 US, Thats what the unit almost
>>cost. And, there is NO warranty unless I do. Now why in the world would one
>>need a shielded wire on a circuit like that ?????? I sure hope the
>>intercom is better then their [clever] marketing scheme. Ben Haas N801BH.
>
>
> I would avoid PS engineering and send them a letter
> telling them why. If their product is at-risk for
> warranty issues because of mis-wiring, then they've
> not done their homework . . . this puts all other
> issues of their engineering and marketing integrity
> in doubt.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cary rhodes <rhodeseng(at)yahoo.com> |
I need to find a source for a alternator to use on a
rv-7
I have heard nippon denso. Can't find a source or
model number
maybe a auto application for that specific alternator
Or any other assistance you may have
thanks
cary
-7 finish items
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
Cary,
I am using a Nippondenso from a 1988 Chevy Sprint. It is a 45amp
alternator with a V belt pulley. Weighs something around 6 lbs.
You can see some photos of it at
http://www.finleyweb.net/default.asp?id=115
There are a ton of options depending on your requirements. A stroll
through the local wrecking yard's alternator section will give you some
great ideas.
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of cary rhodes
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 1:50 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternator
>
>
> -->
>
> I need to find a source for a alternator to use on a
> rv-7
>
> I have heard nippon denso. Can't find a source or
> model number
>
> maybe a auto application for that specific alternator
>
> Or any other assistance you may have
>
> thanks
>
> cary
> -7 finish items
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
I bought an alternator today. It is from a 1988
Firefly. It has a V groove pulley (not serpentine)
and it delivers 55A, 14.55V. I bought it in a
scrapyard for 40$CDN and then went to an alternator
shop that rebuilt it for 105$CDN. They changed
everything from what I can see including the housing
(which was cracked) and the voltage regulator.
Michel
--- cary rhodes wrote:
>
>
> I need to find a source for a alternator to use on a
> rv-7
>
> I have heard nippon denso. Can't find a source or
> model number
>
> maybe a auto application for that specific
> alternator
>
> Or any other assistance you may have
>
> thanks
>
> cary
> -7 finish items
>
>
>
> -
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
I have an unused 40amp alternator from Van's for a Lycoming 0320-0360.
It comes with all mounting hardware. Will sell for 15% off of what
Van's currently charges. PLUS SHIPPING.
Dave Aronson
RV4 N504RV
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of cary
rhodes
Subject: AeroElectric-List: alternator
I need to find a source for a alternator to use on a
rv-7
I have heard nippon denso. Can't find a source or
model number
maybe a auto application for that specific alternator
Or any other assistance you may have
thanks
cary
-7 finish items
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bilinski <bilinski(at)qcpi.com> |
On a starter relay one of the small studs does nothing. So does this mean
that the diode goes from the "active" stud to ground?
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 8220
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Perhaps http://www.niagaraairparts.com
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003 - The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> -->
>
> I need to find a source for a alternator to use on a
> rv-7
>
> I have heard nippon denso. Can't find a source or
> model number
>
> maybe a auto application for that specific alternator
>
> Or any other assistance you may have
>
> thanks
>
> cary
> -7 finish items
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
Getting ready to order some switches/contactors etc. Looking at the
Z-14, I believe you said that the starter/crossfeed switch is actually
S700-2-50? After the Nashville seminar, I have decided to wait to install
electronic ignition. They wanted $2800.00 for a Laser system. So I am going
to take your advise and get the plane finished and in the air before I start
adding the goodies. OK, is this the starter switch, S700-2-50? And now that I
am going to run MAGS for a while, can I still use the old Jurassic switch,
i.e. LT RT Both Start? Or do I use both and just disregard the start
terminal on the old switch type? If I understand this S700-2-50, it allows me
to start the engine and crossfeed over should the main ALT drop off. This is
a manual operation no relay cross over, right? To understand this diagram let
see now. To start the engine I would use the S700-2-50. This essentially ties
the batteries together for a greater amp start. The old fashion LT/RT/Both
switch would be on both? Once on line, I can turn on the MAIN/AUX BUSSES
switches. Then turn on other items, i.e. radios, lights or what ever. OH yes
I believe I would also turn a fuel pump on which is on the Main Bat BUS. With
fuel injection, it will have high/low positions. What do you recommend for
this? An ON-OFF-ON switch. Do I give the engine a shot of high fuel pressure
prior to start or install a primer switch? I will be tying in an external
power receptacle, what is the stock number of the Ground power contactor? And
should the GRD PWR CTR be a 2A or 5A C/B? Speaking of C/B's, you mentioned at
the seminar that if there was a need for any of these critters it would be on
the "F" or "B" side of the ALTs'? If so, what would be the right CB for the
60/20amp Alternators, stock#,? I know this is a lot but I am getting ready to
order some parts. I have a 20 fuse block = Main Bus, 10 fuse block = Aux Bus,
and (2) 6 fuse boxes for the batteries respectively. Is this OK or should I
upgrade the AUX Bus to 20 and the batteries to 10? As soon as I get an
answer, I believe I'll have an order for you.
Regards,
Ed Silvanic
N823MS(at)AOL.COM
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
| Subject: | Amp. Meter Shunt |
List, I have a 40 Amp. Meter and shunt from Vans for my RV6-A and will be running
a 60 Amp. alternator. Can I still use my 40 amp. Shunt?
Van's doesn't show a 60 Amp. Shunt available and I can seem to locate
one.
Thanks, Tom in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights |
I was re-reading Bob's Aeroelectric Connection in preparation for beginning the
wiring project. The chapter on switches suggested that a 2-10 switch could be
used to operate the strobes and nav lights, each on their own circuit.
Possibly taking this one step farther, would there be anything wrong with wiring
the circuit for the panel lights to the same terminals (on a 2-10 switch) as
the nav lights? There would then be 3 circuits on the switch: strobes, nav lights
and panel lights.
I can't think of a situation in which one would have the panel lights on and not
have the nav lights on as well. The panel lights will be on the e-bus and the
nav lights on the main bus. The circuits would be totally separate, except for
the switch. It strikes me that the switch should be robust enough to handle
the current flows and the only problem would be finding a connector able to take
two wires.
Let me also add that the panel lights will be either 'on' or 'off'. I am not planning
on using a rheostat to control intensity. I rarely fly at night anyway
and usually the lights are fully bright anyway.
Any thoughts on this scheme?
Thanks in advance.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Finley" <jon(at)finleyweb.net> |
| Subject: | Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights |
Hi Bill,
The only issue that immediately comes to my mind is: what happens if you
are flying at night and have an electrical "situation" that requires
shutting down the main bus (disabling the nav and panel lights). This
would leave you without panel lights (well, beyond the flashlight in
your mouth!).
Just a thought....
Jon Finley
N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
Apple Valley, Minnesota
http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of William Bernard
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 7:42 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights
>
>
> -->
>
> I was re-reading Bob's Aeroelectric Connection in preparation
> for beginning the wiring project. The chapter on switches
> suggested that a 2-10 switch could be used to operate the
> strobes and nav lights, each on their own circuit.
>
> Possibly taking this one step farther, would there be
> anything wrong with wiring the circuit for the panel lights
> to the same terminals (on a 2-10 switch) as the nav lights?
> There would then be 3 circuits on the switch: strobes, nav
> lights and panel lights.
>
> I can't think of a situation in which one would have the
> panel lights on and not have the nav lights on as well. The
> panel lights will be on the e-bus and the nav lights on the
> main bus. The circuits would be totally separate, except for
> the switch. It strikes me that the switch should be robust
> enough to handle the current flows and the only problem would
> be finding a connector able to take two wires.
>
> Let me also add that the panel lights will be either 'on' or
> 'off'. I am not planning on using a rheostat to control
> intensity. I rarely fly at night anyway and usually the
> lights are fully bright anyway.
>
> Any thoughts on this scheme?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Ed -
The crossfeed/starter switch is an S700-2-50 On-On-(on). Since you already
have the "Jurassic" switch, consider wiring just the mags to it and wiring
the starter to the -50 as shown on Z-14. Bob is revising Z-14 to show the -50
wiring. This way, you get to use the key switch, have a bit of security with
the key and also manage the mags like most production A/C. I like the idea of
the start/crossfeed being on one switch.
>If I understand this S700-2-50, it allows me to start the engine and crossfeed
>over should the main ALT drop off. This is a manual operation no relay
>crossover, right?
The crossfeed switch does in fact actuate a relay to tie the main and aux
busses together. To start, you would most likely have the main and aux
battery to the full up position. The first position is for bringing the
batteries, via their contactors, on to their respective busses. In the full
up position, you have the alternators set to put out juice as soon as the
engine is running.
>I believe I would also turn a fuel pump on which is on the Main Bat BUS. With
>fuel injection, it will have high/low positions. What do you recommend for
>this?
I believe that lancair no longer recommends the primer/boost pump arrangement
they show in the ES manual. I think they prime by giving the system a shot of
high boost before cranking. Best to confirm this with Mark or Carsten at the
factory. You need an Off-On(Low)- On(High) switch for the boost pump.
>If so, what would be the right CB for the 60/20amp Alternators, stock#,?
Bob shows a 5 amp C/B (not a fuze) for each alternator field and recommends
they be located adjacent to or above their respective Battey/Alternator
switches.
>I know this is a lot but I am getting ready to order some parts. I have a 20>>>
fuse block = Main Bus, 10 fuse block = Aux Bus,
>and (2) 6 fuse boxes for the batteries respectively. Is this OK or should I
>upgrade the AUX Bus to 20 and the batteries to 10?
What does your load analysis show for each bus? I'd get that down and then
have a few spare slots for each fuze block especially if you are going to
retrofit a bunch of stuff later - as you plan to do.
I modified a copy of Z-14 to show the S700-2-50 switch for the crossfeed and
starter, per Bob's email of yesterday, and sent it to him to check. When he
approves it, I can send you a copy of the AutoCAD file. With the volume of
emails on this forum addressed to him, he's probably in a coma from all of the
questions.
Hope this helps.
John Schroeder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phil Birkelbach" <phil(at)petrasoft.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights |
There would be nothing wrong with using a single switch to control the three
circuits if you could find a three pole switch. Except of course the
obvious disadvantage of the switch being a single point of failure. You
discuss running the different wires from different busses into a single pole
on the switch and you do not want to do this. This would connect the two
circuits (and in your case busses) together. You want to keep the circuits
electrically separated from the buss all the way to the light. Otherwise
you get into the same fuse sizing problems as you have with any branch
circuit. This is why you would need a three pole switch.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston
RV-7 727WB (Reserved)
http://www.myrv7.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights
>
> I was re-reading Bob's Aeroelectric Connection in preparation for
beginning the wiring project. The chapter on switches suggested that a 2-10
switch could be used to operate the strobes and nav lights, each on their
own circuit.
>
> Possibly taking this one step farther, would there be anything wrong with
wiring the circuit for the panel lights to the same terminals (on a 2-10
switch) as the nav lights? There would then be 3 circuits on the switch:
strobes, nav lights and panel lights.
>
> I can't think of a situation in which one would have the panel lights on
and not have the nav lights on as well. The panel lights will be on the
e-bus and the nav lights on the main bus. The circuits would be totally
separate, except for the switch. It strikes me that the switch should be
robust enough to handle the current flows and the only problem would be
finding a connector able to take two wires.
>
> Let me also add that the panel lights will be either 'on' or 'off'. I am
not planning on using a rheostat to control intensity. I rarely fly at night
anyway and usually the lights are fully bright anyway.
>
> Any thoughts on this scheme?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Amp. Meter Shunt |
>
>
> List, I have a 40 Amp. Meter and shunt from Vans for my RV6-A and
> will be running a 60 Amp. alternator. Can I still use my 40 amp. Shunt?
> Van's doesn't show a 60 Amp. Shunt available and I can seem
> to locate one.
B&C can sell you one. Call Todd at 316.283.8000
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob:
>
> Getting ready to order some switches/contactors etc. Looking at the
>Z-14, I believe you said that the starter/crossfeed switch is actually
>S700-2-50? After the Nashville seminar, I have decided to wait to install
>electronic ignition. They wanted $2800.00 for a Laser system. So I am going
>to take your advise and get the plane finished and in the air before I start
>adding the goodies. OK, is this the starter switch, S700-2-50? And now that I
>am going to run MAGS for a while, can I still use the old Jurassic switch,
>i.e. LT RT Both Start?
If you plane to add electronic ignition later, ditch the mag
switch and install toggles a-la
http://216.55.140.222/temp/Switches.pdf
This way, when you're ready to sub an electronic system
for a mag, the switch to handle either electronic -OR-
mag is already in place . . . I'd also suggest you take
a good look at Electroair and/or Lightspeed before you
pop for a 2.8 killobux piece of hardware that has
been holy-watered.
> Or do I use both and just disregard the start
>terminal on the old switch type? If I understand this S700-2-50, it allows me
>to start the engine and crossfeed over should the main ALT drop off.
The 2-50 does is used under three conditions. (1) one alternator
is dead and you CHOOSE to tie the lame side to the good side so
as to maximized number of electro-whizzies you can run (2) tie
to batteries together for cranking and (3) initiate the cranking
sequence by moving the switch to its spring-loaded, full
up position.
> This is
>a manual operation no relay cross over, right? To understand this diagram let
>see now. To start the engine I would use the S700-2-50. This essentially ties
>the batteries together for a greater amp start. The old fashion LT/RT/Both
>switch would be on both?
No, on Left (or magneto that has impulse coupler) . . . this is what
the jumper bar is for on the mag switch . . . it disables the right
mag during cranking . . . but if you have a light weight starter
that cranks the engine real well, using the key-switch is a good way
to break a starter casting with a kickback. Wiring you ignition
systems with toggles using the right-mag-on starter lockout feature
eliminates this possibility, saves you lots of money, saves panel
space, and sets you up for what ever mix and match of mags and
electronic ignitions you want to run.
> Once on line, I can turn on the MAIN/AUX BUSSES
>switches. Then turn on other items, i.e. radios, lights or what ever. OH yes
>I believe I would also turn a fuel pump on which is on the Main Bat BUS. With
>fuel injection, it will have high/low positions. What do you recommend for
>this? An ON-OFF-ON switch.
A 2-10 would let you wire for OFF-LOW-HIGH
> Do I give the engine a shot of high fuel pressure
>prior to start or install a primer switch?
Most fuel injected engines prime with the main fuel
delivery path and don't use a primer system.
> I will be tying in an external
>power receptacle, what is the stock number of the Ground power contactor?
Aircraft spruce sells it as the "Piper style" ground
power jack. It's really a Cole-Hersee over-the road
truck accessory. You may be able to find one locally
as a CH p/n 11041 socket and you'll want to order a
mating 11042 plug to put on the end of your own
set of jumper cables.
Recommend you modify socket per
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
> And
>should the GRD PWR CTR be a 2A or 5A C/B?
Either is okay . . .
> Speaking of C/B's, you mentioned at
>the seminar that if there was a need for any of these critters it would be on
>the "F" or "B" side of the ALTs'? If so, what would be the right CB for the
>60/20amp Alternators, stock#,? I know this is a lot but I am getting ready to
>order some parts.
Alternator field c/b is 5A. B&C p/n CB5
> I have a 20 fuse block = Main Bus, 10 fuse block = Aux Bus,
>and (2) 6 fuse boxes for the batteries respectively. Is this OK or should I
>upgrade the AUX Bus to 20 and the batteries to 10? As soon as I get an
>answer, I believe I'll have an order for you.
Your order will go to B&C . . . I don't have a parts
business here any more . . . it exploded and became a
third full-time job and we sold it off to B&C a couple
of years ago. You'll not that their name and particulars
are at the top of the order form on our website. Things
that are not on the aeroelectric catalog will be on the
B&C catalog at www.BandC.biz
Have you made a list of things you're going to install
in your airplane and from which bus they'll be powered?
Once this list is made, order fuse blocks that will have
3-5 spare slots for future expansion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights |
>
>
>I was re-reading Bob's Aeroelectric Connection in preparation for
>beginning the wiring project. The chapter on switches suggested that a
>2-10 switch could be used to operate the strobes and nav lights, each on
>their own circuit.
>
>Possibly taking this one step farther, would there be anything wrong with
>wiring the circuit for the panel lights to the same terminals (on a 2-10
>switch) as the nav lights? There would then be 3 circuits on the switch:
>strobes, nav lights and panel lights.
>
>I can't think of a situation in which one would have the panel lights on
>and not have the nav lights on as well. The panel lights will be on the
>e-bus and the nav lights on the main bus. The circuits would be totally
>separate, except for the switch. It strikes me that the switch should be
>robust enough to handle the current flows and the only problem would be
>finding a connector able to take two wires.
>
>Let me also add that the panel lights will be either 'on' or 'off'. I am
>not planning on using a rheostat to control intensity. I rarely fly at
>night anyway and usually the lights are fully bright anyway.
>
>Any thoughts on this scheme?
Unless you're really hurting for panel space, why use one expensive
switch to do the job that two cheap ones will do? And why put more
than one system at risk of mechanical failure of a single switch?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>On a starter relay one of the small studs does nothing. So does this mean
>that the diode goes from the "active" stud to ground?
Use our S702-1 starter contactor and the diode is already
built in. With others, the diode cathode (band) goes
to the "S" terminal, other end to base (ground).\
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>I was told by an avionics supplier that PS Engineering makes the
>audio/intercomm
>boxes for Garmin and UPS. The rationale is that they couldn't do it any
>better
>or cheaper. Is this true?
Probably . . . a company that does a high volume of audio
specialty components can probably do a better job for less
money that one that butters their bread with high-dollar,
lower volume nav or communications equipment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dawson, Bill" <Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu> |
I also bought a PS Engineering intercom. I was told it needed to be
installed at and PS approved avionics shop. There was NO warranty if I
installed it myself. I won't be buying one from them again.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic wiring
>I have had a debate with the guy at PS Engineering when I wired my
plane last
>month. He insisted I use a shielded wire on all the PTT circuits and
then
>told me now that I have purchased my PS1000 ll I needed to have them
make up
>a harness and buy it from them for $ 235.00 US, Thats what the unit
almost
>cost. And, there is NO warranty unless I do. Now why in the world
would one
>need a shielded wire on a circuit like that ?????? I sure hope the
>intercom is better then their [clever] marketing scheme. Ben Haas
N801BH.
I would avoid PS engineering and send them a letter
telling them why. If their product is at-risk for
warranty issues because of mis-wiring, then they've
not done their homework . . . this puts all other
issues of their engineering and marketing integrity
in doubt.
I would bet that this is simply a marketing ploy
to sell more stuff. . . . they should be ashamed.
To do my part, I have copied PS Engineering on this
reply.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
John:
That was great. I just found out my alternator on the engine is a Ford
Motorcraft. My question to the company was:"Do I have an alternator or
generator?" I have know idea if this is a good alternator or not. I know that
Chrysler alternators are made by Bosch. I have decided to go with mags for a
while and then go to a one side electronic ignition. Never could get the Jeff
Rose Info on the web.
Thanks again,
ED
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nav lights, panel lights, strobe lights |
In a message dated 02/15/2003 3:06:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<< AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "William Bernard"
......skip....... I rarely fly at night anyway
and usually the lights are fully bright anyway. Any thoughts on this scheme?
Thanks in advance. Bill>>
2/15/2003
Hello Bill, Flying with bright internal lights in the cockpit goes a long way
towards destroying ones ability to better see what is outside in relatiive
darkness. The lower one can keep the internal illumination the better one can
see outside.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 02/15/2003 10:16:43 AM Central Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
> Have you made a list of things you're going to install
> in your airplane and from which bus they'll be powered?
>
> Once this list is made, order fuse blocks that will have
> 3-5 spare slots for future expansion.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> Thanks for your reply and the homework.
ED Silvanic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin(at)valkyrie.net> |
Stark Avionics wired a PMA4000 into my Radio Stack purchased from them and I
didn't notice any special wiring technique used by Stark?
I did have a hard time getting PS Engineering to send me the required
face plate to install the PMA 4000 in a 2 1/4" panel hole. I reminded them
that since the PMA4000 is made for the experimental market and not STC'd who
did they expect would be installing there product! After a lot of
conversation and $28.00 for a ($2.50 Face Plate) they agreed to break their
rules and sell me the part direct.
Bob is right "Marketing Ploy" to be sure.
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawson, Bill" <Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mic wiring
>
> I also bought a PS Engineering intercom. I was told it needed to be
> installed at and PS approved avionics shop. There was NO warranty if I
> installed it myself. I won't be buying one from them again.
>
> Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic wiring
>
>
>
>
> >I have had a debate with the guy at PS Engineering when I wired my
> plane last
> >month. He insisted I use a shielded wire on all the PTT circuits and
> then
> >told me now that I have purchased my PS1000 ll I needed to have them
> make up
> >a harness and buy it from them for $ 235.00 US, Thats what the unit
> almost
> >cost. And, there is NO warranty unless I do. Now why in the world
> would one
> >need a shielded wire on a circuit like that ?????? I sure hope the
> >intercom is better then their [clever] marketing scheme. Ben Haas
> N801BH.
>
>
> I would avoid PS engineering and send them a letter
> telling them why. If their product is at-risk for
> warranty issues because of mis-wiring, then they've
> not done their homework . . . this puts all other
> issues of their engineering and marketing integrity
> in doubt.
>
> I would bet that this is simply a marketing ploy
> to sell more stuff. . . . they should be ashamed.
