AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ek
May 10, 2005 - May 19, 2005
>
>Bob
>Am I confused or is there a typo in the Z-28 figure on the right hand side.
>The Aux Bat and Main Bat are both shown connected to the right ignition. Is
>this right or am I missing something?
No. You spotted a typo that's been there for a long time.
It's been fixed. Thanks!
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
>(SquirrelMail authenticated user rwtalbot) by themail.purephotos.com.au
>
> >
> >
> >> Subject: AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> >
> >
> > Protecting the radio would cost maybe a buck. You wonder what they were
> > thinking........!
>
>
>Eric,
>
>You mean other than - $ervices revenue, $ervices revenue, $ervices
>revenue, $ervices revenue, $$$ $$$ ?
I'm mystified by some folks assertions that companies
will make a considered and directed effort to cheapen
a product for the purpose of increasing revenue. Even
the most casual student of economics understands how
counter-productive this business model is. While it
might be true of a very few companies, they never last
long in the marketplace. For the vast majority, lapses
in quality or robustness of a product has more to do
engineering and management ignorance than upon any
planned effort to sell less than the best they know
how to do in order to maximize profits.
When somebody has expended the time, talent and resources
to bring a major piece of avionics to the market, odds
are that shortcomings in design are a direct result
of poor market research and lack of fundamental
knowledge of the simple-ideas that make the product
work. You have to lay this at the feet of their management.
Many small companies are run by the same entrepreneurs
that conceived the product. History is replete with
examples of the better mousetrap gone wanting for
customers due to a fundamental lack of understanding
of business and economics.
It's sorta like salt, fuel and taxation.
No salt is as bad as too much salt. To little fuel
with the air makes the engine run as badly as too
much fuel. Zero tax generates zero revenue to
government while 100% tax would have the same effect.
For every system there is an optimum mix of constituents
that maximizes the desired quality. Ask any member of
Congress what the ideal level of taxation is to maximize
revenues to government and not one can tell you what that
number is . . . yet any thinking person knows that it
exists. It's been repeatedly demonstrated in recent
history that reducing taxes has produced an increase
in revenue . . . which suggests that current levels
of taxation are on the "rich" side. Yet there are folks
who think that when government needs more money, the
proper way to get it is to raise taxes.
These effects are in place no matter what system you
want to consider or which business model you're trying
to craft. It's not easy but not impossible either. It
takes some study and experimentation. Unfortunately, it's
the rare techno-wienie entrepreneur who has a sufficiently
broad understanding of ALL the systems that control his/her
fortunes. To suggest that anyone is deliberately shooting
themselves in the foot to make more money assumes facts
not in evidence. Yeah, their foot hurts but for the most
part they don't know how it got shot or whether the shoes
are too tight or they just sprained an ankle. Ignorance
not greed is the #1 killer of everything good.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
< I eventually solved my problem by buying some split ferrite beads and
> installing them in several different arbitrarily selected
> places in my comm system -- not very scientific. The noise went
> away.
5/10/2005
Hello John, I got mine from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
. Phone: 402-346-4750.
Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each. I installed them just by wrapping
them with black plastic tape.
One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
one to see if the noise comes back and to get a better handle on source. I
suspect that the noise came from antenna radiations getting into my audio
system at certain frequencies.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
>5/10/2005
>
>Hello John, I got mine from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
>. Phone: 402-346-4750.
>
>Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each. I installed them just by wrapping
>them with black plastic tape.
>
>One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
>one to see if the noise comes back and to get a better handle on source. I
>suspect that the noise came from antenna radiations getting into my audio
>system at certain frequencies.
Great experiment! Please let us know of your
results.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
>Ignorance not greed is the #1 killer of everything good.
>Bob . . .
Absolutely right! This principle applies to almost everything.
Is there planned obsolescence? Absolutely not. The story about Henry Ford's
engineers studying scrapped Model T's to find the parts that were not worn
out is widely misunderstood. Ford didn't want to throw money away when he
could economize and give the consumer a lower-cost product. Building a Ford
Model T with kingpins that survived the rest of the car out was the
manufacturing equivalent of stuffing the seats with dollar bills. And Ford
knew it.
The Air Force had a program to design a jet fighter that was all worn out at
once in several thousand hours. This was really planned obsolescence! The
idea was that maintenance would be about zero and the fighter would be the
lightest and most economical to fly since no part would be over-designed or
designed for servicing. The Air Force discovered that it takes impossibly
advanced and expensive engineering to do this.
More damage is caused by ignorance than by malice.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before.
--Mae West
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
Didn't you ever hear of the one horse shay?
" Have you heard of the wonderful one-horse shay, That was built in such a
logical way It ran a hundred years to a day, And then, of a sudden, ..."
_Oliver W. Holmes'_ (http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1157/)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/10/2005 2:01:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
emjones(at)charter.net writes:
The Air Force had a program to design a jet fighter that was all worn out at
once in several thousand hours. This was really planned obsolescence! The
idea was that maintenance would be about zero and the fighter would be the
lightest and most economical to fly since no part would be over-designed or
designed for servicing. The Air Force discovered that it takes impossibly
advanced and expensive engineering to do this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
>
>
>
> >Ignorance not greed is the #1 killer of everything good.
> >Bob . . .
>
>Absolutely right! This principle applies to almost everything.
>
>Is there planned obsolescence? Absolutely not. The story about Henry Ford's
>engineers studying scrapped Model T's to find the parts that were not worn
>out is widely misunderstood. Ford didn't want to throw money away when he
>could economize and give the consumer a lower-cost product. Building a Ford
>Model T with kingpins that survived the rest of the car out was the
>manufacturing equivalent of stuffing the seats with dollar bills. And Ford
>knew it.
At Cessna in the 60's we call that service testing. If you had a pilot's
license, you could log some company financed hours by helping wear out
airplanes. We could put about a 1,000 hours a year on a brand new airplane
which was carefully watched for various wear and performance issues.
I think there SHOULD be a degree of planned obsolescence. I've often
enjoyed the expressions on the faces of a clients when they've paid off
their consulting bill and I ask, Okay, what are your plans for
obsoleting this product? One of two things will happen with this
product: (1) It will be successful and encourage others to compete with you
or (2) it will be un-successful for reasons you may be privileged to
understand and correct. In either case, you'll want to respond with
a replacement product that costs less to build and performs better.
If you don't do it to your own product, your competition will either
do it for you -OR- you will have learned nothing about why the
product failed. Either way, you're out of business with that
product.
We see it all the time in consumer electronics, cameras, cars,
appliances, etc. We almost never see it in airplanes or devices
intended for airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> . |
| Subject: | El-Cheeso batteries follow up tests . . |
.
.
>
>I'm 30 years out of the college experience and I'm still working toward
>breakeven. However, OJT seems to pay back profit the next day.
>
>Chuck
I give up. I'm only on my second cup of coffee this morning. What's OJT?
I've added some more test articles to the 9v battery experiment. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/9vBatteryTests.jpg
I think I've flogged enough batteries to death for now. My conclusions
based on what we know right now is that there is reason to be skeptical
of superlatives like "ultra", "max", "new and improved", etc. when
it comes to batteries (and probably most other products).
The tests conducted with the array of 9v batteries featured in the
experiment indicate that there is little practical difference in
the performance of the various products tested. Further, the least
expensive of these was equal to or better than the "high priced spread".
If anyone encounters a house brand cell in flashlight or 9v packages
that they would like to have tested, send me one or two and I'll
add their data to the library of tests already conducted and supply
it folks here on the List.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: El-Cheeso batteries follow up tests . . . |
>
> I give up. I'm only on my second cup of coffee this morning. What's OJT?
>
On Job Training ???
Norbert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: El-Cheeso batteries follow up tests . . . |
In a message dated 5/11/2005 10:07:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
I give up. I'm only on my second cup of coffee this morning. What's OJT?
On Job Training
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Split beads
<>
5/11/2005
Hello Charlie, I am a bit embarassed to expose my lack of sophistication is
solving my number one VHF comm machine gun noise when transmitting on
certain frequencies. Some comments:
1) I am not certain that I solved it -- true, it is gone and that happened
after I installed the split beads, but until I remove them one by one and
the noise comes back I won't know for sure that the beads were the solution.
2) Even if I prove that the beads, or a particular bead, were the solution I
won't know for sure what the cause of the noise was. Radiation from the
antenna getting into the audio system is my suspicion. The jacks for the
pilot's headset are right behind the copilot's seatback and the Archer
antenna for the number one VHF comm is on the inside of the composite
fuselage just a couple of feet behind the copilot's seat.
3) I have reason to believe, but am not sure, that while the machine gun
noise was in my earphone's side tone while transmitting on certain
frequencies, the transmissions themselves were going out clearly.
4) There are just bushels of ferrite beads around (check with Google). They
come in a dazzling array of sizes and materials to accomplish all sorts of
exotic things for a wide variety of frequencies. Some of them are split
which makes it easy to install them on existing wiring.
5) Since I knew nothing about this subject (other than the ferrite toroids
that I used on the copper tape antennas that I made from an RST kit for my
airplane) I basically took a dart and threw it at the split beads that were
of the right 1/4 inch interior dimension, readily available, and reasonably
cheap.
6) If I were a suspicious or cynical person I might conclude from the
profusion of beads available that they are widely used by amateur radio
types and others as sort of a palliative device as in "what the hell, they
might help and probably won't hurt".
