AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dp
October 14, 2004 - October 27, 2004
> regulator com radio -OR- install a dedicated COM antenna for
> the hand held . . . and keep polishing that canopy for the
> ultimate clarity of vision and aura of craftsmanship.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>---
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
On Oct 14, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> You are going to calibrate the fuel level indicators as one of the last
> steps before the first flight, so it would seem to me that the size and
> distance between the plates will be compensated for in the calibration
> process.
But if you change the capacitance of the sender you might end up with a
value outside the calibration range of the instrument.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I don't think the change between the RV4 tank and the Rocket tank will
change the capacitance of the system. The capacitance between the
two probes, which is what I think the question was about, is immeasurably
small compared to the capacitance created by the probe's proximity to
the tank wall... Am I all wet in my understanding of the system?
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You are going to calibrate the fuel level indicators as one of the
>> last steps before the first flight, so it would seem to me that the
>> size and distance between the plates will be compensated for in the
>> calibration process.
>
> But if you change the capacitance of the sender you might end up with a
> value outside the calibration range of the instrument.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna Challenged |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>Oh no, gluing nothing to the canopy. I would be using copper tape. The hand
>held works great in COM mode its the VOR that has no distance.
Is this with the rubber duck or an external antenna? ANY
external antenna will do wonders for performance. I wouldn't
look for VOR performance to begin to approach that of a
panel mounted radio. Keep in mind to that VOR stations come
in at least two, perhaps three flavors for power output.
Do you carry a hand held gps? If so, why worry about VOR
performance? If not, why not? Found a whole pot full of
the Magellan GPS 315 on Ebay.
http://search.ebay.com/magellan-gps-315
I carry two of these. Haven't turned a VOR on in almost
10 years except to see if the VOR function in my hand-held
works okay close in. I could shoot a VOR approach with it
in a pinch if I had to but I'd be a lot more comfortable
with the $100 GPS receivers.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna Challenged |
Good point, I have 2 GPS's,the chance of them both going out is next to
nil. I think I will move on to other items that need work.
Thanks for your input.
>
>
>
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> >Oh no, gluing nothing to the canopy. I would be using copper tape. The hand
> >held works great in COM mode its the VOR that has no distance.
>
> Is this with the rubber duck or an external antenna? ANY
> external antenna will do wonders for performance. I wouldn't
> look for VOR performance to begin to approach that of a
> panel mounted radio. Keep in mind to that VOR stations come
> in at least two, perhaps three flavors for power output.
>
> Do you carry a hand held gps? If so, why worry about VOR
> performance? If not, why not? Found a whole pot full of
> the Magellan GPS 315 on Ebay.
>
> http://search.ebay.com/magellan-gps-315
>
> I carry two of these. Haven't turned a VOR on in almost
> 10 years except to see if the VOR function in my hand-held
> works okay close in. I could shoot a VOR approach with it
> in a pinch if I had to but I'd be a lot more comfortable
> with the $100 GPS receivers.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>---
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
>Didn't know they had a new tool. I presume that it comes packaged
>with some kind of instructions that make note of proper terminal
positioning
>in the un-symetical dies.
>Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to get Todd to send me one to look
at.
>Bob . . .
Bob,
Would appreciate hearing what you think of this tool please. I will be
sending an order off to B&C shortly of which this tool will more than
likely be a part.
Thank you in anticipation
Kingsley Hurst
Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-40 and 403mc |
>>>>>
Tie the grounds together at the radio. The intercom ground will tie to
The SL-40's audio ground, mic ground, and power ground.
<<<<<
Well, I checked the pins on the SL-40, and they're not all the same ground.
The SL-40's audio ground (pin 13) and power ground (pin 9) appear to be
connected together, as is the chassis.
However, the mic ground (pin 7) is NOT connected to the above-mentioned
grounds. There is a 100 ohm resistance between the mic ground (pin 7) and any
of the other grounds on the SL-40.
So do I really want to tie all the SL-40 grounds together since they don't
appear to be the same?
Incidentally, on the 403mc, the mic return (pin 13) and the ground (pin 1)
appear to be connected together inside the intercom, as there is no
resistance between the two.
The oddball here seems to be the mic ground (pin 7) on the SL-40.
Unfortunately, Garmin AT was *no* help at all.
-Geoff
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-40 and 403mc |
On Oct 14, 2004, at 8:01 PM, Geoff Evans wrote:
> Tie the grounds together at the radio. The intercom ground will tie to
> The SL-40's audio ground, mic ground, and power ground.
> <<<<<
>
> Well, I checked the pins on the SL-40, and they're not all the same
> ground.
> The SL-40's audio ground (pin 13) and power ground (pin 9) appear to be
> connected together, as is the chassis.
>
> However, the mic ground (pin 7) is NOT connected to the above-mentioned
> grounds. There is a 100 ohm resistance between the mic ground (pin 7)
> and any
> of the other grounds on the SL-40.
>
> So do I really want to tie all the SL-40 grounds together since they
> don't
> appear to be the same?
Yes. You have to do that because the intercom does not have an
isolated ground for the mic circuit.
The purpose of the 100 ohm resistor in the mic ground is to limit
ground loop currents and its effect on the relatively low mic signal
level. I knew that your mic ground wasn't going to be isolated so that
is why I suggested that you terminate your intercom grounds right at
the radio rather than at the central ground for the aircraft. Also,
isolating your headphone and mic jacks helps as well. Your ground
reference for all your audio signals is the SL-40. This is safe and
should result in a low-noise installation.
> Incidentally, on the 403mc, the mic return (pin 13) and the ground
> (pin 1)
> appear to be connected together inside the intercom, as there is no
> resistance between the two.
Right. I surmised that.
> The oddball here seems to be the mic ground (pin 7) on the SL-40.
It isn't all that odd. It makes a great deal of sense but then, the
folks at Apollo/UPSAT always seemed to have good hardware engineering,
unlike Garmin. I guess the new saying is, "If you can't whip 'em, buy
'em." If it works for Microsoft, why not Garmin?
>
> Unfortunately, Garmin AT was *no* help at all.
Surprise!
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
Hi Bob;
No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
note on the back describing the various different models available and
what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
There is still no adjustment for varying insulation thickness but still
seems a step in the right direction. Another interesting observation;
the larger yellow opening is toward the tip, while the smaller red
opening is toward the pivot, which would seem to be reversed from what
the physics of the forces able to be developed would dictate. The
difference is probably too small to matter, but just the same it seemed
odd. (The jaws are reversible in the frame so this could easily be
corrected)
Bob McC
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>Didn't know they had a new tool. I presume that it comes packaged
>with some kind of instructions that make note of proper terminal positioning
>in the un-symetical dies.
>
>Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to get Todd to send me one to look at.
>
>Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net> |
In studying the pin out / wiring diagram for a King KY-97A Comm radio I am
confused about the power connections to the radio. Pins R and 14 go to the
aircraft power via a 10 amp breaker and is simple enough. However pins P and
13 are switched aircraft power and pins M and 11 are 13.75V power. A note
says the following: " Switched A/C power, pins P and 13 and 13.75V power
pins M and 11 must be jumpered together with #20 AWG minimum." Am I correct
to assume that the switched A/C power is coming out of the radio on pins P
and 13 and is the 13.75V source for pins M and 11?
Note: A pin out diagram for the KY-97A is on Electric Bob's web site.
Thanks,
Jerry Isler
Donalsonville, GA
RV-4 # 1070
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Slobovia Outernational BBQ 2 day warning |
We hope to see you here at Slobovia Outernational Saturday morning to
eat BBQ & talk airplanes. We expect to have a good turnout of homebuilts
& classics, with some alternative engines in the mix.
Info on Slobovia (MS71) can be found at
http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71 or you can email me direct for
driving directions.
Charlie
flying RV-4; RV-7 wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: KY-97A Wiring |
On Oct 14, 2004, at 10:49 PM, Jerry Isler wrote:
>
>
> In studying the pin out / wiring diagram for a King KY-97A Comm radio
> I am
> confused about the power connections to the radio. Pins R and 14 go to
> the
> aircraft power via a 10 amp breaker and is simple enough. However pins
> P and
> 13 are switched aircraft power and pins M and 11 are 13.75V power. A
> note
> says the following: " Switched A/C power, pins P and 13 and 13.75V
> power
> pins M and 11 must be jumpered together with #20 AWG minimum." Am I
> correct
> to assume that the switched A/C power is coming out of the radio on
> pins P
> and 13 and is the 13.75V source for pins M and 11?
Yes. They do that so that you can have a source of switched power to
drive external devices like your audio panel, intercom, etc. The
reason that they make the 13.7V input to the KY-97A separate is that
your loads might exceed the capacity of the internal switch so you can
use the switch power to control a relay which will handle the larger
load.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Hi Bob;
>
>No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
>note on the back describing the various different models available and
>what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
>side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
Interesting. Todd sent me a sample tool yesterday and I should have
it today.
>There is still no adjustment for varying insulation thickness but still
>seems a step in the right direction.
Don't look for this to show up in any tool costing less than
several hundreds of dollars.
> Another interesting observation;
>the larger yellow opening is toward the tip, while the smaller red
>opening is toward the pivot, which would seem to be reversed from what
>the physics of the forces able to be developed would dictate. The
>difference is probably too small to matter, but just the same it seemed
>odd. (The jaws are reversible in the frame so this could easily be
>corrected)
Hmmmm . . . wonder if they simply got assembled backwards.
Appreciate your interest in this. We'll see what the tool
looks like and if necessary/useful, we'll do a shop notes
publication on the tool (or expand the one I already have).
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna Challenged |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>Good point, I have 2 GPS's,the chance of them both going out is next to
>nil. I think I will move on to other items that need work.
>
But, it is theoretically possible for the GPS to become unusable in a
local area due to interference from something. This has happened
several times in the last few years, and it will happen again. It
shouldn't be a big deal if you are VFR, but if you are IFR it might
be smart to have another means of navigation available.
--
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Hello Bob,
A customer brought something to my attention and I'm curious as to your
opinion. The Vans electrical wiring system drawing says to remove the
jumper wire from the starter motor power input stud to the solenoid input,
and instead add a wire from the starter relay "I" terminal to the starter
motor solenoid. The reason is supposed to be that when the engine starts,
the starter motor momentarily generates enough voltage to energize the
starter relay and keep the starter engaged for a few seconds, thereby
overspeeding the starter.
I can think of about a dozen reasons why this is a bunch of fertilizer, and
would sure like to be shown how this could actually be the case. Am I
missing something or is this "internet electrics 101"?
Regards,
David
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave, your instincts are not far off. There's a grain of
truth to Van's caveat but for the wrong reasons . . .
First, one needs to be aware of the special nature of
modern starter engagement solenoids. I'll refer you
to an article on my website at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
also download and print this diagram at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/StarterWiring.pdf
Given the very inductive, high inrush nature of the
solenoid control circuit, the automotive conventional
wiring depicted in Figure 1 has a demonstrated history
of eating starter control switches.
When B&C brought the first, production light-weight
starter to the marketplace nearly 20 years ago, the
unfriendly nature of the control circuit was well understood.
B&C shipped their starters with jumpers installed and
recommended the use of an EXTERNAL control contactor as
shown in Figure 2.
Some years later, other manufacturers brought permanent
magnet motor starters to the market. The B&C wiring
convention was NOT suitable for these starters because
a PM motor generates substantial "back EMF" during
armature spin-down. This voltage DELAYS dropout of the
starter engagement solenoid by several seconds.
However, this does NOT present a hazard to the starter
by "over-speeding" . . . Every time you start the engine,
the first time a cylinder fires the engine accelerates
markedly. If the starter were not fitted with some type
of over-run clutch, the engine would strip the gears in
the starter before you could release the starter button.
Therefore, delayed disengagement, while a tad noisy, does
not represent an automatic hazard due to "over-speeding" or
any other stress. The noise is generated by the fast but
free-wheeling pinion gear. For starters that use the so-called
"Bendix" pinion engagement system, delayed engagement may
be harder on the starter and ring gear. I'd have to noodle
through the operation in a bit more detail.
The builder has several choices to eliminate this phenomenon:
(1) Go back to the automotive conventional wiring shown
in Figure 1 of the diagrams cited above There are robust
starter push buttons that will work well in this configuration.
(2) Add a "boost relay" to take the hits from the starter
contactor engagement solenoid An example is shown in Figure Z-22
of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
(3) Use the "I" terminal of the external contactor as shown in
Figure 3 of the diagrams cited above and recommended by Van's.
(4) Use a wound-field, B&C starter that does not suffer from
this phenomenon.
For the reasons cited above, I don't think the PM motor folks
are shipping their starters with the jumper installed.
Anyone recommending removal of the factory-installed jumper on
a B&C starter simply doesn't understand the nature
of the product they're working with . . . so what's new?
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna Challenged |
But, it is theoretically possible for the GPS to become unusable in a
local area due to interference from something. This has happened
several times in the last few years, and it will happen again. It
shouldn't be a big deal if you are VFR, but if you are IFR it might
be smart to have another means of navigation available.
Yeah, the briefers often advise me regarding GPS jamming in the vicinity of Patuxent
River NAS (gee, as if the TSA.gov isn't doing enough to unleash the dogs
of war on US civilians since 9/11) SO far, it has been a non-ossue, as I have
never once seen the GPS hesitate or hiccup on x/c inthat neighborhood, but it
does give one pause to wonder, when GPS and pilotage are your sole means of
VFR navigation. Add to that the lousy ground visibility in an RV and you've got
you hands full just to stay oriented as to position.
-BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Avg Power Consumption III |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Tinne maha"
<<.skip..Seeing as how I don't plan on using position lights strobes together very
often skip>>
10/15/2004
Hello Grant, This statement puzzles me a bit.
1) Presuming that you are flying in the USA the US FAR Sec 91.209 (b) requires
you to have your anticollision light (strobe light) on at all times, day or night,
when flying unless the PIC determines that it should be turned off in the
interest of safety. This is usually interpreted to mean avoiding reflections
from clouds when flying in IMC.
2) FAR Sec 91.209 (a) requires that the position lights be on from sunset to sunrise.
These two sections together mean that both position lights and strobe lights will
normally be on together whenever flying between sunset and sunrise in VMC.
Were you implying that you dont plan on night flying very often?
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VOR Antenna Challenged |
>
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> >Good point, I have 2 GPS's,the chance of them both going out is next to
> >nil. I think I will move on to other items that need work.
> >
>
>But, it is theoretically possible for the GPS to become unusable in a
>local area due to interference from something. This has happened
>several times in the last few years, and it will happen again. It
>shouldn't be a big deal if you are VFR, but if you are IFR it might
>be smart to have another means of navigation available.
The ordinary risks to GPS are quite remote. Unless an unfriendly entity
has a space-based radiator designed to blanket wide areas of turf
on the surface, one can expect localized interference sources to
have limited effectiveness with durations measured in minutes.
I worked an unmanned air vehicle project about 15 years ago where
we studied the likelihood of deliberate GPS jamming having much
influence on our mission. The risks were low in spite of a deliberate
ground-based effort to upset our mission. The risks of accidental
upset are lower still.
Even if your one-and-only GPS receiver craps, there's no good reason
you cannot navigate "blind" well enough to get into range of the hand-held,
rubber ducky VOR to allow you to comfortably terminate the flight (not
"approved" of course . . . but in a tense situation, who's worrying about
approvals). If one plans to routinely fly IFR, then a panel mounted VOR
with a real antenna is called for. There are just too many areas of
controlled
airspace where the VOR is truly useful and still less expensive than
TSO'd, IFR approved GPS receivers.
Airplanes I rent all have VOR receivers . . . usually two of them.
Most have a non-IFR approved GPS. I'd have to file citing VOR
capability even tho the VOR displays would be used to verify/legalize
GPS displays whether panel mounted or hand-held. Bottom line is
that multiple GPS receivers offer an extremely low probability of
leaving you GPS-deficient.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hello listers...
I have a KX170B in my C150 that is giving me a couple of headaches,
and I was hoping someone here might have some ideas on how to
fix it.
First, I notice that the reception and transmission intermittently gets
scratchy or cuts out when I am on the local approach frequency. Both
transmit and receive seem to be affected. Other frequencies have not
shown this problem. It has been suggested to me that I need to get
some contact cleaner and spray out the frequency selection hardware.
Does that sound right? Does anyone have a favorite product for taking
care of this?
The other problem with the radio is that the power switch for the nav
section intermittent. Is this likely a similar problem to the frequency
selection issue? The nav section seems most likely to work before
the switch actually reaches the 'nav' detent, and doesn't seem to
power up when in the ident position. Any ideas?
Thanks and regards,
Matt Prather
C150 N714BK, VE N34RD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX170B Problems |
My local avionics shop advised me that the KX-170 series has a known issue
with the power switches failing, and that replacements are no longer
available.
However, a common work-around is to bypass the switch inside and provide an
external on-off somewhere on the panel.
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX170B Problems
>
>
> Hello listers...
>
> I have a KX170B in my C150 that is giving me a couple of headaches,
> and I was hoping someone here might have some ideas on how to
> fix it.
>
> First, I notice that the reception and transmission intermittently gets
> scratchy or cuts out when I am on the local approach frequency. Both
> transmit and receive seem to be affected. Other frequencies have not
> shown this problem. It has been suggested to me that I need to get
> some contact cleaner and spray out the frequency selection hardware.
> Does that sound right? Does anyone have a favorite product for taking
> care of this?
>
> The other problem with the radio is that the power switch for the nav
> section intermittent. Is this likely a similar problem to the frequency
> selection issue? The nav section seems most likely to work before
> the switch actually reaches the 'nav' detent, and doesn't seem to
> power up when in the ident position. Any ideas?
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
> Matt Prather
> C150 N714BK, VE N34RD
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KX170B Problems |
>
>
>My local avionics shop advised me that the KX-170 series has a known issue
>with the power switches failing, and that replacements are no longer
>available.
>However, a common work-around is to bypass the switch inside and provide an
>external on-off somewhere on the panel.
One of the rentals I used to fly simply shorted around the switch
and let the radio run all the time. We simply turned the volume
down when it wasn't needed.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Hi Bob;
> >
> >No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
> >note on the back describing the various different models available and
> >what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
> >side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
>
> Interesting. Todd sent me a sample tool yesterday and I should have
> it today.
Just received the new tool. The die-set does a nicer job on the
insulation grip for the larger insulations like automotive PVC
but is loose on 22AWG Tefzel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P255.jpg
The wire grip side closes fine and has about the right
cross section. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P256.jpg
The biggest problem I have is the gap between the two
crimps. When one centers the terminal in the tool, the
wire grip and insulation grips are formed on the ends
of the insulator as opposed to being centered on the
end thirds. The wire grip went gas-tight on the last
50% of its length as opposed to being centered. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P257.jpg
Terminals installed with this tool are probably
going to be okay but I think the original tool
does a better job. I'm going to return this tool to
B&C with a recommendation that they seek out a
product that works better on the Tefzel/PIDG
combination of wire/terminals.
The die set was reversed in the tool as-received.
Instructions on the back showed the larger-yellow
die away from the end of tool. I turned the die
set around to do the tests and photos.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lighthardware(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
Greetings List,
I have a Stormscope WX1000 system with a bad display. I have traced the
problem, at least in part to a bad resistor, however I haven't been able to find
a
parts or service manual for this display, and the resister is charred so I
can't read the value.
Can anyone on the list provide me with the correct value for R-127 on the
display board?
Any help is greatly appriciated.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Avg Power Consumption III |
OC,
Thanks for the response. Yes, that was the implication (I said it directly in an
earlier thread): I only plan on flying at 'night' for the first or
last half hour of a flight, but would still like to have the option of flying
at night. Even with both strobe position lights on, my theoretical load will
be 14-18 amps with a 20 amp alternator. My original question was two-fold: Mainly,
what are actual average loads for particular instruments secondly, how much
overhead capacity(alt output - actual continuousload) is sufficient, per the
experience of the list.
Thank You too for pointing out the FARs: I'm a little embarrased to admit I didn't
know strobes are required to be onduring the day. I've heard that it's over
rated as a safety practice, but didn't realize it was a requirement.
As I ordered the 20 amp alternator this morning from BC I'm pretty much committed.
The weight CG advantages it offers me are tremendous. Obviously I'm convinced
it will work fine good power management on the ground (i.e. keeping electrical
loads to a minimum until just before takeoff 'cuz low RPM = Low output
with a vacuum pad driven alternator) will only help. However, I'm still inviting
dissenting ( concurring) opinions that are based on experience.
Thanks again,
Grant
From: bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avg Power Consumption III
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 11:34:57 -0400
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: bakerocb(at)cox.net
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Tinne maha" tinnemaha(at)hotmail.com
.skip..Seeing as how I don't plan on using position lights strobes together very
often skip
10/15/2004
Hello Grant, This statement puzzles me a bit.
1) Presuming that you are flying in the USA the US FAR Sec 91.209 (b)requires you
to have your anticollision light (strobe light) on at all times, day or night,
when flying unless the PIC determines that it should be turned off in the
interest of safety. This is usually interpreted to mean avoiding reflections from
clouds when flying in IMC.
2) FAR Sec 91.209 (a) requires that the position lights be on from sunset to sunrise.
These two sections together mean that both position lights and strobe lights will
normally be on together whenever flying between sunset and sunrise in VMC.
Were you implying that you dont plan on night flying very often?
OC
Find the music you love on MSN Music. Start downloading now!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Fulp" <jrfulp(at)ncia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
Hi John,
It takes over current to burn a resister (which means other components went
south). Unless you have the knowledge and equipment, it's best to have it
repaired by a pro.
B/R John
----- Original Message -----
From: <Lighthardware(at)aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display
Greetings List,
I have a Stormscope WX1000 system with a bad display. I have traced the
problem, at least in part to a bad resistor, however I haven't been able to
find a
parts or service manual for this display, and the resister is charred so I
can't read the value.
Can anyone on the list provide me with the correct value for R-127 on the
display board?
Any help is greatly appriciated.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lighthardware(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Help with Stormscope (WX1000) Display |
John and Joe,
Thanks for the suggestions and I agree.
The indicator came out of another system with a shorted processor. The
processor that I have and am basing my system around is in good shape and yellow
tagged.
I have gone through the indicator and tested the componants to the best of my
ability and this resister is the only damage that I can find (that's not
saying that I didn't miss something else). BFG wants 700 bucks to go through the
display which is rediculous.
I would like to try replacing the one resister and seeing if that gets things
going. If not, I'll buy another yellow tagged display.
Thanks again.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avg Power Consumption III |
Hi all,
I have been watching this thread for a while and wanted to offer up my
experience. I have a Europa that is powered by a Rotax 914. I had the same
concern because the PM alternator was only good for 18 ~ 20 amps. To make
sure I could power everything I was proactive with the design of the
electrical load. I did the following:
Single strobe on top of the fin. 2 A
LED Position lights. ~1.6 A
LED tail light ~ .75A
Low hold in contactor. ~ .03A
I have a load analysis spreadsheet that breaks out the load for 6 phases of
flight from preflight through to cruise and the highest theoretical load is
with the landing light on giving a load of 16 amps, with a cruise load of
8.6 amps.
For anyone who would like a copy of this spreadsheet please contact me
offlist and I will forward it to you. The LED position lights were obtained
from Eric at http://www.periheliondesign.com/
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Potter and Brumfield |
"W31 are a whole lot more expensive than a simple switch. The only
rational thought process for using them would be to eliminate the
need for another breaker on the bus . . . but of course, using
these switches forces you to have two busses - one for the breakers
that don't "switch" and one for the switches that "break"
Are you planning a breaker panel for non-switched functions?"
Bob,
I'm still on the fence between fuses and breakers, but it seems to me that using
the W31 breakers for my switched loads (about a dozen), I avoid making jumpers
from a fuse block (or circuit breaker) to a switch. This reduces the number
of connections to fail as well as the parts count. Is there any reason the
switched versus unswitched breakers can't be on the same bus? I would think one
could arrange them in a fashion that allowed both to attach to the same bus
and still allow adequate access to the breakers and the switches.
Dan Fritz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Potter and Brumfield |
>
>"W31 are a whole lot more expensive than a simple switch. The only
> rational thought process for using them would be to eliminate the
> need for another breaker on the bus . . . but of course, using
> these switches forces you to have two busses - one for the breakers
> that don't "switch" and one for the switches that "break"
>
> Are you planning a breaker panel for non-switched functions?"
>
>Bob,
>I'm still on the fence between fuses and breakers, but it seems to me that
>using the W31 breakers for my switched loads (about a dozen), I avoid
>making jumpers from a fuse block (or circuit breaker) to a switch. This
>reduces the number of connections to fail as well as the parts count.
Don't forget the parts count INSIDE the components. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/W31_1.jpg
It becomes a trade off on your confidence for installing terminals
(fast-ons
at that) on two ends of a piece of wire versus your confidence that all
that
monkey motion inside the switch offers a superior solution for system
reliability.
> Is there any reason the switched versus unswitched breakers can't be on
> the same bus?
No, but generally the cockpit is arranged so that pilot controls
(switches) are in front of pilot and maintenance controls (breakers)
are more remote, like on sidewalls or far right side. It's all driven
by your panel real estate budgets and ergonomics.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | ADF sense antenna |
Gentlemen:
It looks like at least one of my four teenagers will train for their instrument
rating in our RV-6. It already has a navcom with glidepath and I have a Narco
ADF 140 that I'd like to put in, if only temporarily.
But the ADF came with both a shoe antenna and the long wire sense antenna, which
would be hard to mount on an RV-6.
How would it work without the sense antenna, if at all? Is there an aftermarket
combination antenna that I could use?