> To do my part, I have copied PS Engineering on this
> reply.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
Just my $.02 worth. I bought a PS Engineeering 1000II from an airplane
"junk yard" (Arkansas Airframe) for a bit less than half the new price. PS
puts their user manual and wiring diagram on their web site so I printed
that up and wired everything by the manual. Nice thing about buying a used
unit is that there were wires already attached and all I had to do was
determine which wire was attached to which pin. I powered things up as I
got them attached (no smoke) and everything worked OK. In PS defense I have
to say that I was able to get answers from their support people when I had a
question with no problem. Buying used might be a consideration. Happy
building.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Fwd: To Bob and Ben from PS Engineering |
>From: PSENGINE(at)aol.com
>Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:39:17 EST
>Subject: To Bob and Ben from PS Engineering
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>CC: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
>X-Mailer: 7.0 for Windows sub 10634
>
>I am not sure if this is the correct way of sending an email response, but I
>hope that this does put it in the public forum. If not, I am cc Bob so that
>he can post my response on the Matronics bulletin board.
>
>First, thank you Bob for sending me the email, unless I know someone has
>taken offense, or misinterprets what has been said, I simply can't address
>those issues.
Which is why I forwarded the note to you. I've been in
similar situations as a supplier to the aircraft industry and
I know how frustrating it is to be the subject of a tense
conversation and not be aware of what's going on or the circumstances
that generated it.
>On the technical side, I never said that the PTT wire has to be shielded (in
>fact, we don't supply this part of the harness, rather the customer has to
>wire this part up). What I did say was that the PTT wire has to go to the
>appropriate mic jack. i.e.; the Pilot PTT has to go to the Pilot mic jack,
>etc. It does not have to be shielded, sorry for the misunderstanding.
A VERY frequently asked question on the AeroElectric-List is "what
do I do with shields?" Participants on the list have cited the
full gamut of myths and mis-information that circulate in the
wild. You and I know that shields can be used effectively for
more that one task and that system design dictates the requirement.
It follows therefore that instructions which accompany any product
should be explicit in the use and termination of shielded wires.
My first answer to this question is, "Follow the manufacturer's
instructions." Now, if one understands how the system works
and is prepared to make considered changes, fine . . .
go ahead but assume the risks. I presume that
instructions shipped with your products show the details
of what you guarantee will be a great performing installation.
So, your easy answer is always, "follow the instructions." When
someone asks about variations, the response is just as easy,
"That may work just fine but I've not tested it and don't
guarantee it."
>We offer custom made wire harnesses as a service. The reason? If the harness
>is not made correctly, the customer will end up with a sub-par installation,
>making our hardware look bad.
>
>It is not a profit center for PS Engineering, it is a service. If you think
>our harness pricing is too high, you can always have an authorized PS
>Engineering dealer make the harness, assuring the warranty remains intact.
If one interprets these words literally, then are there warranty
issues that are affected by improper wiring? What kinds of errors
in wiring would produce a situation in your product that falls under
misuse, abuse or neglect? How does selling a black box sans harness
open you up to any more risk than if you sold it without a harness?
>I could agree with you that it may be a marketing tactic, but in different
>terms as you indicated.
>
>The majority of our sales are by word of mouth. If someone builds a harness
>incorrectly, the intercom will not perform as it is designed. The next thing
>that happens is that the hardware is blamed, while in fact, it's the
>installation.
Fair enough. I too offer pre-wired, color coded harnesses
for avionics I supply and most folks do buy the harness when
they buy the radio. I suggest it's fair to tell a customer that
x-percent of post installation problems are the result of
harness errors and that these pitfalls can be avoided by
ordering the harness from us. However, to use the word "warranty"
in a sentence suggesting that they also buy my harness is
disingenuous.
>Short of not selling our intercoms from over the counter companies such as
>Chief, Gulf Coast, or Eastern to name a few, we decided to honor our warranty
>if the customer buys the harness from either us or from and authorized PS
>Engineering dealer.
If it is your corporate position that the intercom is sold
to the OBAM industry only as a complete kit with harness,
then it should be advertised as such with the total price
of the product and a list of customers to whom special
pricing applies clearly stated in the catalog. To lure a customer
in on what appears to be a competitive price for a good
product and then tell him the warranty is no good unless
they order the harness too is an unmitigated bait-and-switch
tactic.
>Not to sound boastful, I think you will find that this "marketing"
>arrangement has worked well for us. Rarely will you find someone who is not
>totally satisfied with our products.
>
>I contend this is because we have made every effort to assure that the
>harness is made correctly.
>
>As far as price, we think we have priced it fairly. Considering it takes
>between 3 to 4 hours to build one harness, and including the materials, I
>personally think it is a bargain.
Satisfaction and pricing are not the issues. PS Engineering has
an excellent reputation for product performance and
value after it's bolted to the airplane. The issue
is what you've implied: That every owner built and
maintained aircraft customer who approaches PS
Engineering for information and possible purchase
of products is automatically considered sub-standard
in terms of fabrication and installation skills. Further,
this presumed shortfall will cost them more for the
pleasure of acquiring your product.
OBAM aircraft are now the majority of the modern
fleet. With certified ships disappearing from the
registry to the tune of thousands per year and
OBAM aircraft outpacing production aircraft, they
will soon become the majority of the GA fleet.
It's our job at the AeroElectric Connection and on
the Aero-Electric List to provide a platform for
elevating the knowledge and skills of those who
choose to fabricate what are demonstrably the finest
aircraft ever built. A large number of builders
are quite capable of producing a satisfactory
harness for any piece of avionics including yours.
Those who lack the skills are generally aware
of it and happily take advantage of any assistance
you or I can provide in the way of a pre-fabricated
harness.
But I also recognize (and I hope PS Engineering
does too) that the future of small aircraft
in GA now resides in people's basements and
garages. We need to properly evaluate this market
both for it's potential -AND- shortcomings.
What ever we can to smooth over the rough
places is good business.
To me, this means offer the harness, explain
the advantages but don't insult the customer
by implying that they're not capable of building
an adequate harness. And certainly, don't add
injury to insult by suggesting that if they
do built their own harness that warranty
of the product is at risk.
>I hope my explanation on our policy will help clear up this matter. We are
>not ashamed of ourselves for selling harnesses, we are proud of the fact that
>the vast majority of posts on the Internet have always been very favorable on
>our products, service and support.
>
>Sincerely,
>Mark Scheuer
>PS Engineering, Inc.
>mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
>www.ps-engineering.com
I've worked in holy-watered aviation for over
40 years. I've had the pleasure of working in
OBAM aviation for 16 years. I know that the
quality, service and value of PS Engineering
products have been outstanding for a long time.
I'm suggesting that you've got a new breed
of customer that needs to be treated with respect
for their willingness to take on a monumental
task. If we're going to hitch our wagons to this
new rising star in aviation, we should offer
every bit of assistance that we can with clear
and concise explanations of customer assumed
risk and risks we're willing to take as suppliers.
I've had a number of my products come back smelling
bad and in every case, the customer knew he'd
paid some expensive "tuition" for his education.
I will suggest that our businesses will benefit
far more from concise but helpful explanation to
customers followed up with products of good
performance and value than from the exercise
of arbitrary and capricious "policy".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 2/15/2003 10:37:58 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu writes:
>
> I also bought a PS Engineering intercom. I was told it needed to be
> installed at and PS approved avionics shop. There was NO warranty if I
> installed it myself. I won't be buying one from them again.
>
>
No where in any of their literature does it say their stuff HAS to be
installed by a approved shop to mantain warranty. Only after the sale does
this come up. Here in Wyoming bait and switch is illegal, We don't call the
BBB just the BB. BB = bear bait.. I can assure ya, if mine is defective
or does not work as advertised PS Engineering will wish they they never heard
of me. If word of mouth can sink a ship these guys better put on theit
lifejackets. Ben Haas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Just my $.02 worth. I bought a PS Engineeering 1000II from an airplane
>"junk yard" (Arkansas Airframe) for a bit less than half the new price. PS
>puts their user manual and wiring diagram on their web site so I printed
>that up and wired everything by the manual. Nice thing about buying a used
>unit is that there were wires already attached and all I had to do was
>determine which wire was attached to which pin. I powered things up as I
>got them attached (no smoke) and everything worked OK. In PS defense I have
>to say that I was able to get answers from their support people when I had a
>question with no problem. Buying used might be a consideration. Happy
>building.
>Bill
>Glasair SIIS-FT
Interesting point. The few times that I've talked
with folks there, they've been very helpful for
me also. I suspect the current commotion will be
smoothly resolved with a tad bit more attention
to communication.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Stark Avionics wired a PMA4000 into my Radio Stack purchased from them and I
>didn't notice any special wiring technique used by Stark?
> I did have a hard time getting PS Engineering to send me the required
>face plate to install the PMA 4000 in a 2 1/4" panel hole. I reminded them
>that since the PMA4000 is made for the experimental market and not STC'd who
>did they expect would be installing there product! After a lot of
>conversation and $28.00 for a ($2.50 Face Plate) they agreed to break their
>rules and sell me the part direct.
> Bob is right "Marketing Ploy" to be sure.
Keep in mind that the faceplate they pulled off the shelf
to send to you was exactly the same faceplate that might
have made its way into the holy-watered airplane.
I've worked close enough to the aviation parts supply
chain to know that I want no part of the certified
side. The administrative, no-value-added costs of
selling even the simplest component are staggering.
It's a sure bet that their investment in that faceplate
was considerably more than an end-of-production-line
value of the part..
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
> I also bought a PS Engineering intercom. I was told it needed to be
>installed at and PS approved avionics shop. There was NO warranty if I
>installed it myself. I won't be buying one from them again.
>
>Bill
Sorry to hear that. I've forwarded a copy of your
note to PS Engineering.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: To Bob and Ben from PS Engineering |
In a message dated 2/15/2003 12:30:29 PM Mountain Standard Time,
bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> >On the technical side, I never said that the PTT wire has to be shielded
> (in
> >fact, we don't supply this part of the harness, rather the customer has to
> >wire this part up). What I did say was that the PTT wire has to go to the
> >appropriate mic jack. i.e.; the Pilot PTT has to go to the Pilot mic jack,
> >etc. It does not have to be shielded, sorry for the misunderstanding.
>
>
Mark is a Damn LAIR !!!!! HE told me HIMSELF that shielded wires were
required for the PTT circuit. IF you think I am blowing smoke < no pun
intended> go to their web site and look at the schematics for the PS1000 ll
and THEIR own drawing shows shielded wires on that circuit. He had me do this
because after I bought my unit and got it home and opened up the box there is
no wiring diagrams enclosed.
Thats when I called Mark and asked for one. His first answer was" See your
PS dealer". He hinted that I was not qualified to hook up his unit. This is
after I wired the King KMD150, Icom Comm radio, King KT76-A transponder,
Blind encoder, JPI 450 and all the rest of the general wiring in my 801
Zenith. This does not include the detailed engine documentation package I
have installed to monitor my Prototype All Aluminum V-8 Ford engine with the
potential for telemetry to downlink data for the first few hours of flight.
It seems kinda funny that the cheapest thing in my panel didn't come with
installation instructions because in Marks eyes homebuilders are dumb. I want
to thank Bob for all his time he spends with all of our questions. Ben Haas
N801BH. Jackson Hole Wyoming.
Thanks again Bob.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>In a message dated 2/15/2003 10:37:58 AM Mountain Standard Time,
>Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu writes:
>
>
> >
> > I also bought a PS Engineering intercom. I was told it needed to be
> > installed at and PS approved avionics shop. There was NO warranty if I
> > installed it myself. I won't be buying one from them again.
> >
> >
>
> No where in any of their literature does it say their stuff HAS to be
>installed by a approved shop to mantain warranty. Only after the sale does
>this come up. Here in Wyoming bait and switch is illegal, We don't call the
>BBB just the BB. BB = bear bait.. I can assure ya, if mine is defective
>or does not work as advertised PS Engineering will wish they they never heard
>of me. If word of mouth can sink a ship these guys better put on theit
>lifejackets. Ben Haas
Thank you for the feedback. Copy forwarded to PS Engineering
Bob . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator upgrade |
>Now that I have few more dollars
>than a year ago maybe I will update to the B&C Aternator
>Assemmbly? 40 AMP?
Unless you have electric heat of some kind other
than pitot heat, a 40A machine should be adequate.
>Can I use a less expensive external regulator
>than B&C lists on their WebSite?
My wiring diagrams illustrate the use of an automotive
VR166 regulator combined with OV module and some
other form of LOW VOLTS warning. These three devices
will adequately replace the LR-3 alternator controller.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>John:
>
> That was great. I just found out my alternator on the engine is a
> Ford
>Motorcraft. My question to the company was:"Do I have an alternator or
>generator?" I have know idea if this is a good alternator or not.
If the device is a long cylinder that is about 2 to 3 times
longer than its diameter, then it's a generator. Alternators
are always shorter . . . usually about the same length as
the diameter or sometimes quite a bit less length than diameter.
> I know that Chrysler alternators are made by Bosch.
Why not put the best one in the business on your airplane.
ND alternators are in great supply. ANY one you can find with
a pulley that will accept your belt will work. All you need
to do is fabricate a bracket to hold it to the engine
(use 1/4" thick material and good forming/welding lest
you suffer the Lycoming breaking brackets syndrome
of years gone by).
> I have decided to go with mags for a
>while and then go to a one side electronic ignition. Never could get the Jeff
>Rose Info on the web.
He doesn't have a website but a websearch turned up
his address and phone number in about 50 places. Check
out
http://exp-aircraft.com/vendors/electroa.html
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fastons . . . |
>Thanks Bob. The Glasair wing is removable (not easy. but can be done). The
>Strip I'm talking about is a "junction box" for the wing wires to be mated
>to the Fues wiring. See attached.
Sheesh! I'd put AMP CPC connnectors in those wire bundles
before I'd but in a huge row of screw terminals on
barrier strips. Those long rows of screws give me the
willies . . . see:
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=229.pdf
>Why do you recommend ring terminals for the positive side?
if they go to breakers, then you have to built a breaker
panel with bus bars that connect rows of breakers together.
This drives a design using threaded fasteners for the
bus bar to breaker interface . . . it follows that (+)
wires coming off the other breaker terminal would have
a ring terminal on it to mate with a threaded fastener.
Use fuseblocks and the whole breaker panel, bus-bars,
and threaded fasteners thing goes away with a savings
of mucho dollars and hours.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Odyssey PC625 Question |
Bob or anybody...
I find myself the proud owner of 2 PC625's (It's a long story... :)) and I
have coming shortly a Superior XP-IO360 engine. Is one of these at 625
cranking amps sufficient for this engine or would I be better advised to go
the two battery route and switch them in parallel for cranking? Of course
this would add 13 lbs... Any and all opinions/facts are welcome.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
RV6a/70-90
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Casey <mikec(at)caseyspm.com> |
I had PS engineering as a proposed part of my instrument panel. After
reading all the grief I am looking for an alternative. Any suggestions?
Walter
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 02:30 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> I also bought a PS Engineering intercom. I was told it needed to be
>> installed at and PS approved avionics shop. There was NO warranty if I
>> installed it myself. I won't be buying one from them again.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
> Sorry to hear that. I've forwarded a copy of your
> note to PS Engineering.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Casey <mikec(at)caseyspm.com> |
Bob,
My RV7A will have a 200HP IO 360. I see that your recommended Engine
switch has three positions, Prime - Boost - Off.
I don't understand the difference between Prime and Boost?
Walter
> If you plane to add electronic ignition later, ditch the mag
> switch and install toggles a-la
> http://216.55.140.222/temp/Switches.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | JJN Current Limiters |
Bob,
I have 2 current limiters, a T-Tron JJN-70 and JJN-80 that I acquired some time
ago to protect the b-lead from the battery. Some time has passed and I can no
longer find the articles explaining the sizing of these devices.
I now have a 40 amp alternator and am wondering if either of these current limiters
is sized properly to protect the 40 amp alternator? Or would these be better
suited for a 60 amp alternator?
Thanks,
Ned
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com> |
Hi Bob,
1. My analysis concludes that the PTT switch takes the mic plug tip to
ground. In the wiring diagram for my PMA 4000 Audio Panel/Intercom (great
response to Mark Scheuer PS Engineering) it shows the PTT switch wire
connections at the mic jacks. Is there any reason the connections can't be
made at the other end of the shielded conductors .. at the intercom end? It
seems to me this would be a more convenient place to connect the PTT switch
leads.
2. My NavAid auto pilot recommends using a diode in series with the PTT
line from the com radio together with a wire connected from the PTT switch
to a pin on the unit. The connection grounds the pin when the PTT switch is
closed. This kills the signal to the servo while the PTT switch is
depressed. This prevents the servo from jumping around due to the presence
of high level RFI on the power lines. The servo stays engaged during the
voice transmission, but does not move until normal operation is restored by
releasing the mike button.
My question is basically a repeat of #1: Can this connection be made at the
intercom end of the wire on the hi side of the PTT.
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Don Boardman
& Partner, Randy Bowers
AeroElectric wired.
Super Moose #130 M-14PF 400HP, MT-prop, Aerocet 3500 amphibs, Rome, NY
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: JJN Current Limiters |
I think I have found my answer in the archives. At least it says the 80 is
good for all alternators 60 amp and below. I still wonder if the 70 is good
for the 40 amp alternator.....
Archive:
Message: #1766 Date: Sep 03, 2001 From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Subject: Re: Alternative B-lead fuse . . .
>
>I'm obviously missing something, here. But is a 40A current limiter
>equal to an 80A fuse?
Well, kinda sorta . . .
Recall that the 80A fuse is FAST and it was selected as
a good compromise for ALL alternators 60A and below.
The ANL series current limiters are like fusible links
and not subject to tripping out under small overloads
like the fuse.
I've just posted an article on the topic which you're
all welcome to read at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/anl/anlvsjjs.html
Bob . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: <315(at)cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: JJN Current Limiters
>
> Bob,
>
> I have 2 current limiters, a T-Tron JJN-70 and JJN-80 that I acquired some
time ago to protect the b-lead from the battery. Some time has passed and I
can no longer find the articles explaining the sizing of these devices.
>
> I now have a 40 amp alternator and am wondering if either of these current
limiters is sized properly to protect the 40 amp alternator? Or would these
be better suited for a 60 amp alternator?
>
> Thanks,
> Ned
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dawson, Bill" <Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu> |
I won't be buying one from them again.
>
>Bill
> Sorry to hear that. I've forwarded a copy of your
> note to PS Engineering.
>Bob . . .
Don't be sorry. I don't support companies that don't support me. Too bad
too, because I like their equipment.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Casey <mikec(at)caseyspm.com> |
This all seams strange since Van's sells the
AV PM 3000 4PL STEREO
on their www site.
Walter
> I won't be buying one from them again.
>>
>> Bill
>
>
>> Sorry to hear that. I've forwarded a copy of your
>> note to PS Engineering.
>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
> Don't be sorry. I don't support companies that don't support me. Too
> bad
> too, because I like their equipment.
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Freddie Freeloader <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Hello Robert,
As for Jeff Rose, check out the following:
http://www.fly-gbi.com/eis.htm
Saturday, February 15, 2003, 2:04:21 PM, you wrote:
>> I have decided to go with mags for a
>>while and then go to a one side electronic ignition. Never could get the Jeff
>>Rose Info on the web.
RLNI> He doesn't have a website but a websearch turned up
RLNI> his address and phone number in about 50 places. Check
RLNI> out
RLNI> http://exp-aircraft.com/vendors/electroa.html
RLNI> Bob . . .
--
Best regards,
Freddie mailto:lists(at)stevet.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
Jeff is a good guy with a good product (near as I can tell. Not flying
yet). He is just barely internet-enabled however. Don't let that
discourage you though. He is more than happy to help you out over the
phone. I bought my EI via the Orndorffs.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003 - The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> -->
>
> Hello Robert,
>
> As for Jeff Rose, check out the following:
>
> http://www.fly-gbi.com/eis.htm
>
> Saturday, February 15, 2003, 2:04:21 PM, you wrote:
>
> >> I have decided to go with mags for a
> >>while and then go to a one side electronic ignition. Never
> could get
> >>the Jeff Rose Info on the web.
>
> RLNI> He doesn't have a website but a websearch turned up
> RLNI> his address and phone number in about 50 places. Check
> RLNI> out
>
> RLNI> http://exp-aircraft.com/vendors/electroa.html
>
>
> RLNI> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: To Bob and Ben from PS Engineering |
Ben,
I know this is a bit late for you but maybe others should consider it ....
We recently finished 2 RV6's, and each has an intercom from DRE
Communications. I also have one in my Piper.
The 244e is a nice little unit that comes (if I recall correctly) with:
1. Intercom
2. Harness with **PLENTY** of wire
3. Instructions
4. Horizontal and verical labled "plates for the jacks
5. Jacks
They even helped me over the phone with some unique questions I had. One of
the engineers faxed me a schematic of a "circuit" that would accomplish what
I was trying to do with their intercom. No charge.
I bought a PS Engineering unit back in the early 90's and really liked it. I
was about to purchase another and happened upon DRE at Sun-N-Fun (or OSH)
years ago and have purchased only their stuff and Bose since then when it
came to intercoms **OR** headsets.
Just FYI.