7) My installation technique was to put one on the number one VHF comm coax
coax cable between the Archer antenna and the Garmin GNS 430 box wherever I
had enough slack in the cable or room to squeeze one in. In addition I put
one on my Lightspeed headset cable, but can't remember where right now and
the headset is out at the airport with the airplane. The headset bead is the
first one I'll remove if I ever start any detective work.
Hope the above is of some help.
OC
PS: Regarding a photo: I have only a film camera and am always astounded
when I get a roll of film developed to see pictures that I took several
months ago and had long forgotten taking them. Waiting for pictures from me
is a hopeless game.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery contactor S701-1 |
>Hi Bob,
>I had to install the above contactor bought from B&C just under passenger's
>seat.
>He has noticed some heat coming up and, to my surprise, I had to confirm
>that,
>after a short operation time, it becomes quite hot, to the extent that one
>cannot keep his hand on its metal body: is it normal?
>Do you have specs of what current/power it absorbs?
>Thank you.
>Gianni Zuliani
>Via Tanello, 1
>CH 6977 Lugano-Ruvigliana
>Switzerland
Yes, these do dissipate about 10 watts of heat under normal
operating conditions. This will produce case temperatures
that are too hot to touch. This is normal and expected
operating conditions for this kind of product.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> . |
| Subject: | Re: El-Cheeso batteries follow up tests . . . |
>
>
>In a message dated 5/11/2005 10:07:23 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>b.nuckolls(at)cox.net writes:
>
>I give up. I'm only on my second cup of coffee this morning. What's OJT?
>
>
>On Job Training
Aha! But of course. I bailed from the university during second
semester calculus when the instructor told us engineers that 90%
plus of everything we needed to know about calculus was in the
next chapter . . . The Calculus of Trigonometry. I'd validated
high school trig for college credit 5 years earlier. The next
chapter was about 15 pages in a 400 page book. And this guy
just told me that out of 15 semester hours of credit for the
full range of courses, one chapter in the book was most of what
I needed to know.
I was working full time, raising two kids, and . . . learning
more on the job than I was in school. I was about 6 hours short
of being a junior in college and hadn't taken a single electronics
course. That was the last time I set foot in a college classroom.
I a couple of years, I'll be able to audit any course at the
university for free. I think I might go back and get some of those
courses I REALLY wanted to take.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "210flyer" <210flyer(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 and No Battery |
Hi Guys,
I have been following the recent discussion about whether or not Internally
Regulated alternators will "self excite" in the event that they are called
upon to restart without an external voltage source. I have not seen any
mention of using a separate battery for field excitation to overcome this
potential failure mode.
My '82 Cessna T210 has a lot of redundancy built in from the factory.
Whether or not it actually improves reliability is a different discussion.
One of the "features" Cessna added is a battery pack filled with C-Cells
that can be connected to the external voltage regulators (I have dual
alternators running in parallel, similar to most twins) to provide a small
field excitation current to restart the alternators in the event the main
battery can no longer provide this current. Each new technician that sees
the restart button or comes across the battery pack asks "What's this for?"
This is one solution to the loss of field excitation current in a no-battery
state that would be simple to implement.
Best Regards,
Mike Hutchins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Can you run 914/Airmaste in feather? |
Can you start and run 914/Airmaster in feather?
will it cause any damage to anything?
For instance, wanting to warm up faster on ground, or ability to start up faster
during a airstart while waiting for blades to move.
thx.
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
In most technical reports, the practice is to first use the full name of
the acronym followed by the acronym in parenthesis. after that first
insertion the acronym is used with out referring to the name. How about
that as a way to do it here. A bit of a Pain in the A** (PITA) but it works.
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 and No Battery |
>
>Hi Guys,
>
>I have been following the recent discussion about whether or not Internally
>Regulated alternators will "self excite" in the event that they are called
>upon to restart without an external voltage source. I have not seen any
>mention of using a separate battery for field excitation to overcome this
>potential failure mode.
>
>My '82 Cessna T210 has a lot of redundancy built in from the factory.
>Whether or not it actually improves reliability is a different discussion.
>One of the "features" Cessna added is a battery pack filled with C-Cells
>that can be connected to the external voltage regulators (I have dual
>alternators running in parallel, similar to most twins) to provide a small
>field excitation current to restart the alternators in the event the main
>battery can no longer provide this current. Each new technician that sees
>the restart button or comes across the battery pack asks "What's this for?"
>This is one solution to the loss of field excitation current in a no-battery
>state that would be simple to implement.
I was at Cessna in the 60's when we crafted a number of re-start
options. The C-337 used electric tachometers with 3-phase p.m.
alternators. We found that a 3-phase rectifier and a push-button
would allow one to use the tach generators as a means of poking a
stalled alternator back to life. A number of dry-battery options
were tried too. I don't recall now what features wound up on which
airplanes but if your '82 model has a dry-cell pack, I guess that
answers that question for at least one model.
Loss of a battery not only opens the possibility of stalling
an alternator but one might have higher bus noises to deal with.
If one has concerns for this failure mode, you can always have
two, half-size batteries al-la Figure Z-30. You're not likely
to loose both batteries on any single tank full of fuel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New FAA Requirement |
5/12/2005
Hello Fellow Builders and Pilots, I invite your attention to the following
document from the FAA.
<<http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/notices/8700/n8700-42.doc>>
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | "New" FAA Reguirement |
Go to the RV list and read Scott Spencer's May 12 0906 AM message. He explains
this "new" requirement in detail. It is a non-issue for most of us.
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
Can anyone tell me how well the vertical compass cards work. I'm talking about
the replacement for the wet compass that many aircraft have today.
I recently heard they hang-up or stick while in turns making them hard to use as
a backup compass for IFR ops.
Spruce offers two models, a TSO and a Non TSO. No brands are mentioned. Both cards
in the $200-265.00 range.
I am looking for something that works better in turns and turbulence than the wet
compass.
Thanks,
Jim Stone
HRII
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Powersonic battery experience |
| From: | "David Chalmers" <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com> |
I just did the annual battery replacement on my Q200. Thought I'd pass along my
experience...
I have used the Powersonic PS330-NB for 5 years - changed out for a new one every
year - and it worked great. However, I just replaced it again during the condition
inspection and the new one could barely turn the engine over. I found
that the battery had a high internal resistance - much higher than any of the
previous ones. I assumed it was a bad battery and ordered another. The replacement
had the same problem - high internal resistance. I then weighed both new
batteries and they were only 21.5lb, not the 26.5lb that the previous batteries
weighed and that the spec sheet calls out. The battery supplier said they are
the cheapest batteries they sell, come from different factories in China, and
they can't control the quality. I bought a Yuasa instead - same price and it
works as well as the old Powersonics.
Maybe this was just a bad batch but my new philosophy is not to trust a new battery
until it's been weighed, load tested and capacity tested. I will probably
also test every year rather than replacing since I now have the equipment. I'm
using load tester KAL4260 ($50) and capacity tester Bob has written about from
WestMountainRadio.com (~$100)
David Chalmers
TriQ200 N4016G
Redmond, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: [vertical compass] |
The fine print on mine indicates that they are not to be used in
'piston' driven aircraft. I believe the liquid dampened versions would
be more reliable - especially in turbulence. The vertical compass only
has 'magnetic dampening'. I use one but depend on the ground track from
the GPS as my primary reference. I also found the two adjustments for
nulling out the magnetic variances lacked enough adjustment to properly
swing it. I like the looks of it. Your [and others] mileage may vary..
Earl
Jim Stone wrote:
>
>Can anyone tell me how well the vertical compass cards work. I'm talking about
the replacement for the wet compass that many aircraft have today.
>I recently heard they hang-up or stick while in turns making them hard to use
as a backup compass for IFR ops.
>Spruce offers two models, a TSO and a Non TSO. No brands are mentioned. Both
cards in the $200-265.00 range.
>I am looking for something that works better in turns and turbulence than the
wet compass.
>Thanks,
>Jim Stone
>HRII
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Powersonic battery experience |
>
>
>
>I just did the annual battery replacement on my Q200. Thought I'd pass
>along my experience...
>
>I have used the Powersonic PS330-NB for 5 years - changed out for a new
>one every year - and it worked great. However, I just replaced it again
>during the condition inspection and the new one could barely turn the
>engine over. I found that the battery had a high internal resistance -
>much higher than any of the previous ones. I assumed it was a bad battery
>and ordered another. The replacement had the same problem - high internal
>resistance. I then weighed both new batteries and they were only 21.5lb,
>not the 26.5lb that the previous batteries weighed and that the spec sheet
>calls out. The battery supplier said they are the cheapest batteries they
>sell, come from different factories in China, and they can't control the
>quality. I bought a Yuasa instead - same price and it works as well as the
>old Powersonics.
>
>Maybe this was just a bad batch but my new philosophy is not to trust a
>new battery until it's been weighed, load tested and capacity tested. I
>will probably also test every year rather than replacing since I now have
>the equipment. I'm using load tester KAL4260 ($50) and capacity tester Bob
>has written about from WestMountainRadio.com (~$100)
Good data . . . and some excellent deductions. IF one depends on a battery
for some standards of performance, then the ONLY philosophy that guarantees
your wishes will be met is by TESTING. I don't care who's brand is on the
battery, how well it ran in my hangar mate's airplane, or what you've
seen in the TV ads promoting the product.
David's weight measurements alone were a very strong suggestion that
the old and new batteries were very different. The lead acid battery
technology delivers so many watt-hours per pound of reactant plus-minus
some minor performance tweaks between brands. The supplier indicates that
the batteries are essentially a re-stickered product of unknown origins.
That doesn't automatically make any product good, bad or otherwise, just
a candidate for healthy skepticism.