I'm aware that ADF appears to be going the way of the do-do bird, but, in Canada,
GPS can only be used for overlay approaches if the aircraft is equipped with
the original receivers the approach required.
Scott in Vancouver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADF sense antenna |
> But the ADF came with both a shoe antenna and the long wire sense
> antenna, which would be hard to mount on an RV-6.
> How would it work without the sense antenna, if at all?
It won't work.
> Is there an aftermarket combination antenna that I could use?
For the Narco? I don't think so. Both the KR-86 and KR-87 had a
combined loop/sense antenna.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ADF sense antenna |
In a message dated 10/16/2004 11:54:49 PM Central Standard Time,
jayeandscott(at)telus.net writes:
It looks like at least one of my four teenagers will train for their
instrument rating in our RV-6. It already has a navcom with glidepath and I have
a
Narco ADF 140 that I'd like to put in, if only temporarily.
Good Morning Scott,
It seems a shame to put in a radio just to accommodate bureaucracy, but if
you really want to do it, I think I would bite the bullet and find a good used
KR-87.
It is a fantastic radio and is easy to mount.
You might check on that regulation. I thought I read a few weeks ago that
Canada had come around to the US style of thinking on that ADF requirement.
Be sure you aren't listening to an Old Wives Tale!
Try contacting George Dewar of NavCanada and tell him I said to write.
dewarg(at)nbnet.nb.ca
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | ADF sense antenna |
They may require that it be equipped wit the original receivers that the
approach required, but do they say they have to work?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott
Jackson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADF sense antenna
Gentlemen:
It looks like at least one of my four teenagers will train for their
instrument rating in our RV-6. It already has a navcom with glidepath and I
have a Narco ADF 140 that I'd like to put in, if only temporarily.
But the ADF came with both a shoe antenna and the long wire sense antenna,
which would be hard to mount on an RV-6.
How would it work without the sense antenna, if at all? Is there an
aftermarket combination antenna that I could use?
I'm aware that ADF appears to be going the way of the do-do bird, but, in
Canada, GPS can only be used for overlay approaches if the aircraft is
equipped with the original receivers the approach required.
Scott in Vancouver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADF sense antenna |
On Oct 17, 2004, at 7:01 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/16/2004 11:54:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> jayeandscott(at)telus.net writes:
> It looks like at least one of my four teenagers will train for their
> instrument rating in our RV-6. It already has a navcom with glidepath
> and I have a
> Narco ADF 140 that I'd like to put in, if only temporarily.
>
> Good Morning Scott,
>
> It seems a shame to put in a radio just to accommodate bureaucracy,
> but if
> you really want to do it, I think I would bite the bullet and find a
> good used
> KR-87.
>
> It is a fantastic radio and is easy to mount.
I second that. The KR-87 is the best ADF I have ever used. The only
problem is that they are still pretty pricey.
BTW, I have a KR-86 I have pulled out of service (I kept the KR-87).
It was 100% operational when I removed it and I carefully preserved the
harness. Make me an offer if you want it. I think I may have a KY-97A
still kicking around too.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com> |
Several on eBay. One looks good!
Bendix/King ADF KR-87 KI-227 KA-44B KR87 Complete kit
Includes harness, rack, and 8130 yellow tags. Warranty
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26436&item
=2493815305&rd=1
$1650 with 1 Hour to go! (16.45 UTC at moment)
Regards
Gerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jaye Murray and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ADF sense antenna |
The latest regs-which are still a little ambiguous-state that to do, for
instance, an ADF approach, the aircraft must still have an ADF receiver to
revert to in case there's problems with the GPS, although it's not required
to be used for the approach if the GPS is working. Same applies to a VOR or
LOC approach.
The regs do include the airmanship reminder to make use of all available
resources on board...
Scott in Vancouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADF sense antenna
>
>
> They may require that it be equipped wit the original receivers that the
> approach required, but do they say they have to work?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott
> Jackson
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADF sense antenna
>
>
>
>
> Gentlemen:
> It looks like at least one of my four teenagers will train for their
> instrument rating in our RV-6. It already has a navcom with glidepath and
> I
> have a Narco ADF 140 that I'd like to put in, if only temporarily.
> But the ADF came with both a shoe antenna and the long wire sense
> antenna,
> which would be hard to mount on an RV-6.
> How would it work without the sense antenna, if at all? Is there an
> aftermarket combination antenna that I could use?
> I'm aware that ADF appears to be going the way of the do-do bird, but, in
> Canada, GPS can only be used for overlay approaches if the aircraft is
> equipped with the original receivers the approach required.
> Scott in Vancouver
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Minimum spacing for toggle switches? |
I'm looking for a spec on minimum lateral spacing for MS24523 toggle
switches. Right now I have them at .75" (spst's - the dp's have a wider
body and are ending up more like 1")
Any one have any opinions, facts, observations or wild guesses that might help?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Smith" <cbsmith(at)nf.sympatico.ca> |
I just got my Icom IC-A200 (purchased new) radio hook-up in my homebuilt and tried
testing it while the airplane was still on the ground. I live in a fairly
remote area so I wasn't too surprised not to hear any audio chat So for a quick
check I tried listening in on 121.5 while tripping the ELT for a couple of
seconds and only received a low power signal. While trouble-shooting the problem
I tried disconnecting the antenna wire connector from the radio antenna during
the ELT test and to my surprise the signal became very strong with the antenna
disconnected ...? Now I'm suspecting the antenna which was bought new,
used once and removed and stored in my basement for 9 years. Is there an easy
way to check an antenna?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Clay Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ADF sense antenna |
>
>
>Gentlemen:
> It looks like at least one of my four teenagers will train for their
> instrument rating in our RV-6. It already has a navcom with glidepath and
> I have a Narco ADF 140 that I'd like to put in, if only temporarily.
> But the ADF came with both a shoe antenna and the long wire sense
> antenna, which would be hard to mount on an RV-6.
> How would it work without the sense antenna, if at all? Is there an
> aftermarket combination antenna that I could use?
> I'm aware that ADF appears to be going the way of the do-do bird, but,
> in Canada, GPS can only be used for overlay approaches if the aircraft is
> equipped with the original receivers the approach required.
You need them both. The radio will work in the "receive" mode for
ball games using only the sense antenna . . . but for "ADF" mode,
you need them both.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna testing |
At 07:23 PM 10/17/2004 -02-30, you wrote:
>
>
>I just got my Icom IC-A200 (purchased new) radio hook-up in my homebuilt
>and tried testing it while the airplane was still on the ground. I live
>in a fairly remote area so I wasn't too surprised not to hear any audio
>chat So for a quick check I tried listening in on 121.5 while tripping
>the ELT for a couple of seconds and only received a low power
>signal. While trouble-shooting the problem I tried disconnecting the
>antenna wire connector from the radio antenna during the ELT test and to
>my surprise the signal became very strong with the antenna disconnected
>...? Now I'm suspecting the antenna which was bought new, used once and
>removed and stored in my basement for 9 years. Is there an easy way to
>check an antenna?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help.
That may not have been a valid test. A receiver located in close proximity
to a transmitter may become overloaded to the extent that disconnecting
an antenna reduces signal strength to acceptable levels and the overloaded
receiver recovers.
Folks who have tried to fly formation often find they cannot communicate
with an airplane a few yards away. Many insert a 10 db attenuator in
the feedline for the #2 com (or under the rubber duck on the hand-held).
With a pair of such attenuators in the line for both co-located radios,
the apparent signal strength is 1/100 of what it would be normally
and the radios work fine.
An SWR or other antenna analyzer test is the definitive investigation.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Olivier Le Carbonnier" <olcdlm(at)laposte.net> |
thank's, but i don't understand the position of terminal in this crimper.
for me the wire came from the "P256" side and the terminal side is on the
"P255" side ?
is this true ? have you a picture of good position for the terminal in the
crimper ?
Olivier LC
France
ICQ#: 82067330
sanglier(at)laposte.net
http://sangliervolant.chez.tiscali.fr Van's RV-8 n81939 wings
-----Message d'origine-----
De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]De la part de
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Envoy : vendredi 15 octobre 2004 23:18
: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Objet : Re: AeroElectric-List: Crimpers
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Hi Bob;
> >
> >No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
> >note on the back describing the various different models available and
> >what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
> >side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
>
> Interesting. Todd sent me a sample tool yesterday and I should have
> it today.
Just received the new tool. The die-set does a nicer job on the
insulation grip for the larger insulations like automotive PVC
but is loose on 22AWG Tefzel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P255.jpg
The wire grip side closes fine and has about the right
cross section. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P256.jpg
The biggest problem I have is the gap between the two
crimps. When one centers the terminal in the tool, the
wire grip and insulation grips are formed on the ends
of the insulator as opposed to being centered on the
end thirds. The wire grip went gas-tight on the last
50% of its length as opposed to being centered. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P257.jpg
Terminals installed with this tool are probably
going to be okay but I think the original tool
does a better job. I'm going to return this tool to
B&C with a recommendation that they seek out a
product that works better on the Tefzel/PIDG
combination of wire/terminals.
The die set was reversed in the tool as-received.
Instructions on the back showed the larger-yellow
die away from the end of tool. I turned the die
set around to do the tests and photos.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | ADF sense antenna |
We faced the question of installing an ADF and DME in our C172 when the
three co owners decided we wanted to get our instrument ratings.
Our avionics shop advised against trying up grade to include ADF and DME due
to the cost and complexity of the upgrades. Instead we choose the Apollo
SL60 which is enroute and terminal certified GPS/COM. This along with the
already installed King KX-155 NavCom with glide slope was all that we needed
for our training and our rating tests. The Apollo should be fairly
available on the used market. It includes defined waypoints for all of the
NDB stations, all waypoints and intersections and all missed approach
waypoints. It is all you need. The ADF test is not required if it is not
installed in the plane. Other choices would be any IFR certified panel
mounted GPS's. Approach certified is nice but not necessary
Our CFII says we probably saved about 10 hours of training each by not
having to learn the junky ADF. (I mean, if the FAA was certifying ADFs now,
would they tolerate systems that point to alternators, strobe lights and
about anything else it chooses to!!!).
The regs require you to demonstrate proficiency in three different
approaches. IN this situation, it is VOR, LOCALIZER, and ILS. That covers
it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Cheaper wire "okay"? |
>Comments/Questions: Howdy-
>I am starting on my third homebuilt. I am looking for a discussion on
>using automotive wiring instead of normal aircraft wiring. Every other
>airplane I have built I used aircraft -- just wondering (besides the toxic
>insulation) if there are other reasons not to use it.
>
>I looked around the web and could not find a good discussion on it.
Do you have a copy of the AeroElectric Connection? Have you read
the chapter on wire?
Automotive wire is 7-strand material and bare, M22759/16
wire is 19-strand and plated. The PVC insulation isn't
a "terrible" material . . . it was the insulation of choice
for several decades. However, substitution of a cheaper
wire, or any other material is like painting your airplane
in the garage with $30/gallon paint using a brush.
The OBAM aircraft community has a unique opportunity
to craft the best airplanes to have ever flown.
The majority investment is time . . . the most
you can expect to save by selecting cheaper materials
would not be more than a few hundreds of dollars . . . while
the time remains constant. I strongly encourage you not
to cut the corners and to make this effort even better than
your last two efforts.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Minimum spacing for toggle switches? |
At 05:59 AM 10/18/04, you wrote:
>
>How big are your fingers?
,62"
I've played with switches at .75" on my desk, and the .44" clearance on
each side that it gives me seems to be enough, but that's without any
turbulence.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erie <erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ADF sense antenna |
You mean there's another use for it?....:)
erie
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> You need them both. The radio will work in the "receive" mode for
> ball games using only the sense antenna .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum spacing for toggle switches? |
http://www.rvproject.com/20030615.html
2nd photo down shows the spacing matrix I played with to get my preferred
spacing. I recommend you do the same -- take some scrap and drill holes at
various spacings until you're happy with it. If it's .0839838 then that's
what it is.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Riley" <richard(at)RILEY.NET>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Minimum spacing for toggle switches?
>
> At 05:59 AM 10/18/04, you wrote:
> >
> >How big are your fingers?
>
> ,62"
>
> I've played with switches at .75" on my desk, and the .44" clearance on
> each side that it gives me seems to be enough, but that's without any
> turbulence.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>thank's, but i don't understand the position of terminal in this crimper.
>for me the wire came from the "P256" side and the terminal side is on the
>"P255" side ?
>is this true ? have you a picture of good position for the terminal in the
>crimper ?
>
>Olivier LC
>France
>ICQ#: 82067330
> sanglier(at)laposte.net
Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted those pictures
and I could have been more specific. The orignal pictures
have been joined by two additional picture as listed below. Notes
have been added to explain terminal positioning in the tools.
I've already returned the "Philmore" tool to B&C so I couldn't
take a picture of terminal placement in that tool but I think
the added notes will answer your questions.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P255.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P256.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P257.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P258.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/P259.jpg
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "P. Van Caulart" <etivc(at)iaw.on.ca> |
Scott;
The ADF requires a sense antenna and when you get one make sure its
stainless so corrosion is not an issue. The KR86's have the combined
loop/sense antenna in one package but they are still costly radios.
I installed an ARC (Cessna) ADF which I bought for $60 on ebay and had
the avionics shop test for me. It works fine and does the trick for the
approaches and GPS overlay requirements.
Regarding ADF use in Canada, bear in mind that many remote airfields
only have a beacon as the sole navaid so if you plan on cross country at
all and want a second nav system to the GPS, then an ADF makes the most
sense. Because Canada does not have a plethora of VOR/ILS systems other
than 20 or so major airports, the ADF is a good northern navigation device.
It's also a cheap spherics device too, pointing to lightning's general
direction. And lastly you can use it for in flight entertainment.
Peter VC C-GCPG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Grant Neilson" <grantneilson(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Flashing Landing Lights |
Does anyone out there have a list of suppliers for landing light flashing
systems similar to the Pulsar system by AvTek?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flashing Landing Lights |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi grantneilson(at)telus.net,
Bob put this up on his web page a while back:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WigWag/WigWag.pdf
Have you looked at it?
Have you Google'ed?
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
> Does anyone out there have a list of suppliers for landing light
> flashing systems similar to the Pulsar system by AvTek?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Luthi" <mluethi(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | when running my new B&C starter the lights go out.. |
I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and tested it
without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor all my gadgets
(GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much and reboot. It looks
to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them to keep running. This
is only just for the moment when I engage the starter. I kept it running while
it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no avionics
master)
3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach religiously.
Questions:
1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the SD-8 PM
Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the posts about
the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking and resulting
low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my starter motor.
Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE units?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut(at)engalt.com> |
| Subject: | when running my new B&C starter the lights go out.. |
You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get a
big inductive spike when ou do that.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
Luthi
Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
go out..
I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor
all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much
and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them to
keep running. This is only just for the moment when I engage the starter. I
kept it running while it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine.
1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V
2. The EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
avionics master)
3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget" approach religiously.
Questions:
1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking
and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my
starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE
units?
d entirely through the Contributions
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randy Pflanzer" <f1rocket(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: when running my new B&C starter the lights go out.. |
>
> You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get
> a
> big inductive spike when ou do that.
>
> Brian Kraut
Oh boy Brian, you better get your flamesuit on and fast.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | when running my new B&C starter the lights go out.. |
| From: | "Luethi, Matt" <mluethi(at)ea.com> |
Thanks Brian, GRT actually suggest having the EIS on for startup - you
need to establish oil pressure within 30 seconds right? I am not sure if
the EFIS needs to be switched off. The EIS and EFIS are the only two
units that have no on/off switch which means if you don't have the
avionics master then there is no way to switch these units off without
wiring a separate switch (which I don't like)
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brian
Kraut
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the
lights go out..
-->
You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You
get a big inductive spike when ou do that.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matt
Luthi
Subject: AeroElectric-List: when running my new B&C starter the lights
go out..
-->
I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and
tested it without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter
motor all my gadgets (GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this
very much and reboot. It looks to me as if the bus voltage drops too
much for them to keep running. This is only just for the moment when I
engage the starter. I kept it running while it ran all the electronic
gizmos come up again fine.
1. I have a new Odyseey PC680 battery, charged, indicating 12.8V 2. The
EFIS and EIS are always on when the master switch is engaged (no
avionics master) 3. I followed the "all electric aircraft on a budget"
approach religiously.
Questions:
1. Is this "normal" behaivour?
2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the
SD-8 PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
posts about the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during
cranking and resulting low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good
setup for my starter motor. Should I wire a backup battery with a diode
to one of the LSE units?
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
d entirely through the Contributions
of direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: when running my new B&C starter the lights go out.. |
On 10/19 10:52, Luethi, Matt wrote:
>
> Thanks Brian, GRT actually suggest having the EIS on for startup - you
> need to establish oil pressure within 30 seconds right? I am not sure if
> the EFIS needs to be switched off. The EIS and EFIS are the only two
> units that have no on/off switch which means if you don't have the
> avionics master then there is no way to switch these units off without
> wiring a separate switch (which I don't like)
I agree that having "extra" switches detracts from the overall
apearance of the panel. I had the same dilema but I forged on and
installed mini toggle switches for the EFIS 2 and EFIS 3 screens. The
EFIS 1 switch which is a DPDT controls the power for EFIS 1 and the
AHRS unit and it's over in the area with all the other switches. The
mini toggles are located near each other respective EFIS (2 & 3)
It's not ugly by any stretch of the imagination and I can power them
up as needed. Each is also on a different bus.
entry 10/12/04 at
http://www.rv7-a.com/avionics_panel_3.htm
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
go out..
| Subject: | Re: when running my new B&C starter the lights |
go out..
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
> From: "Matt Luthi" <mluethi(at)bigpond.com>
> 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have the SD-8
> PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the posts about
> the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking and resulting
> low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my starter motor.
> Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE units?
I have never had any kickback problems starting an O-360 with two
Lightspeed EIs. I use two 17 AH batteries (overkill) which I tie together
for engine start. Each LSE is hotwired to one of the batteries. I turn
both the EIs on for start and turn my battery crossfeed switch off after
start. I use an avionics master switch just to avoid the drop-out you
cited. sounds like you need the avionics master unless you can just turn
things off until after start.
If I had your system, I think I'd use a smaller backup battery fed by a
diode and hotwire the LSEs to the two batteries.
--Kent
Cozy IV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flashing Landing Lights |
Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
>Hi grantneilson(at)telus.net,
>
>Bob put this up on his web page a while back:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WigWag/WigWag.pdf
>
>Have you looked at it?
>
>Have you Google'ed?
>
>Matt-
>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
>
<http://users.easystreet.com/bhaan/indexqt.html>You can pick up the
flasher at NAPA It is a Tridon - EL13A-2,
If they can't find it tell them it's list under NAPA line code NF.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> lights go out.. |
| Subject: | when running my new B&C starter the |
lights go out..
lights go out..
>
>
>You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get a
>big inductive spike when ou do that.
I've been hearing about these for years but never captured
any in the wild. Can you help us with source of the transients,
amplitude, duration and source impedance?
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flashing Landing Lights |
>
>
>Does anyone out there have a list of suppliers for landing light flashing
>systems similar to the Pulsar system by AvTek?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WigWag/WigWag.pdf
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flashing Landing Lights |
Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Hi grantneilson(at)telus.net,
>>
>>Bob put this up on his web page a while back:
>>
>>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/WigWag/WigWag.pdf
>>
>>Have you looked at it?
>>
>>Have you Google'ed?
>>
>>Matt-
>>VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
><http://users.easystreet.com/bhaan/indexqt.html>You can pick up the
>flasher at NAPA It is a Tridon - EL13A-2,
>If they can't find it tell them it's list under NAPA line code NF.
>
>
>
Woops! Disreguard that link, I copy the text and accidentlt got that old
link in there.
You can pick up the flasher at NAPA It is a Tridon - EL13A-2,
If they can't find it tell them it's list under NAPA line code NF.
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
Friends,
I have wanted a bright light for landing mounted in the wing of my Jabiru
J400. HID lights employ a High Intensity Discharge through a small quartz
capsule. They put out lots of light per watt, last about 3000 hours, and
have no filament to break from vibration. At first I looked at the HID
projectors, and finally bought one used on eBay. The projectors are mainly
employed for low beams in cars because a shaped piece of sheet metal can be
"focused" and used to create a very sharp cutoff of the light pattern. I
took out this metal beam shaper, easily done, but the pattern was quite wide
and not really a round beam at all due to the designed shape of the
reflector. Furthermore, the whole affair was about 4 to 5 inches in
diameter, and would require a fairing on the wing.
Hella makes a very small 'driving light' called the Micro DE Xenon. see
http://www.hella.com/produktion/HellaPortal/WebSite/Internet_usa/ProductsServices/Performance_Lighting/Xenon/Micro_DE_Xenon/Micro_DE_Xenon.jsp
The part number of 74522, and if you decide to get this, check Google and
Froogle for best price. I paid about $640 for a pair of these-they are not
to be found on eBay. At less than 3 inches in diameter, and only 35 watts,
they should fit your wing. If you mount one on the cowling, the vibration
should not affect the HID capsule, either. You only need one, so you could
split the cost with another builder. Each light plus ballast weighs 1.5
pounds, including the power cable from ballast to lamp. I ran the unit on a
bench supply, from 9 to 15 volts. As the voltage drops, the current
increases, and the light stays the same. This is one bright light.
For a picture of the beam pattern, see
http://www.rallylights.com/hella/Micro_DE.asp and click on the small picture
of the illuminated road. There are two pictures, the one on the left shows
a fog projector pattern, and the one on the right shows the driving light
pattern with the HID source. Note that the fog lamp is the same housing
shape using a halogen filament bulb, the driving lamp has the HID, and the
price reflects these differences.
Roy Lopresti sells a "BoomBeam" (tm) for about $1000 for one. The Hella is
a cheaper was to get something smaller with a similar HID source.
I wasted some time and money checking out the used projectors on eBay. If
you are willing to build a fairing for the wing, or put the unit in the
cowl, the HID projectors could be used. They do have a very wide beam
pattern Otherwise, save some time and aggravation and look at the Micro DE
unit from Hella.
Jim Foerster J400, wiring.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
On Oct 18, 2004, at 5:27 PM, P. Van Caulart wrote:
> The ADF requires a sense antenna and when you get one make sure its
> stainless so corrosion is not an issue. The KR86's have the combined
> loop/sense antenna in one package but they are still costly radios.
Not so much. I haven't been able to sell mine. Going price for a good
KR-86 seems to be about $300 these days.
> Regarding ADF use in Canada, bear in mind that many remote airfields
> only have a beacon as the sole navaid so if you plan on cross country
> at
> all and want a second nav system to the GPS, then an ADF makes the most
> sense. Because Canada does not have a plethora of VOR/ILS systems other
> than 20 or so major airports, the ADF is a good northern navigation
> device.
This is why I had two ADFs in my Comanche. The advent of general
availability of GPS caused me to remove the KR-86 and just keep the
KR-87.
> It's also a cheap spherics device too, pointing to lightning's general
> direction. And lastly you can use it for in flight entertainment.
Oh is that what you call it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Voltage drops during starting |
<<>You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You
get a
>big inductive spike when you do that.
I've been hearing about these for years but never captured
any in the wild. Can you help us with source of the transients,
amplitude, duration and source impedance?
Bob . . .>>
Well, I've never found any of those critters either, but here is what might
be an interesting effect: I had KX-155's in a 28-volt Cessna and the radios
would occasionally lose their memory (all or some frequencies would get
lost) when the landing gear motor turned on. I Hooked up a high-frequency
scope to numerous places and ground tested it. At the avionics bus the
voltage would drop from 25 (engine not running) to something like 12 when
the motor started. The drop was virtually instantaneous as closely as the
scope would read it and certainly less than 1 microsecond. The drop would
only last a couple of milliseconds and the voltage would come back to maybe
22 with the motor running. King checked the radios and pronounced them
okay - well, they did put in an "upgrade" that was supposed to prevent
exactly that problem, but they never admitted there actually was a problem.
The problem remained. Question was, why would the radios drop out under
this condition when you could turn them off and on and never get the
problem. My hypothesis was that when you disconnect power from a device the
internal voltage drops gradually, allowing the computer to shut down
gracefully. Many micros have a shutdown mode that saves certain things to
non-volatile memory as the voltage drops. When you essentially short the
power to ground, like through a starter motor, the voltage drops too fast
for the micro to shut down correctly. This inherently makes no sense as the
micro is powered by an internal voltage regulator that isolates it from the
battery, but...? I believe these radios had no reverse polarity protection
and I assume that means they didn't have a diode on the power line to
prevent reverse current flow. I wonder if the sudden drop in voltage caused
the input filter caps to conduct, possibly in concert with an input
inductor, to create a negative voltage transient inside the radio even if
there wasn't one outside. I never solved the mystery, but we changed to
Garmin radios.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> lights go out.. |
| Subject: | when running my new B&C starter the |
lights go out..
lights go out..
>
>
>You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get a
>big inductive spike when ou do that.
I've been hearing about these for years but never captured
any in the wild. Can you help us with source of the transients,
amplitude, duration and source impedance?
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> lights go out.. |
| Subject: | Re: when running my new B&C starter the |
lights go out..
lights go out..
>
>
> >
> > You should never start the plane with your electronics turned on. You get
> > a
> > big inductive spike when ou do that.
> >
> > Brian Kraut
>
>Oh boy Brian, you better get your flamesuit on and fast.
Flamesuit? What's that? Why would anyone on the AeroElectric-
List need one? We're looking for the simple-ideas that fit together
into low parts count, easy to operate, inexpensive to own electrical
systems that perform better than anything certified.