James
No affiliation with DRE ... other than being a satisfied customer.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Benford2(at)aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 4:32 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fwd: To Bob and Ben from PS Engineering
>
>
> In a message dated 2/15/2003 12:30:29 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>
> >
> >
> > >On the technical side, I never said that the PTT wire has to
> be shielded
> > (in
> > >fact, we don't supply this part of the harness, rather the
> customer has to
> > >wire this part up). What I did say was that the PTT wire has
> to go to the
> > >appropriate mic jack. i.e.; the Pilot PTT has to go to the
> Pilot mic jack,
> > >etc. It does not have to be shielded, sorry for the misunderstanding.
> >
> >
>
> Mark is a Damn LAIR !!!!! HE told me HIMSELF that shielded wires were
> required for the PTT circuit. IF you think I am blowing smoke < no pun
> intended> go to their web site and look at the schematics for the
> PS1000 ll
> and THEIR own drawing shows shielded wires on that circuit. He
> had me do this
> because after I bought my unit and got it home and opened up the
> box there is
> no wiring diagrams enclosed.
>
> Thats when I called Mark and asked for one. His first answer
> was" See your
> PS dealer". He hinted that I was not qualified to hook up his
> unit. This is
> after I wired the King KMD150, Icom Comm radio, King KT76-A transponder,
> Blind encoder, JPI 450 and all the rest of the general wiring in my 801
> Zenith. This does not include the detailed engine documentation
> package I
> have installed to monitor my Prototype All Aluminum V-8 Ford
> engine with the
> potential for telemetry to downlink data for the first few hours
> of flight.
> It seems kinda funny that the cheapest thing in my panel didn't come with
> installation instructions because in Marks eyes homebuilders are
> dumb. I want
> to thank Bob for all his time he spends with all of our
> questions. Ben Haas
> N801BH. Jackson Hole Wyoming.
>
>
> Thanks again Bob.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tammy and Mike Salzman <arrow54t(at)yahoo.com> |
All,
I want to tell my story so others can beware. I too bought in to the
marketing tactic and bought the harness from PS Engineering to preserve
my warranty. When I got the harness, I was disgusted with the
workmanship. There were none of the insulation crimps applied
properly. No mechanical support at all. The power wires were not as
specified in the documantation that came with the intercom (wrong AWG).
Several wires were stripped too far back. To PS Engineering's credit,
they offered to make it right. PS Engineering doesn't make the
harnesses in-house, they are farmed out to a "reputable" avionics shop.
It was an easy task to fix the problems, so I went ahead and fixed
them myself rather than spend the time and money to send the harness
back. For $250 you would expect to get a quality harness. I think it
is wrong for them to insist that your warranty is void if you make your
own harness. Is this legal?
Mike Salzman
LNCE Fairfield, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | PS Engineering Reply |
Dear Bob:
First, I want to thank you very much for you alerting to me to this bulletin
board. As I mentioned earlier, if I don't know about an issue (or issues in
this case) I can't do anything about it, and sometimes, I can't.
By reading over this bulletin board, I can see Bob that you do a wonderful
service for the pilots who are building their own aircraft, you should be,
and probably are often, commended for that.
Anyway, I had sent this to you earlier, but I thought I would post this on
the aeroelectric-list myself, so I don't have to bother you any more about
this.
So, this is in reply to your last email:
You wrote:
If one interprets these words literally, then are there warranty issues that
are affected by improper wiring? What kinds of errors in wiring would produce
a situation in your product that falls under misuse, abuse or neglect? How
does selling a black box sans harness open you up to any more risk than if
you sold it without a harness?
Response:
It's pretty hard to break our intercoms, but it can be done. One way is by
powering the wrong pins.
Here at PS Engineering, warranty is not only hardware, but it's the support
of the product once it's installed.
When we do get calls indicating the intercom isn't working correctly, you can
imagine the time spent in helping our customers. When we do get these calls,
after asking ask a few questions about the harness they have made, the vast
majority of problems are solved through manipulation of the harness.
Another very important point about our warranty, our Pro-Support program
really doesn't have any peers, in my opinion, in the industry. It is
described in detail in our warranty statement. For an example, if our
customer has a problem with our unit, (of course, using a PSE or PSE dealer's
harness), we would send out that same day, overnight with morning delivery
(at our cost) a replacement unit. This has been our policy for the last 8+
years. But if we had to do this for installations that we had no control over
the harness, well you can see how our Pro-Support program would quickly
become overwhelming in expense. And I am proud to say our Pro-Support program
is alive and well!
So, it's not just boxes we warrant, we support the system and the customer to
extremes.
You wrote:
If it is your corporate position that the intercom is sold to the OBAM
industry only as a complete kit with harness,
then it should be advertised as such with the total price of the product and
a list of customers to whom special
pricing applies clearly stated in the catalog.
Response:
The reason we don't sell our intercoms with harnesses is because as you know,
no two aircraft or pilots are the same. That's the beauty of our panel
mounted systems, they can install the headset jacks, music jacks, telephone
jacks where it is best for them. This is why you will find that there is a
wire harness worksheet button on each of product's web page. They are called
"Custom Wire Harness Worksheets."
The bait and switch comment, I take exception this statement. Please visit
our web site at www.ps-engineering.com. I ask you
to please download any item
you'd like. You will see in all of our literature, installation manuals, data
sheets, and warranty statements that we make a disclaimer to the effect "NO
WARRANTY UNLESS INSTALLED BY AN AUTHORIZED PS ENGINEERING DEALER." While
admittedly that doesn't specifically call out the details for homebuilders,
it should clearly get the message out that special consideration should be
made when it comes to the subject of warranty.
To accommodate the homebuilders, we started offering the harnesses as a
service in 1998. Now they can have access to our Pro-Support program too.
By the way Bob, since 1990, our fixed repair fee for our panel mount
intercoms is $29.95.
You wrote:
That every owner built and maintained aircraft customer who approaches PS
Engineering for information and possible purchase of products is
automatically considered substandard in terms of fabrication and installation
skills.
Response:
Gosh Bob, I don't know why you have taken our warranty policy and assumed we
would treat our customers with disrespect. :(=A0
If you were ever to give us a call and tell us you are thinking about
building your harness, we would not "automatically consider it
sub-standard...., " and treat you with disrespect. However, we would inform
you of our warranty policy. If at that time you elect not to purchase our
intercom, we would certainly respect your decision, there are a lot of other
alternatives. But in the long run, what ever that decision would be, it would
probably be the right one for both parties.
But to assume we treat our customers with disrespect is wrong. We know who
pays the bills at PS Engineering, and besides, we are very nice people!=A0 :)=A0
Further proof of this is that it is widely known that we are a great company
to do business with.
My closing statement is this, the vast majority of our business is with
certified aircraft, but we also want to provide our products to the
homebuilder. It has been my mission for the last 18+ years, to build the best
audio control systems possible and sell them at a reasonable price yet still
make enough profit to grow the business, thus giving us the opportunity to
develop new and innovative products. I take great pride that our audio
control products available to all types of aircraft owners, from homebuilt to
warbirds and everything in between.
I thought our warranty policy was clear and is well publicized. We offer our
harness building service to allow homebuilders the opportunity to purchase
our products through Trade A Plane and get our Pro-Support warranty.
Something that the big three BIG avionics manufacturers don't do.
I also will tell you that I certainly don't have all of the answers! I as
well as my team are always listening. In fact, that is how we have gotten
most of our ideas from, our customers! And I have taken your comments to
heart.
Thanks once again for the opportunity to respond.
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
Dear Ben:
You wrote:
=A0 No where in any of their literature does it say their stuff HAS to be
>installed by a approved shop to mantain warranty. Only after the sale does
>this come up. Here in Wyoming bait and switch is illegal, We don't call the
>BBB just the BB. BB bear bait..=A0=A0 I can assure ya, if mine is defective
>or does not work as advertised PS Engineering will wish they they never
heard
>of me. If word of mouth can sink a ship these guys better put on theit
>lifejackets. Ben Haas
Your state that "No where in any of their literature does it say their stuff
HAS to be installed by a approved shop to maintain warranty" is wrong.
ALL of our sales literature and installation manuals clearly states this.
Can you please supply me with any PS Engineering Sales Literature or
Installation Manual that does NOT state something to the effect "One year
Pro-Support warranty program when installed by authorized PS Engineering
dealer"?
You view all of our data sheets and manuals by visiting
www.ps-engineering.com
I am far from perfect, and if you have a piece of PS Engineering sales
literature that does not state this, well then I am in big big trouble, and
will make amends. But if you can't supply this document, I would appreciate
knowing that too.
Also, you mentioned that you paid $235 for the four place PM1000II harness,
our published price on that is part number 14103 and lists at $189. Let me
know if there was an error on your invoice, I can certainly look that up and
report back to you.
I look forward to hearing from you. Please believe me when I say that my
number one goal is to do everything in my power to have you as a satisfied
customer, not because of your threats, but because that's what we do.
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
Ben Hass indicated that I am a LIAR.
Fact is, I'm not.
The issue was whether I told Ben that he had to use shielded wire for the PTT
circuit. As per our drawing, and the answer is yes. I did not tell him he
needed to use shielded cable for the wire going to the PTT switch on the
yoke.
That would be impractical because the wire going to the yoke must be
flexible. Zeflel isn't. There is special curly cord that should be used
there.
I apologize for this confusion, it certainly wasn't my intent.
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
Dear Mike:
You wrote:
>When I got the harness, I was disgusted with the workmanship...
I am very sorry that you had a harness that was made poorly. I am glad to
hear that we offered to replace it, though, and wish you would have taken us
up on that, then you would have seen how we would have taken responsibility
for it. And there wouldn't have been any costs associated with the
replacement at all.
I am glad to hear that it was an easy task to fix the problems.
Even though we an outside shop build the harness, PS Engineering is
completely responsible for it's quality. No excuses here.
I will be performing a QIP on Monday to make sure that if we get an
opportunity to build another harness, that it will meet the quality that we
expect from our own employees.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DAVID REEL" <dreel(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | BundleDeratingFactor |
I'm having fun calculating the wire temperture rise using the methods of AC43-13
but don't know how to employ Figure 11-5 on page 11-31. For the right wing,
I'm planning one 14awg landing light, one 18awg position light, and one 3 conductor
18awg shielded strobe wire, all three to be laid loosely inside the 3/4"
plastic conduit Van sells. But I know a bundle derating factor of three can't
be right because the wires aren't bundled closely together, the shielded wire
actually bundles three wires, and the conduit restricts air circulation pretty
severely because it's about 10' long. Is there a way to estimate the effects
of these different factors, obtain an 'effective' number of wires in the bundle,
and use the published derating curves which I assume apply to individual
wires tie wrapped closely together in free air?
Dave Reel, dreel(at)cox.net, RV8A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Benford2(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 2/16/2003 6:01:51 AM Mountain Standard Time,
PSENGINE(at)aol.com writes:
>
>
> Also, you mentioned that you paid $235 for the four place PM1000II harness,
> our published price on that is part number 14103 and lists at $189. Let me
> know if there was an error on your invoice, I can certainly look that up
> and
> report back to you.
>
HI Mark, It is nice you have found this list that pertains to the people whom
you are selling products to. I would figure that after being in business as
long as you have you would monitor lists like this for product quality
control and user feedback. As for my situation. I did call ya and ask for a
wiring diagram. I would like you to tell us all why your product was the only
one of all my electronics I bought for my homebuilt that did NOT come with a
wiring diagram with the unit? As for your harness price here is what
transpired. I called and you told me to go to your web site, find the section
" harness worksheet". You were correct in that every plane is different and
this worksheet is generic. I am picky in how I do things and all my wires are
in rigid plastic tubing. There are two reasons for this. One , its for
chafing protection and the other is if I ever want to add to my plane
additional stuff all I need to do is pull more conductor through the chase.
Since I do this I have longer runs to areas in my fuselage then normal. I
needed 5 more feet on the L1 run, 6 more feet on the L2 run,2 more feet on
both the LP and LC run.
Your price for these additions were $3.00 a foot for wire that costs .30-.38
cents a foot wholesale. That adds up to way more then 189.00 for your BASIC
harness. You stated in an earlier post that that building harnesses was not
a money maker for ya. At 800% markup on wires I would love to hear your idea
of what a money maker is?
You are pretty good at spin control judging by your answers to my comments
but the question still remains.. If I wire the PS 1000 ll according to your
wiring drawings which were NOT included in the box your product came in do I
have a warranty of your intercom????? That all said I do have to admit if
the PS 1000 ll works as advertised I will be VERY pleased and you do have a
great website. Here is the link for all the readers of this post to see the
harness worksheet.
http://www.ps-engineering.com/psengine/pdf/Harness/11922har.pdf.
Ben Haas. N801BH.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
| Subject: | Re: Z-14 Revision - Crossfeed Switch |
Bob:
Other folks may be interested in this, so I'm passing it to the AeroElectric
forum.
> (Re the crossfeed warning light): You are pulling the lower coil terminal
> of the crossfeed contactor to ground to energize the coil. You want a light
> to come on at the same time but don't want to run a wire
> all the way in from the upper (+) side of the contactor
> coil . . . you'd have to put a fuse in the line at the
> upper coil terminal.
>
> So, we use a handy source of (+) voltage right on the switch
> where it comes off the main bus for starter circuit.
>
On the new diagram of the switch, where would I install a resistor or resistors
to use a LED for the crossfeed warning?
I can add the LED option for the light as a callout on the corrected Z-14 (S700-
2-50) and send it back to you if you wish. Save some time!
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dawson, Bill" <Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic wiring (QuickShot) |
Well, here I go helping people to vois their warranty. There is a book
called Quick Shot. It is a avionics installation reference manual for most
intercoms, audiopanels, navcom, cam, ADF, GPS, HSI, Loran, Glideslope,
transponder, etc.
These are pinouts of connectors, not circuit drawings. Cost for binder and
pages is $60.
Quick Shot
Edmo Distributors Inc.
800 235-3300
OR
QS products
Lakeland Fl 33811
941 616-6187
http://home1.gte.net/qsprod
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Marking wires made easier |
Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking wires.
It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for 20 bucks.
(They make their money back on the refills).
In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This is easier
yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive backed. Print
your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on the clear heat shrink
and you're done. Very cool!
Read about it here: http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dawson, Bill" <Bill.Dawson(at)pepperdine.edu> |
Oops, had an outdated link. Here are some good ones.
http://www.qsproducts.com/
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/Aircraft/Books/QuickShot.html
http://qsproducts.com/how2get1.html
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead (model
PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the Dymo's
4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great idea!
-John R.
Sam Hoskins wrote:
>
> Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking wires.
It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for 20 bucks.
(They make their money back on the refills).
>
> In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This is easier
yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive backed. Print
your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on the clear heat
shrink and you're done. Very cool!
>
> Read about it here: http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Billie Lamb" <N254BL(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in Ocala,
Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive compared
to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the fonts
any way I please.
I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who owns
one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought of
paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the panel.
Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need and
once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling job
could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
Bill Lamb
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
<jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
> You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
> the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
> looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead (model
> PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the Dymo's
> 4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
> twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
> costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
> you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
>
> I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
> suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great idea!
>
> -John R.
>
>
> Sam Hoskins wrote:
> >
> > Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking
wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for 20
bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
> >
> > In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This
is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on the
clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
> >
> > Read about it here:
http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 02/16/2003 2:56:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<< I will suggest that our businesses will benefit
far more from concise but helpful explanation to
customers followed up with products of good
performance and value than from the exercise
of arbitrary and capricious "policy". Bob Nuckolls >>
And I will suggest that every company in our country (particularly the ones
serving the amateur built experimental aircraft community) ought to adopt
that as their mission statement, vision, SOP, or anything else that they want
to call it. It should be posted where the CEO can read it every day without
fail.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
Hmm... I don't know what that's a two-pack of, but I just checked
Staples on-line, and tapes are $7.55
<http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=462478&bcFlag=True&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=17&bcCatName=Office+Machines+Supplies&bcDeptId=1449&bcDeptName=Label+Maker+Tapes+and+Labels&bcClassId=140557&bcClassName=+Electronic+Label+Maker+Tapes>
Incidentally, I couldn't find it online for $19.99, maybe that's an
in-store deal only.
As for labeling your panel, that's an interesting idea... I'd go with
black on clear tape, laminated... and checking on the Brother line-up,
it appears you'd have to use either TZ, TX or TC tape - so the PT65
couldn't use it (the 65 only does M Metallic tape - see
<http://www.brother.com/usa/label/whattape/pt_whattape1.html#>)
I think the most economical way of getting the black (or white) on
clear, would be the PT1200, at $49 or so... Hm... I need to check out
those laminated tapes, that might be just the ticket... (but I'd have to
get another labeler apparently) But, that might be better for wiring
too, wouldn't need to put the clear heat-shrink on top... and if you
want to change a label, you could cut off the old label, and make new
ones if necessary (hopefully not)
-John R.
Billie Lamb wrote:
>
> The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in Ocala,
> Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive compared
> to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the fonts
> any way I please.
> I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who owns
> one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
> breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought of
> paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the panel.
> Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need and
> once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling job
> could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
>
> Bill Lamb
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
>
>
>
> <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
>>You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
>>the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
>>looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead (model
>>PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the Dymo's
>>4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
>>twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
>>costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
>>you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
>>
>>I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
>>suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great idea!
>>
>>-John R.
>>
>>
>>Sam Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>>>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking
>>
> wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for 20
> bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
>
>>>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This
>>
> is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
> backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on the
> clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
>
>>>Read about it here:
>>
> http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
Try this:
http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/PromotionalBundle.asp?Bundle_Id=436156
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
<jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
> Hmm... I don't know what that's a two-pack of, but I just checked
> Staples on-line, and tapes are $7.55
>
<http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=462478&bcFlagTrue&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=17&bcCatName=Office+Machines+S
upplies&bcDeptId=1449&bcDeptName=Label+Maker+Tapes+and+Labels&bcClassId=1405
57&bcClassName=+Electronic+Label+Maker+Tapes>
>
> Incidentally, I couldn't find it online for $19.99, maybe that's an
> in-store deal only.
>
> As for labeling your panel, that's an interesting idea... I'd go with
> black on clear tape, laminated... and checking on the Brother line-up,
> it appears you'd have to use either TZ, TX or TC tape - so the PT65
> couldn't use it (the 65 only does M Metallic tape - see
> <http://www.brother.com/usa/label/whattape/pt_whattape1.html#>)
>
> I think the most economical way of getting the black (or white) on
> clear, would be the PT1200, at $49 or so... Hm... I need to check out
> those laminated tapes, that might be just the ticket... (but I'd have to
> get another labeler apparently) But, that might be better for wiring
> too, wouldn't need to put the clear heat-shrink on top... and if you
> want to change a label, you could cut off the old label, and make new
> ones if necessary (hopefully not)
>
> -John R.
>
>
> Billie Lamb wrote:
> >
> > The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in
Ocala,
> > Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive
compared
> > to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the
fonts
> > any way I please.
> > I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who
owns
> > one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
> > breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought of
> > paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the panel.
> > Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need
and
> > once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling job
> > could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
> >
> > Bill Lamb
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> >
> >>You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
> >>the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
> >>looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead (model
> >>PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the Dymo's
> >>4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
> >>twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
> >>costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
> >>you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
> >>
> >>I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
> >>suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great idea!
> >>
> >>-John R.
> >>
> >>
> >>Sam Hoskins wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for
marking
> >>
> > wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart
for 20
> > bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
> >
> >>>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This
> >>
> > is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
> > backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on
the
> > clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
> >
> >>>Read about it here:
> >>
> > http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Aronson <aronsond(at)pacbell.net> |
Listers:
I purchased, harnesses and installed a PMA4000. It is a great device.
I will talk with them, in the event that it breaks, and see about
repairs, probably long after the warrantee anyway.
Dave Aronson
Thanks Bob for all your kind help!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Dawson, Bill
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mic wiring
I won't be buying one from them again.
>
>Bill
> Sorry to hear that. I've forwarded a copy of your
> note to PS Engineering.
>Bob . . .
Don't be sorry. I don't support companies that don't support me. Too
bad
too, because I like their equipment.
Bill
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Marking wires made easier |
If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
highly recommend it. I bought one of these unit last weekend when I was
pulling the 3000+ feet of wire in my "cabin class" (LOL) Lancair Legacy,
and I found it incredible useful. Stupid me left the 500+ dollar
borrowed KROY labeler at home in Kentucky while I went to Vegas to work
on wiring, so the big 40 dollar Dyna from Wal-mart was a lifesaver. It
took me 2 tapes (13' each) to wire up almost everything and label it on
both ends. The 2 line type worked out well. I initially tried wrapping
the wires length-ways with the labels, but settled on crossways sticking
the label back upon it self. This worked well. I'll post a link when I
get the pictures up.
My plane honestly does have over 3000' of wire in it, and with a little
pre-planning, conduits in place for most of the wires, and the labeler,
I was able to do about 75% of the wiring in 3 days. My panel has 5
37-pin AMP black plugs that I had to wire, 2 28 pin plugs to the
firewall for engine sensors, 2 4 pin plugs to the voltage regulators,
and 1 16 pin to the power grid on the firewall. Advance planning and
the labeler to keep my sanity helped a lot.
Also, the tools that Bob sells through B&C work great also. I used them
all to do things from the AMP male and female pins (both blue and yellow
size), MOLEX style pins, D-sub pins for the DB9's and high density AMPS,
to RG400 coax. Worked great. With the 4 or 5 sets of tools on his
site, there was nothing I couldn't terminate.