I've taken the el-cheeso 17 a.h. battery out of some hardware store
portable power units that performed very well initially . . . and David
tells us you can buy a turkey right out of the box. When in doubt,
or if it really matters to you, go measure that puppy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Powersonic battery experience |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
So how does one measure internal resistance easily?....Connect it to a
load and accuratly measure volts and amp?
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powersonic battery experience
-->
>
>
>
>I just did the annual battery replacement on my Q200. Thought I'd pass
>along my experience...
>
>I have used the Powersonic PS330-NB for 5 years - changed out for a new
>one every year - and it worked great. However, I just replaced it again
>during the condition inspection and the new one could barely turn the
>engine over. I found that the battery had a high internal resistance -
>much higher than any of the previous ones. I assumed it was a bad
>battery and ordered another. The replacement had the same problem -
>high internal resistance. I then weighed both new batteries and they
>were only 21.5lb, not the 26.5lb that the previous batteries weighed
>and that the spec sheet calls out. The battery supplier said they are
>the cheapest batteries they sell, come from different factories in
>China, and they can't control the quality. I bought a Yuasa instead -
>same price and it works as well as the old Powersonics.
>
>Maybe this was just a bad batch but my new philosophy is not to trust a
>new battery until it's been weighed, load tested and capacity tested. I
>will probably also test every year rather than replacing since I now
>have the equipment. I'm using load tester KAL4260 ($50) and capacity
>tester Bob has written about from WestMountainRadio.com (~$100)
Good data . . . and some excellent deductions. IF one depends on a
battery
for some standards of performance, then the ONLY philosophy that
guarantees
your wishes will be met is by TESTING. I don't care who's brand is on
the
battery, how well it ran in my hangar mate's airplane, or what you've
seen in the TV ads promoting the product.
David's weight measurements alone were a very strong suggestion that
the old and new batteries were very different. The lead acid battery
technology delivers so many watt-hours per pound of reactant
plus-minus
some minor performance tweaks between brands. The supplier indicates
that
the batteries are essentially a re-stickered product of unknown
origins.
That doesn't automatically make any product good, bad or otherwise,
just
a candidate for healthy skepticism.
I've taken the el-cheeso 17 a.h. battery out of some hardware store
portable power units that performed very well initially . . . and
David
tells us you can buy a turkey right out of the box. When in doubt,
or if it really matters to you, go measure that puppy.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Radio noise problem |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
I have put up with this particular problem for the last 5 years and
soon I will be selling the plane so time to get it fixed.
Symptoms:
I get ingnition "type" noise through my radio...Not the intercom.
Volume of noise goes up and down with volume knob.
No noise when the engine is first fired up...(alternator not charging)
Noise switches on when alternator does (about 2000 engine rpm to first
excite alternator)
Seems to be somewhat modified when strobes are running.
In line (power lead) 20A RS noise filter helps, but only a little.
I am thinking this sounds like a bad ground on the coax?
Any tips for fault finding?
Thanks
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Powersonic battery experience |
>
>
>So how does one measure internal resistance easily?....Connect it to a
>load and accuratly measure volts and amp?
>
>Frank
This is usually done indirectly. The battery tester we use in our
shop is the Autometer SB-5. See:
http://www.batterymart.com/battery.mv?p=ACC-SB-5
This has an adjustable load bank that you use to load the battery
down to and hold at 9 volts for 15 seconds and then read the
load current at that time. It should be greater that what's
needed to crank you engine. 200A is a battery that's about
ready to be tossed for cranking ability. A new battery will run
400 to 800A depending on capacity and technology.
After you've ascertained that it will start the engine,
then you need to know if it will run your endurance bus
for what ever time interval meets your mission requirements.
For myself, I would expect the battery to run the e-bus for
duration of fuel aboard . . . Yours may be more or less
depending on how much 'stuff' is on your e-bus considered
along with how you'll use the airplane.
You can make accurate capacity determinations for your
ship's battery with a device like:
http://www.westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
This is the cap-meter I used to evaluate the various 9v
batteries at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/9vBatteryTests.jpg
This device comes with all the software and hardware needed
to evaluate a wide range of battery products.
If you have a Z-13 installation, battery capacity is less
of an issue and you can generally run the battery until it
refuses to crank the engine any more.
There are no fixed solutions for battery choice and maintenance
but there are logical plans by which you can match your
battery's performance against your personal design goals.
Seem like a LOT of fuss over a battery? Yup, it sure is.
If you don't have the interest or $time$ to invest in
equipment and testing, the buy an inexpensive battery and
just put a new one in every year. For the majority of builders,
this philosophy is much more cost effective than getting
set up to do exploratory surgery on your battery every 6 months.
Better yet, run Z-13/8 and just flog it 'til it dies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "czechsix(at)juno.com" <czechsix(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Battery capacity degradation |
Guys,
Has anyone ever done research or seen any numbers published by battery manufacturers
on the average rate of capacity degradation over the battery's useful life?
I know each battery is different and is of course affected by the environent
it lives in, how much abuse it gets, how it is recharged, etc.....perhaps
there is so much variation that it's meaningless to speculate. My reason for
asking has to do with the small gel cell battery I am using to back up one of
my elec. ignition systems. I will probably rotate it out every two years but
I'm wondering what kind of capacity I should expect out of it at the end of the
two year period. For example it is rated at 2.9 ah at a typical discharge rate
of about 1 amp (this is what the Lightspeed system draws at cruise rpms).
So I would expect it to last almost 3 hours when new and fully charged. But
from an operational perspective, how much should I "derate" the capacity? Would
I be pretty safe counting on at least 1 hour of en
gine operation after it's two years old (i.e. should it have at least 1/3 of its
rated capacity remaining by then)?
As a side note, I have no intention of using my backup battery to get to my destination.....my
only reason for a backup battery is to aid in starting and as
a last resort in case my main electrical system craps out entirely (battery lead
breaks off, etc etc....). With a dark panel I'd be looking for a place to
land pretty soon, and the backup battery would only need to get me on the ground
at an airport where hopefully I can make repairs. But I'd like to determine
a reasonable time limit in the unlikely event I ever need to use it, hence the
above questions....
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D almost done wiring.....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Powersonic battery experience |
| From: | "David Chalmers" <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com> |
I used a cheap battery tester (KAL4260) that just applies a fixed resistance across
the battery - it claims to be a 100A test. The Powersonics were about 12.9V
open circuit. The good battery dropped to 11.2V when the load was applied and
rose slowly over 10 seconds (I assume the resistor was increasing resistance
as it got hot?) The bad battery dropped to 10.5V. I have no way of measuring
more than 10Amps so I can't tell exactly what the internal resistance is - just
what a good battery looks like with this tester.
Maybe someone can explain this: If I take 12.9 - 11.2 I get 1.7V. Assuming the
current is around 100A - that would be 17milliohms. Both the good Powersonic and
the Yuasa batteries dropped to 11.2V and both claim 8mohm. What's up with that?
David Chalmers
-----Original Message-----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) [mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Powersonic battery experience
So how does one measure internal resistance easily?....Connect it to a
load and accuratly measure volts and amp?
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery capacity degradation |
>
>
>
>Guys,
>
>Has anyone ever done research or seen any numbers published by battery
>manufacturers on the average rate of capacity degradation over the
>battery's useful life? I know each battery is different and is of course
>affected by the environent it lives in, how much abuse it gets, how it is
>recharged, etc.....perhaps there is so much variation that it's
>meaningless to speculate. My reason for asking has to do with the small
>gel cell battery I am using to back up one of my elec. ignition
>systems. I will probably rotate it out every two years but I'm wondering
>what kind of capacity I should expect out of it at the end of the two year
>period. For example it is rated at 2.9 ah at a typical discharge rate of
>about 1 amp (this is what the Lightspeed system draws at cruise rpms). So
>I would expect it to last almost 3 hours when new and fully charged. But
>from an operational perspective, how much should I "derate" the
>capacity? Would I be pretty safe counting on at least 1 hour of engine
>operation after it's two years old (i.e. should it have at least 1/3 of
>its rated capacity remaining by then)?
Trying to answer that is like trying to predict how many pounds of
tomatoes you're going to get from any particular bush this year.
Batteries are virtual living creatures. Store one on a maintainer
in a cool environment and do a deep-discharge cap check every year
and it's a sure bet you're going to see the capacity INCREASE for the
first few years and probably be 90% or better after 10 years.
Leave the master switch on for a week and unless you've got the $time$,
patience and tools to try a chemical resurrection, it's another
sure bet that you've got a really heavy doorstop.
Your experience should fall somewhere between these two extremes.
I have 33 a.h. and 17 a.h. instrumentation batteries that are
3-5 years old that have been deep discharged many times in service
but very quickly recharged and maintained. Most are testing at
90% of capacity for a 20 hour rate and 80% at a 4 hour rate.
The short response to your question is that the answer is not
"researchable" . . . any more than one can predict your
tomato harvest without knowing a LOT of details about the
original quality of the battery and what it experienced in
terms of use and abuse since new. Your experience may show
virtually any longevity you can imagine but the bottom line
is that nothing replaces periodic replacement to avoid $time$
and $resources$ to test -or- do the tests.
>As a side note, I have no intention of using my backup battery to get to
>my destination.....my only reason for a backup battery is to aid in
>starting and as a last resort in case my main electrical system craps out
>entirely (battery lead breaks off, etc etc....). With a dark panel I'd be
>looking for a place to land pretty soon, and the backup battery would only
>need to get me on the ground at an airport where hopefully I can make
>repairs. But I'd like to determine a reasonable time limit in the
>unlikely event I ever need to use it, hence the above questions....