There are inventions based on simple-ideas and inventions that
suffer from tradition non-science and rumor. Neat thing about
simple-ideas is that they are always very tiny . . . easy to
sift out from the lumpy things that are fabrications of poor
science and ill-considered design.
Our mission here is to equip everyone with the fine sieve
that separates the lumps from the good stuff. We should expect,
nay hope, that this topic (among many others) continues to
bubble up. Every time it does, it's an opportunity to outfit
a brother builder with another useful tool. When it stops
bubbling up, it means that everyone has all the tools they
need (never happen) or that we've made people feel like they're
being chased away.
There are four reasons for folks to communicate with each
other. To be informative, to entertain, to persuade, and
to cause discomfort. Can't speak for the rest of you but
I welcome the informers and entertainers. Let's hope that
the atmosphere we maintain here is inviting to those who
wish to share informative, sometimes humorous speech.
The rest will eventually take notice that their favorite
style of communication is better suited to television
commercials or rap lyrics.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> lights go out.. |
| Subject: | Re: when running my new B&C starter the |
lights go out..
lights go out..
>
>
> > From: "Matt Luthi" <mluethi(at)bigpond.com>
> > 2. I have dual Lightspeed ignition without a backup battery - I have
> the SD-8
> > PM Standby Alternator for redundancy but now after I have read the
> posts about
> > the "kickback" problem experienced on EI systems during cranking and
> resulting
> > low voltage I am not so sure that this is a good setup for my starter
> motor.
> > Should I wire a backup battery with a diode to one of the LSE units?
>
> I have never had any kickback problems starting an O-360 with two
>Lightspeed EIs. I use two 17 AH batteries (overkill) which I tie together
>for engine start. Each LSE is hotwired to one of the batteries. I turn
>both the EIs on for start and turn my battery crossfeed switch off after
>start. I use an avionics master switch just to avoid the drop-out you
>cited. sounds like you need the avionics master unless you can just turn
>things off until after start.
What is the function of the "avionics master"? What we're discussing
is a design feature of certain pieces of equipment that causes them
to reset when presented with a bus voltage below some value for a few
milliseconds. Adding a switch in series with these devices only serves
to delay operability of these devices by waiting to turn them on
until after the engine is started . . . the fact that the gizmo resets
during a brownout is not indicative of an overstress to the product
that demands pilot intervention for protection.
> If I had your system, I think I'd use a smaller backup battery fed by a
>diode and hotwire the LSEs to the two batteries.
Yup, if there are gizmos that won't stay awake during a starter motor
brownout and in your role as a system designer you have determined
that automatic resetting is an unacceptable behavior, then you'll
need to offer these devices a "protected" supply.
Starter inrush brownout happens . . . you can't stop it. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/starter_brownout.jpg
Here's a trace taken from my wife's Saturn with a fairly stiff
battery. It has a PM starter with a healthy lock-rotor current.
Hence, hitting the starter causes battery voltage to sag
as low as 7.5 volts for a few milliseconds. None the less, the
EFI system in this car is DESIGNED to live with life's little
nagging realities and the car starts right up and the alternator
comes alive in just over 1 second after hitting the starter.
The question that needs to be asked and answered is: "Is there
some hazard to the gizmo under consideration by forcing/allowing
it to do an automatic reset when the starter contactor first
closes?" In the (ugh) certified world, we're not permitted to
install systems for which such events present a hazard. Functionality
needs to be evaluated and designed such that any automatic
resets don't matter.
So be wary of broad brush "solutions" based on inadequate
consideration of your systems operating characteristics and
your design goals for behavior. How long does it take for
the system to come back alive after a reset? Is this unacceptable
from an operational perspective or does it just "bug" you?
I can tell you that when after a Beechjet starts up, the
panel is a xmas tree of flashing lights and screens as the
various systems wake up, get out of bed and prepare to go
to work. Lots of things are temporarily out of service
for up to 20 seconds even though their lights and screens
are busy.
You need to separate the considerations in to two piles:
(1) Operational issues that represent hazard to equipment
not designed to live in the real world of airplanes and
(2) operational issues that cause inconvenience. Then
decide which ones require extra batteries, avionics
masters, etc., etc. as work-arounds.
You may well discover/decide that this is just how the
system functions and nothing out of the ordinary is either
necessary or desirable.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
Hello James,
Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 1:31:24 AM, you wrote:
JF> I have wanted a bright light for landing mounted in the wing of my Jabiru
JF> J400.
Did you evaluate the xevision lights in your search and if so, why did
you go this way? See:
http://www.aerovisions.com/hid/hid_aircraft_kits.html#conversionkits
--
Best regards,
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
solder against the tip.
Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
anyone has tried one of these?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
I bought one at Radio Shack for $19.95 plus tax. Haven't really given it a
thorough workout yet but it does seem to work in the initial try out. Save
the S&H if you want one.
Bill
Glasair
----- Original Message -----
From: <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: CoolSolder
>
> I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
> operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
> and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
> solder against the tip.
>
> Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
> anyone has tried one of these?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
$20.....that pretty much answers your question dosent it? On the other hand
go ahead and buy it and let us know.
>
>I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
>operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
>and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
>solder against the tip.
>
>Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
>anyone has tried one of these?
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
I bought one somewhere several months ago. It seems to work, but I am such
a lousy solderer, I wouldn't take my word for it.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott
Bilinski
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CoolSolder
<bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
$20.....that pretty much answers your question dosent it? On the other hand
go ahead and buy it and let us know.
>
>I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
>operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
>and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
>solder against the tip.
>
>Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
>anyone has tried one of these?
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Shielded serial cables |
I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain EFIS/one
keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any reason that
cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very close to my
nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
Thanks,
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
While I'd be suspicious at that price, it isn't a certainty that
inexpensive = useless. I own some high dollar soldering stations, but I
carry a sub-$5 iron in my tool box & can do adequate soldering with it.
(I've had LOTS of practice.)
Technology is the only thing that gets cheaper as time goes by. I paid
over $100 for my good solder stations 25 years ago. Equivalent models
from the same mfgr cost around $50 today.
Here's a thought: Using the replaceable pins for sub-D connectors, I can
build a connector with my $5 iron that's just as reliable as one built
with the multi-hundred dollar crimpers, and spend only slightly more
time doing it. All it takes is practice to do this, just like it took
practice to learn riveting.
Ya pays your money & ya takes your choice...
Charlie
Scott Bilinski wrote:
>
>$20.....that pretty much answers your question dosent it? On the other hand
>go ahead and buy it and let us know.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
>>operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
>>and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
>>solder against the tip.
>>
>>Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
>>anyone has tried one of these?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Burton" <dburton(at)nwlink.com> |
I really wanted this thing to work. It runs on AA's instead of the
expensive rechargeable batteries that my (relatively expensive) portable
soldering iron uses. I've tried using it and found it to be worthless.
There may be an application that it will work for, but that's not good
enough. It needs to be able to solder all of my jobs, not the occasional
one.
The way it works is to short circuit the 4 AA batteries it uses between the
two part tip. The wire or whatever you are trying to solder completes the
short circuit. In my experience it does not work. The degree of precision
that the tip must be placed and held for it to work is beyond ridiculous.
Save your money and buy an Isotip rechargeable if you need a portable iron.
I use the large tip for most of what I do. It's not large compared to an
electric soldering iron. The tiny tip is great for really small wires but
doesn't hold the heat well enough for larger wires.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
OK Scott, so how is everyone to take your reply, for $20 don't expect it to
work, or for "only" $20 don't expect much?
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>$20.....that pretty much answers your question dosent it? On the other hand
>go ahead and buy it and let us know.
>
>
> >
> >I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
> >operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
> >and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
> >solder against the tip.
> >
> >Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
> >anyone has tried one of these?
> >
> >
>
>
>Scott Bilinski
>Eng dept 305
>Phone (858) 657-2536
>Pager (858) 502-5190
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
I've now seen 2 small airplanes destroyed by engine driven fuel pumps that
failed - one on take off, one on landing - and pilots who didn't get the
backup electrical fuel pump on quickly enough for a re-start. Yes, they
probably should have just had them on for takeoff and landing, but that
wasn't the case.
I'm thinking of wiring my fuel pump with a SPDT switch. Up would be ON,
down would be AUTO. There'd be a pair of pressure switches - one sensing
oil pressure, the other fuel pressure. If the swich was in auto, there was
oil pressure, and fuel pressure fell below a pre-set limit, the pump would
turn on.
Now, one problem is that the electric pump makes higher pressure than the
mechanical pump, so I'd have to do some kind of electronic or mechanical
latch, to keep the pump on, rather than having it cycle on and off every
couple of seconds.
Any thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
David Burton wrote:
>
> I really wanted this thing to work. It runs on AA's instead of the
> expensive rechargeable batteries that my (relatively expensive) portable
> soldering iron uses. I've tried using it and found it to be worthless.
> There may be an application that it will work for, but that's not good
> enough. It needs to be able to solder all of my jobs, not the occasional
> one.
> The way it works is to short circuit the 4 AA batteries it uses between the
> two part tip. The wire or whatever you are trying to solder completes the
> short circuit. In my experience it does not work. The degree of precision
> that the tip must be placed and held for it to work is beyond ridiculous.
> Save your money and buy an Isotip rechargeable if you need a portable iron.
> I use the large tip for most of what I do. It's not large compared to an
> electric soldering iron. The tiny tip is great for really small wires but
> doesn't hold the heat well enough for larger wires.
>
>
Thanks for saving me $20, David (actually, it would probably be $35 once
they add the "S&H").
Sometimes you see these sorts of tools and they are worth their weight
in gold. Most of the time they are worse than trash, as they are a
distraction and you spend hours fiddling with them because (like you
said) you really want them to work.
I like the idea of the battery power, as butane is somewhat dangerous to
bang around in a bag, but I'll wait till they get the working version at
Sears.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded serial cables |
On Oct 19, 2004, at 6:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain
> EFIS/one
> keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any reason that
> cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very close to my
> nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
For RS-232, it shouldn't make any difference.
And when are you going to use a keypad in flight? That strikes me as
pretty tough to use while flying your airplane.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
On Oct 19, 2004, at 8:45 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
> Now, one problem is that the electric pump makes higher pressure than
> the
> mechanical pump, so I'd have to do some kind of electronic or
> mechanical
> latch, to keep the pump on, rather than having it cycle on and off
> every
> couple of seconds.
>
> Any thoughts?
This is a problem I would solve mechanically rather than electrically.
I would have an overpressure relief valve that just shunts the fuel
back to the inlet of the most-upstream pump. That would keep the
pressure at the inlet to your fuel metering system (carb, injection
system, whatever) from rising too high. Now you just turn on the boost
pump before take-off and don't worry about it.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | What's going on ??? |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
We have a Bonanza with a peculiar electrical load issue.
With everything electric ON - - pitot heat, nav, rotating beacon, radios, AND
one (and only one) of two landing lights - - the 14V system charges just fine
on the ground at about 1500 RPM, maintaining a full 14.x volts.
Do the same thing with everything OFF, except the landing light - - and NOW - -
add the second landing light, and the entire system discharges hard at the same
1500 RPM, down to a buss voltage of about 12.5.
It doesn't make any difference which of the two landing lights you use, in either
order, for the test.
I am having a hard time understanding that one landing light is a much bigger load
than the rest of the entire aircraft systems (including the pitot).
It appears that there is some kind of short developing when both landing light
switches are ON, rather than either one ON, by itself.
Any thoughts or ideas?
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <james(at)nextupventures.com> |
| Subject: | Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
Why not just leave the pump on all the time.
Have a spare ($30.00 ??) handy and replace it every 1 or 2 or 5 years.
Simple and not that costly.
Just a thought. Since you asked.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Richard Riley
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 8:46 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump?
>
>
> I've now seen 2 small airplanes destroyed by engine driven fuel
> pumps that
> failed - one on take off, one on landing - and pilots who didn't get the
> backup electrical fuel pump on quickly enough for a re-start. Yes, they
> probably should have just had them on for takeoff and landing, but that
> wasn't the case.
>
> I'm thinking of wiring my fuel pump with a SPDT switch. Up would be ON,
> down would be AUTO. There'd be a pair of pressure switches - one sensing
> oil pressure, the other fuel pressure. If the swich was in auto,
> there was
> oil pressure, and fuel pressure fell below a pre-set limit, the
> pump would
> turn on.
>
> Now, one problem is that the electric pump makes higher pressure than the
> mechanical pump, so I'd have to do some kind of electronic or mechanical
> latch, to keep the pump on, rather than having it cycle on and off every
> couple of seconds.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
IMO this is not quite as simple as it seems. I think you'd want the pump
to latch on so that it stays on until manually turned off which probably
means using a relay (or an SCR). Since you'd want to know that it had
come on, that probably means an indicator light. Now you need a method
of shutting it off and checking to see if the engine pump has really
failed which means something like a 3 position Auto-Off-On switch. I
prefer the bottom position of such a switch to be Off which adds another
small complication. You also need a pressure switch that will for sure
tolerate gasolene or use a comparator to pick a signal off your fuel
pressure gauge if it is an electric gauge. If going that route, you
could use the comparator to latch the pump on.
I decided to run two pumps while in the traffic pattern ;)
Ken
Richard Riley wrote:
>
>I've now seen 2 small airplanes destroyed by engine driven fuel pumps that
>failed - one on take off, one on landing - and pilots who didn't get the
>backup electrical fuel pump on quickly enough for a re-start. Yes, they
>probably should have just had them on for takeoff and landing, but that
>wasn't the case.
>
>I'm thinking of wiring my fuel pump with a SPDT switch. Up would be ON,
>down would be AUTO. There'd be a pair of pressure switches - one sensing
>oil pressure, the other fuel pressure. If the swich was in auto, there was
>oil pressure, and fuel pressure fell below a pre-set limit, the pump would
>turn on.
>
>Now, one problem is that the electric pump makes higher pressure than the
>mechanical pump, so I'd have to do some kind of electronic or mechanical
>latch, to keep the pump on, rather than having it cycle on and off every
>couple of seconds.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cliff Hanson" <flyv35b(at)ashcreekwireless.com> |
I have a nice KR-87 (Complete system) that I will sell for
about $1500.
Cliff Hanson
Gerry Holland wrote:
>
>
> Several on eBay. One looks good!
>
> Bendix/King ADF KR-87 KI-227 KA-44B KR87 Complete kit
> Includes harness, rack, and 8130 yellow tags. Warranty
>
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26436&item
> =2493815305&rd=1
>
> $1650 with 1 Hour to go! (16.45 UTC at moment)
>
> Regards
>
> Gerry
>
>
>
> Contributions
> other
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
> http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shielded serial cables |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Terry -
I have to make a "Y" connector for EFIS/ONE to bring the keyboard/keypad
cable from the display to a DB9 connector on the panel. Email me off line
to discuss the technical part of this project and compare notes.
Thanks,
JOhn Schroeder
wrote:
>
>
> I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain
> EFIS/one
> keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any reason that
> cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very close to my
> nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What's going on ??? |
>
>
>We have a Bonanza with a peculiar electrical load issue.
>
>With everything electric ON - - pitot heat, nav, rotating beacon, radios,
>AND one (and only one) of two landing lights - - the 14V system charges
>just fine on the ground at about 1500 RPM, maintaining a full 14.x volts.
>
>Do the same thing with everything OFF, except the landing light - - and
>NOW - - add the second landing light, and the entire system discharges
>hard at the same 1500 RPM, down to a buss voltage of about 12.5.
>
>It doesn't make any difference which of the two landing lights you use, in
>either order, for the test.
>
>I am having a hard time understanding that one landing light is a much
>bigger load than the rest of the entire aircraft systems (including the pitot).
>
>It appears that there is some kind of short developing when both landing
>light switches are ON, rather than either one ON, by itself.
>
>Any thoughts or ideas?
Boy, that would be a fun gremlin to chase out. Does the airplane have an
alternator loadmeter? It would be interesting to watch measured alternator
output current and field voltage during the various conditions you've cited.
You need to know if it's the alternator maxing out for some reason (field
voltage stops rising at just a volt or so below bus volgate) or if the
regulator is actually shutting the alternator down (field voltage at some
value well below bus voltage when the antagonistic load is applied).
Do you have a test shunt and external instrument you can install in the
alternator's b-leads?
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I really wanted this thing to work. It runs on AA's instead of the
>expensive rechargeable batteries that my (relatively expensive) portable
>soldering iron uses. I've tried using it and found it to be worthless.
>There may be an application that it will work for, but that's not good
>enough. It needs to be able to solder all of my jobs, not the occasional
>one.
>The way it works is to short circuit the 4 AA batteries it uses between the
>two part tip. The wire or whatever you are trying to solder completes the
>short circuit. In my experience it does not work. The degree of precision
>that the tip must be placed and held for it to work is beyond ridiculous.
>Save your money and buy an Isotip rechargeable if you need a portable iron.
>I use the large tip for most of what I do. It's not large compared to an
>electric soldering iron. The tiny tip is great for really small wires but
>doesn't hold the heat well enough for larger wires.
Aha! I've seen that ad on TV too and was wondering about the technology
involved. Your description has saved me from having to buy one myself.
The technology you're describing has been around in some form or another
for over a century and is called "resistance soldering". I've never found
it attractive for my own work but I've known a number of technicians
who swear by it. I've used it to play with but find temperature controlled
irons much simpler to use. Some examples of the tools can be seen at:
http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type=Department&ID=81
http://www.torontosurplus.com/redirect.php?middleframe=http://www.torontosurplus.com/ind/ind40.htm
http://www.micromark.com/html_pages/instructions/80417Ai/american_beauty.html
For my money, the premier soldering tools are made by METCAL. Go
to Ebay and searche on 'metcal'. You'll get about 100 hits
on solder stations, handles, tips and complete systems. I buy
the older PS2E power supplies separate. Folks don't seem to covet
the antique stations as much and when they don't come with handles
and tips, the prices don't get out of whack. I've picked up
several power supplies for under $150 and I usually just buy
new handles and tips from the electronics suppliers. I'll have
a really good solder station for under $250. But set your price
limit and bit those ebay systems. You'll probably get one
eventually and you can't find a finer soldering tool for the
money anywhere else.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57012&item=3846728177&rd=1
Here's one that will probably go for under $150
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1504&item=3846698506&rd=1
Here's a real clean one that I'd go up to $250 on.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=46413&item=4331721307&rd=1
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What's going on ??? |
On Oct 19, 2004, at 11:36 PM, George Braly wrote:
> I am having a hard time understanding that one landing light is a much
> bigger load than the rest of the entire aircraft systems (including
> the pitot).
>
> It appears that there is some kind of short developing when both
> landing light switches are ON, rather than either one ON, by itself.
>
> Any thoughts or ideas?
Is the VR sensing the buss someplace different than the over-voltage
protection circuit/relay? If you have some resistance between the
output of the alternator and the VR sense with the VR sense near your
loads, the output of the alternator could go high and trip the
over-voltage protection circuit.
This may just be one of those times where you have to trace down
voltage drops in the system.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Shielded serial cables |
Thanks, Brian. What I referred to as a keypad is actually a remote location
for the buttons and knobs on the right side of the EFIS screen. I put them
on the left right above the throttle so I can completely control the EFIS
with my left hand and won't have to let go of the stick in my right hand. I
really like the way the combination of four buttons and two concentric
rotating knobs control everything. The keyBOARD won't be on board unless
it's a cross country, and then it will be in the baggage compartment.
Terry
RV-8A, BMA EFIS/one
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielded serial cables
On Oct 19, 2004, at 6:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain
> EFIS/one
> keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any reason that
> cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very close to my
> nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
For RS-232, it shouldn't make any difference.
And when are you going to use a keypad in flight? That strikes me as
pretty tough to use while flying your airplane.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Foerster" <jmfpublic(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
Steve, you asked:
"Did you evaluate the xevision lights in your search and if so, why did
you go this way? See:
http://www.aerovisions.com/hid/hid_aircraft_kits.html#conversionkits
I had run across this site about a year ago. They were not posting prices
then, and when I called, the units ran about $700 each.. They now have more
offerings, and the prices are better. The Hella unit is still two for $640,
so if you know someone who also needs the HID light, this is a better price.
I agree that XeVision is now a more reasonable buy, and I'm interested in
the DC ballast that they talk about, but seem to not yet offer.
Jim Foerster
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shielded serial cables |
On Oct 20, 2004, at 2:14 AM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> Thanks, Brian. What I referred to as a keypad is actually a remote
> location
> for the buttons and knobs on the right side of the EFIS screen.
Oh, that keypad.
> I put them
> on the left right above the throttle so I can completely control the
> EFIS
> with my left hand and won't have to let go of the stick in my right
> hand. I
> really like the way the combination of four buttons and two concentric
> rotating knobs control everything. The keyBOARD won't be on board
> unless
> it's a cross country, and then it will be in the baggage compartment.
I retract my comment then.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: What's going on ??? |
Does the single light have full brightness or is it kind of reddish?
Have you checked the landing light ground? It could be bad.
Cy Galley - Chair,
AirVenture Emergency Aircraft Repair
A Service Project of Chapter 75
EAA Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: What's going on ???
>
>
> We have a Bonanza with a peculiar electrical load issue.
>
> With everything electric ON - - pitot heat, nav, rotating beacon, radios,
AND one (and only one) of two landing lights - - the 14V system charges
just fine on the ground at about 1500 RPM, maintaining a full 14.x volts.
>
> Do the same thing with everything OFF, except the landing light - - and
NOW - - add the second landing light, and the entire system discharges hard
at the same 1500 RPM, down to a buss voltage of about 12.5.
>
> It doesn't make any difference which of the two landing lights you use, in
either order, for the test.
>
> I am having a hard time understanding that one landing light is a much
bigger load than the rest of the entire aircraft systems (including the
pitot).
>
> It appears that there is some kind of short developing when both landing
light switches are ON, rather than either one ON, by itself.
>
> Any thoughts or ideas?
>
>
> ---
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
This mechanical solution may not the best idea. I am aware of some
failed attempts to do that with efi pumps but vapour bubbles tend to
form as the pressure drops across the relief valve and many pumps don't
work well with bubbles in the inlet. If going this route it is usually
necessary to return the fuel to a header tank or the main fuel tank.
OTOH it might be adequate with a carbuerator pressures and avgas but I'd
still be cautious. Some cars did something similar to control vapour
lock but they also routed the return fuel back to the tank on the ones
that I owned.
Ken
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>On Oct 19, 2004, at 8:45 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
>
>
>
>>Now, one problem is that the electric pump makes higher pressure than
>>the
>>mechanical pump, so I'd have to do some kind of electronic or
>>mechanical
>>latch, to keep the pump on, rather than having it cycle on and off
>>every
>>couple of seconds.
>>
>>Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>
>This is a problem I would solve mechanically rather than electrically.
>I would have an overpressure relief valve that just shunts the fuel
>back to the inlet of the most-upstream pump. That would keep the
>pressure at the inlet to your fuel metering system (carb, injection
>system, whatever) from rising too high. Now you just turn on the boost
>pump before take-off and don't worry about it.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Shielded serial cables |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
Use Blackbox.com and under products is the custom cable wizard, makes it
much easier. They will make the cable to your specs, and they are not
expensive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Watson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shielded serial cables
-->
I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain
EFIS/one keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any
reason that cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very
close to my nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
Thanks,
Terry
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
For 20 bucks dont expect much......especially battery powered, and 2 AA'a
at that.
>
>OK Scott, so how is everyone to take your reply, for $20 don't expect it to
>work, or for "only" $20 don't expect much?
>
>
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> >$20.....that pretty much answers your question dosent it? On the other hand
> >go ahead and buy it and let us know.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >I've been seeing these adds on TV for a battery
> > >operated soldering iron. It's supposed to heat up
> > >and cool down very quickly and only when you stick
> > >solder against the tip.
> > >
> > >Before I send them my $20+SH, I thought I'd ask if
> > >anyone has tried one of these?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >Scott Bilinski
> >Eng dept 305
> >Phone (858) 657-2536
> >Pager (858) 502-5190
> >
> >
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
Rich
Eggenfellner has dual electric pumps that do this same thing for the FWF
package, it is layed out in the install manual, you can download it off
of his site http://www.eggenfellneraircraft.com/ use the install link to
find it. Gary Newstead designed it and it works well for them
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Riley
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump?
-->
I've now seen 2 small airplanes destroyed by engine driven fuel pumps
that failed - one on take off, one on landing - and pilots who didn't
get the backup electrical fuel pump on quickly enough for a re-start.
Yes, they probably should have just had them on for takeoff and landing,
but that wasn't the case.
I'm thinking of wiring my fuel pump with a SPDT switch. Up would be ON,
down would be AUTO. There'd be a pair of pressure switches - one
sensing oil pressure, the other fuel pressure. If the swich was in
auto, there was oil pressure, and fuel pressure fell below a pre-set
limit, the pump would turn on.
Now, one problem is that the electric pump makes higher pressure than
the mechanical pump, so I'd have to do some kind of electronic or
mechanical latch, to keep the pump on, rather than having it cycle on
and off every couple of seconds.
Any thoughts?
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Shielded serial cables |
>
>
>Use Blackbox.com and under products is the custom cable wizard, makes it
>much easier. They will make the cable to your specs, and they are not
>expensive.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
>Watson
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shielded serial cables
>
>-->
>
>I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain
>EFIS/one keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any
>reason that cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very
>close to my nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
Probably not but if they turn out to radiate some noise into
an adjacent system, they're easy to re-make with shielded wire.