Bob, any hints on extracting those AMP pins? What about a good tool for
doing it? Lancair sent me the wrong tool, and the one I scrounged up,
although it looked great and was the right tool, still left me wondering
how I got each and every one out when it actually came out. I never
developed a method to getting them out, which was very frustrating.
Luckily, I only made the mistake of forgetting the plug cover and
heatshrink on the first 16 pin plug I did at the wing roots, so I only
had 16 to remove. Boy, I had a lot of trouble though, and never figured
out how I got any of them out. Any hints? Tool?
Thanks,
Shannon Knoepflein
Lancair Legacy
kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Rourke
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
<jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Hmm... I don't know what that's a two-pack of, but I just checked
Staples on-line, and tapes are $7.55
<http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=462478&bcF
lag=True&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=17&bcCatName=Office+Ma
chines+Supplies&bcDeptId=1449&bcDeptName=Label+Maker+Tapes+and+Labels&bc
ClassId=140557&bcClassName=+Electronic+Label+Maker+Tapes>
Incidentally, I couldn't find it online for $19.99, maybe that's an
in-store deal only.
As for labeling your panel, that's an interesting idea... I'd go with
black on clear tape, laminated... and checking on the Brother line-up,
it appears you'd have to use either TZ, TX or TC tape - so the PT65
couldn't use it (the 65 only does M Metallic tape - see
<http://www.brother.com/usa/label/whattape/pt_whattape1.html#>)
I think the most economical way of getting the black (or white) on
clear, would be the PT1200, at $49 or so... Hm... I need to check out
those laminated tapes, that might be just the ticket... (but I'd have to
get another labeler apparently) But, that might be better for wiring
too, wouldn't need to put the clear heat-shrink on top... and if you
want to change a label, you could cut off the old label, and make new
ones if necessary (hopefully not)
-John R.
Billie Lamb wrote:
>
> The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in
Ocala,
> Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive
compared
> to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the
fonts
> any way I please.
> I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who
owns
> one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
> breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought
of
> paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the
panel.
> Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need
and
> once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling
job
> could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
>
> Bill Lamb
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
>
>
>
> <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
>>You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
>>the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
>>looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead
(model
>>PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the
Dymo's
>>4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
>>twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
>>costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
>>you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
>>
>>I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
>>suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great
idea!
>>
>>-John R.
>>
>>
>>Sam Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>>>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for
marking
>>
> wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart
for 20
> bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
>
>>>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings.
This
>>
> is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are
adhesive
> backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip
on the
> clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
>
>>>Read about it here:
>>
> http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Bob, others,
Does anyone know the spec of attenuation in dB per foot for RG400 coax?
My Ryan TCAD systems wants to have 3dB of attenuation +/-0.5dB, so I
have to cut the coax to length accordingly. Currently, my coaxes are
about 12' long, but I cut them before I knew this. Anyone?
Shannon Knoepflein
Lancair Legacy
kycshann(at)kyol.net www.lancaironline.net/pix/shannon/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | What I did for lables |
I just printed out a whole page of lables, even some with a 2nd line. Then
put the cutout in a piece of shrink wrap tube.
Solves two problems: holds the wire rigid and you can describe even where
the wire will go.
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
highly recommend it. I bought one of these unit last weekend when I was
pulling the 3000+ feet of wire in my "cabin class" (LOL) Lancair Legacy,
and I found it incredible useful. Stupid me left the 500+ dollar
borrowed KROY labeler at home in Kentucky while I went to Vegas to work
on wiring, so the big 40 dollar Dyna from Wal-mart was a lifesaver. It
took me 2 tapes (13' each) to wire up almost everything and label it on
both ends. The 2 line type worked out well. I initially tried wrapping
the wires length-ways with the labels, but settled on crossways sticking
the label back upon it self. This worked well. I'll post a link when I
get the pictures up.
My plane honestly does have over 3000' of wire in it, and with a little
pre-planning, conduits in place for most of the wires, and the labeler,
I was able to do about 75% of the wiring in 3 days. My panel has 5
37-pin AMP black plugs that I had to wire, 2 28 pin plugs to the
firewall for engine sensors, 2 4 pin plugs to the voltage regulators,
and 1 16 pin to the power grid on the firewall. Advance planning and
the labeler to keep my sanity helped a lot.
Also, the tools that Bob sells through B&C work great also. I used them
all to do things from the AMP male and female pins (both blue and yellow
size), MOLEX style pins, D-sub pins for the DB9's and high density AMPS,
to RG400 coax. Worked great. With the 4 or 5 sets of tools on his
site, there was nothing I couldn't terminate.
Bob, any hints on extracting those AMP pins? What about a good tool for
doing it? Lancair sent me the wrong tool, and the one I scrounged up,
although it looked great and was the right tool, still left me wondering
how I got each and every one out when it actually came out. I never
developed a method to getting them out, which was very frustrating.
Luckily, I only made the mistake of forgetting the plug cover and
heatshrink on the first 16 pin plug I did at the wing roots, so I only
had 16 to remove. Boy, I had a lot of trouble though, and never figured
out how I got any of them out. Any hints? Tool?
Thanks,
Shannon Knoepflein
Lancair Legacy
kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Rourke
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
<jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Hmm... I don't know what that's a two-pack of, but I just checked
Staples on-line, and tapes are $7.55
<http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=462478&bcF
lag=True&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=17&bcCatName=Office+Ma
chines+Supplies&bcDeptId=1449&bcDeptName=Label+Maker+Tapes+and+Labels&bc
ClassId=140557&bcClassName=+Electronic+Label+Maker+Tapes>
Incidentally, I couldn't find it online for $19.99, maybe that's an
in-store deal only.
As for labeling your panel, that's an interesting idea... I'd go with
black on clear tape, laminated... and checking on the Brother line-up,
it appears you'd have to use either TZ, TX or TC tape - so the PT65
couldn't use it (the 65 only does M Metallic tape - see
<http://www.brother.com/usa/label/whattape/pt_whattape1.html#>)
I think the most economical way of getting the black (or white) on
clear, would be the PT1200, at $49 or so... Hm... I need to check out
those laminated tapes, that might be just the ticket... (but I'd have to
get another labeler apparently) But, that might be better for wiring
too, wouldn't need to put the clear heat-shrink on top... and if you
want to change a label, you could cut off the old label, and make new
ones if necessary (hopefully not)
-John R.
Billie Lamb wrote:
>
> The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in
Ocala,
> Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive
compared
> to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the
fonts
> any way I please.
> I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who
owns
> one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
> breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought
of
> paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the
panel.
> Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need
and
> once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling
job
> could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
>
> Bill Lamb
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
>
> <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
>>You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
>>the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
>>looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead
(model
>>PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the
Dymo's
>>4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
>>twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
>>costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
>>you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
>>
>>I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
>>suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great
idea!
>>
>>-John R.
>>
>>
>>Sam Hoskins wrote:
>>
>>
>
>
>>>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for
marking
>>
> wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart
for 20
> bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
>
>>>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings.
This
>>
> is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are
adhesive
> backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip
on the
> clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
>
>>>Read about it here:
>>
> http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
>If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
>highly recommend it.
Shannon -
The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy a DYMO
model labeler?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Wiegand" <dwiegand(at)surewest.net> |
Shannon,
here is a link to a chart that I found while searching
on "rg400 line loss"
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~samsvl/cabloss.htm
hope it helps
Dean Wiegand
Sacramento CA USA
dwiegand(at)surewest.net
kit A259
www.dwiegand.dnsalias.com/europa/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG400
Knoepflein"
Bob, others,
Does anyone know the spec of attenuation in dB per foot
for RG400 coax?
My Ryan TCAD systems wants to have 3dB of attenuation
+/-0.5dB, so I
have to cut the coax to length accordingly. Currently,
my coaxes are
about 12' long, but I cut them before I knew this.
Anyone?
Shannon Knoepflein
Lancair Legacy
kycshann(at)kyol.net www.lancaironline.net/pix/shannon/
=================
Contributions
any other
=================
messages.
members.
=================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-li
st
http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "kc" <samdacat(at)elp.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
Web sites shows a $10.00 instant rebate which gets you to the $19.99
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
<jrourke@allied-computer.com>
>
> Hmm... I don't know what that's a two-pack of, but I just checked
> Staples on-line, and tapes are $7.55
>
<http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=462478&bcFlagTrue&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=17&bcCatName=Office+Machines+S
upplies&bcDeptId=1449&bcDeptName=Label+Maker+Tapes+and+Labels&bcClassId=1405
57&bcClassName=+Electronic+Label+Maker+Tapes>
>
> Incidentally, I couldn't find it online for $19.99, maybe that's an
> in-store deal only.
>
> As for labeling your panel, that's an interesting idea... I'd go with
> black on clear tape, laminated... and checking on the Brother line-up,
> it appears you'd have to use either TZ, TX or TC tape - so the PT65
> couldn't use it (the 65 only does M Metallic tape - see
> <http://www.brother.com/usa/label/whattape/pt_whattape1.html#>)
>
> I think the most economical way of getting the black (or white) on
> clear, would be the PT1200, at $49 or so... Hm... I need to check out
> those laminated tapes, that might be just the ticket... (but I'd have to
> get another labeler apparently) But, that might be better for wiring
> too, wouldn't need to put the clear heat-shrink on top... and if you
> want to change a label, you could cut off the old label, and make new
> ones if necessary (hopefully not)
>
> -John R.
>
>
> Billie Lamb wrote:
> >
> > The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in
Ocala,
> > Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive
compared
> > to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the
fonts
> > any way I please.
> > I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who
owns
> > one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
> > breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought of
> > paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the panel.
> > Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need
and
> > once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling job
> > could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
> >
> > Bill Lamb
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> >
> >>You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
> >>the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
> >>looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead (model
> >>PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the Dymo's
> >>4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
> >>twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
> >>costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
> >>you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
> >>
> >>I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
> >>suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great idea!
> >>
> >>-John R.
> >>
> >>
> >>Sam Hoskins wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for
marking
> >>
> > wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart
for 20
> > bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
> >
> >>>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This
> >>
> > is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
> > backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on
the
> > clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
> >
> >>>Read about it here:
> >>
> > http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Mounting Hardware for Panel Units |
Good Afternoon All,
Somewhere I saw an ad for a fastening system to be used to mount the radio
sleeves in a radio stack.=A0 It replaces the angles on the side that are
commonly used and provides for unlimited adjustments of the individual
boxes.=A0 It consists of a more or less box shaped aluminum U channel with
sliding nuts.
I can't find the reference anywhere.=A0 Do any of you remember seeing it?
I sure would like to locate it again!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
FWIW, I saw the DYMO LETRA at Wal-Mart this afternoon for $19.99. It comes
with one tape cartridge. Don't forget eBay when buying replacements.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "kc" <samdacat(at)elp.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
> Web sites shows a $10.00 instant rebate which gets you to the $19.99
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
>
> <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> >
> > Hmm... I don't know what that's a two-pack of, but I just checked
> > Staples on-line, and tapes are $7.55
> >
>
<http://www.staples.com/Catalog/Browse/sku.asp?PageType=1&Sku=462478&bcFlagT
rue&bcSCatId=3&bcSCatName=Technology&bcCatId=17&bcCatName=Office+Machines+S
>
upplies&bcDeptId=1449&bcDeptName=Label+Maker+Tapes+and+Labels&bcClassId=1405
> 57&bcClassName=+Electronic+Label+Maker+Tapes>
> >
> > Incidentally, I couldn't find it online for $19.99, maybe that's an
> > in-store deal only.
> >
> > As for labeling your panel, that's an interesting idea... I'd go with
> > black on clear tape, laminated... and checking on the Brother line-up,
> > it appears you'd have to use either TZ, TX or TC tape - so the PT65
> > couldn't use it (the 65 only does M Metallic tape - see
> > <http://www.brother.com/usa/label/whattape/pt_whattape1.html#>)
> >
> > I think the most economical way of getting the black (or white) on
> > clear, would be the PT1200, at $49 or so... Hm... I need to check out
> > those laminated tapes, that might be just the ticket... (but I'd have to
> > get another labeler apparently) But, that might be better for wiring
> > too, wouldn't need to put the clear heat-shrink on top... and if you
> > want to change a label, you could cut off the old label, and make new
> > ones if necessary (hopefully not)
> >
> > -John R.
> >
> >
> > Billie Lamb wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The Brother PT65 is on sale for 19.95 for this week (Staples ad in
> Ocala,
> > > Fl) but a two pack of their tape is 31.95. Sounds a bit expensive
> compared
> > > to the file labels I have for my printer which I can use to taylor the
> fonts
> > > any way I please.
> > > I'm sure the labelmaker has other advantages though. Does anyone, who
> owns
> > > one, know if any of the tapes look nice enough to label my switches,
> > > breakers, and lights on my sub-panel. I really don't like the thought
of
> > > paying mega bucks for professional labeling of everything on the
panel.
> > > Those ready made peel off sheets don't always have just what you need
> and
> > > once stuck down are pretty much there to stay. If the whole labeling
job
> > > could be done in one strip it would all line up much nicer.
> > >
> > > Bill Lamb
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "John Rourke" <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
> > >
> > >>You're right, I'll bet they lose money on the unit, but make it up on
> > >>the cartridges... but after I bought one of those Dymos at Target, I
> > >>looked more closely, and returned it and got the Brother instead
(model
> > >>PT65) - the Brother has 5 type sizes and 8 fonts (instead of the
Dymo's
> > >>4 and 2), but the main thing is, for the same price ($8) the tapes are
> > >>twice as long (26') as the Dymo (13') (casio too I think). The PT65
> > >>costs $10 more, but you make that up on the next two rolls... and once
> > >>you get one, you start finding all kinds of uses for it!
> > >>
> > >>I forget who mentioned this first, but it was one of these lists that
> > >>suggested these things for labeling wires a few months ago - great
idea!
> > >>
> > >>-John R.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Sam Hoskins wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >>>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for
> marking
> > >>
> > > wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart
> for 20
> > > bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
> > >
> > >>>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings.
This
> > >>
> > > is easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are
adhesive
> > > backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip
on
> the
> > > clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
> > >
> > >>>Read about it here:
> > >>
> > > http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | Marking wires made easier |
I bought the big Dymo or Dyna or whatever. It was 39.99, and has a big
keyboard, and will take the clear tapes if you desire. I used white
tape with black letters, which is what is included with it. The heat
shrink idea will work fine, but this is faster IMHO.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
>highly recommend it.
Shannon -
The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy
a DYMO
model labeler?
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Oh, to add to that, I need the loss at 1.0 GHz, as that is the frequency
the TCAD operates on.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dean
Wiegand
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RG400
Shannon,
here is a link to a chart that I found while searching
on "rg400 line loss"
http://home-2.worldonline.nl/~samsvl/cabloss.htm
hope it helps
Dean Wiegand
Sacramento CA USA
dwiegand(at)surewest.net
kit A259
www.dwiegand.dnsalias.com/europa/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RG400
Knoepflein"
Bob, others,
Does anyone know the spec of attenuation in dB per foot
for RG400 coax?
My Ryan TCAD systems wants to have 3dB of attenuation
+/-0.5dB, so I
have to cut the coax to length accordingly. Currently,
my coaxes are
about 12' long, but I cut them before I knew this.
Anyone?
Shannon Knoepflein
Lancair Legacy
kycshann(at)kyol.net www.lancaironline.net/pix/shannon/
=================
Contributions
any other
=================
messages.
members.
=================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-li
st
http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
Yeah... on third look, I see that the PT65 I mentioned (which is also
19.99, at Staples - thanks to all who pointed that out - I can get a
price match of $10 for the one I got recently!), can't do the laminated
tape, only paper - so the Dymo may be the better deal, except for the
cost of tape... I guess I'll probably get another Brother (PT1200) that
can do laminated labels (or even the PT2300, for $30 more can do 6 lines
and hook up to the PC), if I use it for panel labels...
Thanks,
-John
Sam Hoskins wrote:
>
> FWIW, I saw the DYMO LETRA at Wal-Mart this afternoon for $19.99. It comes
> with one tape cartridge. Don't forget eBay when buying replacements.
>
> Sam
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | udated version of Z-14 . . . |
If you're a CAD user and want a Revision J drawing file,
hit here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z14j.dwg
If you'd like a .pdf copy of the drawing, hit here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z14j.pdf
Thanks to John Schroeder for prompting this effort.
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Bob, others,
>
>Does anyone know the spec of attenuation in dB per foot for RG400 coax?
>My Ryan TCAD systems wants to have 3dB of attenuation +/-0.5dB, so I
>have to cut the coax to length accordingly. Currently, my coaxes are
>about 12' long, but I cut them before I knew this. Anyone?
RG-400 and RG-142 are same attenuation which runs 20db/100ft
at transponder frequencies. See
http://216.55.140.222/temp/coaxloss.pdf
This says that you need 15 ft pieces.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dean Wiegand" <dwiegand(at)surewest.net> |
| Subject: | Mounting Hardware for Panel Units |
If radiorax is the system you are thinking of, Aircraft
Spruce carries it:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/radiorax.
php
Dean Wiegand
Sacramento CA USA
dwiegand(at)surewest.net
kit A259
www.dwiegand.dnsalias.com/europa/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On
Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mounting Hardware for Panel
Units
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Afternoon All,
Somewhere I saw an ad for a fastening system to be used
to mount the radio
sleeves in a radio stack.=A0 It replaces the angles on
the side that are
commonly used and provides for unlimited adjustments of
the individual
boxes.=A0 It consists of a more or less box shaped
aluminum U channel with
sliding nuts.
I can't find the reference anywhere.=A0 Do any of you
remember seeing it?
I sure would like to locate it again!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
=================
Contributions
any other
=================
messages.
members.
=================
http://www.matronics.com/subscription
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-li
st
http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
>
>
>Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking
>wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for
>20 bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
. . . got one of these. Use a lot around the shop. Really
nice . . . but know that the label tape is THERMALLY activated.
You can't put these labels under clear heatshrink 'cause it turns
the totally black . . . and they're insufficiently rugged to
stand alone for labeling wires in the airplane.
>In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This is
>easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
>backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on
>the clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
>
>Read about it here:
>http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Mounting Hardware for Panel Units |
In a message dated 2/16/03 4:12:41 PM Central Standard Time,
dwiegand(at)surewest.net writes:
> If radiorax is the system you are thinking of, Aircraft
> Spruce carries it:
>
That's it!
Thanks a bunch.
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
Yikes! I hit some of the DYMO tape with my heat gun and sure enough - it
turned black!
However, I successfully shrank some clear tube on a label wrapped around a
piece of 14AWG and it didn't change a bit. Apparently, I heated it enough
to shrink the tube, but not change the tape. Looks definitely to be
unsuitable for the engine compartment.
So, I wonder how much heat can the stuff take? Will it turn black on a hot
day on the ramp? Durn it all!
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
> >
> >
> >Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking
> >wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for
> >20 bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
>
> . . . got one of these. Use a lot around the shop. Really
> nice . . . but know that the label tape is THERMALLY activated.
> You can't put these labels under clear heatshrink 'cause it turns
> the totally black . . . and they're insufficiently rugged to
> stand alone for labeling wires in the airplane.
>
>
> >In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This
is
> >easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
> >backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on
> >the clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
> >
> >Read about it here:
> >http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Van's ammeter & E-Bus |
Listers,
For those using Van's -0+ ammeter AND Bob's e-bus my recent experience
may be of interest.
I designed my architecture around the Z-11 schematic with a few minor
changes. One change was to insert an ammeter shunt between the battery
contactor and the main bus. To include the current charging the battery,
it was necessary to route the alternator output to the main bus side of
the ammeter shunt.
Van's ammeter (as well as Van's other engine instruments) contains some
unknown internal circuitry that require power. Because I would like to
have the benefit of the engine instruments in the event of alternator
loss, I powered all the engine instruments from the e-buss. The only
instrument that seemed to misbehave was the ammeter. It registered
absurdly high discharge currents that were not confirmed by an external
ammeter. It also fluctuated wildly especially when turning on the boost
pump.
I rationallized that the voltage drop across the diode that isolates the
e-bus from the main bus might be the cause; the voltage powering the
ammeter and the voltage on the shunt (since they differed by diode drop)
could be interacting.
I did the experiment: power the ammeter from the main bus. Problem
solved. The only downside is that when operating on the e-bus with the
master switch off, the ammeter is disabled.
Regards,
Richard Dudley
-6A FWF
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
I have used a Casio K7000 with black tape and silver lettering. I find it
easy to use with the clear shrink tubing and easy to read. My problem with
the laser printer idea is that I don't have a laser printer in my hanger,
and it is MUCH easier to produce labels on site, rather than trying to scope
it all out in advance, and then make the wires fit the labels, rather than
making the labels fit the wires.
LRE FEW P51 Mustang
Firewall Forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Marking wires made easier |
I bought a Kroy TM600 shrink tube label machine on ebay for $80. It
prints directly on heat shrink tube. The tube comes in cartridges of
100" and costs 30 bucks or so.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Hoskins
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
Yikes! I hit some of the DYMO tape with my heat gun and sure enough -
it
turned black!