Why not run a Z-13 system with p-mags and quite worrying
about batteries all together?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
| From: | Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com |
I'm starting to plan out the panel for my RV-7 and need a little help here.
The current plan is dual BM G3s, Garmin 530 and an SL30 for secondary
backup. Also planning a GI-106A for backup/secondary CDI/GS. One G3 will be
used as ADI and the other eHSI, but both have capability to display CDI/GS.
The question is about signal direction to the display units. All three
units (G3s and 106) have the capability to display input signals from both
530 and SL30. I'm pretty much a rookie at this, but what would be the best
switching arrangement? Initial thought was to direct 530 to the G3 to be
used for eHSI, and then have the 106 switch between 530 (NAV and GPS) and
the SL30 NAV signals. This leaves out the G3 used for ADI.
Jim
-7 Fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Powersonic battery experience |
>
>
>
>I used a cheap battery tester (KAL4260) that just applies a fixed
>resistance across the battery - it claims to be a 100A test. The
>Powersonics were about 12.9V open circuit. The good battery dropped to
>11.2V when the load was applied and rose slowly over 10 seconds (I assume
>the resistor was increasing resistance as it got hot?) The bad battery
>dropped to 10.5V. I have no way of measuring more than 10Amps so I can't
>tell exactly what the internal resistance is - just what a good battery
>looks like with this tester.
>
>Maybe someone can explain this: If I take 12.9 - 11.2 I get 1.7V. Assuming
>the current is around 100A - that would be 17milliohms. Both the good
>Powersonic and the Yuasa batteries dropped to 11.2V and both claim 8mohm.
>What's up with that?
Unless you pull of what is commonly referred to as "surface charge"
your delta-e value will be artificially high which drives up apparent
Rint. See:
http://homepage.sunrise.ch/mysunrise/joerg.hau/mot/batt.html
for a rational approach to battery internal impedance measurements.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Powersonic battery experience |
Did you measure the voltage directly across the battery terminals? Or
did you measure it using the tester which no doubt has leads to connect
to the battery that have some resistance along with the actual contact
at the battery which also has some resistance.
If the latter, you can recheck your results by using a separate meter
that is connected directly to the battery terminals separate from the
test connections - so called four point measurement where the voltage is
measured using a separate device and connections from the current
drawing battery tester.
Dick Tasker
David Chalmers wrote:
>
>
>I used a cheap battery tester (KAL4260) that just applies a fixed resistance across
the battery - it claims to be a 100A test. The Powersonics were about 12.9V
open circuit. The good battery dropped to 11.2V when the load was applied
and rose slowly over 10 seconds (I assume the resistor was increasing resistance
as it got hot?) The bad battery dropped to 10.5V. I have no way of measuring
more than 10Amps so I can't tell exactly what the internal resistance is - just
what a good battery looks like with this tester.
>
>Maybe someone can explain this: If I take 12.9 - 11.2 I get 1.7V. Assuming the
current is around 100A - that would be 17milliohms. Both the good Powersonic
and the Yuasa batteries dropped to 11.2V and both claim 8mohm. What's up with
that?
>
>David Chalmers
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) [mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com]
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Powersonic battery experience
>
>
>So how does one measure internal resistance easily?....Connect it to a
>load and accuratly measure volts and amp?
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Powersonic battery experience |
| From: | "David Chalmers" <David(at)ChalmersFamily.com> |
Yes, I measured the voltage directly at the terminals. I just tried it again after
removing the 'surface charge' but it didn't make much difference. The open
circuit voltage was reduced to 12.7V (2 minutes after pulling 100A for 10 seconds).
That makes 12.7 - 11.2 = 1.5V -> 15 milliohms. Must still be missing something.
David Chalmers
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Richard E. Tasker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powersonic battery experience
Did you measure the voltage directly across the battery terminals? Or
did you measure it using the tester which no doubt has leads to connect
to the battery that have some resistance along with the actual contact
at the battery which also has some resistance.
If the latter, you can recheck your results by using a separate meter
that is connected directly to the battery terminals separate from the
test connections - so called four point measurement where the voltage is
measured using a separate device and connections from the current
drawing battery tester.
Dick Tasker
David Chalmers wrote:
>
>
>I used a cheap battery tester (KAL4260) that just applies a fixed resistance across
the battery - it claims to be a 100A test. The Powersonics were about 12.9V
open circuit. The good battery dropped to 11.2V when the load was applied
and rose slowly over 10 seconds (I assume the resistor was increasing resistance
as it got hot?) The bad battery dropped to 10.5V. I have no way of measuring
more than 10Amps so I can't tell exactly what the internal resistance is - just
what a good battery looks like with this tester.
>
>Maybe someone can explain this: If I take 12.9 - 11.2 I get 1.7V. Assuming the
current is around 100A - that would be 17milliohms. Both the good Powersonic
and the Yuasa batteries dropped to 11.2V and both claim 8mohm. What's up with
that?
>
>David Chalmers
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) [mailto:frank.hinde(at)hp.com]
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Powersonic battery experience
>
>
>So how does one measure internal resistance easily?....Connect it to a
>load and accuratly measure volts and amp?
>
>Frank
>
>
>
>
--
----
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
Ok, I'll bite, what's a BM G3?
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk(at)lakemichigancollege.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Redux |
skip
Bob . . .
Thanks Bob. I've got the parts for making the filter and will start
there first. Looks like I'm going to have to send the radio to
Australia so it might be a while till I can see what effect the filter
will have. Thanks again.
Bill Yamokoski
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell(at)123mail.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
a Blue Mountain 3rd generation EFIS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV
>
>
> Ok, I'll bite, what's a BM G3?
>
> Mark & Lisa Sletten
> Legacy FG N828LM
> http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately on the
ground.
I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the aircraft
for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had been about
an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency buss. The
single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery buss. Nothing worked
although the master contactor would click sometimes. It sounds like a classic
dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3 years old and is an RG type.
There has been no obvious signs of impending failure.
I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts as to
what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
Thanks in advance
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russell Daves" <dav1111(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
A BMA G3 is the new glass flight directer from Blue Mountain Aviation. A Grand
Rapids System is better in my opinion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SMITHBKN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Calculating Electrical Load |
I've just getting started on the electrical system of my RV-7A. I have the
AeroElectric Connection book and I've read it, but being a rookie on things
electrical I'm going to need some help.
I've started calculating loads for the system that I would like to have and
I'm not sure how to handle components that are rated for a voltage different
than the voltage of the system on the plane.
For example, I have a roll servo, built by Superior Electric, that has on the
spec plate the following information:
Stepping Motor Type KML061F02
5.19 VDC
1.05 AMP
I assume my plane's system voltage while operating normally will be "about 14
volts" according to information on page 2-8 of AeroElectric Connection.
So, in order to calculate the amperage required to run the servo motor do I
use the 1.05 amp shown on the spec plate, or do I need to calculate a new
amperage using the 14 volt system voltage that will be supplied to the motor by
my
plane's alternator?
If it is the latter, am I doing the calculation correctly?
Volts = Amps X Resistance
5.19 V = 1.05 amp X (unknown)
5.19 V/1.05 amp = 4.94 ohms
Then, substituting the know resistance back into the same formula I can
calculate a new amperage for the 14 volt situation:
14 V = (unknown amps) X 4.94 ohms
14 V/4.94 ohms = 2.8 amps
So, for my load calculations on my system I would have to use a 2.8 amp value
for the current needed to run the motor. Is this correct?
I suppose the motor could have some sort of internal step-down function that
takes the 14 V system voltage and reduces it to 5.19 V stated on the spec
plate, but I have no idea if this is how things like this work.
I know this is basic stuff, but I really appreciate someone's help.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
Bill;
If the master contactor clicks "sometimes" it's unlikely the battery.
The battery either has enough voltage to pull in the contactor or it
doesn't. It's not a "sometimes" or random thing. It is more likely a
master switch failure. This can be a sometimes thing, making contact on
one closure but not the next time. While you were flying it was working
but now you've turned it off it is not now reliably closing every time.
Not necessarily the answer but batteries don't work intermittently while
switches sometimes do.
Bob McC
William Bernard wrote:
>
>Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately on the
ground.
>
>I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the aircraft
for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had been about
an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
>
>The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency buss. The
single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery buss. Nothing worked
although the master contactor would click sometimes. It sounds like a classic
dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3 years old and is an RG type.
There has been no obvious signs of impending failure.
>
>I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts as to
what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
>
>Thanks in advance
>
>Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Calculating Electrical Load |
Jeff, a stepping motor is a different animal because it is connected the
autopilot control head which drives it.
In this case, the control head should be putting out 5 volt pulses when
it wants to control the motor.
The design of the control head will be important in total load
calculation... I'd go to it's documentation to determine what average
and peak load it presents, while driving the servo motor.
Short of measurement under operating conditions, there isn't a reliable
way of calculating the power from the motor spec alone, although a worst
case would be 14V x 1.05A when driven through the control head. The
control head would drop the 14V to the 5V used to drive the engine.
Vern Little, RV-9A
SMITHBKN(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>I've just getting started on the electrical system of my RV-7A. I have the
>AeroElectric Connection book and I've read it, but being a rookie on things
>electrical I'm going to need some help.
>
>I've started calculating loads for the system that I would like to have and
>I'm not sure how to handle components that are rated for a voltage different
>than the voltage of the system on the plane.
>
>For example, I have a roll servo, built by Superior Electric, that has on the
>spec plate the following information:
>
>Stepping Motor Type KML061F02
>5.19 VDC
>1.05 AMP
>
>...