I use shielded wire routinely for such cables simply because you
get all the wires you need for the task bundled up into a single
assembly. We stock shielded pairs and trios by the thousands
of feet. Using shielded wire is easier and doesn't hurt
anything . . . I'd go for shielded.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Shielded serial cables |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
Terry
I work in a manufacturing environment where space is limited and we have
roll up keyboards for easy storage, if you would like the info email me
direct
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Watson
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Shielded serial cables
-->
Thanks, Brian. What I referred to as a keypad is actually a remote
location for the buttons and knobs on the right side of the EFIS screen.
I put them on the left right above the throttle so I can completely
control the EFIS with my left hand and won't have to let go of the stick
in my right hand. I really like the way the combination of four buttons
and two concentric rotating knobs control everything. The keyBOARD
won't be on board unless it's a cross country, and then it will be in
the baggage compartment.
Terry
RV-8A, BMA EFIS/one
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shielded serial cables
On Oct 19, 2004, at 6:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>
> I need to make some short 9 pin serial cables for my Blue Mountain
> EFIS/one keyboard and keypad, including a Y connector. Is there any
> reason that cables like these need to be shielded? They will be very
> close to my nav/com, transponder, and audio panel.
For RS-232, it shouldn't make any difference.
And when are you going to use a keypad in flight? That strikes me as
pretty tough to use while flying your airplane.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
There was some discussion of these lights before, and IIRC, someone pointed out
that the color temperature of the HID lights so closely matched that of the daytime
sky that they were less visible that the yellowish tungsten and halogen
lamps now in common use. Just a potential downside to think about.
Oh, yeah, and the post about the WW2 bombers that used rheostat-adjustable lights
in their leading edges and nose to blend with the daytime sky - probably more
of the same idea.
Looks like we need HID for best light output in a night landing situation, and
tungsten bulbs on a wig-wag for staying out of each other's way in the daytime.
Bummer.
-BB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
from Richard Riley:
<>
That's precisely what I'm putting in my ES. There will be a off-auto-on
switch and in the auto mode a fuel pressure switch will turn on a latching
relay that will keep the pump on. Idea is that before engine start you turn
it to "auto" and the pump should come on and stay on - that tests the
latching relay. Then before take-off turn it to auto and it will take care
of itself. There is also a fuel pump light so that you can tell if the fuel
pump turned on during flight. And I'm doing it for exactly the reasons you
stated.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> pump? |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel |
pump?
If it's a mechanically latching relay, and you turn your switch to "off"
after it's been energized, won't it stay on?
At 07:43 AM 10/20/04, you wrote:
>
>That's precisely what I'm putting in my ES. There will be a off-auto-on
>switch and in the auto mode a fuel pressure switch will turn on a latching
>relay that will keep the pump on. Idea is that before engine start you turn
>it to "auto" and the pump should come on and stay on - that tests the
>latching relay. Then before take-off turn it to auto and it will take care
>of itself. There is also a fuel pump light so that you can tell if the fuel
>pump turned on during flight. And I'm doing it for exactly the reasons you
>stated.
>
>Gary Casey
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> aircraft |
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
Correct. They take several seconds to turn on.
You could do it with LCD shutters. But that would be a touch silly.
At 07:57 AM 10/20/04, you wrote:
>
>I believe you cannot "wig-wag" HIDs... ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Minearts" <smineart(at)kdsi.net> |
| Subject: | automatic standby fuel pump |
William Wynne (flycorvair.com) recently posted info on a dual-electric, automatically
switched fuel pump system which sounds like what was brought up on the
list 10/19. He has been flying with it in his Zodiac and recommends it for the
firewall-forward installation of the Corvair conversion.
Steve M., CH-601under construction
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Flap Motor Wiring |
>Bob,
>Looking at your Schematic for flap system, suppose there are switches for
>the front seater and the back seater, and the front seater is trying to
>lower the flaps and the back seater accidently or otherwise hits the
>"flaps up" switch (the flaps extend relay and the flaps retract relay are
>both actuated at the same time). It appears, according to the schematic,
>that the hot side of the buss will go to both sides of the flap
>motor. What are the consequences of this occurring? Will it damage the
>flap motor? Blow the flap motor fuse?
>
>Thanks.
If you study any of the drawings I do on permanent magnet motor controls,
you will see that with the system in a de-energized state (no pilot commands
in progress) both direction relays are relaxed and the motor has a dead
short
across it. The short is part of dynamic breaking that takes advantage of
a motor's counter-emf generated during spin-down . . . if you load this
energy source with the short, the motor stops much faster. If either
direction
control relay is energized, one side of the motor gets (+) power applied
while
the other one remains at ground . . . the motor will run. If the opposite
relay is energized, then power to the motor reverses polarity and it runs
in the opposite direction.
If the front and rear stick switches are simultaneously actuated for
opposite
directions, then both motor relays are energized. In this case, BOTH motor
leads are elevated to (+) power which means no power is taken from the
ship's
DC power system, the motor has a dead short across it and it comes to a stop
just as surely as when the two relays are de-energized. When one of the
pilots
releases the switch, the motor will run in the direction commanded by
the switch
still closed.
This design insures that conflicting commands are ignored and no motion
takes
place until a single, unambiguous command is presented.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frankhsmit(at)wmconnect.com |
| Subject: | Automatic standby fuel pump |
I have a RV-4 that has an IO360. The electric fuel pump will increase the
pressure 2 or 3 psi, over the engine pump 15 psi when I turn it on for landing
or takeoff. It has absolutely no affect on anything other than perhaps a
slight increase in fuel flow, maybe from 8.0 gph to 8.1 gph. IMHO hook it up,
turn it on and don't worry about it. Don't make it more complicated than
needed. FWIW Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)telus.net> |
My local avionics guy uses a soldering iron that runs off time-expired ELT
battery packs. Appears to work great, and without any longer a heating time
required, either.
Scott in VAncouver
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CoolSolder
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I really wanted this thing to work. It runs on AA's instead of the
>>expensive rechargeable batteries that my (relatively expensive) portable
>>soldering iron uses. I've tried using it and found it to be worthless.
>>There may be an application that it will work for, but that's not good
>>enough. It needs to be able to solder all of my jobs, not the occasional
>>one.
>>The way it works is to short circuit the 4 AA batteries it uses between
>>the
>>two part tip. The wire or whatever you are trying to solder completes the
>>short circuit. In my experience it does not work. The degree of
>>precision
>>that the tip must be placed and held for it to work is beyond ridiculous.
>>Save your money and buy an Isotip rechargeable if you need a portable
>>iron.
>>I use the large tip for most of what I do. It's not large compared to an
>>electric soldering iron. The tiny tip is great for really small wires but
>>doesn't hold the heat well enough for larger wires.
>
> Aha! I've seen that ad on TV too and was wondering about the technology
> involved. Your description has saved me from having to buy one myself.
>
> The technology you're describing has been around in some form or another
> for over a century and is called "resistance soldering". I've never
> found
> it attractive for my own work but I've known a number of technicians
> who swear by it. I've used it to play with but find temperature
> controlled
> irons much simpler to use. Some examples of the tools can be seen at:
>
> http://www.ares-server.com/Ares/Ares.asp?MerchantID=RET01229&Action=Catalog&Type=Department&ID=81
>
> http://www.torontosurplus.com/redirect.php?middleframe=http://www.torontosurplus.com/ind/ind40.htm
>
> http://www.micromark.com/html_pages/instructions/80417Ai/american_beauty.html
>
>
> For my money, the premier soldering tools are made by METCAL. Go
> to Ebay and searche on 'metcal'. You'll get about 100 hits
> on solder stations, handles, tips and complete systems. I buy
> the older PS2E power supplies separate. Folks don't seem to covet
> the antique stations as much and when they don't come with handles
> and tips, the prices don't get out of whack. I've picked up
> several power supplies for under $150 and I usually just buy
> new handles and tips from the electronics suppliers. I'll have
> a really good solder station for under $250. But set your price
> limit and bit those ebay systems. You'll probably get one
> eventually and you can't find a finer soldering tool for the
> money anywhere else.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=57012&item=3846728177&rd=1
>
> Here's one that will probably go for under $150
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1504&item=3846698506&rd=1
>
> Here's a real clean one that I'd go up to $250 on.
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=46413&item=4331721307&rd=1
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike_tailwind(at)att.net |
| Subject: | Copper foil antenna question |
I'm installing a copper foil Nav antenna in the wooden wing of my Tailwind project.
I am placing the foil on the bottom skin. Each leg of the antenna has to
go over two 1/4" thick x 1/2" wide cap strips. Because of this the linear length
of the antenna leg is shortened about 1". What is teh effective lenght with
these "joggles in teh foil? I was planning on 22.8" legs. Do I make them
longer?
Thanks,
Mike Wilson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jsto1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Response to Copper foil antenna question |
Mike,
You do not want to change the length, since that is how the resonant
frequency is set for the antenna. There may be a slight change is the
reception sensitivity plot but it is minor compared to the potential
shift in the frequency bandwidth.
Jim Stone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: when running my new B&C starter the lights go out |
"I just connected my new B&C starter motor to the electrical system and tested
it
without the flywheel installed. When I engage the starter motor all my gadgets
(GRT EFIS, EIS, Skymap IIIc GPS) don't like this very much and reboot. It looks
to me as if the bus voltage drops too much for them to keep running. This
is only just for the moment when I engage the starter. I kept it running while
it ran all the electronic gizmos come up again fine."
Try this curcuit from Blue Moauntain avionics
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/pdf/Battery%20Backup.pdf
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
<>
Well, I should have been clearer - it is really electrically latched - when
it turns on, the circuit is closed for the relay that holds it on. When you
turn the switch to the "off" position it is disconnected and the fuel pump
turns off. Function is tested in two ways: Before starting the engine turn
it to "auto" and the pump should turn on and stay on. Start the engine and
turn it to "auto" and it should not turn on. Someone also suggested that
you just manually turn the pump on for takeoff and landing - that would work
just as well, as long as you remember it. Trouble is, I would have a
tendency to wear the $$ pump out by forgetting to shut it off or forgetting
to turn it on every time I was close to the ground, like going over a ridge
or something. And then in an emergency creating a requirement for the pilot
to do certain things is asking for trouble. My airplane partner had an
engine failure with plenty of altitude and the one thing he forgot was to
try the electric pump. It wouldn't have helped, but the point is any of us
can make a mistake or omission at the wrong time and this is one way to
prevent that. The weak link is usually the pilot. At least it is in my
case!
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
On Oct 21, 2004, at 9:18 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
> Someone also suggested that
> you just manually turn the pump on for takeoff and landing - that
> would work
> just as well, as long as you remember it.
During landing one would use the mnemonic "GUMPS". The first letter
stands for "Gas" which means both fuel selector and fuel pump. Pilots
have been managing this for many years.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Copper foil antenna question |
>
>I'm installing a copper foil Nav antenna in the wooden wing of my Tailwind
>project. I am placing the foil on the bottom skin. Each leg of the
>antenna has to go over two 1/4" thick x 1/2" wide cap strips. Because of
>this the linear length of the antenna leg is shortened about 1". What is
>teh effective lenght with these "joggles in teh foil? I was planning on
>22.8" legs. Do I make them longer?
>
>Thanks,
>Mike Wilson
I presume you're talking about a composite skin that is not carbon fiber.
The "electrical" length of an antenna and it's "mechanical" or physical
length can be entirely different things. You are correct in wondering
if changes to the shape or proximity to other conductors can have a
measurable effect on antenna performance.
The most elegant way to install such antennas is to make them deliberately
longer by 10% or more . . . and then trim them to proper length after
installation using an antenna analyzer like:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-259B
The strongest installation effects on antennas have more to
do with PATTERNS of sensitivity or best radiation around the
airplane. Antennas with perfectly good performance readings on
an antenna analyzer may have very deep nulls and sharp peaks
in some directions about the aircraft. We do antenna pattern
testing on some of our installations by transmitting a signal
of constant amplitude and then flying the airplane in a flat
turn while broadcasting current heading to a ground station
perhaps 50 miles away.
The ground station converts heading data and signal strength
into a polar plot of antenna performance based on horizontal
bearing. They are anything but circular.
Radiation patterns for ideal antennas not subject to local
influences can be observed at:
https://ewhdbks.mugu.navy.mil/RADIAPAT.HTM
Check out the pattern for a dipole. Your particular
antenna is not covered here . . . it's a folded dipole
having an apex angle less than 180 and more than 90 degrees.
Check out the pattern for this antenna:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna_Pattern.gif
I've seen comm antenna patterns that looked very much like
this one. One might have this antenna installed for years
and think it 'works good' until one day in stable cruise
you cannot contact and RCO that's off your port quarter
that you were talking to just fine a few minutes ago. If that
station falls in 43 degrees bearing from your aircraft,
it now sits in a deep null of the antenna's radiation
pattern. Change heading a few degrees or just wait a few
minutes and the station comes back . . . but it will 'disappear'
again at 62 degrees azimuth.
This antenna may show a 1:1 SWR and appear to be electrically
perfect while having serious dropouts in pattern. Just moving
an antenna a few inches fore/aft on the structure may cause these
nulls to become less pronounced to the extent that the crew
never notices them.
Bottom line is that lacking access to $million$ labs and
technical assistance to know everything there is to know
about our antennas, the next best course of action is to
install it and try it. If there is ever a question as to
pattern issues, the first time you can't hear or talk to
someone you think SHOULD be in range, change heading in
10 degree increments to see if it makes any difference.
Canard pushers with VOR dipoles in the canard get
deep nulls off the ends of the antenna . . . which
we EXPECT.
This is how the "big guys" do it. Now comes the question of
return on investment. For example: if you simply made the antenna
22.8" per leg and didn't consider the possibility that the antenna's
performance might be altered by installation effects, what are the
chances that you would perceive any difference in your VOR receiver's
performance.
The effects of such variables in installation are so tiny that
it usually takes very sensitive laboratory equipment (like
the MFJ-259B) to detect the differences. You're not likely to
perceive any differences by how your radio appears to work.
Short story is, stick it in. Tune it with an analyzer (if
you can put your hands on one) and forget it. Investigate
anomalies as they occur. Probability of needing to touch
it again is quite small.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Low draw position and strobes? |
I am trying to work with the supplied alternator of a Rotax 914 in a Europa XS.
Was looking at Kuntzleman Double Magnum driver, that draws ~ 2 amps and will run
2
strobe heads.
Does anyone know of a combo wing tip position light using LEDs or some other low
draw light and a strobe head?
If not, then just a set of wing tip position LEDs and separate strobe head. Or
info
to build one.
Kuntzleman offers a set of streamlined strobe heads, anyone have any experience
with these? They say their driver will drive either aero Flash or whelen strobes.
Thanks for any and all help.
Ron Parigoris
Europa XS
A-265
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low draw position and strobes? |
Try this:
http://www.creativair.com/cva/
>
>
>I am trying to work with the supplied alternator of a Rotax 914 in a
>Europa XS.
>
>Was looking at Kuntzleman Double Magnum driver, that draws ~ 2 amps and
>will run 2
>strobe heads.
>
>Does anyone know of a combo wing tip position light using LEDs or some
>other low
>draw light and a strobe head?
>
>If not, then just a set of wing tip position LEDs and separate strobe
>head. Or info
>to build one.
>
>Kuntzleman offers a set of streamlined strobe heads, anyone have any
>experience
>with these? They say their driver will drive either aero Flash or whelen
>strobes.
>
>Thanks for any and all help.
>
>Ron Parigoris
>Europa XS
>A-265
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | VHF Comm antennas |
Just started looking at buying a comm antenna, and I'm
surprised to see that they are quite expensive! Besides
ebay, which I have checked, does anyone know of a good
source for decent, used antennas? The perfect one for
me would be the Comant CI-122 (http://www.comant.com/htmls/ci122.html)
or the RAMI AV-17 (http://www.rami.com/gaa1.htm#AV-17),
since I want to bolt them to the bottom of my RV8.
Thanks for any pointers or suggestions.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VHF Comm antennas |
Mickey,
I got mine from Wentworth Aircraft at Sun N'Fun. Their web site is:
http://www.wentworthaircraft.com/
Charlie Kuss
>
> From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch>
> Date: 2004/10/21 Thu PM 05:14:18 EDT
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: VHF Comm antennas
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Low draw position and strobes? |
Try Eric Jones' web site at
http://www.periheliondesign.com/
Peter
On 21 Oct 2004 at 15:57, Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
>
>
> I am trying to work with the supplied alternator of a Rotax 914 in a
> Europa XS.
>
> Was looking at Kuntzleman Double Magnum driver, that draws ~ 2 amps
> and will run 2 strobe heads.
>
> Does anyone know of a combo wing tip position light using LEDs or some
> other low draw light and a strobe head?
>
> If not, then just a set of wing tip position LEDs and separate strobe
> head. Or info to build one.
>
> Kuntzleman offers a set of streamlined strobe heads, anyone have any
> experience with these? They say their driver will drive either aero
> Flash or whelen strobes.
>
> Thanks for any and all help.
>
> Ron Parigoris
> Europa XS
> A-265
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
> ====
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder Antenna |
Hi all,
I've a Kitfox I'm installing a transponder on. Right now it's a
Becker 4401 / Ack A-30 combo to be installed in the dash. I purchased the
Advanced Aircraft L2 antenna, but now I'm thinking that was a bad idea. The
transponder instructions say to keep the antenna 15' from people as the
transponder is a "high power transmitter". The transponder says don't make
the antenna cable more than 5m long. The antenna documentation says mount
it vertically in the tail, away from any blockages. Well, I've got a
stainless firewall and a carbon seat pan so if I mount it internally in the
tail I'll not only get the full effect of the blast, but the seat and
firewall will presumably block transmission forward. Would I be better off
with the cheap whip sticking out the bottom of the aircraft below my seat?
That way I don't get blasted, there's no blockage, and the cable is much
shorter. Will the shorter cable offset the poorer antenna performance? (I
guess another question is: Is the whip performance less than the dipole?)
Finally, what's the lightest way to do the ground plane. I assume I will
need one since I'm tube and fabric.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
Received": b.nuckolls(at)cox.net
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Antenna 0.00 |
>
>Hi all,
> I've a Kitfox I'm installing a transponder on. Right now it's a
>Becker 4401 / Ack A-30 combo to be installed in the dash. I purchased the
>Advanced Aircraft L2 antenna, but now I'm thinking that was a bad idea. The
>transponder instructions say to keep the antenna 15' from people as the
>transponder is a "high power transmitter".
hangar myth. there are skeptics out there but I'm scheduled into
the lab to make some measurements. watch this space.
> The transponder says don't make
>the antenna cable more than 5m long. The antenna documentation says mount
>it vertically in the tail, away from any blockages. Well, I've got a
>stainless firewall and a carbon seat pan so if I mount it internally in the
>tail I'll not only get the full effect of the blast, but the seat and
>firewall will presumably block transmission forward. Would I be better off
>with the cheap whip sticking out the bottom of the aircraft below my seat?
yes
>
>That way I don't get blasted, there's no blockage, and the cable is much
>shorter. Will the shorter cable offset the poorer antenna performance? (I
>guess another question is: Is the whip performance less than the dipole?)
marginally, yes
>
>Finally, what's the lightest way to do the ground plane. I assume I will
>need one since I'm tube and fabric.
Yes, aluminum or brass disk, 5.2" in diameter. Keep the coax as short
as practical, stick the spike out the belly anywhere handy.
Bbo . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
<>
I agree, and I think the record shows that most of the pilots do it right
most of the time. Is that good enough? Also, I've talked to some that say,
"it might be necessary for them, but I do it right ALL the time." Is that
realistic? There is certainly a balance between complexity and dependency
on the human element. I'm all for simplicity, but I think in this case the
mechanical complexity might be justified by the improved safety - and the
reduced complexity of operation. Another way to look at it: How often does
one NEED to remember the "G" in GUMPS? Almost never. Then why add to the
complexity of operation every time when it is "almost never" required?
Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain cells
for something else.
Just my opinion.
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Received: contains a forged HELO
Your fears are unfounded. It only transmits brief blips not continuously.
If it was continous, you would have a microwave oven but it doesn't plus the
transmission is not concentrated like in the oven!
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
| From: | "Guy Buchanan" <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
>
> Hi all,
> I've a Kitfox I'm installing a transponder on. Right now it's a
> Becker 4401 / Ack A-30 combo to be installed in the dash. I purchased the
> Advanced Aircraft L2 antenna, but now I'm thinking that was a bad idea.
The
> transponder instructions say to keep the antenna 15' from people as the
> transponder is a "high power transmitter". The transponder says don't make
> the antenna cable more than 5m long. The antenna documentation says mount
> it vertically in the tail, away from any blockages. Well, I've got a
> stainless firewall and a carbon seat pan so if I mount it internally in
the
> tail I'll not only get the full effect of the blast, but the seat and
> firewall will presumably block transmission forward. Would I be better off
> with the cheap whip sticking out the bottom of the aircraft below my seat?
> That way I don't get blasted, there's no blockage, and the cable is much
> shorter. Will the shorter cable offset the poorer antenna performance? (I
> guess another question is: Is the whip performance less than the dipole?)
> Finally, what's the lightest way to do the ground plane. I assume I will
> need one since I'm tube and fabric.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Guy Buchanan
> K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
> I agree, and I think the record shows that most of the pilots do it
> right
> most of the time. Is that good enough? Also, I've talked to some
> that say,
> "it might be necessary for them, but I do it right ALL the time."
That doesn't happen. People don't do it right all the time. That is
why we have mnemonics and checklists and encourage their use.
> Is that
> realistic? There is certainly a balance between complexity and
> dependency
> on the human element. I'm all for simplicity, but I think in this
> case the
> mechanical complexity might be justified by the improved safety - and
> the
> reduced complexity of operation.
You are trading off between remembering and the possibility of system
failure. If you land sometime and forget to turn on the fuel pump, you
are likely to land safely. Likewise for take-off but there it is more
dangerous. Still, if you forget the fuel pump you are still probably
going to complete your flight just fine.
So now there is the question of failure modes and probability of
failure given the increased complexity. And then there are the human
factors of changing airplanes and not being in the habit of doing your
GUMPS check on downwind. Few airplanes you fly will have automatic
fuel pumps.
> Another way to look at it: How often does
> one NEED to remember the "G" in GUMPS? Almost never.
Huh? That is the most important one: gas.
G-as (fuel selectors and fuel pumps)
U-ndercarriage (down and verify three greens)
M-ixture (set for an aborted landing, usually full-rich)
P-rop (full RPM)
S-lats and flaps (set as appropriate for the type of landing; may
substitute 'F')
BTW, this is an after-the-fact *check* list, not a list to go through
to complete the actions unless you want to do it twice.
> Then why add to the
> complexity of operation every time when it is "almost never" required?
> Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain
> cells
> for something else.
It is a good idea to try to accommodate the limitations of the human
brain where possible. It is something else to create a crutch that can
lead to a reduction in situational awareness and to introduce more
points of failure in the system.
> Just my opinion.
Mine too. But as a CFI I have to try to help my students be as
self-sufficient as possible. I cannot in good conscience teach them to
rely on the hardware any more than necessary. Hardware breaks or has
limitations and they should be able to complete their flights safely
regardless.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | echristley(at)nc.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Date: Friday, October 22, 2004 12:32 pm
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rumination:
Automatic standby fuel pump?
> So now there is the question of failure modes and
probability of
> failure given the increased complexity. And then
there are the
> human
> factors of changing airplanes and not being in the
habit of doing
> your
> GUMPS check on downwind. Few airplanes you fly
will have automatic
> fuel pumps.
>
How about installing the automatic switchover
system, then act like it isn't there? That is, the
switch is Off-Auto-On. Operate as if Auto doesn't
exist, and go through GUMPS as always. Always
switch to On for T/O and landings. Now the one time
that you do forget, you might get a second
chance...maybe.
My reservation (if the system is used in the above
manner) is how can you test it regularly to see if
it is working? Is there an easy way to temporarily
disable a mechanical fuel pump? If you haven't
tested the system recently, its presence shouldn't
offer any security.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
On Oct 22, 2004, at 1:40 PM, echristley(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
> How about installing the automatic switchover
> system, then act like it isn't there?
That makes a great deal of sense.
> That is, the
> switch is Off-Auto-On. Operate as if Auto doesn't
> exist, and go through GUMPS as always. Always
> switch to On for T/O and landings. Now the one time
> that you do forget, you might get a second
> chance...maybe.
Fortuntately we usually don't get burned when we forget this ...
usually.
> My reservation (if the system is used in the above
> manner) is how can you test it regularly to see if
> it is working? Is there an easy way to temporarily
> disable a mechanical fuel pump?
No.
> If you haven't
> tested the system recently, its presence shouldn't
> offer any security.
If you run your two pumps in series, i.e. the output of the boost pump
feeds the input to the mechanical pump you can look for a pressure rise
at the input to the mechanical pump to determine if the boost pump is
running.
If you run your two pumps in parallel with check valves on their
outputs you can measure pressure at the outlet of each pump separately.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
I believe there were indeed fuel compatability problems with the fuel
pressure switch that one company was supplying for this purpose on efi
systems awhile ago. Automatic activation is a wonderful band-aid for
systems that can't tolerate two pumps on simultaneously, but I'm also
not convinced it is appropriate technology to retrofit to an auxilary
boost pump, at least not for all cases. It won't help if you are sucking
air because the tank is dry. Some aircraft initially suffer only a
partial power loss when a tank goes dry with the boost pump off which
warns you to check the fuel feed selector, whereas with the boost pump
already on there is a complete sudden total power loss when the tank
goes dry. Depends on the aircraft and fuel system. For some a reasonable
solution might well be to design so that both pumps can run all the time
like the heavy metal does.