However, I successfully shrank some clear tube on a label wrapped around
a
piece of 14AWG and it didn't change a bit. Apparently, I heated it
enough
to shrink the tube, but not change the tape. Looks definitely to be
unsuitable for the engine compartment.
So, I wonder how much heat can the stuff take? Will it turn black on a
hot
day on the ramp? Durn it all!
Sam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> |
I would like to wire my plane so that either mono or stereo headsets can
be used. What plug/jack is used for stereo? I'me gessing its a
tip-ring-sleeve version of the same diameter jack as the mono. Do you
have to put in both jacks or what?
Jim Bean
building RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com> |
Hi Bob,
I found out today that connecting the PTT wires at the AP/intercom is not
practical. Physically it has been a challenge to solder the 25 conductors
and their associated shields to the units connector. Holding the three
conductors and the shield, with minimal protrusion from the cable end, in
position to the pins is tough enough without trying to add the PTT
conductors. I will make the connections at the jacks.
Don
> From: Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:05:45 -0500
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PTT Wiring
>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> 1. My analysis concludes that the PTT switch takes the mic plug tip to
> ground. In the wiring diagram for my PMA 4000 Audio Panel/Intercom (great
> response to Mark Scheuer PS Engineering) it shows the PTT switch wire
> connections at the mic jacks. Is there any reason the connections can't be
> made at the other end of the shielded conductors .. at the intercom end? It
> seems to me this would be a more convenient place to connect the PTT switch
> leads.
>
>
> 2. My NavAid auto pilot recommends using a diode in series with the PTT
> line from the com radio together with a wire connected from the PTT switch
> to a pin on the unit. The connection grounds the pin when the PTT switch is
> closed. This kills the signal to the servo while the PTT switch is
> depressed. This prevents the servo from jumping around due to the presence
> of high level RFI on the power lines. The servo stays engaged during the
> voice transmission, but does not move until normal operation is restored by
> releasing the mike button.
>
> My question is basically a repeat of #1: Can this connection be made at the
> intercom end of the wire on the hi side of the PTT.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Regards,
> Don Boardman
> & Partner, Randy Bowers
> AeroElectric wired.
> Super Moose #130 M-14PF 400HP, MT-prop, Aerocet 3500 amphibs, Rome, NY
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Triano <rondefly(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Marking wires made easier |
I do use a lazer printer for my lables but when I think about it why not
also a bubble jet, after you shrink the clear tubing to it I can't see
how any moisture would get to it to ruin the lable. I have had no
problem with the 20# media turing black from the heat.
Ron Triano
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LRE2(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
I have used a Casio K7000 with black tape and silver lettering. I find
it
easy to use with the clear shrink tubing and easy to read. My problem
with
the laser printer idea is that I don't have a laser printer in my
hanger,
and it is MUCH easier to produce labels on site, rather than trying to
scope
it all out in advance, and then make the wires fit the labels, rather
than
making the labels fit the wires.
LRE FEW P51 Mustang
Firewall Forward
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
Another problem with the plastic sticky tape marking systems is that the
sticky side is not adequate to stay put over the long term-even to stick to
itself. Clear heat shrink is needed over it. I have used the Brother brand
tapes on wire marking and have found this to be the case.
What we really need is to only have just four wires to worry about. All
black boxes, panel items of any kind, servos, remote enunciators, etc., etc.,
all need to just have a power in feed, a ground wire and a pair of data bus
wires. The data "LAN' connection would be a universal format that all items
could talk on together. OK, OK, we could go for two more pairs for back up
buses, common to all on the LAN for redundancy in case of bus communication
failures. Is there a "plug and play" cockpit in our near future? I think
so!
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback, (out back in the garage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins(at)Globaleyes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
This calls for an experiment! I took my DYMO tape sample, with the heat
shrink over it, and put it in the oven, with an accurate lab thermometer.
Up to 175 degrees nothing at all seemed to happen. Then I cranked it up to
200 degrees and left it for an hour. The white tape turned a shade gray,
but is totally readable. Based on this I guess I'm going to go ahead and
use it.
Sam
> >Hello all, I just wanted to pass along a nifty tool I found for marking
> >wires. It's called the DYMO LETRA. You can pick them up at Wal-Mart for
> >20 bucks. (They make their money back on the refills).
>
> . . . got one of these. Use a lot around the shop. Really
> nice . . . but know that the label tape is THERMALLY activated.
> You can't put these labels under clear heatshrink 'cause it turns
> the totally black . . . and they're insufficiently rugged to
> stand alone for labeling wires in the airplane.
>
>
> >In the AEC book, Bob suggests using a laser printer for markings. This
is
> >easier yet. It prints a pretty small font and the tapes are adhesive
> >backed. Print your label, trim it to fit the wire, stick it on, slip on
> >the clear heat shrink and you're done. Very cool!
> >
> >Read about it here:
> >http://www.aarp.org/computers-gadgets/Articles/a2002-06-20-dymo
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PeterHunt1(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Electric DG with heading bug |
Can anyone direct me to an ELECTRIC (not vacuum) DG with a "Heading Bug" to
interface with my System 30 autopilot?
Thanks in advance.
Pete Hunt
Clearwater, FL
RV-6, Instrument panel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: parallel resistor for LED used with LR-3? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Bob, ok just let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly....a few
months back you posted a sketch on your website showing the use of an LED
with the LR-3. It was located at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/LED_Dimming2.gif
I think it's been removed because the link doesn't work now. Anyway, in
that sketch you show a 470 ohm resistor in series with the LED, and then
another 470 ohm resistor connected across BOTH the the series
resistor/LED combo. In your previous response to my question (see below
from last week) you specify that the parallel resistor be only across the
LED, not across both the LED and series resistor. Is that your preferred
way of doing it now instead of using the Dimming2.gif schematic you
posted a while back?
Thanks for the clarification,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D firewall forward...trying to squash this gnat so I can finish
up my panel lighting/dimming schematic....
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: parallel resistor for LED used with
LR-3?
>
>Bob,
>
>I found in the archives a reference where you recommended a 220 ohm
>resistor to be used in parallel with an LED when used to replace the
>incandescent bulb in the LR-3 Low voltage warning circuit. Then I also
>have a sketch you posted for someone not too long ago showing the same
>thing only in this case you recommend a 470 ohm resistor for the
parallel
>resistor.
470 ohm series resistance will give you about 21
mA of lamp current. 220 raises it to 45 mA. The
high intensity red lamps I use really get your attention
at 45 mA!
>Is it 220, 470, or does it matter? I don't know how much current the
LR-3
>sinks in the OFF state so I'm not sure how to calculate what it should
be.
The LR-3 pulls down at about 2 mA in the off state.
Putting a 220 ohm resistor across the LED and then
a 220-470 ohm resistor in series with the lamp/led
combo will get it lit up in good shape. You need the
220 across the lamp to keep it dark while off-state
leakage is present.
>For what it's worth, Greg Toman suggests a 1K resistor to be used with
his
>engine monitor warning light if replaced with an LED, but his circuit
may
>not sink the same amount of current as the LR-3....so maybe that's a
moot
>point.
This would give you about 10 mA on most lamps. This
will get you quite a bit of light too . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Logan" <Rob(at)logan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Mic Wiring [PS Eng is ok] |
I liked the http://www.ps-engineering.com/pma4000.shtml in my Tiger
http://rob.com/rob/530/mypanel2.jpg
http://www.rob.com/rob/530/
so much, I put one in the Legacy too
http://rob.com/lancair/2003.02/10maps.jpg
A trick I learned in the Tiger, and is more important
in the MUCH louder Legacy is to unplug the unused
head sets.. The mic bouncing on seat is enough to
open the IntelliVox squelch. Also, in the Legacy once
you plug the headset back in, it will take 1 min for the
squelch to find home...
I don't know of higher quality, simple AP on the market
than the pma4000.
---
Utopian Maturity: Eternity, Liberty, Equality and now Fraternity & Altruism.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
If your looking for a really great way to mark your wires, try
www.grafoplast.com . It's a little expensive but it's very professional
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Logan" <Rob(at)logan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
While its cool to be able write on shrink wrap tube, I can never
remember to put the tube on before the connector.
http://www.labelpal.com/k2500.html a Cleveland, Ohio company, has
http://www.labelpal.com/duraLabel_wirewraps.htm that work
well for me.
http://www.action-electronics.com/ampcpc.htm is the tool
for extracting pins from Lancair supplied AMP connectors.
---
Utopian Maturity: Eternity, Liberty, Equality and now Fraternity & Altruism.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Marking wires made easier |
> While its cool to be able write on shrink wrap tube, I can never
> remember to put the tube on before the connector.
Thank you, Rob. I thought it was just me. I've wasted quite a few connectors
that way too.
John Slade
Cozy IV
________________________________________________________________________________
PS Engineering does manufacture for others, and definitely makes the UPS
SL-10. The UPS warranty on the unit specifically states that "If the unit
is being installed by a non-certified individual in an experimental
aircraft, a factory-made harness must be used for the warranty to be valid.
This harness may be purchased directly from PS Engineering...."
Garmin makes no mention in their warranty of either requiring a factory made
harness or that the GMA-340 is manufactured by others. The only warranty
restriction mentioned on the Garmin Web site concerns units purchased
through on-line auctions - and that restriction applies only to verification
of the purchase for which they will require an original sales receipt,
presumably from original sale to the auction seller .
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic wiring
>
>
>Bob -
>
>I was told by an avionics supplier that PS Engineering makes the
>audio/intercomm
>boxes for Garmin and UPS. The rationale is that they couldn't do it any
>better
>or cheaper. Is this true?
Probably . . . a company that does a high volume of audio
specialty components can probably do a better job for less
money that one that butters their bread with high-dollar,
lower volume nav or communications equipment.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
Good Morning All,
Considering the amount of discussion on this site concerning the merits of
the PS Engineering offerings, I wonder if there is any information available
about the units made by Northern Airborne Technology, Ltd.
They are advertising a panel mounted combination audio selector panel and
intercom, the AMS50 Premium Audio Control, which appears to be very similar
to the PS Engineering PMA 7000B.
I have no idea as to how the price compares.
Does anyone on this list have any comments, pro or con?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCFuelCells.com> |
I just completed wiring my new RV-6A with a stereo audio panel (SL-10SM),
PXE7300 AM,FM, CD player and stereo headsets. The standard 1/4" stereo jacks
are what is required (available from Radio Shack and other places). This
jack will work for both stereo and mono applications.......
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N926RV Reserved
I would like to wire my plane so that either mono or stereo headsets
can
be used. What plug/jack is used for stereo? I'me gessing its a
tip-ring-sleeve version of the same diameter jack as the mono. Do
you
have to put in both jacks or what?
Jim Bean
building RV-8
________________________________________________________________________________
More bad news. NAT's warranty includes this exception: "The warranty shall
be void if the equipment is not installed by an authorized NAT approved
Dealer in accordance with the installation instructions of NAT...."
More details at http://www.northernairborne.com/warranty.html
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic wiring
Good Morning All,
Considering the amount of discussion on this site concerning the merits of
the PS Engineering offerings, I wonder if there is any information available
about the units made by Northern Airborne Technology, Ltd.
They are advertising a panel mounted combination audio selector panel and
intercom, the AMS50 Premium Audio Control, which appears to be very similar
to the PS Engineering PMA 7000B.
I have no idea as to how the price compares.
Does anyone on this list have any comments, pro or con?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I found out today that connecting the PTT wires at the AP/intercom is not
>practical. Physically it has been a challenge to solder the 25 conductors
>and their associated shields to the units connector. Holding the three
>conductors and the shield, with minimal protrusion from the cable end, in
>position to the pins is tough enough without trying to add the PTT
>conductors. I will make the connections at the jacks.
There are no great benefits to be derived from
"minimizing" unshielded conductors in a bundle
with lots of shielded wires.
If you have a 25 pin connector, there's no reason
to take more than 25 UNSHIELDED conductors into the
backshell for termination on the pins.
If this means 2-4" of "exposed" conductors,
no big deal. Daisy chain the shields together
as shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
and bring a common shield pigtail into the connector
backshell. If you stager the shield terminations
so that they don't all happen at the same station
on length of wire bundle, then the finished product
can appear quite "slim" after all the dust settles.
Which brings me back to an oft repeated admonition,
"follow the instructions" . . . the folks who publish
them have tried it all out and can offer assurances
that it will work. If they want all the shields brought
to ground at pin-x in the connector, it doesn't
need to be difficult.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Van's ammeter & E-Bus |
Richard Dudley,
The Van's ammeter likely has an op amp which cannot take any input outside
of the power supply range of the circuit. The diode drop from the E buss
can be compensated, though. If you take a diode in series with a 10K
resistor from each end of the current shunt, you will get the common mode
voltage from the shunt within range. To be sure, you might use two diodes
in series with the 10K resistor. The input to the ammeter would be the
diode-resistor junction from these two strings of diodes and resistor. If
Van's had used a current mode op amp such an LM3900, this would not be a
problem. Would anyone be interested in a circuit that would take the output
of a 50 mv shunt and reference it to ground? Should be cheap, and run a few
square inches. Input from shunt, output to meter, with ground and 12 v
power using pc board FASTON connectors?
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Is it absolutely imperative that you connect a pigtail to the shield, or
is it possible/acceptable to twist the shield and crimp a pin to it and
insert it directly into the plug?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT Wiring
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>I found out today that connecting the PTT wires at the AP/intercom is
not
>practical. Physically it has been a challenge to solder the 25
conductors
>and their associated shields to the units connector. Holding the three
>conductors and the shield, with minimal protrusion from the cable end,
in
>position to the pins is tough enough without trying to add the PTT
>conductors. I will make the connections at the jacks.
There are no great benefits to be derived from
"minimizing" unshielded conductors in a bundle
with lots of shielded wires.
If you have a 25 pin connector, there's no reason
to take more than 25 UNSHIELDED conductors into the
backshell for termination on the pins.
If this means 2-4" of "exposed" conductors,
no big deal. Daisy chain the shields together
as shown in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
and bring a common shield pigtail into the connector
backshell. If you stager the shield terminations
so that they don't all happen at the same station
on length of wire bundle, then the finished product
can appear quite "slim" after all the dust settles.
Which brings me back to an oft repeated admonition,
"follow the instructions" . . . the folks who publish
them have tried it all out and can offer assurances
that it will work. If they want all the shields brought
to ground at pin-x in the connector, it doesn't
need to be difficult.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
Anyone have a good source for the thru-firewall 39 pin or 24 pin (thereabouts)
electrical connectors? Finding any data on AMP CPC connectors or a supplier is
difficult.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
LNCE
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
Try calling Tyco Electronics Technical Support Center at 1-800-522-6752. Ask
them to send you Amp catalog #82021, it has detailed info on the CPC line of
connectors as well as the metal shell connectors that might be more
appropriate for use in the firewall. When you are ready to buy, try Mouser
Electronics, 1-800-346-6873 or www.mouser.com. You might have to get Mouser
to send you their catalog.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, starting firewall forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com> |
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. I had a copy of your shield termination technique but
it did not seem to apply in this application.
The connections where solder connections. The schematic also showed each
shield terminated at the same pin as the ground or "Lo" (as it was labeled)
for each three (mic) or two (phone) conductor shielded cable.
I did follow the manufacturer's instructions (I agree they should know best)
and terminated (soldered) the Lo and the shield to the indicated pin.
Back at it tomorrow,
Don
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:08:11 -0600
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT Wiring
>
>
>
>>
>> Hi Bob,
>>
>> I found out today that connecting the PTT wires at the AP/intercom is not
>> practical. Physically it has been a challenge to solder the 25 conductors
>> and their associated shields to the units connector. Holding the three
>> conductors and the shield, with minimal protrusion from the cable end, in
>> position to the pins is tough enough without trying to add the PTT
>> conductors. I will make the connections at the jacks.
>
> There are no great benefits to be derived from
> "minimizing" unshielded conductors in a bundle
> with lots of shielded wires.
>
> If you have a 25 pin connector, there's no reason
> to take more than 25 UNSHIELDED conductors into the
> backshell for termination on the pins.
>
> If this means 2-4" of "exposed" conductors,
> no big deal. Daisy chain the shields together
> as shown in
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
> and bring a common shield pigtail into the connector
> backshell. If you stager the shield terminations
> so that they don't all happen at the same station
> on length of wire bundle, then the finished product
> can appear quite "slim" after all the dust settles.
>
> Which brings me back to an oft repeated admonition,
> "follow the instructions" . . . the folks who publish
> them have tried it all out and can offer assurances
> that it will work. If they want all the shields brought
> to ground at pin-x in the connector, it doesn't
> need to be difficult.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob and all,
What is your opinion about the following ?
While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been advised
to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running it
unnecessarily.
We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
short-lived instruments.
So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
Thanks,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
Bob and Gang,
Discussion of connectors raises an interesting thought; don't think I've
ever seen a good article on multi-wire plug connectors, and the selection of
a particular type for a particular application. Electronics guys know the
details because they've worked with them for years. The rest of us pick up a
Digi-Key catalog or similar, find a jaw-dropping selection, and groan.
Need examples? When does one use a Molex connector vs a D-sub? Why are
(most?) D-sub pins gold plated? Is connector selection as simple as
observing an amperage rating, or is there more to it? Why a choice of metal
or plastic backshells? The automotive world uses plastic connector shells
that lock when mated; why don't we use similar connectors in our airplanes?
Or do we, and where do you get them? Does a Molex shell offer any wire
support, or does it strictly depend on the insulation crimp of the little
sheet copper pin?
May seem like dumb questions to some, but...
Dan Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
John
Try this # 800-522-6752 this is the amp info line
This # is one of the vendors I use.
Coghlin /Wesco 800-643-1499
Ron Raby
N829R
http://www.tycoelectronics.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors
>
> Anyone have a good source for the thru-firewall 39 pin or 24 pin
(thereabouts)
> electrical connectors? Finding any data on AMP CPC connectors or a
supplier is
> difficult.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Schroeder
> LNCE
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
| Subject: | AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
Lancair sells a 28 pin through connector. They run 100 total for a set
of plugs on each side, and connector.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors
Anyone have a good source for the thru-firewall 39 pin or 24 pin
(thereabouts)
electrical connectors? Finding any data on AMP CPC connectors or a
supplier is
difficult.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
LNCE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
Hi Guys -
Many thanks for the fast response and information. Will call for a catalog. We
figure on 2 of these to carry wiring thru the firewall so the metal casing types
sound better.
After sending the email, I finally found a couple of .pdf files at the Tyco/AMP
website last night. Search for documents 114-10038 and 408-7593. The former is
the application spec and has tooling, table of dimensions and other useful info
(11pp). The latter is more of a design paper but has useful stuff in it (4pp).
Their website is not all that easy to navigate. Very frustrating.
Cheers,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Raby" <ronr(at)advanceddesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
I have been using the panduit self laminating labels for years. You do not
have to buy there software. They can be done with a generic label program.
They work with a laser printer. They have a clear tail that overlaps the
writing. Here is an example part # PLL-12-Y3
I have also used the brother p touch labels for marking the backs of panels.
I think both systems will work well. Some added work may be needed for the
brother or kroy for longevity when wrapping wires. Like the clear heat
shrink that was mentioned earlier.
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
> >If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
> >highly recommend it.
>
> Shannon -
>
> The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy a
DYMO
> model labeler?
>
> John
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob and all,
>
>What is your opinion about the following ?
>While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been advised
>to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running it
>unnecessarily.
>We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
>short-lived instruments.
>So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gilles
I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
that constant operation keeps temperatures and
lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
not using them.
Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
experiment to confirm or disprove either
philosophy. Given that the average light
aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
in the thousands of hours probably makes
both arguments moot for the vast majority
of airplane owners.
If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Adkins" <ccadkins(at)dragg.net> |
By correcting the inferior workmanship of your supplied harness to an
acceptable standard, has Mike voided his warranty by modifying the "as
supplied" harness? Just wondering...
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PSENGINE(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
Dear Mike:
You wrote:
>When I got the harness, I was disgusted with the workmanship...
I am very sorry that you had a harness that was made poorly. I am glad to
hear that we offered to replace it, though, and wish you would have taken us
up on that, then you would have seen how we would have taken responsibility
for it. And there wouldn't have been any costs associated with the
replacement at all.
I am glad to hear that it was an easy task to fix the problems.
Even though we an outside shop build the harness, PS Engineering is
completely responsible for it's quality. No excuses here.
I will be performing a QIP on Monday to make sure that if we get an
opportunity to build another harness, that it will meet the quality that we
expect from our own employees.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
| From: | Walter Casey <mikec(at)caseyspm.com> |
My advice is don't buy any instruments which contain gyros.
You can purchase the equivalent of the six pack (six primary
instruments) without gyros from Dynon
http://www.dynondevelopment.com/index.html
for $1995
Also look at
http://www.caseyspm.com/RV7A.html
Walter
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 03:35 AM, gilles.thesee wrote:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Bob and all,
>
> What is your opinion about the following ?
> While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
> advised
> to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid
> running it
> unnecessarily.
> We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> short-lived instruments.
> So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gilles
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet(at)attbi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
I guess a back-up battery should also be installed with this system if one
is to fly IMC comfortably. Even the 777's, etc have "steam gages" as backup.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Casey" <mikec(at)caseyspm.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AI ?
>
> My advice is don't buy any instruments which contain gyros.