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
Jim,
There is a discussion board on BlueMountains site
http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/ that is pretty active and may be
helpful in answering your questions.
Good Luck,
Bob
On 5/13/05, Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com wrote:
>
>
> I'm starting to plan out the panel for my RV-7 and need a little help
> here.
>
> The current plan is dual BM G3s, Garmin 530 and an SL30 for secondary
> backup. Also planning a GI-106A for backup/secondary CDI/GS. One G3 will
> be
> used as ADI and the other eHSI, but both have capability to display
> CDI/GS.
>
> The question is about signal direction to the display units. All three
> units (G3s and 106) have the capability to display input signals from both
> 530 and SL30. I'm pretty much a rookie at this, but what would be the best
> switching arrangement? Initial thought was to direct 530 to the G3 to be
> used for eHSI, and then have the 106 switch between 530 (NAV and GPS) and
> the SL30 NAV signals. This leaves out the G3 used for ADI.
>
> Jim
> -7 Fuse
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OT - windshield sealant |
Rumen, All the plexi windows in Boeing aircraft are sealed in this way.
Just follow two precautions. One, do not get the RTV silicone on any
surface you plan on painting as the silicone will form a molecular bond
with the aluminum and it CANNOT be removed. It's like trying to paint
over ball bearings. Two, embed a piece of strong thread running from the
middle bottom of the window, around the periphery of the window, and
back to where the it starts. This will save you hours should you need to
remove the window by enabling you to slice the RTV bead when you pull
the thread. Both these facts about silicone sealed window installation
were learned while sitting through hours of "death by view foil"
inspector certification classes.
Rick Girard
Former Boeing inspector certified for silicone and acrylic seal and bond
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | New FAA requirement |
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<>
5/15/2005
Hello Eric, I concur. Regrettably my experience is that when one writes to
the FAA and offers clarifying words the bureacrats tend to go into a
defensive crouch.
Another example of garbling can be found in AIM paragraph 5-1-12 and 5-1-13
regarding closing or canceling flight plans. To me there is, or should be, a
difference. A flight plan is closed when the aircraft is on the ground
safely or in the immediate vicinity of the termination airport and about to
land. A flight plan can be canceled even before takeoff or while airborne
and while the aircraft is still at risk of never reaching its destination.
The wording in the AIM doesn't seem to recognize the difference.
Nor does the AIM point out that if one cancels an IFR flight plan while
airborne enroute, but desires search and rescue procedures to still be in
effect for the flight, that one must contact an FSS and activate the
remaining portion of the flight plan.
OC
PS: Here is a bit more of an explanation (that the FAA did not provide) as
to why they felt it necessary to add paragraph 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B) to the
FAR's:
The answer is found in this paragraph from FAA Order 8130.2F regarding
issuing Operating Limitations for amateur built experimental aircraft (which
the FAA apparently considers to override FAR Section 61.31 (d) (1) with
regard to amateur built experimental aircraft):
"153. b. (18) The pilot in command of this aircraft must hold a pilot
certificate or an authorized instructor's logbook endorsement. The pilot in
command also must meet the requirements of 61.31(e), (f), (g), (h), (i),
and (j), as appropriate."
This paragraph from FAA Order 8130.2F, when placed in the Operating
Limitations, would allow a person with any kind of pilot certificate to fly
any category or class of amateur built experimental aircraft (except any
turbojet/turbofan-powered aircraft, any aircraft with a maximum takeoff
weight exceeding 12,500 pounds, and any other aircraft
when deemed necessary (per the note to paragraph 153. b. (17)) as PIC with
passengers.
The new FAR paragraph 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B) is intended to retroactively
remove that allowance.
If you already have a pilot certificate for airplane (category), single
engine - land
(class), you are good to go with pax in a SEL amateur built experimental
airplane -- no additional certification action is required in order to
comply with 61.31(k)(2)(iii)(B).
In passing I note that this is another instance, there are others, of
confusion generated by the FAA when the FAR's and the FAA's Orders are not
entirely in synch with each other and interpretation is required to sort out
the confusion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Riley <richard(at)RILEY.NET> |
| Subject: | Re: OT - windshield sealant |
At 08:49 AM 5/15/05, you wrote:
>Two, embed a piece of strong thread running from the
>middle bottom of the window, around the periphery of the window, and
>back to where the it starts. This will save you hours should you need to
>remove the window by enabling you to slice the RTV bead when you pull
>the thread.
Dental floss is particularly good. But avoid the "glide" teflon based
dental floss in this application - it just pulls straight out, instead of
going sideways and cutting the silicone.
Speaking from sad experience.
Once the thread pulls out if you still need to remove the RTV, soak a rag
in gasoline or diesel. (Other petrochemicals may work, but I haven't tried
them) Place it on the silicone, cover with plastic or aluminum foil to
keep it from drying out. The RTV absorbs the gas, swells and becomes very
weak. After a day or 2, remove it all and the silicone will scrape out
with a fingernail or plastic knife.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Jim -
Doesn't the BMA G3 have GPS already? If so, why would you want to pipe
the 530 data to it?
If you are doing the Garmin 530 you may have to have the cabling
interconnects done by a licensed installer/dealer to get Garmin's
warranty. May I suggest John Stark at Stark Avionics. He has great prices
and we had a very good experience with his doing the cabling between the
boxes and out to the other instruments.
He recommended getting the MD200-306 instead of the GI-106A. The GI can't
do the back coarse ILS, if I recall the comparison he gave me correctly.
Mid Continent builds both the 106 & 200 series and the prices are very
close.
Another point that he made, and it is clear in the SL-30 manuals, is that
the OBS, can't be switched between the SL-30 and any other VOR/ILS box
without recalibrating the SL-30 interface with the OBS every time it is
switched back to the SL-30. We serial-ported the SL-30 to the EFIS/1 and
hardwired the Garmin 480 to the OBS. You have to have an OBS to legally do
a GPS approach with the 530 anyway. If we do an ILS from the Sl-30, it
will be off of the EFIS/1.
Does the G3 have an option for an autopilot like the EFIS/1? If so, it
should be able to do an auto ILS off the SL-30. We installed a TruTrak AP
and have it wired to the 480. This gives us more flexibility when it comes
to the GPS approaches & ILS approaches. You would have to find some
switching arrangement to connect the BMA autopilot to the 530 for GPS &
ILS approaches. John might be able to suggest something and then wire it
for you. It sounds like you are planning for serious IFR flight. In an
RV7, I would seriously consider an autopilot for IFR work.
Hope this helps.
John Schroeder
>> The current plan is dual BM G3s, Garmin 530 and an SL30 for secondary
>> backup. Also planning a GI-106A for backup/secondary CDI/GS. One G3 will
>> be
>> used as ADI and the other eHSI, but both have capability to display
>> CDI/GS.
>>
>> The question is about signal direction to the display units. All three
>> units (G3s and 106) have the capability to display input signals from
>> both
>> 530 and SL30. I'm pretty much a rookie at this, but what would be the
>> best
>> switching arrangement? Initial thought was to direct 530 to the G3 to be
>> used for eHSI, and then have the 106 switch between 530 (NAV and GPS)
>> and
>> the SL30 NAV signals. This leaves out the G3 used for ADI.
>>
>> Jim
>> -7 Fuse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | Re: OT - windshield sealant |
Further thanks.
Floss or perhaps the nylon thread upholsterers use. (?)
R
_____________________Original message __________________________
At 08:49 AM 5/15/05, you wrote:
>Two, embed a piece of strong thread running from the
>middle bottom of the window, around the periphery of the window, and
>back to where the it starts. This will save you hours should you need to
>remove the window by enabling you to slice the RTV bead when you pull
>the thread.
Dental floss is particularly good. But avoid the "glide" teflon based
dental floss in this application - it just pulls straight out, instead of
going sideways and cutting the silicone.
Speaking from sad experience.
Once the thread pulls out if you still need to remove the RTV, soak a rag
in gasoline or diesel. (Other petrochemicals may work, but I haven't tried
them) Place it on the silicone, cover with plastic or aluminum foil to
keep it from drying out. The RTV absorbs the gas, swells and becomes very
weak. After a day or 2, remove it all and the silicone will scrape out
with a fingernail or plastic knife.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Calculating Electrical Load |
>
>I've just getting started on the electrical system of my RV-7A. I have the
>AeroElectric Connection book and I've read it, but being a rookie on things
>electrical I'm going to need some help.
>
>I've started calculating loads for the system that I would like to have and
>I'm not sure how to handle components that are rated for a voltage different
>than the voltage of the system on the plane.
>
>For example, I have a roll servo, built by Superior Electric, that has on the
>spec plate the following information:
>
>Stepping Motor Type KML061F02
>5.19 VDC
>1.05 AMP
>
>I assume my plane's system voltage while operating normally will be "about 14
>volts" according to information on page 2-8 of AeroElectric Connection.
>
>So, in order to calculate the amperage required to run the servo motor do I
>use the 1.05 amp shown on the spec plate, or do I need to calculate a new
>amperage using the 14 volt system voltage that will be supplied to the
>motor by my
>plane's alternator?
>
>If it is the latter, am I doing the calculation correctly?
>
>Volts = Amps X Resistance
>5.19 V = 1.05 amp X (unknown)
>5.19 V/1.05 amp = 4.94 ohms
>
>Then, substituting the know resistance back into the same formula I can
>calculate a new amperage for the 14 volt situation:
>
>14 V = (unknown amps) X 4.94 ohms
>14 V/4.94 ohms = 2.8 amps
>
>So, for my load calculations on my system I would have to use a 2.8 amp value
>for the current needed to run the motor. Is this correct?