Ken
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Gary Casey wrote:
>
>
>
>>I agree, and I think the record shows that most of the pilots do it
>>right
>>most of the time. Is that good enough? Also, I've talked to some
>>that say,
>>"it might be necessary for them, but I do it right ALL the time."
>>
>>
>
>That doesn't happen. People don't do it right all the time. That is
>why we have mnemonics and checklists and encourage their use.
>
>
>
>>Is that
>>realistic? There is certainly a balance between complexity and
>>dependency
>>on the human element. I'm all for simplicity, but I think in this
>>case the
>>mechanical complexity might be justified by the improved safety - and
>>the
>>reduced complexity of operation.
>>
>>
>
>You are trading off between remembering and the possibility of system
>failure. If you land sometime and forget to turn on the fuel pump, you
>are likely to land safely. Likewise for take-off but there it is more
>dangerous. Still, if you forget the fuel pump you are still probably
>going to complete your flight just fine.
>
>So now there is the question of failure modes and probability of
>failure given the increased complexity. And then there are the human
>factors of changing airplanes and not being in the habit of doing your
>GUMPS check on downwind. Few airplanes you fly will have automatic
>fuel pumps.
>
>
>
>>Another way to look at it: How often does
>>one NEED to remember the "G" in GUMPS? Almost never.
>>
>>
>
>Huh? That is the most important one: gas.
>
>G-as (fuel selectors and fuel pumps)
>U-ndercarriage (down and verify three greens)
>M-ixture (set for an aborted landing, usually full-rich)
>P-rop (full RPM)
>S-lats and flaps (set as appropriate for the type of landing; may
>substitute 'F')
>
>BTW, this is an after-the-fact *check* list, not a list to go through
>to complete the actions unless you want to do it twice.
>
>
>
>>Then why add to the
>>complexity of operation every time when it is "almost never" required?
>>Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain
>>cells
>>for something else.
>>
>>
>
>It is a good idea to try to accommodate the limitations of the human
>brain where possible. It is something else to create a crutch that can
>lead to a reduction in situational awareness and to introduce more
>points of failure in the system.
>
>
>
>>Just my opinion.
>>
>>
>
>Mine too. But as a CFI I have to try to help my students be as
>self-sufficient as possible. I cannot in good conscience teach them to
>rely on the hardware any more than necessary. Hardware breaks or has
>limitations and they should be able to complete their flights safely
>regardless.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gilles St-Pierre" <ranchlaseigneurie(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | electronic ignition |
Hello
I will be using an 8 cyl. (5.1 lt) Jabiru engine in my Murphy Elite. I am
wondering if there are any lightweight electronic modules for an 8 cyl
engines
Would appreciate if someone could give me the info.
sincerely
dr gilles st pierre
bsl aviation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jsto1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | electronic ignition |
Gilles,
The Jabiru engines come with solid state electronic mags, are you
wanting to replace them with something different?
If you are looking for an electronic engine monitor system for EGT, CHT,
fuel, etc. I suggest you check out the following URL, Craig has Chevy
V8 in his RV so I know he can do 8 cyl.
http://www.pcflightsystems.com/
I'm using his system with my Jabiru 3300.
Another one I have seen advertising 8 cyl is Stern, but they look more
expensive.
http://www.sterntech.com/pulsar200.php
The Grand Rapids Technologies EIS doesn't do a complete set of sensors
for an 8 cyl, but they have a good reputation, so you might want to talk
to them.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Gilles St-Pierre
Subject: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition
-->
Hello
I will be using an 8 cyl. (5.1 lt) Jabiru engine in my Murphy Elite. I
am
wondering if there are any lightweight electronic modules for an 8 cyl
engines
Would appreciate if someone could give me the info.
sincerely
dr gilles st pierre
bsl aviation
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "AI Nut" <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: electronic ignition |
If you're into building/installing your own, we have done this to a 4-banger
Ford engine. 4 each CHT and EGT, as well as turbine temps and pressures,
intake pressure, and etc. Cheaply, too 8-). CHT and EGT sensors came from
Aircraft Spruce. Temp sensors are from an electronics supply house. Chips
for conversion to 0-5VDC from Digikey. Circuits are boilerplate from Analog
Devices. Less than $200 so far. $110 for 8 channel A/D converter with USB
output from http://www.labjack.com/. Computer power is as your discretion.
Software is easy, too.
Let me know if you want more details.
Of course, only for experimentals 8-). But if you want to put them in a
certificated plane, I won't tell if you won't.
HTH,
AI Nut
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jsto1(at)tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: electronic ignition
>
> Gilles,
>
> The Jabiru engines come with solid state electronic mags, are you
> wanting to replace them with something different?
>
> If you are looking for an electronic engine monitor system for EGT, CHT,
> fuel, etc. I suggest you check out the following URL, Craig has Chevy
> V8 in his RV so I know he can do 8 cyl.
>
> http://www.pcflightsystems.com/
>
> I'm using his system with my Jabiru 3300.
>
> Another one I have seen advertising 8 cyl is Stern, but they look more
> expensive.
>
> http://www.sterntech.com/pulsar200.php
>
> The Grand Rapids Technologies EIS doesn't do a complete set of sensors
> for an 8 cyl, but they have a good reputation, so you might want to talk
> to them.
>
> <<>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)thayer.dartmouth.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
Gary Casey wrote:
> Might as well relegate that task to something automatic and use brain cells
> for something else.
Like lowering the landing gear? *wink*
-Dj
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2004, at 1:40 PM, echristley(at)nc.rr.com wrote:
>>If you haven't
>>tested the system recently, its presence shouldn't
>>offer any security.
>
>
> If you run your two pumps in series, i.e. the output of the boost pump
> feeds the input to the mechanical pump you can look for a pressure rise
> at the input to the mechanical pump to determine if the boost pump is
> running.
>
> If you run your two pumps in parallel with check valves on their
> outputs you can measure pressure at the outlet of each pump separately.
>
Ooops!
Slight misunderstanding, Brian. Testing that the fuel pump works just
like you say. It's the automatic kick-in that is the unknown. I
wouldn't trust any system to work unless it is operated regularly, and
the automatic kick-in is another system in and of itself.
Heh, maybe you switch to Auto before cranking the engine and take note
of fuel pressure?
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
I finally have some good information.
I bought the AMP PRO-CRIMPER II (58433-3) from Digi-Key for $66. I
just couldn't part with the $350+ to get the real thing. (59824-1
TETRA-CRIMP.) Remember the AMP catalog says that the PRO-CRIMPER II is not
UL or CSA listed for PIDG FASTONs. I bought some of every size of PIDG
FASTONs, rings, and splices because I'd need them and to do some testing. I
received the PRO-CRIMPER and the instructions said it's not UL or CSA
listed for ANYTHING!. I call AMP and finally get someone who seems to know
what they're talking about. He says UL won't approve anything with
replaceable dies. They will only approve single use tools that won't fall
out of adjustment. The PRO-CRIMPER II will crimp just about anything with
the right dies and is adjustable. That means you have to make sure it's in
spec when you use it. Therefore UL won't approve it. I asked the AMP rep
why the PRO-CRIMPER existed. He said it was designed for field use. Don't
ask me why field use doesn't require UL listed tools, but I suspect nobody
wanted to carry around the approximately 50 separate tools I counted in the
CERTI-CRIMP brochure.
My observations on the PRO-CRIMPER crimps was that they looked
just like Bob's pictures of his expensive tool crimps. I haven't cut any up
but I pulled them and they were tight. I did note, however, that the PIDG
splice was substantially different in geometry than the ring and FASTON.
The splice accommodated much larger insulation than the others. The
probable conclusion is that I bought the wrong splices. (I have yet to
double check. It's a low priority item.)
I'm reasonably happy with my PRO-CRIMPER, though I still feel like
a liability target. I'll just keep the PRO-CRIMPER in spec by mic'ing my
crimps and recording the results. (The PRO-CRIMPER instructions give "CRIMP
HEIGHTS" based on "LEAD ROD" crimps for your enjoyment. Don't ask me where
I'm going to find lead rod.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
On Oct 22, 2004, at 10:30 PM, Ernest Christley wrote:
> Slight misunderstanding, Brian. Testing that the fuel pump works just
> like you say. It's the automatic kick-in that is the unknown. I
> wouldn't trust any system to work unless it is operated regularly, and
> the automatic kick-in is another system in and of itself.
>
> Heh, maybe you switch to Auto before cranking the engine and take note
> of fuel pressure?
That works. That is what I do in both of my airplanes right now.
Boost pump goes on before the engine is started to ensure there is fuel
there to start the engine. This does tell you that the pumps are
working.
>
> --
> http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
> "This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
> instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
> mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
> decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
How about this from R.A. Heinlein:
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist,
fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic
criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want
people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former
are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the
greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and
lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the
other sort."
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
<>
Exactly - that's the easiest way to "disable" the mechanical pump in order
to check operation of the automatic system. You are doing two things when
you turn on the "auto" mode; one is to check that the pressure switch if
functioning (the pump turns on) and the other is to check the functioning of
the latching relay (the pump stays on) and the light. Then during the runup
the rest of the system is checked - the pump is turned from off to "auto"
and it DOESN'T come one. I believe that would be an adequate check of the
system. The idea is to reduce the number of decisions that have to be made
in the air.
Should we reject the idea of doing this simply because ALL planes don't have
this capability, thereby creating different operating techniques that have
to be learned for different airplanes? Fuel pump operation is already quite
a bit different from plan to plane. Some POH's say to turn on the pump for
takeoff and landing (but they omit other operating modes where it would be a
good idea) and some don't. Some fuel systems will tolerate the electric
pump on under all conditions and some don't. Some have 2-speed pumps with
specific requirements and even these vary from plane to plane. Some will
show a difference in fuel pressure with the electric pump on and some won't.
Many don't even have a fuel supply pressure gage. Seems that if this system
were on all aircraft the difference in operating procedure from plane to
plane would be less than it is today.
It probably sounds like I'm pushing this system a lot, but I'm mostly trying
to get diverse opinions on the idea (it worked!).
Gary Casey
When I was a kid we had a tractor that required the operator to control the
generator output current. Yet all present-day system voltages are
controlled automatically, taking this control away from the pilot (and
creating the need for still more complexity in the form of monitoring and
enunciation features). What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in
my experimental and still be a Libertarian?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
> Exactly - that's the easiest way to "disable" the mechanical pump in order
> to check operation of the automatic system. You are doing two things when
> you turn on the "auto" mode; one is to check that the pressure switch if
> functioning (the pump turns on) and the other is to check the functioning
of
> the latching relay (the pump stays on) and the light. Then during the
runup
> the rest of the system is checked - the pump is turned from off to "auto"
> and it DOESN'T come one. I believe that would be an adequate check of the
> system. The idea is to reduce the number of decisions that have to be
made
> in the air.
>
> Should we reject the idea of doing this simply because ALL planes don't
have
> this capability, thereby creating different operating techniques that have
> to be learned for different airplanes? Fuel pump operation is already
quite
> a bit different from plan to plane. Some POH's say to turn on the pump
for
> takeoff and landing (but they omit other operating modes where it would be
a
> good idea) and some don't. Some fuel systems will tolerate the electric
> pump on under all conditions and some don't. Some have 2-speed pumps with
> specific requirements and even these vary from plane to plane. Some will
> show a difference in fuel pressure with the electric pump on and some
won't.
> Many don't even have a fuel supply pressure gage. Seems that if this
system
> were on all aircraft the difference in operating procedure from plane to
> plane would be less than it is today.
>
> It probably sounds like I'm pushing this system a lot, but I'm mostly
trying
> to get diverse opinions on the idea (it worked!).
>
> Gary Casey
>
> When I was a kid we had a tractor that required the operator to control
the
> generator output current. Yet all present-day system voltages are
> controlled automatically, taking this control away from the pilot (and
> creating the need for still more complexity in the form of monitoring and
> enunciation features). What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system
in
> my experimental and still be a Libertarian?
Yes you can. The part still get to decide if they want to participate. :)
Incorrect fuel management is a number 3 killer. This speaks to the truth
that may pilots are not very good at it.
The creation of a full automatic fuel delivery system will save lives. The
cost of monitoring the sub components is minor compared to saving lives.
This is probably the most important change the OBAM community can make.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KeithHallsten" <KeithHallsten(at)quiknet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing |
Guy,
Lead wire and lead rod is commonly available at sporting goods stores, in
the fishing section. It's used to make sinkers.
Keith Hallsten
I'm reasonably happy with my PRO-CRIMPER, though I still feel like
a liability target. I'll just keep the PRO-CRIMPER in spec by mic'ing my
crimps and recording the results. (The PRO-CRIMPER instructions give "CRIMP
HEIGHTS" based on "LEAD ROD" crimps for your enjoyment. Don't ask me where
I'm going to find lead rod.)
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Treff, Arthur" <Arthur.Treff(at)smartm.com> |
| Subject: | SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality |
for IFR ops?
With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA
based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in
the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup
of approach charts for IFR operations? I'm thinking of making the 'digital
jump': away from my stack of Jeppesen books (and never ending revisions) to
an electronic hand held device. I have asked Seattle Avionics and Control
Vision (Anywhere Map), [two of the vendors I'm considering] the same
quesiton, but no answer as yet from their sales team. I mean, if to be
legal, the Feds still require a paper backup for approach procedures, then
the charts will remain in my bag, and any PDA and it's subscription to the
database would only be excess baggage in my mind, and forget an expensive
MFD. I"d rather put the $$ into the RV under construction or into AVGAS.
This list is the cutting edge for all things electrical in aircraft, so I'm
guessing one of you out there has gone down this thought path before.
Arthur Treff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit |
a Reality for IFR ops?
Afternoon, Art...
I can't confirm it, but I think I heard that the FAA allows printouts of
the charts such as Control Vision generates. I may have read this
somewhere on Control Visions website or one of their emails.
So, during your preflight or planning stage, print out the charts you
may need, and throw them away when you're trip is over.
Harley Dixon
Treff, Arthur wrote:
>
>With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA
>based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in
>the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup
>of approach charts for IFR operations? I'm thinking of making the 'digital
>jump': away from my stack of Jeppesen books (and never ending revisions) to
>an electronic hand held device. I have asked Seattle Avionics and Control
>Vision (Anywhere Map), [two of the vendors I'm considering] the same
>quesiton, but no answer as yet from their sales team. I mean, if to be
>legal, the Feds still require a paper backup for approach procedures, then
>the charts will remain in my bag, and any PDA and it's subscription to the
>database would only be excess baggage in my mind, and forget an expensive
>MFD. I"d rather put the $$ into the RV under construction or into AVGAS.
>
>This list is the cutting edge for all things electrical in aircraft, so I'm
>guessing one of you out there has gone down this thought path before.
>
>Arthur Treff
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: SMT Spam - smtrly02: Is a Paperless Cockpit a Reality |
...
In a message dated 10/23/2004 1:04:48 PM Central Standard Time,
Arthur.Treff(at)smartm.com writes:
With the plethora of panel mounted MFD's, hand held tablet computer and PDA
based devices for display of IFR maps and instrument approach procedures in
the cockpit, has the FAA made a ruling to no longer require a paper backup
of approach charts for IFR operations?
Good Afternoon Arthur,
The FAA says that if you are operating under 135, or any of the other common
carrier modes, you must have an approved source. There are some approved
electronic flight bags.
That is something between the holder of the certificate and the Principle
Operations Inspector assigned to that operator.
As to what is needed by someone operating under the provisions of part 91,
all that it says is that some approved source of information must be used.
That puts the decision right back in your own pocket.
If you are out there flying around in the clag and come up needing something
you don't have, you are always subject to the careless and/or reckless
operation rules.
Personally, I use the Jeppesen JeppView disc and print out any charts I
think I will need. I also carry a VAIO LapTop computer on which I can run the
disc if I need to make some sort of an unplanned stop.
I also carry enough fuel such that I can always make it to some point where
I could get down visually if I should encounter a complete electrical failure.
If I want to shoot an approach at a point for which I don't have the charts,
I can try to use the VAIO. If that fails, I will just go to my alternate.
The vast majority of IFR flights are conducted under conditions where no
approach is needed. As long as you can get into VFR conditions using the
enroute charts, no approach plates are needed.
One thing that I do if am going to make an approach to an airport for which
I don't have the printed chart is to look up the approach on my portable
computer long before I need the data. I then write down the data on a pad of
paper so that I will have it if the computer fails.
I do that just to increase my dispatch and schedule reliability. As I said
before, if the electronic source fails, I can just treat it like I would if I
was executing an NDB approach and my ADF failed.
I would divert to my alternate.
It all gets back to your interpretation of what is reasonable. The FAA has
no specific requirements as to how much data you much have and in what form
it is carried.
All they require is that you have current FAA approved information for the
operation you are conducting.
If what you think is reasonable does not work, action would likely be taken
against you.
One check that I make is to ask myself how I would explain my decision at
the hearing.
If I feel uncomfortable with my planning, I won't do it!
I have been operating without a complete set of paper approach plates for
the last three years. So far, I have only had to use the laptop a couple of
times and I have never had to divert to my alternate due to equipment failure.
I do carry a complete set of enroute paper charts for the area being flown
over.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
On Oct 23, 2004, at 10:37 AM, Eric Ruttan wrote:
>> What I wonder is, can I install this fuel system in
>> my experimental and still be a Libertarian?
>
> Yes you can. The parts still get to decide if they want to
> participate. :)
And in an aircraft, we still need to have a stable society even if not
all the parts choose to cooperate.
> Incorrect fuel management is a number 3 killer. This speaks to the
> truth
> that may pilots are not very good at it.
Clearly this is a problem. The scary thing about it is: it just isn't
that hard to do so why do pilots screw it up so often?
> The creation of a full automatic fuel delivery system will save lives.
> The
> cost of monitoring the sub components is minor compared to saving
> lives.
Well, fully automatic implies sufficient intelligence to automatically
select the proper tank, automatically manage the fuel pumps to ensure
proper pressure at the fuel metering system, and to let you know if you
aren't going to make it to your destination or if you can make it to
any field before you drop below minimum fuel.
This is a good question. Does anyone know of a source of good
electrically-operated fuel valves? Simple motor-driven bistable on/off
valves (draws current only when the valve is moving) with a switch to
provide feedback of valve open/closed would be nice. Anyone know of
such a critter? Seems to me the old Aero Commander twins used
eletrically-operated valves.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc |
On Oct 23, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
> Thanks to those that replied. I'll be putting the fuel pressure
> switch in,
> but leaving the oil pressure switch out of it.
What I found worked really, really well for me in my RV-4 was an Audio
Flight Avionics engine monitor. It had a polite woman's voice that
would say, "Warning, low fuel pressure," in my headphones should I
forget to switch tanks. I could then switch tanks without the engine
so much as skipping a beat.
It would tell me exactly what was wrong and the rest of the systems
were dirt simple. This appealed to me greatly.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc |
On Oct 23, 2004, at 10:48 AM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
>
> Cheers,
> Not my purpose to disagree with an active CFI,
Feel free. I am still learning.
> but I see no
> reason to change checklists [which were used for hundreds of different
> aircraft types and developped over 40 years of training] for each
> model of
> aerodyne.
I agree with you. I use GUMPS for all aircraft. I just have to
remember that the 'S' means "slats and flaps".
I encourage you to disagree with me if you have a better idea. The
point I try to make with my students is to be consistent in performing
a before landing check that all systems are in order. Repetition leads
to the likelihood that the check will be performed every time. And a
simple check means that the components of the check will be performed.
> If one must change the list each item should be complete:
> Gas - contents, selection, fuel pressure
> Mixture - usually rich unless above 5000, carb heat on/off
> Undercarriage - down, locked, downlock pressure up, visual clues, no
> horn
> Flap - initial circuit selection, then final selection
> Pitch - fine for overshoot
> Trim - for overshoot (on final)
> Actually, the ultimate checklist 50 years ago was
> HTMPFFGGS plus
> any particularity for type - could be used on most allied machines for
> any
> manoeuvre (if admittedly repetitive - but when you're flying seven or
> eight
> types..........).
Well, one does what one needs to do to get the job done.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
In a message dated 10/23/2004 3:59:12 PM Central Standard Time,
brianl(at)lloyd.com writes:
Anyone know of
such a critter? Seems to me the old Aero Commander twins used
eletrically-operated valves.
So did the Convair 340s
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rumination: Automatic standby fuel pump? |
The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has
electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney:
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c-10107
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | electric fuel valve |
On Oct 23, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Rick Girard wrote:
>
>
> The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has
> electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney:
>
> http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c
> -10107
Thanks. Interesting but I was looking for a two-port on/off type valve.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Inrange check/downwind check etc. |
Brian,
Quite right. I realise there are several versions of the 'universal
catch-all' type of check, but recently have run into instructors so hung up
on Cessnas that any other check is 'illegal', even when errors are pointed
out. So I reverted to nostalgia.
As Senior Course, we cadets patrolled the barracks at Lights Out,
and 30 minutes later. I strolled quietly thriugh a Junior ward when the
floorboard creaked. The nearest tad sat up, eyes wide open, and sang,
"Harness, Hood, Hydraulics, Trim, Tension, Temps, Mixture, Pitch, Fuel,
Flaps, Gills, Gyros, Switches!" and promptly lay down again. No one else
stirred.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
Looked at them but no experience. Do you have any ideas about the quality,
design, etc. Are you suggesting using one of them with the Lasar system or
two of them.
Since they're bolt on replacements for mags, how about
running one mag and one EMag? Once you have a track record
on the EMag, run the mag until it craps and replace it with
an EMag too.
If using two, I read it to say they generate enough power to
run the airplane and the alt becomes the backup at xxx rpm.
No, built in power is for electronics in the ignition.
How can they be getting enough power out of the PM generators to
power the rest of the panel?
They don't. Internally generated power is for ignition only.
Is the failure mode on these just to revert to normal mag function?
No, these always operated in the electronic mode. If you
use the self powered versions, they generate enough power
to function while the engine is running . . . NOT enough
provide ignition for STARTING an engine.
Above all else I was looking for a safe reliable system with a failure mode
that would still leave me flying. My engine is a month or two off so I
could still switch and I like the system but wonder about it's "newness".
You opinion would be appreciated.
I've talked with these folks at length. I plan to visit
their facility next spring. Based on what I know of
them right now, I would have no problem replacing one
mag with them right now . . . and I'm confident that by
the time I need to replace the mag, there will be enough
of a field history on them to justify using a pair
of EMags.
Going the EMag route lets you completely separate engine
ignition issues from the rest of your system design. EMags
are the elegant companions to a Figure Z-13 airplane. There's
no way I'd put a Lasar system on an OBAM aircraft. The value
is just not there.
Electro-Air and Lightspeed systems offer much more value
than Lasar but they are multiple boxes, extra wiring,
external timing sensors, etc. The EMag is, except for
power and manifold pressure connections, a drop-in
replacement for a magneto . . . further, the price
is about the same as for a magneto. These are about
the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Airworthiness Directives |
10/24/2004
Hello Fellow Builders, The issue of whether or not Airworthiness Directives apply
to amateur built experimental aircraft came up again recently. Kent Pyle sent
me a copy of a memorandum written by some FAA legal type in the New England
Region that said ADs most certainly did apply to type certificated engines and
propellers installed on amateur built aircraft.
I sent a copy of that memo to my contact at the EAA and got the following response.
OC, Charlie passed your letter over to me for a response. Thank you for the copy of the New England Region Acting Counsel statement, you never know what surprises you may get from a government office. However, in this case EAA is aware of this statement and it is our understanding that the statement was officially withdrawn. I will follow up again to verify that this memorandum was officially withdrawn. In discussion with the FAA Chief Council last year he agreed that EAA's interpretations of the applicability of AD's is correct and that the referenced memorandum would be withdrawn. (The EAA position statement is on the members only web site under advocacy http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp)
As further evidence that AD's do not apply the FAA published an AD applicability
chart with the release of the Sport Pilot Light Sport Aircraft rule which clearly
states AD's do not apply to amateur-built
aircraft, see attached file. I will follow up though to make sure the FAA did withdraw
the memorandum. Earl
I made an extract of the applicability chart that Earl referred to and if anyone
would like a copy of that extract just email me direct and I will sent you a
copy attached to an email. Attachments will not go through the list system.
OC
PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely take them
away one by one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done
a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified
instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that
the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong.
Thanks,
Joel Harding
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:40 PM, wrote:
>
> 10/24/2004
>
> Hello Fellow Builders, The issue of whether or not Airworthiness
> Directives apply to amateur built experimental aircraft came up again
> recently. Kent Pyle sent me a copy of a memorandum written by some FAA
> legal type in the New England Region that said ADs most certainly did
> apply to type certificated engines and propellers installed on amateur
> built aircraft.
>
> I sent a copy of that memo to my contact at the EAA and got the
> following response.
>
> OC, Charlie passed your letter over to me for a response. Thank you
> for the copy of the New England Region Acting Counsel statement, you
> never know what surprises you may get from a government office.
> However, in this case EAA is aware of this statement and it is our
> understanding that the statement was officially withdrawn. I will
> follow up again to verify that this memorandum was officially
> withdrawn. In discussion with the FAA Chief Council last year he
> agreed that EAA's interpretations of the applicability of AD's is
> correct and that the referenced memorandum would be withdrawn. (The
> EAA position statement is on the members only web site under advocacy
> http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp)
> As further evidence that AD's do not apply the FAA published an AD
> applicability chart with the release of the Sport Pilot Light Sport
> Aircraft rule which clearly states AD's do not apply to amateur-built
> aircraft, see attached file. I will follow up though to make sure the
> FAA did withdraw the memorandum. Earl
>
> I made an extract of the applicability chart that Earl referred to and
> if anyone would like a copy of that extract just email me direct and I
> will sent you a copy attached to an email. Attachments will not go
> through the list system.