> You can purchase the equivalent of the six pack (six primary
> instruments) without gyros from Dynon
> http://www.dynondevelopment.com/index.html
> for $1995
> Also look at
> http://www.caseyspm.com/RV7A.html
> Walter
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 03:35 AM, gilles.thesee wrote:
>
> > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> > Bob and all,
> >
> > What is your opinion about the following ?
> > While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
> > advised
> > to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid
> > running it
> > unnecessarily.
> > We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> > short-lived instruments.
> > So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> >
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
Dear Chris:
Thanks for asking.
No, his warranty is not void. I'm wondering what made you would think that?
I am finding some misunderstandings here pertaining to PS Engineering, Inc.
and I'm working hard in my responses to make clear our positions and policies
when it comes to our products and support.
Why do I spend this time here? Because I care. Because my name is on every
one of these products. I want to do everything within my means so that our
company not only delivers great products, but that it can be portrayed fairly
and accurately. And what would I like our image to be? That of a small
company doing it's level best to provide pilots with the best audio control
systems ay very reasonable price.
Now back to Mike's harness.
In fact Chris, it is still under warranty! We warrant it to be free from
defects and that is was built to best aviation accepted practices. And when
this doesn't happen, we do what is it takes to make lemonade out of lemons.
If you read his email, he stated that when he called to let us know about the
substandard construction, he was offered corrective actions from us. He
elected not to take us up on the offer because the changes were minor and
easy to perform. He also didn't want to be without the harness for a new
harness would have taken him 3 days to have gotten.
We try really hard to achieve 100% perfection, however, we haven't gotten
there yet. And because we know we are not perfect, we have put policies and
procedure in place to address such occurrences when they occur.
Please know that we continue to invest in people and equipment to minimize
the risk of sending anything out that is substandard.
Finally, as an example how we respond internally when an event like this
occurs, we sent one of our QA personnel to the facility that make these
harnesses, his report is due to be review during our next QA meeting. You can
rest assured, if we find something that isn't correct in the overall process,
it will be corrected.
Again, thanks for asking.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
There are even Electric AI owners that have to overhaul the instrument
before flight as it sat and gummed up by just sitting on the shelf.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AI ?
>
> ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> >Bob and all,
> >
> >What is your opinion about the following ?
> >While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
advised
> >to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running
it
> >unnecessarily.
> >We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> >short-lived instruments.
> >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gilles
>
>
> I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
> of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
> have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
> time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
> that constant operation keeps temperatures and
> lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
> your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
> operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
> not using them.
>
> Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
> experiment to confirm or disprove either
> philosophy. Given that the average light
> aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
> installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
> in the thousands of hours probably makes
> both arguments moot for the vast majority
> of airplane owners.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I for one am not at all "wondering" why Chris thought that modifying the
factory supplied harness would void the warranty. You (PS Engineering)
quite clearly do not trust any homebuilder (no matter how well qualified) to
assemble the harness from scratch so I (and probably most of the other folks
reading your comments) would conclude that you likewise do not consider us
homebuilders competent to repair your faulty harness.
How do you rationalize that we have the expertise to repair but not to
assemble a harness?
Further, how do you rationalize your insistence that your audio panel (when
sold as an Apollo SL15 or SL10) must be installed with your harness or by a
"FAA-certified avionics shop," while UPS trusts us homebuilders to install
the entire "full stack" of Apollo radios (except the SL15) and all of the
necessary wiring? Let's get real here - the audio panel is decidedly low
tech compared to the rest of the stack.
Just for laughs, do you consider the holder of a Repairman Certificate to be
"a non-certified individual?"
I am not raising these points to harass you - I had decided on the Apollo
radios, including your audio panel, but this thread has made me reconsider
my choice of audio panel. If you start coming up with some better answers
and more enlightened warranty policies I (and I think many others) will
reconsider (again) and buy your products. Your current policy makes the
decision a no brainer.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PSENGINE(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
Dear Chris:
Thanks for asking.
No, his warranty is not void. I'm wondering what made you would think that?
I am finding some misunderstandings here pertaining to PS Engineering, Inc.
and I'm working hard in my responses to make clear our positions and
policies
when it comes to our products and support.
Why do I spend this time here? Because I care. Because my name is on every
one of these products. I want to do everything within my means so that our
company not only delivers great products, but that it can be portrayed
fairly
and accurately. And what would I like our image to be? That of a small
company doing it's level best to provide pilots with the best audio control
systems ay very reasonable price.
Now back to Mike's harness.
In fact Chris, it is still under warranty! We warrant it to be free from
defects and that is was built to best aviation accepted practices. And when
this doesn't happen, we do what is it takes to make lemonade out of lemons.
If you read his email, he stated that when he called to let us know about
the
substandard construction, he was offered corrective actions from us. He
elected not to take us up on the offer because the changes were minor and
easy to perform. He also didn't want to be without the harness for a new
harness would have taken him 3 days to have gotten.
We try really hard to achieve 100% perfection, however, we haven't gotten
there yet. And because we know we are not perfect, we have put policies and
procedure in place to address such occurrences when they occur.
Please know that we continue to invest in people and equipment to minimize
the risk of sending anything out that is substandard.
Finally, as an example how we respond internally when an event like this
occurs, we sent one of our QA personnel to the facility that make these
harnesses, his report is due to be review during our next QA meeting. You
can
rest assured, if we find something that isn't correct in the overall
process,
it will be corrected.
Again, thanks for asking.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator circuit breakers |
I am wiring my 6A IAW plan Z-13 - All Electric on a Budget. I am using
fuse blocks and will only have two circuit breakers in the airplane.
Both will be on the panel to protect the field circuits from both the
main and aux alternators.
I have a 60 Amp B&C alternator as the main, and a B&C SD-8 as the backup.
Z-13 shows a 5 amp breaker in each alternator field circuit. I was given
two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price was
right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing nuisance
trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using a 4
Amp breaker in either circuit?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
Dear Rob:
Once again, incorrect assumptions have been made!
Actually, I can't tell you about the "low tech thing," but I can tell you I
know no other piece of avionics that has 88 pins associated with them, do
you? Intercoms have 25 pins. That means there are a lot of potential of miss
wiring.
The warranty policy that PS Engineering, Inc. is not unique to PS
Engineering, Inc. It is an industry wide accepted policy adopted by other
companies such as GARMIN (IFR equipment including the GMA340 and GNS series),
Avidyne (all certified products), Bendix/King (Silver Crown) and NAT (all
products).
Why this policy? Cost of support.
While undoubtedly you have the qualifications to perform such installations,
I think you will agree, not everyone is so well trained. And it's those
individuals that don't that will require hours and hours of phone support. I
know this from first hand experience.
And then how do we ever determine who is and who isn't? This is why we sell
through FAA CRS with at least a Limited Radio Class Endorsement. We then have
at least a basis to judge their qualifications, the FAA already did that for
us when they awarded the Limited Radio Class.
And none of those vendors have a fixed repair fee policy like we have in
place. When our products are out of warranty, we have published fixed repair
fees, and they are very reasonable. For example, the fixed repair fee for our
intercoms is $29.95, $69.95 for the PMA7000 series and $109.95 for the 6000
series. These "out of warranty" repair prices is far below the industry norm,
which are usually based upon of time and materials with a minimum repair fee.
For example, while we give you a 3 year knob to rear connector warranty on
the PMA7000, GARMIN provides just one year, and then they have a repair fee
of $200!
So all in all, the cost of ownership of our products is very reasonable.
(even if you elect NOT to have the PS Engineering product installed by an
authorized dealer or purchase a dealer made harness).
While I know I haven't convinced many of you, I know I feel better from
trying to keep the information about our company and others for that matter,
accurate.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
In a message dated 2/18/2003 12:06:52 PM Central Standard Time,
jschroeder(at)perigee.net writes:
> Walt -
>
> The picture of your proposed panel has the Dynon EFIS listed for $2323, but
> your
> email said $1995. Have the increased the price?
>
>
John:
Ed here: I will be ordering my Dynon on March 3rd. It is $1995.00,
however, you can add its own independent GPS, AOA, and backup Battery. I
believe that it adds up to that. Checkout Dynondevelopment.com. It has the
total for various packages
Cold up here in YYC
Ed Silvanic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
PSENGINE(at)aol.com wrote:
>Finally, as an example how we respond internally when an event like this
>occurs, we sent one of our QA personnel to the facility that make these
>harnesses, his report is due to be review during our next QA meeting.
>You can
>rest assured, if we find something that isn't correct in the overall
>process,
>it will be corrected.
---
Respectfully, and in an attempt to finally understand the reasons for
your policy regarding the lack of warranty without buying your harness,
I have some simple questions for which I hope to get simple answers for
my simple mind.
1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
view, stand up to logical explanation?
2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not correct,
please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
implementation disallow self-protection?
3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the unsatisfactory
harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
knowledge?
I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, but I really don't
understand the rationale of very much of your policy explanations
you've posted here. Surely I'm missing some vital element yet
unexplained somewhere.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
| From: | Walter Casey <mikec(at)caseyspm.com> |
Hi John,
At the very top of the page
http://www.dynondevelopment.com/docs/efis-d10.html
it says $1995
I added some options to the Dynon EFIS which added to my cost. The
prices listed on my proposed panel are high and I am using them just
for approximations. Go to the Dynon site for actual prices.
Best wishes,
Walter
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 11:06 AM, John Schroeder wrote:
>
>
> Walt -
>
> The picture of your proposed panel has the Dynon EFIS listed for
> $2323, but your
> email said $1995. Have the increased the price?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris Adkins" <ccadkins(at)dragg.net> |
Mike,
You've obviously taken a tremendous amount of time out of your work day to
pen your most recent responses, and that is appreciated by (I think!)
everyone on this list. I think the point that's being missed here either due
to financial concerns, "spin doctoring", liability concerns, or "whatever"
is this: Each and every one of us on the list are either building our own
airplane and assembling the associated avionics, refitting an existing plane
with upgraded avionics, or dreaming of doing one of the two. Just by virtue
of our presence here, we are self-identified "participants" who like (or
even INSIST upon) doing things OURSELVES.
When someone, either through policy or direct statement, implies that we
need to "farm out" some portion of our project, the red flag invariably
rises in our minds. "Is this guy saying I CAN'T do it?" or "Does he think
I'm not SMART enough to do it right?". Whether or not you or your company
INTENDS this to be the message to the "do-it-yourself" crowd, that's what's
coming through on this end.
I don't think anyone here is attempting to harass you or your company. Your
policies probably won't change because of anything written here, but the
buying trends of the group most assuredly will. That's not a threat, or
even a smart-ass remark. It's just a fact.
We (the Owner Built And Maintained crowd) apparently need intercoms and
audio panels a lot more than PS Engineering needs us, and that's OK, but I
wouldn't expect everyone to remain silent about it.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PSENGINE(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
Dear Rob:
Once again, incorrect assumptions have been made!
Actually, I can't tell you about the "low tech thing," but I can tell you I
know no other piece of avionics that has 88 pins associated with them, do
you? Intercoms have 25 pins. That means there are a lot of potential of
miss
wiring.
The warranty policy that PS Engineering, Inc. is not unique to PS
Engineering, Inc. It is an industry wide accepted policy adopted by other
companies such as GARMIN (IFR equipment including the GMA340 and GNS
series),
Avidyne (all certified products), Bendix/King (Silver Crown) and NAT (all
products).
Why this policy? Cost of support.
While undoubtedly you have the qualifications to perform such installations,
I think you will agree, not everyone is so well trained. And it's those
individuals that don't that will require hours and hours of phone support. I
know this from first hand experience.
And then how do we ever determine who is and who isn't? This is why we sell
through FAA CRS with at least a Limited Radio Class Endorsement. We then
have
at least a basis to judge their qualifications, the FAA already did that for
us when they awarded the Limited Radio Class.
And none of those vendors have a fixed repair fee policy like we have in
place. When our products are out of warranty, we have published fixed repair
fees, and they are very reasonable. For example, the fixed repair fee for
our
intercoms is $29.95, $69.95 for the PMA7000 series and $109.95 for the 6000
series. These "out of warranty" repair prices is far below the industry
norm,
which are usually based upon of time and materials with a minimum repair
fee.
For example, while we give you a 3 year knob to rear connector warranty on
the PMA7000, GARMIN provides just one year, and then they have a repair fee
of $200!
So all in all, the cost of ownership of our products is very reasonable.
(even if you elect NOT to have the PS Engineering product installed by an
authorized dealer or purchase a dealer made harness).
While I know I haven't convinced many of you, I know I feel better from
trying to keep the information about our company and others for that matter,
accurate.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
I don't understand why you all are all getting upset at Mark for PSE's
policy. This is NOT an uncommon policy in the industry. Actually, it's
the NORM. Garmin has it, Avidyne, Bendix/King, etc. Apollo might not
right now, but they will soon when their new product line comes out.
This isn't something new that PSE just dreamed up. Its just the reality
of cost of support when the OBAM is only 20% of your market.
Why is everyone yelling at JUST Mark@PSE? Why not yell at Garmin and
others? I for one would like Mark to stick around on this forum and be
here to answer questions, not be run off by some wire harness nazi.
Jeez, they are just asking you have someone that is a dealer build a
harness for it. They'd probably even be happy if you built it and then
had a qualified shop just check it all out. Mark, would this suffice, a
shop checking it out and signing off on it?
PSE even offers the harness to you custom built to your specs. Garmin,
etc, DON'T do this--why don't you yell at them for not offering that?
PSE does offer it, and considering it takes 3-5 hours to build one, the
price isn't that bad, actually, its probably quite cheap. In the big
scheme of things of building an airplane, is a couple hundred bucks for
a well-built wire harness that big a deal? I think not. I think PSE
has gone above an beyond here, where most manufacturers don't.
Also, Mark has NEVER said that he feels homebuilders are stupid and
can't build the harness. All he has said is the cost of support is too
high. Most of the people on this list could easily build their harness,
but what about the 1000's that aren't on this list. Realize, don't be
so selfish to think that PSE only has to support YOU, and can tailor its
policies to only YOU. They have to have policies that cover everyone,
and they feel this policy is acceptable to cover everyone. I agree.
You may ask why they don't just include a harness in the price. Just
including a harness in the price isn't really possible financially
either. PSE's products are certified, so each harness for each person
would have to be certified, and to get each individual harness TSO'd
would be a nightmare. I'm sure you can see the complications. They
can't include a standard harness, as this would not work for all planes
and would take work from their dealers who build and install the
harnesses for all the certified ships, which is probably 80% of their
business.
All in all, if you don't like this industry wide policy, I'd say you
probably won't be putting many advanced avionics in your panel.
PSE, you make a great product, and I'll gladly pay to have a
professional harness built if that is your policy.
I think I'll get on with building the rest of my plane and not worry
about paying a few hundred dollars to have someone build a harness.
Just for the record, I'm an electrical engineer and I do stuff like this
all day long with industrial controls....so, if having a policy that
requires someone else to build a harness I could easily build myself
doesn't upset my ego, why would it yours?
Moving on to more important things.......
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 2/18/2003 2:35:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
steve.canyon(at)verizon.net writes:
> 1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
> harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
>
> 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
> the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
> view, stand up to logical explanation?
I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
>
> 2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
> products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not correct,
> please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
> implementation disallow self-protection?
Power going to ground while ground is going to power. Has this happened?
More than you'd imagine.
>
> 3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
> harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the unsatisfactory
> harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
> knowledge?
I was not made aware of this issue. So I failed.
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PSENGINE(at)aol.com |
Thank you very much Shannon, I was beginning to feel really lonely.
I think I'm done now too. If the people who are really upset about our
policies reads what I have been writing the last 4 days, I hope that they
will at least see that:
1) I'm not a liar
2) This warranty policy is not bait and switch
3) We make a very good product at a relatively modest price
4) Our products are innovative, the type that fits well with aircraft that
pushes technology a little.
So, please don't be offended, but I am now saying 73's (Best Wishes) and
going QRT (Closing Down).
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
Bon jour, Gilles;
A common aviation perception (well, it could be fact !) is that gyro
instruments (elec. or air) do not like a lot of rapid pitch/roll changes as
found in aerobatics. If the intended use of the aircraft will involve
significant aerobatic flight, it may be worthwhile to have an inflight means
of removing the gyro power source to avoid stressing the gyro bearings and
stops, etc. with the object of prolonging instrument life. This should be a
visible, well-marked switch or similar to avoid accidentally de-powering the
gyro in a phase of flight (IMC app., etc.) where gyro rundown could be
dangerous. Serious aerobatic aircraft often have a removable gyro panel that
is taken out after transiting to a competition/airshow site to 1) protect
the gyros, 2) save weight.
If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping the
gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce the
gyro off the limits stops, etc.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AI ?
>
> ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> >Bob and all,
> >
> >What is your opinion about the following ?
> >While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
advised
> >to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running
it
> >unnecessarily.
> >We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> >short-lived instruments.
> >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gilles
>
>
> I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
> of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
> have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
> time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
> that constant operation keeps temperatures and
> lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
> your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
> operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
> not using them.
>
> Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
> experiment to confirm or disprove either
> philosophy. Given that the average light
> aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
> installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
> in the thousands of hours probably makes
> both arguments moot for the vast majority
> of airplane owners.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator circuit breakers |
>
>
>I am wiring my 6A IAW plan Z-13 - All Electric on a Budget. I am using
>fuse blocks and will only have two circuit breakers in the airplane.
>Both will be on the panel to protect the field circuits from both the
>main and aux alternators.
>
>I have a 60 Amp B&C alternator as the main, and a B&C SD-8 as the backup.
>
>Z-13 shows a 5 amp breaker in each alternator field circuit. I was given
>two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price was
>right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing nuisance
>trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using a 4
>Amp breaker in either circuit?
Peak current on the ND alternator is just over 3 amps.
4A breakers will be fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
>leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
>the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
>people still want to crucify them.
Well, my goodness! What do you really think, Shannon? I don't believe
I've crucified anyone here or elsewhere. I respectfully asked
questions from a man that volunteered to answer them and I think they
were fair and logical questions.
>They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
>is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
>just don't see it.
And that's laudable -- and I don't believe I crucified them for doing
so not do I have a 'hangup.'
>What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
>us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
>attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
>they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
>harness for each builder is way above the rest.
No, I don't believe I've lost sight of anything here though YMMV.
I even made what I considered constructive suggestions to cope
with what has been perceived by many as an illogical policy. Saying
everyone does it sounds like my 13 YO grandson, "But Dad, all the other
kids get to do that!" In fact, having spent a major portion of my life
as CTO and CEO of a fairly large hi-tech electronics manufacturing
operation with world wide sales, I think I just might have some rather
unique views to share on the subject at hand. Incidentally, over a 15
year period, my combined failure rate of all products for all causes
amounted to about 0.003% . If you think that is easy, please
reconsider your thoughts.
>Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
>(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
>cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
>expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
>However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
>equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
>you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
>crucify them for it. Jeez.
I suppose Jeez is the operative word here -- see my paragraph above. I
came into this list to learn something. If it's not considered polite
or customary to ask fair and logical questions here, I guess I can
leave as I came in. If you feel comfortable with things at PSE, then
by all means feel free to act accordingly -- I don't believe I have
advised anyone to do otherwise. But please don't accuse me of
crucifying someone just because I have asked hard questions.
>Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
I would hope so! If questions asked of a volunteering product and
policy expert are something you can't tolerate, please feel free to set
up your twit filter to eliminate the aggravation of my posts. If the
rest here feel I've been off base with my questions it will no doubt be
made clear and I'll act accordingly.
I believe Mark is (or at least, should be) perfectly capable of
handling his own affairs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AH ? |
> >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >Thanks,
> >Gilles
>
>
> I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
> of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
> have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
> time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
> that constant operation keeps temperatures and
> lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
> your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
> operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
> not using them.
>
> Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
> experiment to confirm or disprove either
> philosophy. Given that the average light
> aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
> installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
> in the thousands of hours probably makes
> both arguments moot for the vast majority
> of airplane owners.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
Thanks for your answer.
After all, no switch means lower parts count...
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AH ? |
Bonjour Jim,
Merci pour ta reponse.
>
> A common aviation perception (well, it could be fact !) is that gyro
> instruments (elec. or air) do not like a lot of rapid pitch/roll changes
as
> found in aerobatics. If the intended use of the aircraft will involve
> significant aerobatic flight, it may be worthwhile to have an inflight
means
> of removing the gyro power source to avoid stressing the gyro bearings and
> stops, etc. with the object of prolonging instrument life. This should be
a
> visible, well-marked switch or similar to avoid accidentally de-powering
the
> gyro in a phase of flight (IMC app., etc.) where gyro rundown could be
> dangerous. Serious aerobatic aircraft often have a removable gyro panel
that
> is taken out after transiting to a competition/airshow site to 1) protect
> the gyros, 2) save weight.
>
We have being flying lots of aerobatics some years ago, but this project is
a rather sedate four seater.
The only gyro equipped aerobatic aircraft I flew were ex-army two-seater
Cap10Bs. And indeed they had a switch for every gyro.
But all the others were very scarcely equipped. No gyros, sometimes no VSI,
but always 2 g-meters, one of them 'safety wired'.
Navigation was sometimes *adventurous* in marginal weather in those pre-GPS
days. Some French pilots say VFR stands for 'Voies Ferrees, Routes'
('Railroad tracks, roads).
> If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
> occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping
the
> gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce
the
> gyro off the limits stops, etc.
>
Ah, good point.