>
>I suppose the motor could have some sort of internal step-down function that
>takes the 14 V system voltage and reduces it to 5.19 V stated on the spec
>plate, but I have no idea if this is how things like this work.
>
>I know this is basic stuff, but I really appreciate someone's help.
>
>Jeff
A stepper motor is a special breed of cat. I've often suggested
that it be visualized as a rotary solenoid having multiple windings.
When the windings are energized in the appropriate sequence, the
output shaft will move in discrete steps (usually 1.8 degrees or
200 steps/revolution - but they come in ALL sizes). Stepper motors,
unlike their brushed and brushless counterparts, draw the same amount
of current whether loaded or unloaded, whether rotating or standing
still UNLESS the controller provides special features to modify this
behavior.
Your 5.19 volt motor will either
(1) be driven at 100% duty cycle by some form of step-down power supply
which is probably a switch-mode device . . . it will draw about
1.2 x the watts of the motor. Since the motor needs about 5.3 watts
to operate, the switchmode supply would power it up with about 6 watts
of 14 volt bus power.
(2) It might be driven in an intermittent duty mode with 14v applied
only while driving but with a limited time. This would be okay for
a trim system then, your calculation would be correct. But is this
an autopilot roll servo? It flies the airplane? The clever
designer my have figured out yet another way to incorporate this
motor into your system and might have some power requirement
that is intermediate to the two extremes cited above.
Superior Electric built the motor but somebody else incorporated
it into the design of your servo. What do the instructions say?
Who did you buy the servo from? They should tell you what values
to plug into a load analysis.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight. You can then make
measurements and think. Then fix the broken part. Put a diode (1N4004)
across the coil of all relays, solonoids and contactors. I know the 1N4004
is "overkill" but I replaced plenty of 1N4001 s and never had a recall on 24
volt systems. The master switch is prpbably fried, as a guess. Reading the
voltage drop across the closed switch will tell all (almost). If you screw
up by having the meter on the wrong range, the worst thing you can do is
blow the fuse in the amp circuit. It's easily replaced. Meters with a needle
can wrap the needle 3 times around the high end (slight exageration I only
got 2 turns).
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
>
>
> Bill;
>
> If the master contactor clicks "sometimes" it's unlikely the battery.
> The battery either has enough voltage to pull in the contactor or it
> doesn't. It's not a "sometimes" or random thing. It is more likely a
> master switch failure. This can be a sometimes thing, making contact on
> one closure but not the next time. While you were flying it was working
> but now you've turned it off it is not now reliably closing every time.
> Not necessarily the answer but batteries don't work intermittently while
> switches sometimes do.
>
> Bob McC
>
> William Bernard wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately on
>>the ground.
>>
>>I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the
>>aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had
>>been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
>>
>>The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency
>>buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery
>>buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click sometimes.
>>It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3
>>years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of impending
>>failure.
>>
>>I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts
>>as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
>>
>>Thanks in advance
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dr. Dee's Milestone reached!! |
I've been preoccupied with dozens of relatives and more dozens
of friends for the past several days. We've gathered to observe
Dee's graduation with her PhD in community/clinical psychology.
It's been a long haul . . . about 15 years but she's stayed the
course and walked in Saturday's graduation ceremonies at WSU.
I'll need a couple more days to recover from wall-to-wall
relatives and sundry gatherings
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dr. Dee's Milestone reached!! |
Congratulations to Dr. Dee!!!!
Richard Dudley
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>I've been preoccupied with dozens of relatives and more dozens
>of friends for the past several days. We've gathered to observe
>Dee's graduation with her PhD in community/clinical psychology.
>
>It's been a long haul . . . about 15 years but she's stayed the
>course and walked in Saturday's graduation ceremonies at WSU.
>I'll need a couple more days to recover from wall-to-wall
>relatives and sundry gatherings
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut
Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
don't mean just the boats, either.
And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
impunity.
Rico Voss wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss
>
>
>
>
>>Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight.
>>
>>
>
>My curiosity has overcome me.
>I bought one of those famous HarborFreight multimeters,
>made in China. I've found, however that voltage readings
>are affected significantly by whether the display is
>exposed to bright light.
>
>Any comments or explanations welcome (other than "you get
>what you pay for")
>
>Richard, Zenith XL
>do not archive
>
>
>
>Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
>http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>
>
>.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dr. Dee's Milestone reached!! |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
Heck, I suspect she could stay pretty busy on this list....
Congrats Bob. I'm guessing her graduation brings you more pride and satisfaction
than the best, simplest and most elegant circuit you've ever designed. Well
done.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Earl_Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dr. Dee's Milestone reached!!
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder
Hi Bob,
Hmmm, maybe Ms Dee could start a psychologyAdvice-list?? All kidding
aside, pass on my congratulations!! Earl
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>I've been preoccupied with dozens of relatives and more dozens
>of friends for the past several days. We've gathered to observe
>Dee's graduation with her PhD in community/clinical psychology.
>
>It's been a long haul . . . about 15 years but she's stayed the
>course and walked in Saturday's graduation ceremonies at WSU.
>I'll need a couple more days to recover from wall-to-wall
>relatives and sundry gatherings
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three
switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the clicks
from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss was
turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the
electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery.
That circuit was dead also.
Replacing the battery corrected all the problems.
I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis"
>
> Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight. You can then make
> measurements and think. Then fix the broken part. Put a diode (1N4004)
> across the coil of all relays, solonoids and contactors. I know the 1N4004
> is "overkill" but I replaced plenty of 1N4001 s and never had a recall on
24
> volt systems. The master switch is prpbably fried, as a guess. Reading the
> voltage drop across the closed switch will tell all (almost). If you screw
> up by having the meter on the wrong range, the worst thing you can do is
> blow the fuse in the amp circuit. It's easily replaced. Meters with a
needle
> can wrap the needle 3 times around the high end (slight exageration I only
> got 2 turns).
>
> Leo Corbalis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
> >
> >
> > Bill;
> >
> > If the master contactor clicks "sometimes" it's unlikely the battery.
> > The battery either has enough voltage to pull in the contactor or it
> > doesn't. It's not a "sometimes" or random thing. It is more likely a
> > master switch failure. This can be a sometimes thing, making contact on
> > one closure but not the next time. While you were flying it was working
> > but now you've turned it off it is not now reliably closing every time.
> > Not necessarily the answer but batteries don't work intermittently while
> > switches sometimes do.
> >
> > Bob McC
> >
> > William Bernard wrote:
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately
on
> >>the ground.
> >>
> >>I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the
> >>aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over
had
> >>been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
> >>
> >>The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency
> >>buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery
> >>buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click
sometimes.
> >>It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3
> >>years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of
impending
> >>failure.
> >>
> >>I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts
> >>as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
> >>
> >>Thanks in advance
> >>
> >>Bill
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
<<.....skip......Another point that he made, and it is clear in the SL-30
manuals, is that
the OBS, can't be switched between the SL-30 and any other VOR/ILS box
without recalibrating the SL-30 interface with the OBS every time it is
switched back to the SL-30.....skip....>>
5/16/2005
Hello John, This is not consistent with my experience. Maybe the SL-30
manual is wrong or misleading. Can you point me to which manual and where it
says that? Maybe David Buckwalter who wired my panel knows something that
neither Garmin / UPS or John Stark knows. Please see the following from a
previous post of mine. Thanks. OC
------------------ BELOW FROM A PREVIOUS POST BY OC ------------
> I encountered this same "it is not possible" information when I was having
> my panel made and found it to be untrue.
> My panel, built by David Buckwalter of Avionics Systems, consists of a GNS
> 430, an SL-30, and a GI 106A. I use a Northern Airborne RS 16-001 data
> switch to connect the three of them. I shift between the GNS 430 and the
> SL-30 with a lighted push button switch. One half labeled GNS 430 and the
> other half labeled SL-30. Every push of the switch cycles from one to the
> other.
>
> On the GI 106A there are three lights: NAV, VOR/LOC, and GPS. When the NAV
> light is lit I am feeding the CDI from the SL-30. When either the VOR/LOC
> or
> GPS light is lit I am feeding the CDI from the GNS 430. To shift between
> VOR/LOC or GPS I push the CDI button on the face of the GNS 430.
>
> Everything works perfectly (Thanks, David). When flying ILS approaches I
> frequently use the SL-30 set up on the localizer and glidescope and use
> the
> GNS 430 for mileage and big picture information.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
Scary............ Just think, I just finished building a very nice RV7
using several "pure junk" tools from HF. And it does not fall out of the
sky and crash. The "junk" tools are priced so low below what union
manufacturers in the US can make them far that our unions and workers are
doomed to be out of business in a few years. I wonder everytime I buy a
product to look at the label that shows where it was manufactured. Not
surprisingly, many times it says China. I don't try to buy China products
on purpose. 40 years ago these best-value things all said made in Japan.
With the air quality, water quality, and what not laws we have now over US
manufacturing, it is a wonder we can profitably produce anything in a
competitive world. Well, I produced an airplane with HF tools. I guess
that says something about using HF tools..........do not archive
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
----- Original Message ----- >
> Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
> don't mean just the boats, either.
> And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
> impunity.
>
>
> Rico Voss wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My curiosity has overcome me.
>>I bought one of those famous HarborFreight multimeters,
>>made in China. I've found, however that voltage readings
>>are affected significantly by whether the display is
>>exposed to bright light.