>
> OC
>
> PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely
> take them away one by one.
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: electric fuel valve |
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
>On Oct 23, 2004, at 6:58 PM, Rick Girard wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>The RV (the kind that roll not the kind that fly) industry has
>>electrically operated fuel valves. Here are two from JC Whitney:
>>
>>http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/s-10101/p-1103/c
>>-10107
>>
>>
>
>Thanks. Interesting but I was looking for a two-port on/off type valve.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
There's always the option to cap the 3rd port, but what does it weigh?
Also, I believe that an award winning plane went down a few years ago &
the crash was attributed to the failure of an electrically actuated fuel
valve. I wouldn't write off using one based on one failure, but I would
like to know more about why it failed.
I'm considering fuel injection that requires a return line. Does anyone
know how difficult it would be to remove the motor & actuate these
valves manually?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
This is from the FAA
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/rulemaking/SportPilotRule7_19.doc page 28 You can
easily fill in the type airplane - First column is ultralights Last two are
certified. Middle yes column is factory built LSA
Airworth-iness
Directives
None
None issued against ELSA
Yes Type certificated TC/STC/PMA/TSO-approved products, if installed
None issued against amateur-built aircraft
Yes
Yes
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Harding" <cajole76(at)ispwest.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives
>
> OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done
> a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified
> instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that
> the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joel Harding
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:40 PM, wrote:
>
> >
> > 10/24/2004
> >
> > Hello Fellow Builders, The issue of whether or not Airworthiness
> > Directives apply to amateur built experimental aircraft came up again
> > recently. Kent Pyle sent me a copy of a memorandum written by some FAA
> > legal type in the New England Region that said ADs most certainly did
> > apply to type certificated engines and propellers installed on amateur
> > built aircraft.
> >
> > I sent a copy of that memo to my contact at the EAA and got the
> > following response.
> >
> > OC, Charlie passed your letter over to me for a response. Thank you
> > for the copy of the New England Region Acting Counsel statement, you
> > never know what surprises you may get from a government office.
> > However, in this case EAA is aware of this statement and it is our
> > understanding that the statement was officially withdrawn. I will
> > follow up again to verify that this memorandum was officially
> > withdrawn. In discussion with the FAA Chief Council last year he
> > agreed that EAA's interpretations of the applicability of AD's is
> > correct and that the referenced memorandum would be withdrawn. (The
> > EAA position statement is on the members only web site under advocacy
> > http://members.eaa.org/home/govt/issues/airworthy.asp)
> > As further evidence that AD's do not apply the FAA published an AD
> > applicability chart with the release of the Sport Pilot Light Sport
> > Aircraft rule which clearly states AD's do not apply to amateur-built
> > aircraft, see attached file. I will follow up though to make sure the
> > FAA did withdraw the memorandum. Earl
> >
> > I made an extract of the applicability chart that Earl referred to and
> > if anyone would like a copy of that extract just email me direct and I
> > will sent you a copy attached to an email. Attachments will not go
> > through the list system.
> >
> > OC
> >
> > PS: If we dont guard our freedoms the bureaucratic weenies will surely
> > take them away one by one.
> >
> >
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > _-
> > =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bobby Hester <bhester(at)hopkinsville.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
Joel Harding wrote:
>
>
> OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done
> a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified
> instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that
> the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joel Harding
>
If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not
comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified -
experimental?
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inrange check/downwind check etc. |
On Oct 24, 2004, at 9:57 AM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
>
> Brian,
> Quite right. I realise there are several versions of the
> 'universal
> catch-all' type of check, but recently have run into instructors so
> hung up
> on Cessnas that any other check is 'illegal', even when errors are
> pointed
> out. So I reverted to nostalgia.
Oh, horse hockey. I suggest that my students make up their own
checklists since we often find things that are not on the "official"
check list, mostly having to do with installed equipment and how the
student thinks about things. It doesn't matter which one you use so
long as you use one and it covers everything.
> As Senior Course, we cadets patrolled the barracks at Lights
> Out,
> and 30 minutes later. I strolled quietly thriugh a Junior ward when the
> floorboard creaked. The nearest tad sat up, eyes wide open, and sang,
> "Harness, Hood, Hydraulics, Trim, Tension, Temps, Mixture, Pitch, Fuel,
> Flaps, Gills, Gyros, Switches!" and promptly lay down again. No one
> else
> stirred.
I like that. Gills, eh? I got used to that term when flying and
instructing in the CJ6A and Yak-52.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Thanks for the reply, I obviously didn't understand enough but no surprise.
>I am actually putting on a Lightspeed Plasma III with the continuous shower
>spark system and I feel pretty good about getting the benefits of the
>variable advance and keeping the straight mag as a backup. I understand
>that the EMag runs in normal mag mode which does not vary timing if you are
>running it alongside a normal mag which is switch adjustable to electronic
>on the ground but not in the air.
Not sure why one would want to run it in the "traditional mag mode"
with fixed timing. Hundreds if not thousands of OBAM aircraft are flying
with one fully featured, advanced timing, electronic ignition system
along side
a traditional magneto. When operating at high altitude (low manifold
pressures) the electronic ignition advances while the magneto does
not. You get most of the benefits of better fuel consumption from the
electronic ignition in spite of the fact that the magneto is firing
the same cylinders "late".
> Other that a more consistent firing mode
>and hotter longer spark, is there any other advantage if it just fires at 25
>like the other mag. I am not sure if it has to be in normal mag mode but
>the web site will lead you this way. I think I will try to call them
>Monday.
Please do that . . . and let me know what they say.
>As Klaus explained his system to me, the continuous spark system fires
>before and through the mag firing point thus increasing both the intensity
>and duration of the firing cycle. I am thinking that I will get better fuel
>and efficiency at cruise, better starting ability on the ground, and better
>ignition and reliability down low even though the advance doesn't happen
>except at nearly full power cruise at altitude.
That's what I've come to understand about both Lightspeed and
Electro-Air systems over the years. There may be some marketing hype
differences between them concerning length of spark, multi-sparks, etc.
etc.
but I suspect the benefits derived from these features are small
compared to the benefit of having a hotter, single spark that rivals
a magneto -AND- advances to compensate for low manifold pressures too
-AND- is hotter for cranking -AND- runs self powered after the engine
is running -AND- won't barf during starter motor brownout -AND-
costs about the same as a "first generation" system.
>Assuming that I run the Lightspeed P III and one mag, would your
>recommendation for dual alt versus dual battery change and would you do it
>different with a pair of E-Mags?
No, figure Z-13 is quite adequate for one magneto and one electronic
ignition irrespective of the brand of electronic ignition. E-Mag Ignitions
offers the self powered P-Mag which makes it unnecessary to add
any kind of redundancy to the electrical system. If you get a P-mag,
then you can run any electrical system architecture you like without
regard to engine operations.
>I found the Z-13 diagram, are you suggesting that I replace the one shown as
>electronic with an E-Mag and run it as a normal mag or electronic mag.
If you want a low cost, failure tolerant system to run an all-electric
panel, then Figure Z-13 should be considered. P-Mags teamed with
Figure Z-13 is a very robust architecture.
>Do you think the technology is more sound than Klaus Plasma III system, more
>reliable, or just a cleaner implementation?
Parts count is lower. Installed weight is probably lower. Prices
are comparable. Ordering a P-Mag first crack out of the box eliminates
any concerns for electrical system faults affecting engine operation.
Note further that the E-Mag/P-Mag series of products are advertised
to gracefully recover from starter-motor, brown-out.
Last, I'm hearing from several builders about power transistors in
Lightspeed's system that bridge a mechanical gap between an etched
circuit board and the housing. Vibration has been known to break transistor
leads and fail the system. I have two builders who have re-mounted
transistors in their Lightspeed boxes to work around failures they've
experienced.
I think the E-Mag/P-Mag series devices are an excellent value
if they live up to their claim as true "second generation"
electronic ignition systems for OBAM aircraft. If it were my
airplane, I'd have to figure out a good reason for NOT installing
E-Mag Ignition's products before opting out to a "first generation"
product.
>Again, your counsel is greatly appreciated.
My pleasure sir.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Crimpers - lead rod for testing |
Thanks Keith.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Advance release of new Rev 11 Z-figure. |
I have a builder who wants to use the SD-20 as the vacuum pump driven
alternator in a single battery airplane. Figure Z-12 is the contemporary
approach for an airplane already flying . . . Z-12 mirrors the STC'ed
installation on many single-engine ariplanes.
Figure Z-10 was crafted to support the main-bus/e-bus architecture
of Z-13 and other published drawings. One may download this drawing
for review at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.pdf
The AutoCAD version is posted there also at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.dwg
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Hi Folks,
My name is Kurt Schrader. I have a KitFox 5 that I
just finished building and flight testing. I am
primarily a member of the KitFox matronics list, but I
wonder if anyone here can help me with an electronics
problem.
I have a Bendix/King Skymap IIIC moving map GPS and
the internal battery went dead just before my first
cross country flight. King wants $135 and 2 weeks
just to change this battery. I went to their web site
and they have the battery changing instructions, but
you have to be a dealer to get access.
Does anyone here have experience with this GPS unit,
or access to Bendix King info to pass on about
replacing this battery?
You are supposed to change the battery every 3 years.
I would like to remove the battery and install leads
to an external battery holder, if that is feasable.
This would seem a far better solution than a $135
battery change and 2 weeks down time every 3 years.
Thanks in advance,
Kurt S.
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | william mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
>
>
>If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not
>comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified -
>experimental?
Can't remember if it was John Larsen or Ron Alexander who said, at an
Alexander SportAir workshop, that you may de-certify your Lyc or
Continental by removing the engine data plate and sending it to the
FAA (or somesuch) with a declaration that the engine will no longer
be operated as certificated. I don't know if AD notes apply if you
don't send in the data plate. It's been a long time since I learned
of this so this info may no longer be accurate.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
I just changed out the battery in a Skyforce IIIC. The battery is soldered
in but with a little care, it's not too difficult. I ordered it from
McMaster-Carr, Part No. 6951K999. It cost (hold your breath--drum roll
please) $13.46. It is not a stock item but they will order it and it'll get
to you in 2-3 days.
I'm selling my Skyforce GPS, if anyone is interested. It's a very good VFR
GPS, but I just installed a certified IFR GPS, so I don't really have a use
for it.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS
battery
Hi Folks,
My name is Kurt Schrader. I have a KitFox 5 that I
just finished building and flight testing. I am
primarily a member of the KitFox matronics list, but I
wonder if anyone here can help me with an electronics
problem.
I have a Bendix/King Skymap IIIC moving map GPS and
the internal battery went dead just before my first
cross country flight. King wants $135 and 2 weeks
just to change this battery. I went to their web site
and they have the battery changing instructions, but
you have to be a dealer to get access.
Does anyone here have experience with this GPS unit,
or access to Bendix King info to pass on about
replacing this battery?
You are supposed to change the battery every 3 years.
I would like to remove the battery and install leads
to an external battery holder, if that is feasable.
This would seem a far better solution than a $135
battery change and 2 weeks down time every 3 years.
Thanks in advance,
Kurt S.
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
chaztuna(at)adelphia.net
| Subject: | Re: Advance release of new Rev 11 Z-figure. |
>
>
>I have a builder who wants to use the SD-20 as the vacuum pump driven
>alternator in a single battery airplane. Figure Z-12 is the contemporary
>approach for an airplane already flying . . . Z-12 mirrors the STC'ed
>installation on many single-engine ariplanes.
>
>Figure Z-10 was crafted to support the main-bus/e-bus architecture
>of Z-13 and other published drawings. One may download this drawing
>for review at:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.pdf
>
>The AutoCAD version is posted there also at:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.dwg
>
>
> Bob . . .
Bob
I just tried the link to download the AutoCAD version of the drawing. I'm
getting a
Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server.
message. Am I just to quick on the draw here?
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
Bob said:
<>
I've been hearing all the hype about "multi-spark" for many years and in the
past have tried to quantify the benefits. Note that there is a big
difference between "CD" systems and "inductive", or "Kettering" systems.
For a number of reasons the CD system produce a short-duration high-current
spark while the inductive systems produce a longer-duration, lower-current
spark. CD systems have traditionally had troubles igniting a poorly-mixed
charge (read cold start), but have the advantage of being able to rapidly
build up a charge to try it again. For starting this works okay. It takes
a significant length of time to recharge the cap to be able to re-strike and
I have measured about 1.5 milliseconds for that to happen. In other words,
the spark isn't continuous, but a series of very short (less than 100
micro-seconds compared to the 1-3 msec from an inductive system) sparks
separated by about 1.5 msec. At 2400 rpm 1.5 msec is 21.6 degrees and the
second spark following the initial correctly-timed spark by 22 degrees
doesn't do much good. It may light the fire if the first one missed, but
the power produced would be much reduced. Another anecdotal data point -
out of the millions of "certified" cars (and planes for that matter)
produced every year to my knowledge not a single one has a CD ignition
system. And it's not because they've just ignored the technology. 2-stroke
outboards often have CD systems because they are trying to fire oil-fouled
plugs and the CD spark characteristic does that better.
I'm not sure if it's the best thing since sliced bread or buttered toast,
but either way the E/P-mag looks cool. Problem is I need a 6-cylinder
system and that is a lot more difficult. Are they working on such a thing?
Gary Casey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
>>Problem is I need a 6-cylinder system and that is a lot more
difficult. Are they working on such a thing?<<
I've forwarded copies of some of these emails regarding the E-Mag/P-Mag
questions to Brad Dement at E-Mag. I mentioned that it would probably
be a good idea if he started monitoring this list. Best to get the
answers straight from the horses mouth instead of guessing.
Not sure if he will reply or not, but I'll let you all know what his
answers are, if he chooses not to reply to the list.
Harley Dixon
www.agelesswings.com
Gary Casey wrote:
>
>Bob said:
>
>< differences between them concerning length of spark, multi-sparks, etc.
>but I suspect the benefits derived from these features are small
> compared to the benefit of having a hotter, single spark that rivals
> a magneto -AND- advances to compensate for low manifold pressures too
> -AND- is hotter for cranking -AND- runs self powered after the engine
> is running -AND- won't barf during starter motor brownout -AND-
> costs about the same as a "first generation" system.>>
>
>I've been hearing all the hype about "multi-spark" for many years and in the
>past have tried to quantify the benefits. Note that there is a big
>difference between "CD" systems and "inductive", or "Kettering" systems.
>For a number of reasons the CD system produce a short-duration high-current
>spark while the inductive systems produce a longer-duration, lower-current
>spark. CD systems have traditionally had troubles igniting a poorly-mixed
>charge (read cold start), but have the advantage of being able to rapidly
>build up a charge to try it again. For starting this works okay. It takes
>a significant length of time to recharge the cap to be able to re-strike and
>I have measured about 1.5 milliseconds for that to happen. In other words,
>the spark isn't continuous, but a series of very short (less than 100
>micro-seconds compared to the 1-3 msec from an inductive system) sparks
>separated by about 1.5 msec. At 2400 rpm 1.5 msec is 21.6 degrees and the
>second spark following the initial correctly-timed spark by 22 degrees
>doesn't do much good. It may light the fire if the first one missed, but
>the power produced would be much reduced. Another anecdotal data point -
>out of the millions of "certified" cars (and planes for that matter)
>produced every year to my knowledge not a single one has a CD ignition
>system. And it's not because they've just ignored the technology. 2-stroke
>outboards often have CD systems because they are trying to fire oil-fouled
>plugs and the CD spark characteristic does that better.
>
>I'm not sure if it's the best thing since sliced bread or buttered toast,
>but either way the E/P-mag looks cool. Problem is I need a 6-cylinder
>system and that is a lot more difficult. Are they working on such a thing?
>
>Gary Casey
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
Do NOT remove data plate as it is required by FAR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "william mills" <courierboy(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives
>
> >
> >
> >If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not
> >comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified -
> >experimental?
>
> Can't remember if it was John Larsen or Ron Alexander who said, at an
> Alexander SportAir workshop, that you may de-certify your Lyc or
> Continental by removing the engine data plate and sending it to the
> FAA (or somesuch) with a declaration that the engine will no longer
> be operated as certificated. I don't know if AD notes apply if you
> don't send in the data plate. It's been a long time since I learned
> of this so this info may no longer be accurate.
> Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:42:32 AM Central Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
Do NOT remove data plate as it is required by FAR.
Good Morning Cy,
Is a data plate required on an experimental engine?
The way I see things, I could build an engine entirely from parts and use it
as an experimental engine on my experimental airplane. No data plate
included or maybe, I could make one of my own stating that the engine is
experimental.
Now, if I happened to have a "legal" name plate hanging around, it seems to
me that I could buy a bunch of new or rebuilt certified parts and use them to
repair the engine that was missing from the nameplate.
I would then have a perfectly legal certified engine would I not?
Would I be in violation of any FAR should I do that?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joel Harding <cajole76(at)ispwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
I don't think non compliance with issued AD's changes the certification
status of your engine. You would need to modify it from the production
configuration.
On Oct 24, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Bobby Hester wrote:
>
>
> Joel Harding wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> OC, please send me a copy of the chart. When I had my inspection done
>> a few weeks ago the guy said that if my engine had been certified
>> instead of experimental, because of the high compression pistons, that
>> the AD"s would have applied. It looks like he was wrong.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joel Harding
>>
> If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not
> comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified -
> experimental?
>
> --
> Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
> Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
> RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jsto1(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery
Kert,
I agree it's a bummer, having just gone through the process myself. I
also did some investigations inside the box. It is NOT a standard
identifiable battery as one would expect. This is probably a legacy of
the unit originally being designed and built in Great Britain, then the
company was bought by Bendix/King.
Since the battery is used to keep the RAM alive, an external battery
would still be required.
Mine lasted over 5 years before the message poped up.
Good Luck,
Jim Stone
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
The way I understand it, when you mate up a prop/engine combo which is not
certified, or install auto plugs or a non-certified part, or a noncertifed
mechanic works on the engine, or you don't comply with any required
inspections, it is no longer a certified engine and would have to be torn
down, inspected and reassembled according to regs to be certified again.
So . . . most of us homebuilders are flying non-certified engines by
default, therefore, the presence of a data plate is irrelevant. I would
leave them on, simply to identify the basis for the engine. It also makes
some potential buyers more comfortable, who put stock in such things.
--Kent
> From: william mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:12:59 -0700
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not
>> comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified -
>> experimental?
>
> Can't remember if it was John Larsen or Ron Alexander who said, at an
> Alexander SportAir workshop, that you may de-certify your Lyc or
> Continental by removing the engine data plate and sending it to the
> FAA (or somesuch) with a declaration that the engine will no longer
> be operated as certificated. I don't know if AD notes apply if you
> don't send in the data plate. It's been a long time since I learned
> of this so this info may no longer be accurate.
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
I believe that the FAA requires a "fireproof" data tag on your engine. You
do not have to remove the Certified Data tag when you maintain it as
experimental. I understand it must be completely torn down to re-certify an
engine that has been used on an experimental.
If you certify a non-conforming engine as certified, the FAA would be
looking at your mechanic's license. But you already knew that.
Although some say you have to remove the tag, It is my opinion that the tag
contains valuable information about the engine and should not be separated
from the engine. I remember all too well when I threw away the little data
tag under a screw on my car's carb, that I threw away the information to set
up that carb. It was trial and error from there one as my carb had about 25
variations.
Finding the correct data for an airplane is much the same way. It does
change and by losing or using the wrong tag, the device might not be set up
correctly.
Old Lay Mechanic
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives
>
>
> In a message dated 10/25/2004 8:42:32 AM Central Standard Time,
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
>
> Do NOT remove data plate as it is required by FAR.
>
>
> Good Morning Cy,
>
> Is a data plate required on an experimental engine?
>
> The way I see things, I could build an engine entirely from parts and use
it
> as an experimental engine on my experimental airplane. No data plate
> included or maybe, I could make one of my own stating that the engine is
> experimental.
>
> Now, if I happened to have a "legal" name plate hanging around, it seems
to
> me that I could buy a bunch of new or rebuilt certified parts and use
them to
> repair the engine that was missing from the nameplate.
>
> I would then have a perfectly legal certified engine would I not?
>
> Would I be in violation of any FAR should I do that?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Do you know what it does?
Did you need to have power applied during replacement to keep something
active?
I have a IIIC and likely will need to replace my battery soon.
Thanks for the battery source info.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery
>
> I just changed out the battery in a Skyforce IIIC. The battery is
soldered
> in but with a little care, it's not too difficult. I ordered it from
> McMaster-Carr, Part No. 6951K999. It cost (hold your breath--drum roll
> please) $13.46. It is not a stock item but they will order it and it'll
get
> to you in 2-3 days.
>
> I'm selling my Skyforce GPS, if anyone is interested. It's a very good
VFR
> GPS, but I just installed a certified IFR GPS, so I don't really have a
use
> for it.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
> schrader
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS
> battery
>
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> My name is Kurt Schrader. I have a KitFox 5 that I
> just finished building and flight testing. I am
> primarily a member of the KitFox matronics list, but I
> wonder if anyone here can help me with an electronics
> problem.
>
> I have a Bendix/King Skymap IIIC moving map GPS and
> the internal battery went dead just before my first
> cross country flight. King wants $135 and 2 weeks
> just to change this battery. I went to their web site
> and they have the battery changing instructions, but
> you have to be a dealer to get access.
>
> Does anyone here have experience with this GPS unit,
> or access to Bendix King info to pass on about
> replacing this battery?
>
> You are supposed to change the battery every 3 years.
> I would like to remove the battery and install leads
> to an external battery holder, if that is feasable.
> This would seem a far better solution than a $135
> battery change and 2 weeks down time every 3 years.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kurt S.
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
You're right. It is not a standard issue battery that you can buy from
Batteries-R-Us, but we matched the size and specs exactly with the
McMaster-Carr battery. After installing it, it held ram in memory and
operated in the conventional fashion. If it is not an exact replacement, it
certainly seems to be an equivalent replacement and works fine. The unit is
normally powered by the external cig lighter and is not intended to run on
internal batteries for any period of time.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Stone
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS
battery
Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery
Kert,
I agree it's a bummer, having just gone through the process myself. I
also did some investigations inside the box. It is NOT a standard
identifiable battery as one would expect. This is probably a legacy of
the unit originally being designed and built in Great Britain, then the
company was bought by Bendix/King.
Since the battery is used to keep the RAM alive, an external battery
would still be required.
Mine lasted over 5 years before the message poped up.
Good Luck,
Jim Stone
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)olypen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
I just talked to Mc Master and they say they need a lot more info like a
battery description besides physical size to order it. The 999 at the end of
the part # only means its special order and the rest of the needed info is
battery description and ideally some part # off the battery.
So can you help with more info of battery specs etc?
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery
>
> I just changed out the battery in a Skyforce IIIC. The battery is
soldered
> in but with a little care, it's not too difficult. I ordered it from
> McMaster-Carr, Part No. 6951K999. It cost (hold your breath--drum roll
> please) $13.46. It is not a stock item but they will order it and it'll
get
> to you in 2-3 days.
>
> I'm selling my Skyforce GPS, if anyone is interested. It's a very good
VFR
> GPS, but I just installed a certified IFR GPS, so I don't really have a
use
> for it.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
> schrader
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS
> battery
>
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> My name is Kurt Schrader. I have a KitFox 5 that I
> just finished building and flight testing. I am
> primarily a member of the KitFox matronics list, but I
> wonder if anyone here can help me with an electronics
> problem.
>
> I have a Bendix/King Skymap IIIC moving map GPS and
> the internal battery went dead just before my first
> cross country flight. King wants $135 and 2 weeks
> just to change this battery. I went to their web site
> and they have the battery changing instructions, but
> you have to be a dealer to get access.
>
> Does anyone here have experience with this GPS unit,
> or access to Bendix King info to pass on about
> replacing this battery?
>
> You are supposed to change the battery every 3 years.
> I would like to remove the battery and install leads
> to an external battery holder, if that is feasable.
> This would seem a far better solution than a $135
> battery change and 2 weeks down time every 3 years.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Kurt S.
>
>
> __________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Airworthiness Directives |
| From: | "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR(at)wernerco.com> |
I asked the IA at our local FBO, he states that as soon as a non-AP
works on the engine it is experimental rather than certified, so even if
you buy a certified engine and maintain it yourself, if it is not signed
off by an AP then your engine is not certified any longer. He then
clarified that it was not to say your engine could not be brought back
into compliance, by having the inspection done by a certified AP/IA,
just that during the time you maintained it was out. I asked about the
repairman cert, this cert lets you maintain your own aircraft and do
condition inspections, but has not bearing on maintaining a status of a
certified engine. So in his opinion there was very little difference in
the experimental market as to certified engines versus non-certified.
Remember this was one IA's opinion, an it was probably worth what I paid
(Doughnuts and coffee, but they were Krispy Kreme!)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kent
Ashton
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives
The way I understand it, when you mate up a prop/engine combo which is
not certified, or install auto plugs or a non-certified part, or a
noncertifed mechanic works on the engine, or you don't comply with any
required inspections, it is no longer a certified engine and would have
to be torn down, inspected and reassembled according to regs to be
certified again.