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AH ? |
In a message dated 2/18/03 5:02:28 PM Central Standard Time,
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
> If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
> >occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping
> the
> >gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce
> the
> >gyro off the limits stops, etc.
> >
> Ah, good point.
>
Good Afternoon All,
For what it's worth, my instrument guru feels that the gyros do not last long
if they are flown when they are not operating. The units are designed to be
running. Damage will occur if they are allowed to bounce around without the
gyros spinning, The spinning strengthens the gyro and distributes the loads
that are applied by flight.
In the days of yore, we had the capability of caging our old AN gyros. Some
folks did that when they did aerobatics. That kept the gyros from banging
the stops, but having the gyros caged with the gyros spinning put such high
forces on the gyros that the axles bent and the bearings failed rapidly. The
consensus was that the lesser of the evils was to shut off the air before
engine start and then cage the gyros for flight.
All in all, the gyros would last longer if they were run full time and not
subjected to aerobatic flight.
I realize that modern gyros do address these problems, but I still think it
is best if they run during all flights and that we avoid banging them around.
Happy skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Steve,
I think you misunderstand me. My post was not directly at you directly;
notice I say "people". There are several others that have given Mark a
really hard way to go and I see no point. The post was more directed at
the general discussion that has gone on on this topic of the wiring
harness. Pretty much everyone that has spoke up on the topic has had
bad things to say about PSE and their policy. I, on the other hand, am
a happy customer, and I can easily understand their policy.
I initially agreed with the consensus that PSE should offer a harness
with their product, so instead of posting here, I just called Mark up.
Most people can explain things a lot better on the phone than over
email, so I figured I see what he had to say. I had my own suggestions,
just like you Steve, about them offering a harness that everyone could
use. However, Mark quickly explained the certification process of each
of these harnesses. Each harness for each airplane would have to be
TSO'd to be included. Also, about 80% of their business was on the
certified side, so taking a harness job out of the hands of their
dealers just didn't made good business sense. Making harnesses is not
what they are in the business for...innovative audio products is. The
comment has been made that the price is too high. I disagree and open
the floor for someone to contact an avionics shop to prove otherwise.
I by no means meant to push your buttons Steve. I just think there are
more important things to worry about. After all, we are talking about a
couple hundred bucks. And, if you really think about it, PSE has done
more to help the OBAM community with the harnesses they do offer than
any other manufacturer. I think this should be commended, not what has
went on here....
I don't disagree that the whole industry should change to better assist
homebuilders, but if you think that anyone can build a harness, you have
in fact lost sight. Most are like us, not as technical, yet they have
to support us all.
Sorry if my email sounded so confrontational...it really wasn't meant to
be and I apologize. I just hate to see PSE get beat up on when I feel
they are actually doing better than anyone else.
Again, sorry if I sounded like an a$$...didn't mean to.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Canyon
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
>leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
>the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
>people still want to crucify them.
Well, my goodness! What do you really think, Shannon? I don't believe
I've crucified anyone here or elsewhere. I respectfully asked
questions from a man that volunteered to answer them and I think they
were fair and logical questions.
>They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
>is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
>just don't see it.
And that's laudable -- and I don't believe I crucified them for doing
so not do I have a 'hangup.'
>What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
>us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
>attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
>they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
custom
>harness for each builder is way above the rest.
No, I don't believe I've lost sight of anything here though YMMV.
I even made what I considered constructive suggestions to cope
with what has been perceived by many as an illogical policy. Saying
everyone does it sounds like my 13 YO grandson, "But Dad, all the other
kids get to do that!" In fact, having spent a major portion of my life
as CTO and CEO of a fairly large hi-tech electronics manufacturing
operation with world wide sales, I think I just might have some rather
unique views to share on the subject at hand. Incidentally, over a 15
year period, my combined failure rate of all products for all causes
amounted to about 0.003% . If you think that is easy, please
reconsider your thoughts.
>Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
>(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
>cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
>expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
>However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
>equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
>you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
>crucify them for it. Jeez.
I suppose Jeez is the operative word here -- see my paragraph above. I
came into this list to learn something. If it's not considered polite
or customary to ask fair and logical questions here, I guess I can
leave as I came in. If you feel comfortable with things at PSE, then
by all means feel free to act accordingly -- I don't believe I have
advised anyone to do otherwise. But please don't accuse me of
crucifying someone just because I have asked hard questions.
>Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
I would hope so! If questions asked of a volunteering product and
policy expert are something you can't tolerate, please feel free to set
up your twit filter to eliminate the aggravation of my posts. If the
rest here feel I've been off base with my questions it will no doubt be
made clear and I'll act accordingly.
I believe Mark is (or at least, should be) perfectly capable of
handling his own affairs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Bob:
I like the switches on that Switches.pdf file. I am going to ditch the
mag switch. On this file it show a fuel primer switch. We have discussed that
with my IO-520 engine that a shot of high boost would be sufficient to start
the engine. The fuel pump will have a high/low boost position. What switch
would be good for a High-Off-Low, in place of that fuel primer switch that
it shows?
Thanks,
Ed
Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>Sorry if my email sounded so confrontational...it really wasn't meant to
>be and I apologize. I just hate to see PSE get beat up on when I feel
>they are actually doing better than anyone else.
---
No problem -- apology accepted and thanks for replying. I still think
there are very viable and palatable (to the OBAMers) alternatives to
both Mark's policy presentation and product approach which would
benefit all concerned. I hope my questions were not the ones which
prompted him to bail out but he left just as the crux of the matter
came to a point of resolution, IMHO. And I can only trust his reason
for leaving was not because he had no answers to logical questions. I
certainly have no desire to hassle anyone -- life's too short.
As for the two wire harness and installation guide for the rest of it,
there is no need for it to be TSOed for the OBAM community, is there?
As for dummies, Heath made a considerable fortune using folks who
thought the world revolved around acid core solder a 1/4" thick to
build very complex circuits and products for their time. :-)
Regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
That should read "most are NOT like us, not as technical, yet they have
to support us all", sorry.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
Steve,
I think you misunderstand me. My post was not directly at you directly;
notice I say "people". There are several others that have given Mark a
really hard way to go and I see no point. The post was more directed at
the general discussion that has gone on on this topic of the wiring
harness. Pretty much everyone that has spoke up on the topic has had
bad things to say about PSE and their policy. I, on the other hand, am
a happy customer, and I can easily understand their policy.
I initially agreed with the consensus that PSE should offer a harness
with their product, so instead of posting here, I just called Mark up.
Most people can explain things a lot better on the phone than over
email, so I figured I see what he had to say. I had my own suggestions,
just like you Steve, about them offering a harness that everyone could
use. However, Mark quickly explained the certification process of each
of these harnesses. Each harness for each airplane would have to be
TSO'd to be included. Also, about 80% of their business was on the
certified side, so taking a harness job out of the hands of their
dealers just didn't made good business sense. Making harnesses is not
what they are in the business for...innovative audio products is. The
comment has been made that the price is too high. I disagree and open
the floor for someone to contact an avionics shop to prove otherwise.
I by no means meant to push your buttons Steve. I just think there are
more important things to worry about. After all, we are talking about a
couple hundred bucks. And, if you really think about it, PSE has done
more to help the OBAM community with the harnesses they do offer than
any other manufacturer. I think this should be commended, not what has
went on here....
I don't disagree that the whole industry should change to better assist
homebuilders, but if you think that anyone can build a harness, you have
in fact lost sight. Most are like us, not as technical, yet they have
to support us all.
Sorry if my email sounded so confrontational...it really wasn't meant to
be and I apologize. I just hate to see PSE get beat up on when I feel
they are actually doing better than anyone else.
Again, sorry if I sounded like an a$$...didn't mean to.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Canyon
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
>leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
>the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
>people still want to crucify them.
Well, my goodness! What do you really think, Shannon? I don't believe
I've crucified anyone here or elsewhere. I respectfully asked
questions from a man that volunteered to answer them and I think they
were fair and logical questions.
>They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
>is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
>just don't see it.
And that's laudable -- and I don't believe I crucified them for doing
so not do I have a 'hangup.'
>What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
>us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
>attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
>they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
custom
>harness for each builder is way above the rest.
No, I don't believe I've lost sight of anything here though YMMV.
I even made what I considered constructive suggestions to cope
with what has been perceived by many as an illogical policy. Saying
everyone does it sounds like my 13 YO grandson, "But Dad, all the other
kids get to do that!" In fact, having spent a major portion of my life
as CTO and CEO of a fairly large hi-tech electronics manufacturing
operation with world wide sales, I think I just might have some rather
unique views to share on the subject at hand. Incidentally, over a 15
year period, my combined failure rate of all products for all causes
amounted to about 0.003% . If you think that is easy, please
reconsider your thoughts.
>Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
>(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
>cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
>expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
>However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
>equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
>you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
>crucify them for it. Jeez.
I suppose Jeez is the operative word here -- see my paragraph above. I
came into this list to learn something. If it's not considered polite
or customary to ask fair and logical questions here, I guess I can
leave as I came in. If you feel comfortable with things at PSE, then
by all means feel free to act accordingly -- I don't believe I have
advised anyone to do otherwise. But please don't accuse me of
crucifying someone just because I have asked hard questions.
>Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
I would hope so! If questions asked of a volunteering product and
policy expert are something you can't tolerate, please feel free to set
up your twit filter to eliminate the aggravation of my posts. If the
rest here feel I've been off base with my questions it will no doubt be
made clear and I'll act accordingly.
I believe Mark is (or at least, should be) perfectly capable of
handling his own affairs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electric DG with heading bug |
Pete,
I did this research a while ago...I've installed a Century NSD 1000 HSI -
it's more than a DG...! I've got the S-Tec 30 also...
This is probably not the answer that your bean counter wants to
hear...however if you want all electric, your choices are slim.
Ralph Capen
----- Original Message -----
From: <PeterHunt1(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electric DG with heading bug
>
> Can anyone direct me to an ELECTRIC (not vacuum) DG with a "Heading Bug"
to
> interface with my System 30 autopilot?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Pete Hunt
> Clearwater, FL
> RV-6, Instrument panel
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve,
<<1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your harness,
then wires the other ends incorrectly?
1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does the
rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your view, stand
up to logical explanation?>>
BRAVO!
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [Fwd: Aeroelectirc Labels for John] |
This is an interesting offer... I'll consider it next week, after I've
had the time to check out my own labeler from Brother using TZ tape.
Here's the homepage of the place mentioned:
http://members.tripod.com/~HANOVER_TECHNICAL/index.html
Here's the offer mentioned on the website for a free wire marker (but
not the same one mentioned by Mike in the email I'm forwarding):
http://members.tripod.com/~HANOVER_TECHNICAL/k2500offer.html
Here's info on the K2500 and K3000 printers and supplies:
http://members.tripod.com/~HANOVER_TECHNICAL/kroy03.html
-John R.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Aeroelectirc Labels for John
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:41:48 -0500
From: "Mike Heinen" <mjheinen(at)adelphia.net>
I get the e mails but am not currently a subscriber....not sure if I can
make a post so if you could send this on...
Hanover Technical Sales will give you a free label printer your choice
of stand along or one that prints from your pc. You have to order 10
label cassettes. They have pre made wire wrap labels, printable heat
shrink (really cool) and all kinds of industrial solvent resistant as
well as normal labels. I got the pc version for building my Glastar. You
can print in any size or type font available on the computer as well as
black and white graphics on the labels and heat shrink. The printers are
Kroy. I have the
K-3000-PC.
You may even suggest if there are several that need labels to get
together and order the cartridges to get the free printer if still
available.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve,
While I don't necessarily agree with PSE's policy, I think the answer to
the question you ask is obvious: in the case of the purchased harness,
your purchase pays for hand-holding, even if you screw up the other end.
It's kind of an insurance policy.
It may be more than I need, but it's there if I want it. Otherwise I'll
just assume there's no warranty, and make my purchase decision on the
unit, and on the harness, on that basis.
-John R.
(I snipped the text because it was getting long - if I misattributed
comments to anyone, feel free to correct me)
Quoted text follows:
>>>1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
>>>harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
>>
>>We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
>
>
> And it would not violate the warranty then? Why not?
>
>
>>> 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
>>>the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
>>>view, stand up to logical explanation?
>>
>>I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
>
>
> Please explain the difference between wiring one end of the harness
> correctly and the other end of the harness incorrectly. In both cases,
> most of the error result is identical. In only one case, and then
> assuming your provided harness is correct, do you imply your warranty
> is still valid and that you will work hand in hand with the
> builder. Please explain why this is so?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Bob:
>
> I like the switches on that Switches.pdf file. I am going to ditch
> the
>mag switch. On this file it show a fuel primer switch. We have discussed that
>with my IO-520 engine that a shot of high boost would be sufficient to start
>the engine. The fuel pump will have a high/low boost position. What switch
>would be good for a High-Off-Low, in place of that fuel primer switch that
>it shows?
Instead of the 2-50, you would use a 2-10 wired for single
pole, three position operation as shown in figure 11-17 of
the 'Connection . . . except in this case, you wouldn't
have landing and taxi light fixtures . . . the two loads
would be the low and high speed connections to your fuel
pump system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
John Rourke wrote:
>Steve,
>While I don't necessarily agree with PSE's policy, I think the answer to
>the question you ask is obvious: in the case of the purchased harness,
>your purchase pays for hand-holding, even if you screw up the other end.
>It's kind of an insurance policy.
It may well be, but if so, I think a well thought out policy could be
presented in a way to make that clear and even optional while
maintaining a warranty from literal product defects and not leave the
customer with a bad taste over it either.
But, from Mark's answer to some of my questions he certainly left me
with the impression that his product has no provision for self
protection at all. If this is true, it certainly represents an
inelegant and archaic fundamental design philosophy, which IMHO, is far
worse than a flawed warranty policy.
>It may be more than I need, but it's there if I want it. Otherwise I'll
>just assume there's no warranty, and make my purchase decision on the
>unit, and on the harness, on that basis.
That's certainly not an unreasonable approach and one I may some day
take myself in lieu of better options. The lack of self protection
inherent in the design may well be the primary cause of his concerns
over support costs but since he has bailed out I guess I'll never
know. Either way, one mark of a flawed policy is an inability to
clearly demonstrate the rationale in a manner acceptable to the customers.
While it is not my company and they are certainly free to run it any
way they like with no flak from me, I am very disappointed in the
answers (and lack of answers) I did get. I have no axe to grind here
whatsoever, just a prospective customer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
James E. Clark wrote:
>I would also like for them (PSE etc.) to stick around long enough to get
>both the spirit of what we talk about here *AND* to hear some specific
>needs/requirements we have. THEN if they choose to leverage that insight,
>good for them ... and us.
---
I certainly agree with that. Everyone usually wins with a give and
take discussion -- I wish he had stayed to participate.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AH ? |
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>In a message dated 2/18/03 5:02:28 PM Central Standard Time,
>Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
>
>
>
>>If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
>>
>>
>>>occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>gyro off the limits stops, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
This is probably true for gyros with limit stops, but those gyros belong
to a museum. Good contemporary gyros have 360 degrees fredom in every
direction of motion, and the plane rolls and loops around them in
aerobatic figures. It seems that the only mechanism that would load them
more in aerobatics is due to higher g forces, but these forces would
be the same no matter if the gyro is on or off.
Jerzy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
> > >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
What about the possibility of leaving the switch off, then forgetting to
cover the giro and including the giro in you're scan. Could cause
disorientation or confusion at a bad time. I'd vote for no switch.
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator circuit breakers |
> >
> >I have a 60 Amp B&C alternator as the main, and a B&C SD-8 as the
backup.
> >
> >Z-13 shows a 5 amp breaker in each alternator field circuit. I was
given
> >two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price was
> >right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing nuisance
> >trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using a 4
> >Amp breaker in either circuit?
>
> Peak current on the ND alternator is just over 3 amps.
> 4A breakers will be fine.
>
> Bob . . .
You'll only be able to use one of your 4A breakers though. The SD-8
doesn't have a field circuit.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator circuit breakers |
>
>
> > >
> > >I have a 60 Amp B&C alternator as the main, and a B&C SD-8 as the
>backup.
> > >
> > >Z-13 shows a 5 amp breaker in each alternator field circuit. I was
>given
> > >two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price was
> > >right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing nuisance
> > >trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using a 4
> > >Amp breaker in either circuit?
> >
> > Peak current on the ND alternator is just over 3 amps.
> > 4A breakers will be fine.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>You'll only be able to use one of your 4A breakers though. The SD-8
>doesn't have a field circuit.
But if installed with the recommended OV protections
and controls, it too will need a small breaker . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
> > > >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
>What about the possibility of leaving the switch off, then forgetting to
>cover the giro and including the giro in you're scan. Could cause
>disorientation or confusion at a bad time. I'd vote for no switch.
Electric gyros I've flow have flags that drop
on the face to annunciate power off.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AH ? |
In a message dated 2/18/03 11:32:14 PM Central Standard Time,
krasinski(at)direcway.com writes:
> This is probably true for gyros with limit stops, but those gyros belong
> to a museum. Good contemporary gyros have 360 degrees fredom in every
> direction of motion, and the plane rolls and loops around them in
> aerobatic figures.
Good Morning Jerzy,
I don't disagree with your premise as to the capability of many modern gyros,
(I mentioned that in the message from which you took your quote), but I would
like to state that the section of my message which you quote was not written
by me. It was a portion of a message to which I was adding additional data.
I do believe I credited the original author, Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr, in
my message.
However, I feel your comment that any gyro that tumbles in an aerobatic
maneuver should be relegated to a museum is a bit extreme.
I have no way of knowing for sure, but I will bet a milk shake that the
majority of gyros used in GA aircraft currently flown IFR will tumble. I
have a KG-102A feeding a KI-525A and an Edo-Aire Mitchell 52D66 artificial
horizon that are my primary IFR gyros.
Both of those instruments will tumble if aerobatic flight is attempted.
Are you suggesting that all instrumentation of that era should be abandoned?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator circuit breakers |
Comments below
> > > >I was given
> > > >two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price
was
> > > >right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing
nuisance
> > > >trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using
a 4
> > > >Amp breaker in either circuit?
> > >
> > > Peak current on the ND alternator is just over 3 amps.
> > > 4A breakers will be fine.
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> >You'll only be able to use one of your 4A breakers though. The SD-8
> >doesn't have a field circuit.
>
> But if installed with the recommended OV protections
> and controls, it too will need a small breaker . . .
>
> Bob . . .
I didn't realize that you were recommending OV protection for the SD-8.
Is B&C also recommending it now? Six years ago, we were still saying
that the OV/LV sensor would be adequate because an OV condition would
happen slowly enough for the pilot to see the flashing light and turn
off the SD-8 before any damage was done.
Dave in Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator Field Breaker |
Bob -
On Z-14 and using fuse blocks instead of cb's, where are the power takeoffs for
the alternator field breakers?
Seems that the wires are unprotected for some length from their sources until
they gets to the cb's.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
I would like to hear Marks comments about the internal circuit
protection that the PSE products offer. And, if there is no internal
protection for polarity reversal, why not?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Canyon
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
John Rourke wrote:
>Steve,
>While I don't necessarily agree with PSE's policy, I think the answer
to
>the question you ask is obvious: in the case of the purchased harness,
>your purchase pays for hand-holding, even if you screw up the other
end.
>It's kind of an insurance policy.
It may well be, but if so, I think a well thought out policy could be
presented in a way to make that clear and even optional while
maintaining a warranty from literal product defects and not leave the
customer with a bad taste over it either.
But, from Mark's answer to some of my questions he certainly left me
with the impression that his product has no provision for self
protection at all. If this is true, it certainly represents an
inelegant and archaic fundamental design philosophy, which IMHO, is far
worse than a flawed warranty policy.
>It may be more than I need, but it's there if I want it. Otherwise I'll
>just assume there's no warranty, and make my purchase decision on the
>unit, and on the harness, on that basis.
That's certainly not an unreasonable approach and one I may some day
take myself in lieu of better options. The lack of self protection
inherent in the design may well be the primary cause of his concerns
over support costs but since he has bailed out I guess I'll never
know. Either way, one mark of a flawed policy is an inability to
clearly demonstrate the rationale in a manner acceptable to the
customers.
While it is not my company and they are certainly free to run it any
way they like with no flak from me, I am very disappointed in the
answers (and lack of answers) I did get. I have no axe to grind here
whatsoever, just a prospective customer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker |
>
>
>Bob -
>
>On Z-14 and using fuse blocks instead of cb's, where are the power
>takeoffs for
>the alternator field breakers?
>
>Seems that the wires are unprotected for some length from their sources until
>they gets to the cb's.
yes, use fusible links in the alternator field leads as shown
in figure Z-13
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bilinski <bilinski(at)qcpi.com> |
This engineer guy who seems quite intelligent keeps telling me NOT to use
switches rated for AC in a DC application. I have never heard anything like
this before. Anyone?
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 8220
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Alternator circuit breakers |
>
>
>I didn't realize that you were recommending OV protection for the SD-8.
>Is B&C also recommending it now? Six years ago, we were still saying
>that the OV/LV sensor would be adequate because an OV condition would
>happen slowly enough for the pilot to see the flashing light and turn
>off the SD-8 before any damage was done.