>>
>>Any comments or explanations welcome (other than "you get
>>what you pay for")
>>
>>Richard, Zenith XL
>>do not archive
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
Yup this is similar to what I call open circuit failure in automotive
batteries. It will supply a few amps but nothing more. My guess is that
it is somewhat variable depending on how much electrolyte vs. gas is in
the vicinity of the break as you can usually hear hissing when charging
or discharging. Had a run of several such failures once and none since
changing brands but again these were flooded cell batteries.
Ken
William Bernard wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three
>switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the clicks
>from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss was
>turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the
>electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery.
>That circuit was dead also.
>
>Replacing the battery corrected all the problems.
>
>I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence.
>
>Bill
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson"
My experience with HF tools is the same. I have one major tool that I
purchased American-made and the rest are Chinese - guess which tool does not
work. I've had a Chinese metal band saw (cut-off) for over 30 years, a wood
band saw made of iron castings rather than plastic (25+ years old), sanders,
air tools, etc. I've abused these tools and they continue to work - never
even had to replace a single component.
Its not that I would not pay more $$ for American-made - but my experience
is you pay more money and get inferior tools. For the price I paid for the
Chinese tools I was prepared (expecting) to have to throw them away after 10
years or so, but that has not turned out to be the case. Cast iron seems to
last longer than plastic.
Now if you a lot of $$ then perhaps the top of line American made tools are
still top quality - but, I simply can not afford the top of the line.
FWIW
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
>
>
> Scary............ Just think, I just finished building a very nice RV7
> using several "pure junk" tools from HF. And it does not fall out of the
> sky and crash. The "junk" tools are priced so low below what union
> manufacturers in the US can make them far that our unions and workers are
> doomed to be out of business in a few years. I wonder everytime I buy a
> product to look at the label that shows where it was manufactured. Not
> surprisingly, many times it says China. I don't try to buy China products
> on purpose. 40 years ago these best-value things all said made in Japan.
> With the air quality, water quality, and what not laws we have now over US
> manufacturing, it is a wonder we can profitably produce anything in a
> competitive world. Well, I produced an airplane with HF tools. I guess
> that says something about using HF tools..........do not archive
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
> ----- Original Message ----- >
>> Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
>> don't mean just the boats, either.
>> And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
>> impunity.
>>
>>
>> Rico Voss wrote:
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>My curiosity has overcome me.
>>>I bought one of those famous HarborFreight multimeters,
>>>made in China. I've found, however that voltage readings
>>>are affected significantly by whether the display is
>>>exposed to bright light.
>>>
>>>Any comments or explanations welcome (other than "you get
>>>what you pay for")
>>>
>>>Richard, Zenith XL
>>>do not archive
>>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Dr. Dee's Milestone reached!! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
>
>Heck, I suspect she could stay pretty busy on this list....
>
>Congrats Bob. I'm guessing her graduation brings you more pride and
>satisfaction than the best, simplest and most elegant circuit you've ever
>designed.
You got that right!
> Well done.
Thank you . . . from both of us.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics breaker |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons"
>
>My flying Glastar has a "conventional" electrical system with an avionics
>master switch and solenoid. I guess for fault tolerance reasons there is
>also a separate "aux avionics switch" with a separate breaker that can
>bypass the avionics solenoid and feed the avionics bus directly.
>
>This seems to add a level of complexity that provides very little if any
>benefit. There are only three pieces of avionics, a GNC250XL(10A), a
>GTX320(3A) and an intercom(1A). The aux avionics breaker is 15 Amps.
>
>As they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". In this case I'm not trying
>to fix it, I'm trying to add a Trutrak autopilot and I'm trying to figure
>out the best way to wire in the power. The quickest would be to feed it
>separately from the main bus and not use the avionics bus. The most
>complex would be to re-wire the entire plane using a Z-drawing type
>configuration. I'm looking for a in-between solution, preferably closer to
>the first idea.
the only difference between what you describe and what I've recommended
in the z-figures is where the alternate power feed for the endurance
(avionics) bus comes from. I prefer to take it right from the battery
bus . . . and then move a few useful items like minimal panel lighting,
turn coordinator and perhaps a voltmeter to the endurance bus.
your autopilot could run from the endurance bus nicely . . . I think
I'd add a no-feedback diode into the normal feedpath and move the second
feedpath to the battery. The "aux avionics" breaker could move to the
battery bus and you could use miniature contactor (relay) to support
the larger than normal aux feed path. See figure Z-32.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>
>Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately on
>the ground.
>
>I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the
>aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had
>been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
>
>The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency
>buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery
>buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click sometimes.
>It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3
>years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of impending
>failure.
>
>I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts
>as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
You say "sometimes" . . . on times that it DID click, did the
system come up? Were you able to start the engine? How did you
get the airplane home or is it stuck on the other airport.
If your battery started the airplane earlier that day, it's
far from DEAD. If the contactor made no noise at all, the
most likely problem is the battery-master side of your
DC POWER MASTER switch. Do you have a diode across the
coil of the battery contactor as illustrated in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg
If not, then the contactor's de-energizing spike
may have burned the contacts of the master switch
so as to make it unreliable. Replacement of the switch
and ADDITION of the diode would be indicated.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>
>I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three
>switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the clicks
>from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss was
>turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the
>electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery.
>That circuit was dead also.
>
>Replacing the battery corrected all the problems.
>
>I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence.
Yes, periodic cap testing of your battery . . . or some
other considered preventative maintenance program. I think
you mentioned that the battery was several years old.
95% of the time, my "sudden" failures of batteries in
my vehicles was a loose post on the battery. Several
years ago, I did have a flooded battery behave as you've
described. Got in the car at store 2 miles away and it
started right up. Ten minutes after arriving home, I
identified another procurement task and the car wouldn't
start. Battery refused to carry even 8A worth of headlamp
loads. I stuck one of my 32 a.h. RG instrumentation batteries
in and drove to the parts store to buy a new battery for
the van. This battery was several years old too . . . more
than 3 and probably less than 5.
Do you still have the old battery? Are you SURE that the
problem wasn't a poor connection at the battery post?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
Off-Topic rant below - please DELETE ASAP!!!
.RantStart
You are right. Thank heaven for the WTO protecting
corporations' rights to move their production wherever
they can find cheap workers and weak environmental
regulations.
Now these underdog multinationals can stop having to
worry about those pesky environmental and labor laws
we've developed over the last 100 years or so.
They can also stop worrying about annoying, boring,
old documents, like the US Constitution, since the WTO
rules supersede them in issues of trade.
Therefore, thanks to the WTO, those quaint local governments,
like the US Congress, can not pass a law restricting
imports of products that were made in sweatshops with
essentially slave labor while dumping poisonous toxins
into the oceans. This of course assumes that our
congress-critters' corporate masters would allow such a
law to be introduced.
The WTO is just one of the many tools we hard-core
capitalists are using to exert our control over the
wimpy, whining, weak, sheeple of the world.
.Insert EvilLaugh.mp3
.RantStop
Personally, I go to Harbor Freight only as a last resort,
since everything there is made in China. Often, Sears
has a "Made in USA" version of a tool, but at twice
the price. I buy it anyway. It has become harder and
harder to find *anything* that is not made in China.
It's the same problem here in Europe. It seems like
the world has decided that China will be our manufacturing
region.
Just like Japan in the 70s, the quality starts out being
abysmal, but eventually becomes world class. Once all the
"cheap" Japanese workers were absorbed, and their wages
caught up, they lost their cost advantage. One big difference
with China is that its population is 10x the size of Japan.
It might take some time for the world to absorb all those
30 dollar a month workers. Oh well, at least we still
have to make hamburgers locally.
Mickey
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
>
> Scary............ Just think, I just finished building a very nice RV7
> using several "pure junk" tools from HF. And it does not fall out of the
> sky and crash. The "junk" tools are priced so low below what union
> manufacturers in the US can make them far that our unions and workers are
> doomed to be out of business in a few years. I wonder everytime I buy a
> product to look at the label that shows where it was manufactured. Not
> surprisingly, many times it says China. I don't try to buy China products
> on purpose. 40 years ago these best-value things all said made in Japan.
> With the air quality, water quality, and what not laws we have now over US
> manufacturing, it is a wonder we can profitably produce anything in a
> competitive world. Well, I produced an airplane with HF tools. I guess
> that says something about using HF tools..........do not archive
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
> ----- Original Message ----- >
>
>>Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
>>don't mean just the boats, either.
>>And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
>>impunity.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas
Hello AI,
Monday, May 16, 2005, 2:56:43 AM, you wrote:
AN> Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
AN> don't mean just the boats, either.
AN> And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
AN> impunity.
Woa! Don't forget that just about every piece of computer equipment
that you buy is made in China. That includes companies like Dell, HP,
Gateway, Apple, and most of the rest. I also have several HF tools
that work just fine. And, this country was built on free enterprise
and competition. If we want to survive, it will be through innovation
and hard competition, not through complaining that jobs are being
"lost" for whatever reason.
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Rolled my email address . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
A quick note to those who have used b.nuckolls(at)cox.net for my direct
email address, please note that account has been closed. Somebody
"spoofed" that address and used it to mail gazillions of virii loaded
messages . . . I was getting a great many notes from upset targets and
outraged ISP providers that were filtering my supposed messages.
For the time being, my email for the AeroElectric-List only will
be nuckollsr(at)cox.net.
do not archive
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
Mark,
I think Blue Mountain Avionics is typically abbreviated BMA, not BM.