So . . . most of us homebuilders are flying non-certified engines by
default, therefore, the presence of a data plate is irrelevant. I would
leave them on, simply to identify the basis for the engine. It also
makes some potential buyers more comfortable, who put stock in such
things.
--Kent
> From: william mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:12:59 -0700
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Airworthiness Directives
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> If your engine was certified and an AD came out on it and you did not
>> comply with the AD then won't that now make your engine uncertified -
>> experimental?
>
> Can't remember if it was John Larsen or Ron Alexander who said, at an
> Alexander SportAir workshop, that you may de-certify your Lyc or
> Continental by removing the engine data plate and sending it to the
> FAA (or somesuch) with a declaration that the engine will no longer be
> operated as certificated. I don't know if AD notes apply if you don't
> send in the data plate. It's been a long time since I learned of this
> so this info may no longer be accurate.
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Chuck,
How about a part number for your "solution" battery?
Charlie Kuss
>
> From: Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
> Date: 2004/10/25 Mon AM 11:09:30 EDT
> To: "'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com'"
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | erie <erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
Bob,
That's pretty much what any rebuild shop does, remove the tag, block
cleaned, zyyglo'd, etc. possibly new
crank, cam, .... sometimes the case is junk and gets changed, guess what
tag they use? your old one. The engine
serial number is really only applicable to the tag, everything else can
be changed.
erie
>The way I see things, I could build an engine entirely from parts and use it
>as an experimental engine on my experimental airplane. No data plate
>included or maybe, I could make one of my own stating that the engine is
>experimental.
>
>Now, if I happened to have a "legal" name plate hanging around, it seems to
>me that I could buy a bunch of new or rebuilt certified parts and use them to
>repair the engine that was missing from the nameplate.
>
>I would then have a perfectly legal certified engine would I not?
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Airworthiness Directives |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Bobby Hester
<>
10/25/2004
Hello Bobby, You are jumbling together the concepts of type certification, airworthiness,
and airworthiness directives. Lets see if we can sort them out.
1) A type certificated engine is installed in a type certificated airplane and
an AD (Airworthiness Directive) is issued by the FAA for that engine. Once that
engine is in violation of that AD then the engine is no longer considered airworthy
by the FAA. But that does not mean that the engine has lost its type certification.
2) A type certificated engine is installed in an experimental aircraft. By virtue
of that installation (and presumably operation) that engine is no longer considered
by the FAA to meet its type certification and instead is considered to
be an experimental engine.
3) Now lets say that an AD was issued by the FAA for the type certificated version
of that engine in paragraph 2) above. By virtue of the fact that the engine
is now considered experimental that AD does not apply to that engine and the
engine does not become legally unairworthy simply because it is in violation
of the AD.
4) Now lets say that the engine in 2) above is removed from the experimental aircraft
with the intention of installing it into its intended type certificated
aircraft. An inspection of that engine must be conducted to determine that the
engine does meet its type certification and is airworthy before it can be installed
and flown in its intended type certificated .
I would like to emphasize that just because an AD does not legally apply to the
experimental engine in your experimental aircraft that the AD should be ignored.
Instead the prudent builder uses the information in the AD to the best of
his ability, including obtaining professional help if needed, to ensure that his
engine and aircraft is safe and airworthy.
Much of what I have written above has come out of past practices and cannot be
explicitly found in the regulations. For more on this subject I recommend reading
an article by Ron Alexander on page 62 of the March 2002 issue of Sport Aviation
magazine.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Hi Paul,
The battery holds the current position, date and time,
and any user waypoints and flight plans in memory with
the unit off. It does not power the unit itself.
With the battery dead, you get a couple of warnings on
startup and the gps needs 10 minutes or so to find
itself in time and position. Then you have to reenter
any flight plans you want to use now. It all is lost
again when you shut the unit down.
If the battery died in flight, you wouldn't know until
the next startup, so it is not a safety issue.
I have installed the gps in my panel and power it off
the plane's power. My internal battery lasted right
at 5 years like Jim Stone's.
Kurt S.
--- Paul Messinger wrote:
> Do you know what it does?
>
> Did you need to have power applied during
> replacement to keep something active?
>
> I have a IIIC and likely will need to replace my
> battery soon.
>
> Thanks for the battery source info.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness Directives |
In a message dated 10/25/2004 10:51:22 AM Central Standard Time,
erie(at)shelbyvilledesign.com writes:
Bob,
That's pretty much what any rebuild shop does, remove the tag, block
cleaned, zyyglo'd, etc. possibly new
crank, cam, .... sometimes the case is junk and gets changed, guess what
tag they use? your old one. The engine
serial number is really only applicable to the tag, everything else can
be changed.
erie
Good Morning erie,
Precisely my point. I have an IO-520-BA that has been converted to an
IO-550-B. The ONLY thing that was used of the original engine was the name plate.
Everything else has been replaced.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Hey Chuck,
Well, that is a good bit better than $135!
Can you give me a discription of how to get at the
battery and its discription? I opened mine, but don't
want to break anything going in the wrong direction or
miss a fastener and crack a board. Well, actually I
have 2 boards apart, but the third with the antenna
and power strip is still in and I suppose that one has
the battery? Do I have to remove it?
Kurt S.
--- Chuck Jensen wrote:
> I just changed out the battery in a Skyforce IIIC.
> The battery is soldered
> in but with a little care, it's not too difficult.
> I ordered it from McMaster-Carr, Part No. 6951K999.
> It cost (hold your breath--drum roll
> please) $13.46. It is not a stock item but they
> will order it and it'll get to you in 2-3 days.
>
> I'm selling my Skyforce GPS, if anyone is
> interested. It's a very good VFR
> GPS, but I just installed a certified IFR GPS, so I
> don't really have a use for it.
>
> Chuck
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Hi Jim,
What I meant to say is that I wanted to mount the
replacement battery on the outside to avoid opening
the unit again next time. My main power comes off the
aircraft system. An external battery could be of any
diminsions and not have to fit the inside space. It
could be larger or maybe a cheaper substitute? Or
just a radio shack substitute that is easier to get.
How's that for thinking out of the box? :-) Ok, if
it isn't too hard to do, I'll just stick with the
matching substitute.
Kurt S.
--- Jim Stone wrote:
> Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce
> IIIC GPS battery
>
> Kert,
>
> I agree it's a bummer, having just gone through the
> process myself. I
> also did some investigations inside the box. It is
> NOT a standard
> identifiable battery as one would expect. This is
> probably a legacy of
> the unit originally being designed and built in
> Great Britain, then the
> company was bought by Bendix/King.
>
> Since the battery is used to keep the RAM alive, an
> external battery would still be required.
>
> Mine lasted over 5 years before the message poped
up.
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Jim Stone
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | [Fwd: RE: I think we need some advice here.] |
Group...
Just got this from Brad at Emag, in reply to my earlier message....
He has changed the website a bit to reflect some of the questions...
Also...he asks anyone with a question to please just ask...and
congratulates Bob for his good responses.
Harley Dixon
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: I think we need some advice here.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:29:35 -0500
From: Brad Dement <brad(at)proplink.org>
Mornin Harley....
Thanks for the heads up. I do occasionally watch that group. I am just
wary about launching another full time career (I have 4 already)
responding to discussion groups. I figure that if someone has a burning
question they need an answer to, they will ask. I spend almost half my
time responding to calls and emails as it is.
So that you will have good data:
Mag Mode is an option, not a requirement, when running in tandem with a
magneto. If you want simultaneous firing from both plugs, Mag Mode will
do that but you will loose the benefit of timing advance, In Advance
Mode, the timing will vary but you no longer have simultaneous firing of
both plugs (if you care about that). Mag Mode simply gives the owner a
choice. I just added some language to the web site installation
instructions to clarify this point.
I am not clear on who is asking the questions and who is responding in
the attachment below, but it seems whoever is responding is doing a
pretty good job, and likely with more credibility than the "factory".
As much as possible, I'd like the products to speak for themselves. The
first batch of ignitions are now being installed by customers.
I'll keep watching.
Kindest Regards,
Brad Dement
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my Rotax912UL and
an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
Leo Corbalis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advance release of new Rev 11 Z-figure |
>forged HELO
>
>
> >
> >
> >I have a builder who wants to use the SD-20 as the vacuum pump driven
> >alternator in a single battery airplane. Figure Z-12 is the contemporary
> >approach for an airplane already flying . . . Z-12 mirrors the STC'ed
> >installation on many single-engine ariplanes.
> >
> >Figure Z-10 was crafted to support the main-bus/e-bus architecture
> >of Z-13 and other published drawings. One may download this drawing
> >for review at:
> >
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.pdf
> >
> >The AutoCAD version is posted there also at:
> >
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Appendix_Z_Drawings/z10A.dwg
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob
> I just tried the link to download the AutoCAD version of the drawing. I'm
>getting a
>
>
>Not Found
>
>The requested URL was not found on this server.
>
>message. Am I just to quick on the draw here?
No, I had a typo in the file name as uploaded to the server.
Try again. Thanks for the heads-up.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>I've been hearing all the hype about "multi-spark" for many years and in the
>past have tried to quantify the benefits. Note that there is a big
>difference between "CD" systems and "inductive", or "Kettering" systems.
>I'm not sure if it's the best thing since sliced bread or buttered toast,
>but either way the E/P-mag looks cool. Problem is I need a 6-cylinder
>system and that is a lot more difficult. Are they working on such a thing?
>
>Gary Casey
The last time I talked with them, a 6-cyl system is "in the works" but
I don't recall a target date to market.
One of things I find a little disingenuous for all of the marketing
hype on electronic ignitions is the idea that "my flame thrower is
better than his blowtorch" when in fact, 99% of the improvements
come from being several hundred percent better than a candle (magneto)
such that cranking is much improved, automotive spark plugs can be
used (here where the REAL $savings$ happens) and oh yeah, if you spend
hours and hours at full throttle cruise at 8,000 feet or more you
get some fuel savings.
Just about anything one can do to ditch the mags will get you
most of what you need, all the rest is infomercial trying to
get you to choose one product over another. Current market
offerings have done pretty well for the last 15 years but it
may be that Emag Ignition's offerings have the better value
due to ease of installation and the fact that they did their
homework with respect to starter brown-out.
I wish them well and hope we get lots of happy feedback
from their first couple of years worth of customers.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Jensen <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
For all the DIYs. The disassembly is not difficult but as you work your way
down through the board levels, just remove the screws and clips as you go.
The battery leads are soldered directly onto the board. Use a solder-sucker
to desolder the pigtail joints. Put the new battery pigtails in place,
soldered it (not too many close-by components to be heat damaged) and
reassemble. Plug in, turn on and allow internal battery to charge up.
Cycle unit off/on. The database will likely be corrupted (it's probably a
Political Database). If the memory is corrupted, go into SETUP and clear
memory. The code to clear memory is either 3-3-3-3 or 1-2-3-4. When the
memory is cleared, your pin number is reset to 1-2-3-4. You will lose all
your saved flight plans and/or waypoints, but that's not the end of the
world!
Kurt, an external battery may get disconnected, or not charged; each time
resulting in loss of your memory and corrupted database. Replacing the
internal battery is a once-every-5-year project and takes less than an
hour...2 hours for the dexterity-challenged. Not a big deal.
As to the battery itself, the McMaster-Carr P/N is 6951K999 and the
description is "disposable lithium battery Hawker Entercell 3.7V TO6/8AA TCL
with one wire pigtail each end." Price was $13.46 with $3.45 shipping.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS
battery
Hi Jim,
What I meant to say is that I wanted to mount the
replacement battery on the outside to avoid opening
the unit again next time. My main power comes off the
aircraft system. An external battery could be of any
diminsions and not have to fit the inside space. It
could be larger or maybe a cheaper substitute? Or
just a radio shack substitute that is easier to get.
How's that for thinking out of the box? :-) Ok, if
it isn't too hard to do, I'll just stick with the
matching substitute.
Kurt S.
--- Jim Stone wrote:
> Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce
> IIIC GPS battery
>
> Kert,
>
> I agree it's a bummer, having just gone through the
> process myself. I
> also did some investigations inside the box. It is
> NOT a standard
> identifiable battery as one would expect. This is
> probably a legacy of
> the unit originally being designed and built in
> Great Britain, then the
> company was bought by Bendix/King.
>
> Since the battery is used to keep the RAM alive, an
> external battery would still be required.
>
> Mine lasted over 5 years before the message poped
up.
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Jim Stone
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | IPod connectivity |
It just happend, that I've got a brand new ipod. Now the big question where
to get an adapter cable to wire it to my GMA 340 Audio Panel and where to
get the power adapter for wiring directly to the 12V source of my ship?
I've seen a Belkin Car Adapter but nothing for the Audio connection.
Any help appreciated
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IPod connectivity |
On 10/25 11:26, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> It just happend, that I've got a brand new ipod. Now the big question where
> to get an adapter cable to wire it to my GMA 340 Audio Panel and where to
> get the power adapter for wiring directly to the 12V source of my ship?
I connected the stereo headphone jack of the ipod to one of
the music inputs of my GMA340 intercom. It takes a 3.5mm
stereo jack (left, right and common) on both ends. I wired
the music 1 output to a stereo jack on the panel.
You can find this type of cable at radio shack.
see entry dated 10/17
http://www.rv7-a.com/avionics_panel_3.htm
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Grosse <grosseair(at)ameritech.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IPod connectivity |
Try Radio Shack. That's where I got mine.
John
Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>It just happend, that I've got a brand new ipod. Now the big question where
>to get an adapter cable to wire it to my GMA 340 Audio Panel and where to
>get the power adapter for wiring directly to the 12V source of my ship?
>
>I've seen a Belkin Car Adapter but nothing for the Audio connection.
>
>Any help appreciated
>
>Werner
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Checkoway" <dan(at)rvproject.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IPod connectivity |
Not directly an answer to your question, but... I've mentioned this before
on this list and want to reiterate it...so your music experience is as
robust as possible. 8-)
There's a 10x gain select feature on the GMA-340. Slap a jumper from some
pin to ground and there you go. Believe it's called "High Music Gain
Select" (pin 15?). Only later models with mods 2 & 5 have it, I believe.
This is a MUST for most entertainment devices. It's a built-in boost that
eliminates the need for any external amplification.
Also I encourage using the ICS Mute Inhibit feature -- same sort of
pin-jumped-to-ground setup (pin 13?) -- so you can talk over the music
without interrupting it (transmissions do still interrupt).
It's all outlined in the GMA-340's install manual.
http://images.rvproject.com/garmin/GMA340AudioPanel_InstallationManual.pdf
See 2.6.6 and the end of 3.1.11.
I've probably posted this at least twice on this list. Sorry if it's
annoying. I just feel it makes a huge difference, and it's free!
Hope this helps,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: IPod connectivity
>
> It just happend, that I've got a brand new ipod. Now the big question
where
> to get an adapter cable to wire it to my GMA 340 Audio Panel and where to
> get the power adapter for wiring directly to the 12V source of my ship?
>
> I've seen a Belkin Car Adapter but nothing for the Audio connection.
>
> Any help appreciated
>
> Werner
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
Bob,
Regarding Figure Z-16 (for rotax) I am unable to understand why the wire
from the capacitor to the starter contactor thru the OV disconnect relay
does not have any protection (F.L. ?) at the capacitor end, this being
the hot end during normal operations when the alternator is charging.
Can you help please ?
Regards
Kingsley Hurst
Europa Mono 281 in Oz.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: IPod connectivity |
On Oct 25, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
>
> It just happend, that I've got a brand new ipod. Now the big question
> where
> to get an adapter cable to wire it to my GMA 340 Audio Panel and where
> to
> get the power adapter for wiring directly to the 12V source of my ship?
> I've seen a Belkin Car Adapter but nothing for the Audio connection.
I would consider the stereo adapter docking base.
I tried both the headphone jack and the stereo output jacks into my
home stereo. To my ears the quality of the sound seemed better in the
stereo output as opposed to the headphone output. This is a fixed
level (no volume control).
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | It's Just a Matter of Time... |
So the question...soon...will be: Can you really fly your airplane with
what's on your wrist?
I am a watch buff. This seems to be common among pilots. Tom Wolfe in The
Right Stuff says of test
pilots..."... the pathetic-looking civilian suits and the enormous
wristwatches. The
wristwatches had about two thousand calibrations on them and dials for
recording everything...."
I only own one decent watch, but soon I will have to buy the Casio Solar
Atomic...WWV atomic time and solar powered, under $100...barely believable.
It has
several other features of course. Each feature seems to add ten dollars to
the price. But what features! There are wristwatches that have altimeters,
GPS locations (!), thermometers, barometers, internet connections, digital
compasses, depth gauges, pulse meters, cameras, E6B's, databanks, radios,
translators, calendars, lap timers, tides, lunar phases, and oh yes, they
tell time.
Not to mention the $4,400 to $32,000 Breitling Emergency Locator
Transmitter 121.5 MHz Watch for which the FCC had to issue special
exemptions. If the rescue team discovered me with a broken back and wearing
a $32,000 Breitling wristwatch....hmmmmm. A friend bought a $3,000 Bell &
Ross Hydromax
diver's dress watch good to 11100 METERS in saltwater...oil filled you
betcha. I
blinked my eyes and squinted but it still said 11100 METERS.......jeezzz...!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is.
-Yogi Berra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hello Kingsley,
The stock permanent magnet alternator is current limited to 20Amps,
even shorted to ground. If the wire along the path you are talking about
is big enough to handle that load, no need for protection. The real risk
to any of the wires in the system is the battery, which can source hundreds
of amps should a wire get faulted.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Bob,
>
> Regarding Figure Z-16 (for rotax) I am unable to understand why the wire
> from the capacitor to the starter contactor thru the OV disconnect relay
> does not have any protection (F.L. ?) at the capacitor end, this being
> the hot end during normal operations when the alternator is charging.
> Can you help please ?
>
> Regards
> Kingsley Hurst
> Europa Mono 281 in Oz.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Giffen A. Marr" <GAMarr(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 10/25/04 |
"Is a data plate required on an experimental engine?
The way I see things, I could build an engine entirely from parts and use
it
as an experimental engine on my experimental airplane. No data plate
included or maybe, I could make one of my own stating that the engine is
experimental.
Now, if I happened to have a "legal" name plate hanging around, it seems to
me that I could buy a bunch of new or rebuilt certified parts and use them
to
repair the engine that was missing from the nameplate.
I would then have a perfectly legal certified engine would I not?
Would I be in violation of any FAR should I do that?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502"
In response to Old Bob, If you assembled the engine from parts and attached
a "legitimate" data plate to it you would be in violation of the FAR's. See
Far 45 Subpart B and Far 43. There is a procedure for building from parts
and installation of a data plate. I believe it is covered by AC.
The FAA has a whole section that does nothing other then the investigation
of Bogus and Unapproved Parts. The are several individuals serving Federal
sentences for attempting to circumvent the regulations.
Giff Marr
LIV/20B 27%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: It's Just a Matter of Time... |
I'm keeping my eye out for a PLB on a wristwatch.
>Not to mention the $4,400 to $32,000 Breitling Emergency Locator
>Transmitter 121.5 MHz Watch for which the FCC had to issue special
>exemptions. If the rescue team discovered me with a broken back and wearing
>a $32,000 Breitling wristwatch....hmmmmm. ...
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CFrank(at)edony.com |
| Subject: | It's Just a Matter of Time... |
Yes, but can it core a apple?
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric M. Jones [mailto:emjones(at)charter.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: It's Just a Matter of Time...
So the question...soon...will be: Can you really fly your airplane with
what's on your wrist?
I am a watch buff. This seems to be common among pilots. Tom Wolfe in The
Right Stuff says of test
pilots..."... the pathetic-looking civilian suits and the enormous
wristwatches. The
wristwatches had about two thousand calibrations on them and dials for
recording everything...."
I only own one decent watch, but soon I will have to buy the Casio Solar
Atomic...WWV atomic time and solar powered, under $100...barely believable.
It has
several other features of course. Each feature seems to add ten dollars to
the price. But what features! There are wristwatches that have altimeters,
GPS locations (!), thermometers, barometers, internet connections, digital
compasses, depth gauges, pulse meters, cameras, E6B's, databanks, radios,
translators, calendars, lap timers, tides, lunar phases, and oh yes, they
tell time.
Not to mention the $4,400 to $32,000 Breitling Emergency Locator
Transmitter 121.5 MHz Watch for which the FCC had to issue special
exemptions. If the rescue team discovered me with a broken back and wearing
a $32,000 Breitling wristwatch....hmmmmm. A friend bought a $3,000 Bell &
Ross Hydromax
diver's dress watch good to 11100 METERS in saltwater...oil filled you
betcha. I
blinked my eyes and squinted but it still said 11100 METERS.......jeezzz...!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice
there is.
-Yogi Berra
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>
>Hello Kingsley,
>
>The stock permanent magnet alternator is current limited to 20Amps,
>even shorted to ground. If the wire along the path you are talking about
>is big enough to handle that load, no need for protection. The real risk
>to any of the wires in the system is the battery, which can source hundreds
>of amps should a wire get faulted.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
Couldn't have said it better myself, thanks Matt.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IPod connectivity |
Many thanks to all the good tips, I will dig into the two possibilities
(docking station and 3.5mm plug) and especially the boost feature Dan
described!
Thanks for that when done I will let you know!
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: IPod connectivity
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 5:26 PM, Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > It just happend, that I've got a brand new ipod. Now the big question
> > where
> > to get an adapter cable to wire it to my GMA 340 Audio Panel and where
> > to
> > get the power adapter for wiring directly to the 12V source of my ship?
> > I've seen a Belkin Car Adapter but nothing for the Audio connection.
>
> I would consider the stereo adapter docking base.
>
> I tried both the headphone jack and the stereo output jacks into my
> home stereo. To my ears the quality of the sound seemed better in the
> stereo output as opposed to the headphone output. This is a fixed
> level (no volume control).
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
> citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
Thanks Chuck,
This is just what I need. I am in ABQ this week, so
I'll order one when I get home and have this thing up
and running over $100 cheaper.
I appreciate all the responces,
Kurt S. KitFox S-5/NSI turbo
--- Chuck Jensen wrote:
> Jensen
>
> For all the DIYs. The disassembly is not difficult
> but as you work your way
> down through the board levels, just remove the
> screws and clips as you go.
> The battery leads are soldered directly onto the
> board. Use a solder-sucker
> to desolder the pigtail joints. Put the new battery
> pigtails in place,
> soldered it (not too many close-by components to be
> heat damaged) and
> reassemble. Plug in, turn on and allow internal
> battery to charge up.
>
> Cycle unit off/on. The database will likely be
> corrupted (it's probably a
> Political Database). If the memory is corrupted, go
> into SETUP and clear
> memory. The code to clear memory is either 3-3-3-3
> or 1-2-3-4. When the
> memory is cleared, your pin number is reset to
> 1-2-3-4. You will lose all
> your saved flight plans and/or waypoints, but that's
> not the end of the
> world!
>
> Kurt, an external battery may get disconnected, or
> not charged; each time
> resulting in loss of your memory and corrupted
> database. Replacing the
> internal battery is a once-every-5-year project and
> takes less than an
> hour...2 hours for the dexterity-challenged. Not a
> big deal.
>
> As to the battery itself, the McMaster-Carr P/N is
> 6951K999 and the
> description is "disposable lithium battery Hawker
> Entercell 3.7V TO6/8AA TCL
> with one wire pigtail each end." Price was $13.46
> with $3.45 shipping.
>
> Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
> Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my Rotax912UL
and
> an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> Leo Corbalis
Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in the
Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all other
aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour requirement.
The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations specifically
mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has a
certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer may
reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way. Since
Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those) are
specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
regulations.
Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is not
certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts likely
may be returned to certificated status when the applicable requirements are
complied with.
Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if the
regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
Eric the entertainer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
>
> > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my Rotax912UL
> and
> > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> > Leo Corbalis
>
> Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
> The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in the
> Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all other
> aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
requirement.
>
> The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
specifically
> mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has a
> certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer may
> reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
>
> This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
Since
> Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those) are
> specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
> regulations.
>
> Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is not
> certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
likely
> may be returned to certificated status when the applicable requirements
are
> complied with.
>
> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if the
> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>
> Eric the entertainer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
The question was Why? Try again?
Eric the Inquisitor
----- Original Message -----
From: "cgalley"
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
>
> I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
> > Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
> > The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in the
> > Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all other
> > aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
> requirement.
> >
> > The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
> specifically
> > mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has a
> > certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer may
> > reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
> >
> > This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
> Since
> > Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those) are
> > specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
> > regulations.
> >
> > Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is not
> > certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
> likely
> > may be returned to certificated status when the applicable requirements
> are
> > complied with.