Yup. B&C has an install kit for PM altenrators that
includes a filter capacitor, ov module, control relay
and light fixture. It's their p/n 504-1 and wired
per Z-17.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Bilinski <bilinski(at)qcpi.com> |
| Subject: | MIL spec connectors |
Does anyone know of a good place to buy MIL Spec connectors that dont cost
a fortune. I need one that can handle aobut 24 wires at 18g. I want to put
in line with a exisiting harness.
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 8220
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
I agreen with Shannon's comments.
I think Mark's responses have been very good and fair.
Even if the unit is "out of warranty", the flat rates to fix it are very
reasonable.
Believe me, in my business, even I have some "experts" doing some dumb things
while installing parts.
Then they want you to "warranty" it.
I am redoing my panel now and I am buying a PS audio panel.
Steve
Springfield Auto Parts Co., Inc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker |
I take it that I can run the cb wires off of the stud of their respective fuse
blocks? Any better place?
>>
>>
>>Bob -
>>
>>On Z-14 and using fuse blocks instead of cb's, where are the power
>>takeoffs for
>>the alternator field breakers?
>>
>>Seems that the wires are unprotected for some length from their sources until
>>they gets to the cb's.
>
> yes, use fusible links in the alternator field leads as shown
> in figure Z-13
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ford Motorcraft Alternator |
Bob:
Just found out my engine, IO-520, will have a Ford Motorcraft
alternator. Do you know if this has an internal regulator and if so should I
bypass it and use the LR-3? If use it, how would I hook it up?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch for AH ? |
----- Message d'origine -----
De :
:
Envoy : mercredi 19 fvrier 2003 15:07
Objet : Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AH ?
>
> In a message dated 2/18/03 11:32:14 PM Central Standard Time,
> krasinski(at)direcway.com writes:
>
> > This is probably true for gyros with limit stops, but those gyros belong
> > to a museum. Good contemporary gyros have 360 degrees fredom in every
> > direction of motion, and the plane rolls and loops around them in
> > aerobatic figures.
>
> Good Morning Jerzy,
>
> I don't disagree with your premise as to the capability of many modern
gyros,
> (I mentioned that in the message from which you took your quote), but I
would
> like to state that the section of my message which you quote was not
written
> by me. It was a portion of a message to which I was adding additional
data.
> I do believe I credited the original author, Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr,
in
> my message.
>
Hi all,
Just a note to say I'm the one who asked the first question, but I'm not the
author of the comments you are citing above.
Most interesting thread, though.
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Solid State Gyro Components |
I'm interested in locating some pointers to solid state gyro
components. I know almost nothing about them but can imagine they may
be a spinoff of some of the neat gismos that came out National
Semiconductor in the late '70s or early '80s. They had created some
interesting little solid state motors back then and which at the time I
really didn't pay much attention to other than to think they were
really innovative. Am I way off base on the fundamentals of these
components? Anybody got a link or pointer?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Perry" <eperry(at)san.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Battery chargers |
Ok Here's the scoop...I have a PC-680 battery in my RV-8. I want to charge it.
I have a 12volt /1amp charger. The volt meter in the airplane shows 12.2 volts
right now. My hanger mate says that the charger will never get the battery
fully charged again. Is this true? If so would it make any difference to use my
10amp charger? Next what does the 1amp rating on the charger mean? Finally with
a sealed battery how will I know when it is charged, what voltage should I
expect to see?
Thanks,
Ed Perry
eperry(at)san.rr.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
>
>Bob and Gang,
> Discussion of connectors raises an interesting thought; don't think
> I've
>ever seen a good article on multi-wire plug connectors, and the selection of
>a particular type for a particular application. Electronics guys know the
>details because they've worked with them for years. The rest of us pick up a
>Digi-Key catalog or similar, find a jaw-dropping selection, and groan.
Engineers navigating connector-wilds aren't much happier about it.
Connectors are like laundry soap . . . so many choices, so few
outstanding reasons for selecting any particular technology.
Every year or so, some starry-eyed sales rep would drop a new
connector catalog on my desk claiming that THIS product finally
answered the needs for everyone and was the greatest connector
since they began slicing bread . . .
Task 1 for a connector is to make non-permanent connections
between one or more strands of wire. Attachment to the wire
can be solder, crimp, or mass-termination (like ribbon cables
munched onto a 50 wires in a single stroke). Considerations
are (1) do you really NEED a connector there? (2) how many strands
of wire? (3) what sizes of wire? (4) any extraordinary
environmental concerns? (5) any extra ordinary mechanical
concerns?
> Need examples? When does one use a Molex connector vs a D-sub?
D-subs are the first connector I consider for any new application.
Check out this picture:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/power_dist.jpg
This is a "tall" picture . . . so scroll down to
see the bottom half.
This is an all solid state, power distribution
box that routes energy from ground power jack
and up to two batteries to 5 different busses
in the vehicle. External power input can be as
high as 40A continuous . . . yet, if one knows
how to make it work, all can be handled though
the 20AWG pins of d-sub connectors.
This box USED to be about 10" long, 4" thick
5" wide, full of relays and wired up with
supper-whizzy connectors. The connectors alone
on the previous version cost more than the whole
bill of materials for the new version.
Here you can see how the solder-right-to-
the-board features of D-sub connectors has
a profound reduction of labor to install.
In this case, although subjected to up to
30g acceleration and short term radiant
heating, the D-sub was entirely suited
mechanically to the task. The mil-spec,
gold-plated pins were no worse (or better)
than the gold-plated pins on MUCH more
expensive connectors.
> Why are (most?) D-sub pins gold plated?
I wouldn't say most . . . you can buy tin-plated
connectors in D-sub. Gold is preferred because is
does not corrode . . . electrical integrity of
mated pins is not nearly so likely to degrade
with age and use. Gold plated pins are relatively
cheap for D-subs because of the huge volume in
this particular product. By-the-way, the same
20AWG pin is used in AMP CPC Series II connectors
like:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T031/0192.pdf
use the same pins as a D-sub . . . so you have
two low-cost connector opportunities to use the
same tools and a common part number for pins.
> Is connector selection as simple as
>observing an amperage rating, or is there more to it?
I you were wiring anything but voltages up to 28vdc,
there might be voltage rating issues but in our
market, ANY connector will suffice that can
carry the current and accommodate the quantity
of wires.
If you need to carry more than 4A continuous
per pin, consider the CPC Series I connectors
in the same catalog can accommodate up to
14AWG wires. Except for firewall penetrations,
the AMP CPC connectors for systems teamed with
CPC and/or D-subs for avionics would be my
connectors of choice. They are low cost, tools
are reasonably priced, gold plated pins are
available for both styles. Excellent values
for our projects.
> Why a choice of metal or plastic backshells?
Plastic is less expensive and lighter. 90% of my
applications use plastic. There are almost never
interference issues that justify the metal or
conductive plastic backshells. If the connector
is used under the cowl, metal backshells are probably
advised.
> The automotive world uses plastic connector shells
>that lock when mated; why don't we use similar connectors in our airplanes?
>Or do we, and where do you get them?
Mate-n-Lock/Molex style connectors have been used
on many single engine airplane beginning in the 60's.
>Does a Molex shell offer any wire support, or does it strictly
>depend on the insulation crimp of the little sheet copper pin?
That's it. No bundle support. Only the insulation grip
on each strand. I was skeptical when I first laid eyes on them
but in retrospect, they seem to have performed well for decades
in spite of no back shell support and non-gold pins.
> May seem like dumb questions to some, but...
Not at all. Before Internet access reduced the need,
my library used to have about 5 feet of shelving
dedicated to connectors. Your consternation is understandable.
I think you'll find that the two connector series
I cited will do a good job for your project 98%
of the time.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Solid State Gyro Components |
I believe most affordable solid state rate gyros are based on a micromachined vibrating
rod. When this rod is turned a coriolis like force causes it to distort
in a way proportional to the rate of turning. There are laser rate gyros as
well, both solid and fiber, but these are usually much more expensive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Canyon [mailto:steve.canyon(at)verizon.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Solid State Gyro Components
I'm interested in locating some pointers to solid state gyro
components. I know almost nothing about them but can imagine they may
be a spinoff of some of the neat gismos that came out National
Semiconductor in the late '70s or early '80s. They had created some
interesting little solid state motors back then and which at the time I
really didn't pay much attention to other than to think they were
really innovative. Am I way off base on the fundamentals of these
components? Anybody got a link or pointer?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery chargers |
>
>Ok Here's the scoop...I have a PC-680 battery in my RV-8. I want to charge
>it. I have a 12volt /1amp charger. The volt meter in the airplane shows
>12.2 volts right now. My hanger mate says that the charger will never get
>the battery fully charged again. Is this true? If so would it make any
>difference to use my 10amp charger? Next what does the 1amp rating on the
>charger mean? Finally with a sealed battery how will I know when it is
>charged, what voltage should I expect to see?
ANY charger that produces more output current than
the SELF-DISCHARGE current of the battery will eventually
recharge that battery. Since you're talking about an
RG battery with a self discharge rate on the order of
.001-.002 amps, a 1 amp charger has more than enough snort
to do the job. In fact, this charger will bring up a
totally dead battery in less than 24 hours.
In fact, unless your charger is REGULATED such that
end of charge voltage does not exceed 14.0 to 14.5
volts, it will (if left on for very long periods
of time) damage the battery.
Put a voltmeter on the battery terminals while the
charger is plugged in. Come back 24 hours later
and see what the voltage is. If higher than 14
volts, I would not use this charger to STORE the
battery . . . only to top it off under supervised
conditions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford Motorcraft Alternator |
>
>Bob:
>
> Just found out my engine, IO-520, will have a Ford Motorcraft
>alternator. Do you know if this has an internal regulator and if so should I
>bypass it and use the LR-3? If use it, how would I hook it up?
I suspect it has a built in regulator and needs to be wired
as shown in figure Z-24
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker |
>
>
>I take it that I can run the cb wires off of the stud of their respective
>fuse
>blocks? Any better place?
Yes, hook the terminal end of the fusible link to
the fuseblock stud.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Schroeder <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery chargers |
Ed -
12.5 v reading is 100% of charge level
10.5 v reading is 0% of charge level.
13 volts is the dividing line. 13.8 - 14.4 is OK for charging. Anything less
than 13 v means that the battery is adding "snort to the system" (discharging),
as Bob would put it. I'd use the 10 amp charger. The 1 amp sounds like it is a
trickle charger - provided it puts out more than 13 V.
John
2/19/2003 3:27:33 PM, "Ed Perry" wrote:
>
>Ok Here's the scoop...I have a PC-680 battery in my RV-8. I want to charge it.
I have a 12volt /1amp charger. The volt meter in the airplane shows 12.2 volts
right now. My hanger mate says that the charger will never get the battery
fully charged again. Is this true? If so would it make any difference to use my
10amp charger? Next what does the 1amp rating on the charger mean? Finally with
a sealed battery how will I know when it is charged, what voltage should I
expect to see?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MIL spec connectors |
>
>Does anyone know of a good place to buy MIL Spec connectors that dont cost
>a fortune. I need one that can handle aobut 24 wires at 18g. I want to put
>in line with a exisiting harness.
What is the "magic" you expect for having purchased
mil-spec? Unless you have a customer with some hard
over requirement for spec'd connectors, consider the
AMP CPC connectors on pages 191-192 of current Digikey
catalog.
If you gotta have holy-watered connectors, contact
Aeroelectric Connector in Torrance, CA
(310) 618-3737 and give them a part number.
Consider the MS3470 series connectors at
http://www.aero-electric.com/26482_2.htm
pick your inserts from
http://www.aero-electric.com/26482s2_cont_insert.htm
Consider too that tools to install/extract
pins will be needed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery chargers |
Place your 1 amp trickle charger on the battery. If it is charging it should
show more than the 12.2 volts that it presently shows.
Now the real question... Why do you want to charge it?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Perry" <eperry(at)san.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery chargers
>
> Ok Here's the scoop...I have a PC-680 battery in my RV-8. I want to charge
it. I have a 12volt /1amp charger. The volt meter in the airplane shows
12.2 volts right now. My hanger mate says that the charger will never get
the battery fully charged again. Is this true? If so would it make any
difference to use my 10amp charger? Next what does the 1amp rating on the
charger mean? Finally with a sealed battery how will I know when it is
charged, what voltage should I expect to see?
>
> Thanks,
> Ed Perry
> eperry(at)san.rr.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch Question |
>
>This engineer guy who seems quite intelligent keeps telling me NOT to use
>switches rated for AC in a DC application. I have never heard anything like
>this before. Anyone?
Short answer is yes, heard it a lot from folks who have not
bothered to look at the data or to tap the experience base
of the industry.
Long answer is:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
> Bob I am in the proces of creating a pitch trim rely deck. Can't use MAC
> to much load. I was reading you download about this Pitch trim page
> 4.2. The elevator trim on the Velocity has a 3amp draw and 5a breaker so
> i have a good idea of the size of the relays. Any suggestion on whose to use?
The S704-1 relay shown on our website catalog is suited
to this task and can be wired per diagram you cited.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s704-1l.jpg
> Also have a question on the spike diodes you use in the diagram
> I assume 12v but what oHm and amp size would you suggest.
> If you have a description that goes whit that diagram how can I get it?
Don't have a bill of materials for this. Any diode
you can put your hands on will work. 1N4000 series
devices mounted like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/s704inst.jpg
this picture shows how to put the diode on when
used as an alternator disconnect relay . . . using
this relay as pitch-trim relay would be wired
similarly.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: shield pigtail |
>
>
>Is it absolutely imperative that you connect a pigtail to the shield, or
>is it possible/acceptable to twist the shield and crimp a pin to it and
>insert it directly into the plug?
Give it a try . . . even if you manage to produce a reasonable
electrical connection of the pin to an array of twisted wires,
I don't think you'll find the end product very pleasing to the
eye. I tried it . . . . once . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Milestone in history of the 'Connection |
Got a book back from a gentleman who asked for his money
back. Couldn't find where I'd sold it too him. He must
have picked it up from one of the dealers. It had a stained
front cover which he confessed happened when he left
a sandwich laying on it . . . but the interior was still
okay.
He wrote, "I'm tired of learning how. I know to properly
understand something you should know how. But things
keep changing, what's the use? I am tired of learning
how. Just show me and I will do it. Why it is, is no
concern."
For the first time in 17 years of publication and
something on the order of 10,000 books sold,
his was the first instance where an amateur airplane
builder said they have no interest knowing how their
airplane works . . . truly a milestone in my aviation
career.
I cut him a check and put it in the mail with a note
hoping that his experiences with his airplane were
"enjoyable and stress free." I've put his letter on the
bulletin board over my desk. It's a "keeper". . .
Bob . . .
|-------------------------------------------------------|
| The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
| over the man who cannot read them. |
| - Mark Twain |
|-------------------------------------------------------|
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann(at)kyol.net> |
Crap. That's how I did them all. Guess I should redo all that.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann(at)kyol.net
>Is it absolutely imperative that you connect a pigtail to the shield,
or
>is it possible/acceptable to twist the shield and crimp a pin to it and
>insert it directly into the plug?
Give it a try . . . even if you manage to produce a reasonable
electrical connection of the pin to an array of twisted wires,
I don't think you'll find the end product very pleasing to the
eye. I tried it . . . . once . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Canyon <steve.canyon(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Solid State Gyro Components |
Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD wrote:
>I believe most affordable solid state rate gyros are based on a
>micromachined vibrating rod. When this rod is turned a coriolis like
>force causes it to distort in a way proportional to the rate of
>turning. There are laser rate gyros as well, both solid and fiber,
>but these are usually much more expensive.
---
Thanks, John. I finally found one such as you describe, made in Japan
by SSSG, Inc. Very interesting device -- got to think about playing
with some of these now. :-)
Thanks again!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Milestone in history of the 'Connection |
> He wrote, "I'm tired of learning how. I know to properly
> understand something you should know how. But things
> keep changing, what's the use? I am tired of learning
> how. Just show me and I will do it. Why it is, is no
> concern."
Bob,
I wouln't dream of sending back my copy of the Connection, even for double
the price, but I must admit that I do understand his sentiments. Building an
airplane involves a long and steep learning curve. The more we can par down
to the essentials what we have to learn, the easier the journey will be.
Finding the information relevant to the practical job in hand involves a lot
of sifting with the current layout.
IMHO you're book would be better as two books. Book 1 - the history of
aviation electronics. It's facinating stuff, but I don't need it right now.
Book 2 - how to wire you're plane - or ideally "how to wire you're canard
pusher". I'd buy book 2, and leave book 1 for background reading when I've
got more spare time. For example: I DO want to know why I need an
overvoltage protection circuit, how it works and how to wire it up, but I
DONT really care how a generator works, or why they were replaced by
alternators.
Regards,
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery chargers |
>> I have a PC-680 battery in my RV-8. I want to charge it.<<
Ed, there are good data sheets with battery care info at the Hawker Energy
Products website.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Milestone in history of the 'Connection |
| From: | "David Glauser" <david.glauser(at)xpsystems.com> |
Yes! I must agree there. A more definite separation of electrical theory from practical
details would be nice. I've read and reread The Good Aeroplane Electrical
Thingies Book (tm) but I still have a large gap between what I read and what
I'm trying to do to the plane. It must be a mental problem of mine, but it
sure is frustrating. I wish I had a co-builder who understood all this stuff.
dg
-----Original Message-----
From: John Slade [mailto:sladerj(at)bellsouth.net]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Milestone in history of the 'Connection
> He wrote, "I'm tired of learning how. I know to properly
> understand something you should know how. But things
> keep changing, what's the use? I am tired of learning
> how. Just show me and I will do it. Why it is, is no
> concern."
Bob,
I wouln't dream of sending back my copy of the Connection, even for double
the price, but I must admit that I do understand his sentiments. Building an
airplane involves a long and steep learning curve. The more we can par down
to the essentials what we have to learn, the easier the journey will be.
Finding the information relevant to the practical job in hand involves a lot
of sifting with the current layout.
IMHO you're book would be better as two books. Book 1 - the history of
aviation electronics. It's facinating stuff, but I don't need it right now.
Book 2 - how to wire you're plane - or ideally "how to wire you're canard
pusher". I'd buy book 2, and leave book 1 for background reading when I've
got more spare time. For example: I DO want to know why I need an
overvoltage protection circuit, how it works and how to wire it up, but I
DONT really care how a generator works, or why they were replaced by
alternators.
Regards,
John Slade
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Loram <johnl(at)loram.org> |
| Subject: | Solid State Gyro Components |
Analog Devices (www.analogdevices.com) is a primary sourced for MEMS
devices. Go to their home page and
and look under the heading "Technology Leadership". At the bottom you'll
find a link to the MEMS products and technical support for their iMEMS
Accelerometers and Gyroscopes.
regards, -john-
john(at)loram.org
www.loram.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Canyon [mailto:steve.canyon(at)verizon.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Solid State Gyro Components
I'm interested in locating some pointers to solid state gyro
components. I know almost nothing about them but can imagine they may
be a spinoff of some of the neat gismos that came out National
Semiconductor in the late '70s or early '80s. They had created some
interesting little solid state motors back then and which at the time I
really didn't pay much attention to other than to think they were
really innovative. Am I way off base on the fundamentals of these
components? Anybody got a link or pointer?
Thanks,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Milestone in history of the 'Connection |
Hi Bob,
I bought the Aerolectric Book several years ago and believe it is just
right. I have studied it several times over the years and find that it is
just the right amount of theory and practice. Since I don't practice
electrical engineering I tend to quickly forget the principals involved but
I am glad that I can pick up your book and with an evening of reading can
quickly regain a grasp of the basics. Then I can proceed with the
applications also offered in the book.
I feel that I am a better and safer pilot for having learned from your
lectures and book. I think we are all extremely priveledged to have you as a
resource and encourage you to keep on with your work.....
Thanks for all your efforts,
Ned
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Slade" <sladerj(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Milestone in history of the 'Connection
>
> > He wrote, "I'm tired of learning how. I know to properly
> > understand something you should know how. But things
> > keep changing, what's the use? I am tired of learning
> > how. Just show me and I will do it. Why it is, is no
> > concern."
>
> Bob,
> I wouln't dream of sending back my copy of the Connection, even for double
> the price, but I must admit that I do understand his sentiments. Building
an
> airplane involves a long and steep learning curve. The more we can par
down
> to the essentials what we have to learn, the easier the journey will be.
> Finding the information relevant to the practical job in hand involves a
lot
> of sifting with the current layout.
>
> IMHO you're book would be better as two books. Book 1 - the history of
> aviation electronics. It's facinating stuff, but I don't need it right
now.
> Book 2 - how to wire you're plane - or ideally "how to wire you're canard
> pusher". I'd buy book 2, and leave book 1 for background reading when I've
> got more spare time. For example: I DO want to know why I need an
> overvoltage protection circuit, how it works and how to wire it up, but I
> DONT really care how a generator works, or why they were replaced by
> alternators.
>
> Regards,
> John Slade
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Milestone in history of the 'Connection |
In a message dated 2/19/03 6:14:33 PM Central Standard Time, 315(at)cox.net
writes:
> I feel that I am a better and safer pilot for having learned from your
> lectures and book. I think we are all extremely privileged to have you as a
> resource and encourage you to keep on with your work.....
>
>
Good Evening All.
I know we are not supposed to use bandwidth to say "Me Too." However, in
this case I hope I will be forgiven. The only thing that I have found in the
years I have been reading Electric Bob's stuff is that it has gotten better
and better.
Stay the course!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
February 12, 2003 - February 19, 2003
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-bq