> >
> > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
the
> > regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
> >
> > Eric the entertainer
> > > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
Rotax912UL
> > and
> > > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> > > Leo Corbalis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frankhsmit(at)wmconnect.com |
Anything that says "Mags
3
Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with it
problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental builders we
can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair, or Lightspeed
systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no moving parts, are easy to
install, use automotive plugs and wires, and have great performance. These can
not be used on certified aircraft, but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why
Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag on electronic failure
so
that they could get FAA approval. I don't think any certified aircraft come
with Lasar installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to go. Good
luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
as OBam
'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
The Emag has none of the failure modes that regular modes have. The one moving
part is a rotation shaft which is very unlikely to fail. The mag in the name
is no reason to bad mouth a product that you know nothing about. Don
-------------- Original message --------------
>
> Anything that says "Mags
>
>
> 3
>
>
> Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with it
> problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental builders
we
> can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair, or Lightspeed
> systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no moving parts, are easy to
> install, use automotive plugs and wires, and have great performance. These can
> not be used on certified aircraft, but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why
> Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag on electronic failure
> so
> that they could get FAA approval. I don't think any certified aircraft come
> with Lasar installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to go. Good
> luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
>
>
> as OBam
>
>
> '
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Emag has none of the failure modes that regular modes have. The one moving
part is a rotation shaft which is very unlikely to fail. The mag in the name is
no reason to bad mouth a product that you know nothing about. Don
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frankhsmit(at)wmconnect.com
Anything that says "Mags
3
Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with it
problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental builders
we
can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair, or Lightspeed
systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no moving parts, are easy to
install, use automotive plugs and wires, and have great performance. These can
not be used on certified aircraft, but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why
Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag on electronic failure
so
that they could get FAA approval. I don't think any certifie
d aircraft come
with Lasar installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to go. Good
luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
as OBam
'
n
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hi Frank,
Others will probably chime in, but E-Mag/P-Mag are not the same
as Lasar. Lasar is a conventional magneto with an electronic ignition
piggy-backed on top of it. While the electronics are working, the plugs
fire when the spark timing advance map says to. If the electronics
die, the magneto circuitry is still there firing the plugs with fixed timing.
Still a dynamo with breaker points and coils and caps and all that stuff.
The P/E-Mag are electronic ignition all the way through. No breaker
points, impulse coupling, etc. The P-Mag, to be self powered uses a
brushless alternator as its standard power source.
The E-Mag seems to use no more mechanical parts than the Electroair
system, or the LSE hall effect pickup (both of which require the magneto
drive gears as a timing reference). The P-Mag has no more wear parts,
though since it is self powered, there must be more load on the magneto
drive gears than with the E-Mag.
The P/E-Mag system allows the use of automotive plug wires and plugs.
The P/E-Mag appears to be easy to install - one low tension wire set for
the on/off control. I have an LSE system on my airplane and it required some
amount of bracket fabrication to make it work, plus quite a bit of wiring.
You might actually find it interesting to read the documentation...
Matt-
>
> Anything that says "Mags
>
>
> 3
>
>
> Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with
> it problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental
> builders we can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair,
> or Lightspeed systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no
> moving parts, are easy to install, use automotive plugs and wires, and
> have great performance. These can not be used on certified aircraft,
> but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why Unison built a unit that would
> revert to an ordinary mag on electronic failure so that they could get
> FAA approval. I don't think any certified aircraft come with Lasar
> installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to go. Good
> luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
>
>
> as OBam
>
>
> '
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst(at)taroom.qld.gov.au> |
Matt, Bob
> If the wire along the path you are talking about
is big enough to handle that load, no need for protection.
Thank you, I can now relax on this one !
I may have another question or two to come yet so watch this space !
Regards
Kingsley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis"
<>
10/26/2004
Hello Leo, There is no mystery about this and no need to ask the FAA. It is standard
FAA policy which is contained in FAA Order 8130.2D AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATION
OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS.
Here is an extract from that order in the section dealing with amateur built experimental
aircraft. You can find the entire order on the FAA web site.
QUOTE NOTE: FAA requires a minimum of 25 hours of flight testing for an aircraft
with a type
certificated engine and propeller installed or a minimum of 40 hours for a non-type
certificate engine and/or propeller. Inspectors may assign longer test hours when
it is
determined necessary to determine compliance with 91.319(b). UNQUOTE
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
If they don't have to be TSOed, then there is no reason for WHY!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
>
> The question was Why? Try again?
>
> Eric the Inquisitor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "cgalley"
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
> >
> > I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
> > > Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
> > > The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in the
> > > Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all other
> > > aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
> > requirement.
> > >
> > > The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
> > specifically
> > > mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has a
> > > certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer
may
> > > reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
> > >
> > > This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
> > Since
> > > Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those) are
> > > specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
> > > regulations.
> > >
> > > Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is not
> > > certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
> > likely
> > > may be returned to certificated status when the applicable
requirements
> > are
> > > complied with.
> > >
> > > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
> the
> > > regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
> > >
> > > Eric the entertainer
>
> > > > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
> Rotax912UL
> > > and
> > > > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> > > > Leo Corbalis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
| From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
A long time ago, I looked all through the FARs. The only
place I found that said anything about TSO is when talking
about transponders and ELTs.
>
> I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
>
>
>
>>
>> > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
>> Rotax912UL
>> and
>> > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
>> > Leo Corbalis
>>
>> Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
>> The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in the
>> Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all other
>> aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
> requirement.
>>
>> The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
> specifically
>> mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has a
>> certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer may
>> reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
>>
>> This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
> Since
>> Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those) are
>> specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
>> regulations.
>>
>> Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is not
>> certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
> likely
>> may be returned to certificated status when the applicable requirements
> are
>> complied with.
>>
>> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
>> the
>> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>>
>> Eric the entertainer
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Hmmm I know several people with lightspeeds and they carry a spare
ignition coil and/or a spare coax cable.........
Frankhsmit(at)wmconnect.com wrote:
>
> Anything that says "Mags
>
>
> 3
>
>
> Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with it
> problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental builders
we
> can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair, or Lightspeed
> systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no moving parts, are easy to
> install, use automotive plugs and wires, and have great performance. These can
> not be used on certified aircraft, but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why
> Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag on electronic failure
so
> that they could get FAA approval. I don't think any certified aircraft come
> with Lasar installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to go. Good
> luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
>
>
> as OBam
>
>
> '
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
How about a nice game of Chess.
You say it is not.
I say it is.
Your move. What will it be?
If you don't know why something is so, then you don't know something is so.
Eric the Philosopher
>
> If they don't have to be TSOed, then there is no reason for WHY!
> >
> > The question was Why? Try again?
> > Eric the Inquisitor
> > >
> > > I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
> >
> > > > Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
> > > > The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in
the
> > > > Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all
other
> > > > aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
> > > requirement.
> > > >
> > > > The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
> > > specifically
> > > > mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has
a
> > > > certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer
> may
> > > > reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
> > > >
> > > > This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
> > > Since
> > > > Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those)
are
> > > > specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
> > > > regulations.
> > > >
> > > > Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is
not
> > > > certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
> > > likely
> > > > may be returned to certificated status when the applicable
> requirements
> > > are
> > > > complied with.
> > > >
> > > > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
if
> > the
> > > > regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
> > > >
> > > > Eric the entertainer
> >
> > > > > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
> > Rotax912UL
> > > > and
> > > > > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> > > > > Leo Corbalis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com> |
| Subject: | Soldering Stations |
Bob,
I'm returning a Weller digital soldering station that was broken
out of the box and though I'd better do the smart thing and stick with your
Metcal recommendation. There are a couple of SP 200's for sale on Ebay
right now. Unfortunately, I'm unable to determine, from the information
available on the Metcal site, if the 200 or the 800 is the right iron for
sticking wires and connectors. Metcal seems to deal only in board level
soldering. Would you be so kind as to offer a model recommendation for
Metcal for someone that needs to assemble his Kitfox and do other
"recreational" soldering. (And one who hates to "buy twice".)
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
If it isn't required by FAR then the TSO is not required. TSO is only one
of about 4 ways an item can be certified for use in a certificated airplane.
Maybe you can quote the number for the TSO requirement for radios used in
IFR?
Then and only then does it becopme a requirement like the
Transponder/encoder.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: airworthiness
>
> How about a nice game of Chess.
> You say it is not.
> I say it is.
> Your move. What will it be?
> If you don't know why something is so, then you don't know something is
so.
> Eric the Philosopher
> >
> > If they don't have to be TSOed, then there is no reason for WHY!
> > >
> > > The question was Why? Try again?
> > > Eric the Inquisitor
> > > >
> > > > I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
> > >
> > > > > Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
> > > > > The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in
> the
> > > > > Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all
> other
> > > > > aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
> > > > requirement.
> > > > >
> > > > > The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
> > > > specifically
> > > > > mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that
has
> a
> > > > > certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the
Issuer
> > may
> > > > > reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
> > > > >
> > > > > This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any
way.
> > > > Since
> > > > > Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those)
> are
> > > > > specifically exempted or not included in the governing
"certificate"
> > > > > regulations.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is
> not
> > > > > certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those
parts
> > > > likely
> > > > > may be returned to certificated status when the applicable
> > requirements
> > > > are
> > > > > complied with.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
> if
> > > the
> > > > > regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric the entertainer
> > >
> > > > > > Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
> > > Rotax912UL
> > > > > and
> > > > > > an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
> > > > > > Leo Corbalis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
On Oct 26, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Eric Ruttan wrote:
> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
> the
> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
A: Radios in IFR do *NOT* have to be TSO's with the exception of
IFR-certified GPS receivers. They must be approved but they need not
meet TSO.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl(at)lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
________________________________________________________________________________
"Maybe that is why Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag
on electronic failure"
Here is a thought that the above quote reminded me of.
You have the plugs gapped at .030 to take advantage of the EI. The EI craps
out and now your running on a mag. How is the mag going to fire the spark
across that .030 gap? Or, were the plugs gapped at .018? Then your not
getting much of a benefit from the EI that you could.
>
>Anything that says "Mags
>
>
>3
>
>
>Anything that says "Mags" be P-Mags, E Mags, or Lasar mags carries with it
>problems of a mechanical device that will fail. As OBAM experimental
>builders we
>can use electronic ignition systems such as the Electroair, or Lightspeed
>systems that have a much lower failure rate, have no moving parts, are
>easy to
>install, use automotive plugs and wires, and have great
>performance. These can
>not be used on certified aircraft, but the.Lasar can. Maybe that is why
>Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag on electronic
>failure so
>that they could get FAA approval. I don't think any certified aircraft come
>with Lasar installed. IMO the Electroair or Lightspeed is the way to
>go. Good
>luck to those trying the E-mag. Frank
>
>
>as OBam
>
>
>'
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if the
> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>
> Eric the entertainer
>
Actually, this is an important point that can get lost in the verbiage.
According to the FAA and EAA, the ONLY thing on an OBAM aircraft required
to be TSO'd is a GPS nav unit intended to be used in the terminal area.
Period. Other equipment can be required to MEET TSO specs, but that is
different than actually having a sticker on the unit. What the local
inspector demands as proof of compliance is yet another story.
According to the local (and very helpful... Really!) fed, there is even
a major spam can builder that installs non-tso'd instruments in their
products and then certifies the plane as a whole. Go figure...
Just to muddy things a little, and although my understanding of the flight
test time requirements are exactly as published on this list, I know of a
Rotax Kitfox that had either a 10 or 15 hour flight test period. I
suggested that this was in error and to be verrrry careful about the
situation. The fella in question called OSH and was told that although
that was an unusual test period, the person writing the ops limits / flight
test requirements had the authority to make them whatever they wanted and
that the shorter test period was legit. Where I live, I already know that
having EI on my Lyc powered RV means I will definitely have a 40 hour test
period.
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
| From: | Kent Ashton <kjashton(at)vnet.net> |
Regulations tell you what you must do, or what you must not do. If the
regulation is silent, the choice to do or not do something is yours.
--Kent
> From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan(at)chartermi.net>
> How about a nice game of Chess.
> You say it is not.
> I say it is.
> Your move. What will it be?
> If you don't know why something is so, then you don't know something is so.
> Eric the Philosopher
>>
>> If they don't have to be TSOed, then there is no reason for WHY!
>>>
>>> The question was Why? Try again?
>>> Eric the Inquisitor
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that radios must be TSOed in non-commercial use.
>>>
>>>>> Special Airworthiness Certificates have NO Operating limitations.
>>>>> The FAA does not like this. The FAA puts operating limitations in
> the
>>>>> Special Airworthiness certificate when it is issued, unlike all
> other
>>>>> aircraft. When you buy a spam can you do not have the 40 hour
>>>> requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>> The guidelines for the crafting of these operating limitations
>>>> specifically
>>>>> mention that if the aircraft has a prop/engine combination that has
> a
>>>>> certificate, anywhere, on any aircraft what so ever, then the Issuer
>> may
>>>>> reduce the Phase 1 to 25 hours instead of 40.
>>>>>
>>>>> This cannot mean that the engine or prop is certificated in any way.
>>>> Since
>>>>> Special Airworthiness Certificates (OBAM'S are part "g" of those)
> are
>>>>> specifically exempted or not included in the governing "certificate"
>>>>> regulations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any part used on any Special Airworthiness Certificate aircraft is
> not
>>>>> certificated, by definition. Note the "by definition." Those parts
>>>> likely
>>>>> may be returned to certificated status when the applicable
>> requirements
>>>> are
>>>>> complied with.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
> if
>>> the
>>>>> regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric the entertainer
>>>
>>>>>> Why not ask the FAA ? Why did I have to fly 40 hrs off for my
>>> Rotax912UL
>>>>> and
>>>>>> an identical Zodiac with an O-200 would have to fly only 25 hrs.
>>>>>> Leo Corbalis
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com> |
EAA Sport Aviation published an article, "Equipping a Homebuilt for IFR
Operations," a while back that addresses what, if any, of the equipment
needs to be "TSO'ed". The lengthy article is posted in its entirety on the
EAA website, but I'm too lazy to go find the link for you. :-) But I do
keep this article in my personal archives and I've posted the pertinent
parts below for you.
If you don't like to read, let me spare you the outcome--> The bottom line
is none of the equipment installed in a homebuilt aircraft is required to be
built under a TSO authorization, but it's to the builder's advantage to
install "TSO'ed" equipment if possible. GPS for IFR certified enroute,
terminal, and approach operations don't have to be manufactured to a TSO,
but it MUST meet the performance requirements of TSO C129.
If you like to read, this is snipped and copied directly from the article:
"TSO stands for Technical Standard Order, which is defined in 14 CFR Part
21, section 21.601(b)(1) as "....a minimum performance standard for
specified articles (for the purpose of this subpart, articles means
materials, parts, processes, or appliances) used on civil aircraft." A TSO
is actually a performance standard to which an article can be manufactured."
"When someone says an article is "TSO'ed", what they really mean is that the
unit was manufactured under a TSO authorization. Section 21.601(b)(2) says,
"A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production approval issued to the
manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO".
You'll note that the TSO and TSO authorization deal specifically with design
and manufacture, and have nothing to do with installation or operation."
"Now we have an idea what a TSO is, but we still haven't answered he
question of whether or not our instruments and avionics in a homebuilt need
to be "TSO'ed". Our OpLims state that we have to equip the aircraft in
accordance with 91.205, and 91.205 lists the minimum equipment required, but
nowhere is there mention of a requirement for TSO'ed equipment. Thus, the
answer is NO, the instruments and equipment installed in your homebuilt
under the requirements of 91.205 are not required to be "TSO'ed"."
"So far, so good, but that's not the whole story. Most builders who plan to
equip their homebuilt for IFR operations don't stop at the minimums, so
let's take a look at some of the other commonly installed equipment and see
what's required."
<...big snip here...>
"What about GPS? <...more snips...> Some of these units are approved for
IFR operations, and the FAA has developed guidance on how to approve the
installation of GPS equipment in individual aircraft. This guidance comes
primarily in the form of FAA Advisory Circular 20-138, titled "Airworthiness
Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for use as
a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System." GPS equipment must meet the
performance requirements of the applicable TSO (in this case, C129), but
there is no specific requirement for the equipment to be built under a TSO
authorization. However, if the equipment is not built under a TSO
authorization, it is up to the builder to verify and document that the
equipment performs within the required specifications."
====================
Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/waynehicks/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Airworthiness and "TSO" |
>
>On Oct 26, 2004, at 2:26 PM, Eric Ruttan wrote:
>
> > Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd, if
> > the regulations do not apply to OBAM's?
>
>A: Radios in IFR do *NOT* have to be TSO's with the exception of
>IFR-certified GPS receivers. They must be approved but they need not
>meet TSO.
The copy of FAR91 from
http://www.airworthy.org/far-91.txt
speaks only to TSO'ed transponders, encoders and ELTs.
"FAR 21.601(B)(2) A TSO authorization is an FAA design and production
approval issued to
the manufacturer of an article which has been found to meet a specific TSO."
Unlike DO-160 testing which is general and tailored to the application for an
appliance, TSO speaks to specific performance requirements of an appliance and
may include DO-160 issues but is always expanded to include performance issues
for that appliance. For example, transponder/encoder combinations have accuracy
issues with respect to reporting altitude, so there's a specific TSO document
that speaks to these issues for transponders.
TSO-C91 is for ELT transmitters
TSO-C74b is for Transponders (mode a/c)
TSO-C112 is for Transponders (mode S)
TSO-C10b is for Encoding Altimeters
TSO-C88 is for blind encoders
TSO-C151 is for Terrain Avoidance equipment
The above list was gleaned from a search of FARS 21,23,25 and 91 with
most of them comming from FAR91. The only mention of TSO in Part 25
refers to brakes. There is no mention of TSO in Part 23.
Other references to TSO documents were found with some simple
searches on the 'net.
VOR receivers: TSO C40c
Localizer receivers: TSO C36e
Glideslope receivers: TSO C34e
Marker Beacon: TSO C35d
GPS: TSO C129a
VHF COM: TSO C37d
Given that Part 91 is the only FAR applicable to our operations it
might be useful for OBAM aircraft owners to suck a copy into their
word processors and do searches for phrases like "TSO", "certified",
and "approved" to see what things you may have to contend with
when that guy in a suit walks up to you with the big rule book under
his arm.
For example: Check out Sec. 91.107 "Use of safety belts, shoulder
harnesses, and child restraint systems."
You may be more likely to get gigged for "unapproved" restraint systems
than whether or not your radios are TSO'ed'.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Soldering Stations |
>
>Bob,
> I'm returning a Weller digital soldering station that was broken
>out of the box and though I'd better do the smart thing and stick with your
>Metcal recommendation. There are a couple of SP 200's for sale on Ebay
>right now. Unfortunately, I'm unable to determine, from the information
>available on the Metcal site, if the 200 or the 800 is the right iron for
>sticking wires and connectors. Metcal seems to deal only in board level
>soldering. Would you be so kind as to offer a model recommendation for
>Metcal for someone that needs to assemble his Kitfox and do other
>"recreational" soldering. (And one who hates to "buy twice".)
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Guy Buchanan
>K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Soldering tools are soldering tools . . . the don't know or care
WHAT you're soldering. They're simply a way of putting a concentrated
and hopefully controlled bucket of heat energy into the parts sufficient
to flow the solder.
The nice thing about Metcal irons is the very localized concentration
of heat. This 35 watt iron will solder the smallest joint you can see
in one case and let you solder a bare terminal on a piece of 2AWG wire
in the next case.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>"Maybe that is why Unison built a unit that would revert to an ordinary mag
>on electronic failure"
>
>Here is a thought that the above quote reminded me of.
>
>You have the plugs gapped at .030 to take advantage of the EI. The EI craps
>out and now your running on a mag. How is the mag going to fire the spark
>across that .030 gap? Or, were the plugs gapped at .018? Then your not
>getting much of a benefit from the EI that you could.
Those of us who certify aircraft hardware for a living are
completely mystified as to the rational behind the Unison ignition
product. If two magnetos are enough, why install two more ignition
systems on top of the magnetos? Their decision was especially
mystifying when you look at all the wiring it takes to make that
system work. In my never humble opinion, that system has to be
the product of somebody's bad dream . . . it was certainly not
an evolutionary step in the right direction. While every other
technology is getting cheaper, works better, is getting lighter
and simpler, the Unison system got more expensive, heavier and
more complex.
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be TSO'd,
if
the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the entertainer>>
10/27/2004
Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick question, an
exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with some obfuscation,
or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is some educational benefit
involved in responding.
1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?) do not have
to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that statement please provide
the specific reference(s) otherwise.
2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to OBAM aircraft.
If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to FAR Sec 91.1 and
the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special Airworthiness Certificate
of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Tom Brusehaver
<>
10/27/2004
Hello Tom, What you write is correct, but when one goes through FAR Part 91, for
instance, one will find several sections that require approved equipment.
FAR Sections 91.205 (b) (11), (12), (13), and (14) are examples. And of course
one of the primary ways that the FAA Administrator approves equipment is through
the TSO process.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
Sounds like he is getting other to do the foot work for him!! :-0
>
>AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
>
>
><<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
>TSO'd, if
>the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the entertainer>>
>
>10/27/2004
>
>Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
>question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
>some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
>some educational benefit involved in responding.
>
>1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?) do
>not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that statement
>please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
>
>2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
>OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to FAR
>Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
>Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
>OC
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
On 10/27 10:38, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Those of us who certify aircraft hardware for a living are
> completely mystified as to the rational behind the Unison ignition
> product. If two magnetos are enough, why install two more ignition
> systems on top of the magnetos? Their decision was especially
> mystifying when you look at all the wiring it takes to make that
> system work. In my never humble opinion, that system has to be
> the product of somebody's bad dream . . . it was certainly not
> an evolutionary step in the right direction. While every other
> technology is getting cheaper, works better, is getting lighter
> and simpler, the Unison system got more expensive, heavier and
> more complex.
>
> Bob . . .
More expensive? yes.
Heavier? maybe a dozen ounces,
More complex? yes.
More wiring? a few extra wires.
Does it work? yes.
What are the failure rates of LASAR vs. (pick your favorite EI).
Anybody have any hard figures? Without that we're just assuming
one is more reliable than the rest. We need some data here.
BTW, what is "better"? Performance, Price, Efficiency, Reliability,
Maintainability, Availability?
Everyone has their own opinion about this too. A very rich man
may place Price near the bottom of his list.
Here's the reason I chose the LASAR system; if LASAR EI fails, you
*fly* home. If (pick your favorite EI) fails, you *glide* somewhere
which is usually -not- home. And I get some of the benefits of
an all electric EI. Not all, but enough.
Just my opinion. I'm no EE so if you can show me that LASAR
is without merit I'll probably buy it. But safety is high on
my list.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.. Not
WHAT the rules are. I suppose one could make the assumption that the
applications of rules are just arbitrary, but I think the answer really
relates to
the rulemakers attempting to provide better safety for all users of the
system.
Now as for the specifics, I can't help on that one.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
>
>
> <<...skip...Fun pop quiz: Does anyone know why radios in IFR have to be
> TSO'd, if the regulations do not apply to OBAM's? Eric the
> entertainer>>
>
> 10/27/2004
>
> Hello Eric the entertainer, I cant decide whether this is a trick
> question, an exercise in cuteness, an attempt at a serious question with
> some obfuscation, or just a poorly worded question. I hope that there is
> some educational benefit involved in responding.
>
> 1) Radios (do you mean all avionics or just VHF communication radios?)
> do not have to be TSOd for use in IFR. If you disagree with that
> statement please provide the specific reference(s) otherwise.
>
> 2) the regulations (which covers a huge area) most certainly do apply to
> OBAM aircraft. If you doubt this statement I invite your attention to
> FAR Sec 91.1 and the Operating Limitations that are part of the Special
> Airworthiness Certificate of every amateur built experimental aircraft.
>
> OC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> aircraft |
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
aircraft
>
>There was some discussion of these lights before, and IIRC, someone
>pointed out that the color temperature of the HID lights so closely
>matched that of the daytime sky that they were less visible that the
>yellowish tungsten and halogen lamps now in common use. Just a potential
>downside to think about.
He had (have) a Lopresti HID system on our AGATE research
Bonanza . . . our control tower guys were quick to point out
that the landing light was more difficult to see in daytime
than the lights on other airplanes in the traffic area.
>Oh, yeah, and the post about the WW2 bombers that used rheostat-adjustable
>lights in their leading edges and nose to blend with the daytime sky -
>probably more of the same idea.
Hmmm . . . an incandescent lamp at FULL voltage already has a color
temperature below that of sunlit clear sky . . . adding any kind
of rheostat or other voltage reducing scheme would only serve to
reduce the temperature still more pushing the color toward red and
away from the sky-blue. I'm also mystified by the idea that one would
run lights in the daytime and then purposely adjust their color so that
they were less visible.
>Looks like we need HID for best light output in a night landing situation,
>and tungsten bulbs on a wig-wag for staying out of each other's way in the
>daytime. Bummer.
I'm mystified by the quest for lumens in landing lights. If you
study what's really needed from lights to assist you in
greasing a night landing . . . it's being able to see the ground
under the wings. I took a customer for a night ride in our
J-3 carrying two flashlights. One was the classic 6-volt
fisherman's lantern ($5 at Wallmart including battery). The
guy in the front seat held the "landing light" and we shot several
touch and goes using this 6v, 0.5A lamp (3 watts) and found it
not the least bit difficult to handle the airplane.
I've had builders of Rotax powered airplanes install a pair of
12v, 25 watt display window lamps in each wingtip pointed down,
slightly forward and slightly outboard to illuminate the ground
in the pilot's peripheral vision under the wings. They report
very satisfactory performance as "landing lights" although the
system draws a small fraction of energy of contemporary lighting
installations.
Given the expense of a HID lamp installation and given further
the utility of this lamp (operates less than 1% of total flight
time) are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
Bob . . .
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
are the extra dollars for "being able to see a cow on
the runway 1000' feet away" a good return on investment?
-----> They are if your municipal runway is a haven for deer. On my very
first night landing with my instructor, I was 50 feet about the runway
getting ready to flare when I saw 10 eyes glowing back at me. Had we had
any smaller of a landing light, I would have been eating Bambi inside a
destroyed Tomahawk.
====================
Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/waynehicks/index.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brianl(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: airworthiness |
On Oct 27, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> I think the original question was WHY the rules apply to experimentals.
Who, what, when, where, and how are engineering questions.
Why is a philosophical question and mostly meaningless.
October 14, 2004 - October 27, 2004
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-dp