;-)
The bottom-of-the-line model is their Lite, commonly referred to as the
G3.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brett
Ferrell
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell"
a Blue Mountain 3rd generation EFIS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa(at)hometel.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten"
>
>
> Ok, I'll bite, what's a BM G3?
>
> Mark & Lisa Sletten
> Legacy FG N828LM
> http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Larkin" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin"
I agree.........
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Mickey Coggins
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
Off-Topic rant below - please DELETE ASAP!!!
.RantStart
You are right. Thank heaven for the WTO protecting
corporations' rights to move their production wherever
they can find cheap workers and weak environmental
regulations.
Now these underdog multinationals can stop having to
worry about those pesky environmental and labor laws
we've developed over the last 100 years or so.
They can also stop worrying about annoying, boring,
old documents, like the US Constitution, since the WTO
rules supersede them in issues of trade.
Therefore, thanks to the WTO, those quaint local governments,
like the US Congress, can not pass a law restricting
imports of products that were made in sweatshops with
essentially slave labor while dumping poisonous toxins
into the oceans. This of course assumes that our
congress-critters' corporate masters would allow such a
law to be introduced.
The WTO is just one of the many tools we hard-core
capitalists are using to exert our control over the
wimpy, whining, weak, sheeple of the world.
.Insert EvilLaugh.mp3
.RantStop
Personally, I go to Harbor Freight only as a last resort,
since everything there is made in China. Often, Sears
has a "Made in USA" version of a tool, but at twice
the price. I buy it anyway. It has become harder and
harder to find *anything* that is not made in China.
It's the same problem here in Europe. It seems like
the world has decided that China will be our manufacturing
region.
Just like Japan in the 70s, the quality starts out being
abysmal, but eventually becomes world class. Once all the
"cheap" Japanese workers were absorbed, and their wages
caught up, they lost their cost advantage. One big difference
with China is that its population is 10x the size of Japan.
It might take some time for the world to absorb all those
30 dollar a month workers. Oh well, at least we still
have to make hamburgers locally.
Mickey
LarryRobertHelming wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
>
> Scary............ Just think, I just finished building a very nice
RV7
> using several "pure junk" tools from HF. And it does not fall out of
the
> sky and crash. The "junk" tools are priced so low below what union
> manufacturers in the US can make them far that our unions and workers
are
> doomed to be out of business in a few years. I wonder everytime I buy
a
> product to look at the label that shows where it was manufactured.
Not
> surprisingly, many times it says China. I don't try to buy China
products
> on purpose. 40 years ago these best-value things all said made in
Japan.
> With the air quality, water quality, and what not laws we have now
over US
> manufacturing, it is a wonder we can profitably produce anything in a
> competitive world. Well, I produced an airplane with HF tools. I
guess
> that says something about using HF tools..........do not archive
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up It Flies
> ----- Original Message ----- >
>
>>Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
>>don't mean just the boats, either.
>>And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
>>impunity.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
do not archive
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
Hello OC -
Page 34 of the Installation Manual for the SL-30 is partially quoted below:
Calibrating the Resolver Indicator Head Type
After selecting RESOLVER as the indicator head, it is necessary to
calibrate the interface between the SL30 and the resolver. The SL30 cannot
drive multiple resolvers at the same time. It is not recommended that
external resolvers he switched through a relay or other means because the
resolver must be calibrated to the radio as described in this procedure.
If multiple resolvers are desired in the installation, the primary unit
must he installed and calibrated as described here. The secondary unit
should use the composite output.
I. After selecting RESOLVER us the indicator head type, turn the large
knob to the PRESS
SEL TO CALIBRATE RESOLVER display.
2. Press SEL
3. Follow the directions on the SL30 display.
Note: The accuracy of the system is dependent on this calibration. Do not
hurry this step.
4. At the end of the setup, press ENT to store the results.
5. Cycle the power switch (enter the normal mode).
6. Tune a VOR station (any VOR frequency).
7. Press OHS button.
8. Verify that the OBS decodes properly from 0 to 360 degrees.
If the SL-30 will not accept the calibration or advances to the next
prompt when the ENT key is pressed, there may be a problem with the
resolver interface.
Hope this sheds some light on the subject.
John
> <<.....skip......Another point that he made, and it is clear in the SL-30
> manuals, is that the OBS, can't be switched between the SL-30 and any
> other VOR/ILS box
> without recalibrating the SL-30 interface with the OBS every time it is
> switched back to the SL-30.....skip....>>
>
> 5/16/2005
>
> Hello John, This is not consistent with my experience. Maybe the SL-30
> manual is wrong or misleading. Can you point me to which manual and
> where it says that? Maybe David Buckwalter who wired my panel knows
> something that neither Garmin / UPS or John Stark knows. Please see the
> following from a
> previous post of mine. Thanks. OC
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RAC servo and Landing light - wiring help please |
| From: | "Paul Weismann" <pw(at)weismannassociates.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Weismann"
Hello all,
This is my first of probably many posts. I have read many of the posts
and done searches on several issues I am having, and this is a very
valuable resource, thanks.
I am installing landing lights in a hatch under the belly of my
helicopter. The hatch is extended/retracted with an RAC servo.
My goal is to be able to:
1. flip a single toggle switch to a) turn on the lights and b)
extend the hatch to a pre-determined position.
2. once the hatch is extended, I want to be able to adjust its angle
with the coolie hat on my infinity grip in the up/down axis.
3. whatever position the hatch is in, I want the lights to switch
off and the hatch to retract once the toggle switch is flipped off.
I am assuming I will need a micro-switch or some kind of limit switch,
but if any of you gurus could point me in the right direction in terms
of circuit design, I would be extremely grateful. I am trying to learn
as much as I can about this stuff but this one is just too complex for
my laymans brain to make sense of. Any descriptions of components and
layouts would be more appreciated if they were in "beginner" language,
if you know what I mean. :-)
Thanks in advance.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
I live in Southbridge, Massachusetts--- the Optical Capital of the World
from 1837 until the 1970's. People around here remember on Friday when the
jeweler's rouge was dumped into the river. It ran red to the ocean. Now
there are more than FIVE MILLION square feet of abandoned industrial space
in this little town. Touring this vast space is a journey to another
dimension. There are empty hallways a thousand feet long and vast spaces
where indoor flight tests are a real possibility.
We tend to think that industry seeking lower costs is a recent and local
issue but it's been going on for as long as there has been trade. Those
darned Arabs---importing oriental fabrics via the silk route....Those darned
Romans using cheap slave labor...Damned those Phoenicians....
There was a time, for hundreds of years when America was the low-cost
high-quality producer to the world. In fact, New England clipper ships moved
goods made in Salem, Massachusetts to the consumers of the world. What is
odd about this is that so frequently was the imprint "Made in Salem" seen
that in the early 1700's "Salem" was believed by many to be the name of a
really big country.
It is surprising to many but the USA was the world's dominant clock and
watch producer from about 1820 to 1920. We are left to remember this time
by a Swiss watchmaker's prouncement that "Not one in fifty thousand Swiss
watches is as good as an American watch that sells for a dollar!" The famous
watchmakers IWC in Schaffhausen began as a American company in 1860 looking
for low paid labor!
During the Great Depression of the 1930's students learned technical skills,
and how to fend for themselves. But we gradually lost our dominance after
the 1950's when the rest of the world was recovering from the rubble of
world war two and rebuilt their industry and economies with the latest new
machinery.
Zenith and Motorola assembly plants in South Central Los Angeles started
buying circuit boards from Japan in the late1950's. But, of course, we would
keep the engineering here....Now all my home electronics seem to say "Sony".
You can still go to seminars where gurus will tell you that the Orientals
are good at copying things but are short on creativity. (HAH!) The Japanese
and Chinese will humbly agree--but this is just polite oriental deference.
There are smart people everywhere.
They will eat our lunches, sure. But for now we enjoy the bountiful fruits
of their low-paid labor.
The Chinese are worried that the low-cost labor in India and Indonesia will
take their jobs. Read Thomas L. Friedman's "The World is Flat". Enjoy....
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
Forever be it. We do some business with Korea Electric Power Company. They recently
delayed, for 18 months, 4 nuclear plants they have on the drawing board
because of slack electrical demand. They said the problem was all their manufacturing
jobs were being exported to China. I felt like telling him that's EXACTLY
how we felt 20 years ago when all of our manufacturing jobs were going
to Korea and Japan.
It's economically efficient to have this constant change as countries/economies
develop and each specializes in those products and services where they have a
competitive advantage. It's actually to everyone's (at least in a plural sense)
long term benefit--but don't tell that to the U.S. textile worker that just
lost his/her job to Chinamen who make 3 bowls of rice per hour. The scary part
is, "what products and services do we have a competitive advantage in anymore?"
Chuck
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric
M. Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
I live in Southbridge, Massachusetts--- the Optical Capital of the World
from 1837 until the 1970's. People around here remember on Friday when the
jeweler's rouge was dumped into the river. It ran red to the ocean. Now
there are more than FIVE MILLION square feet of abandoned industrial space
in this little town. Touring this vast space is a journey to another
dimension. There are empty hallways a thousand feet long and vast spaces
where indoor flight tests are a real possibility.
We tend to think that industry seeking lower costs is a recent and local
issue but it's been going on for as long as there has been trade. Those
darned Arabs---importing oriental fabrics via the silk route....Those darned
Romans using cheap slave labor...Damned those Phoenicians....
There was a time, for hundreds of years when America was the low-cost
high-quality producer to the world. In fact, New England clipper ships moved
goods made in Salem, Massachusetts to the consumers of the world. What is
odd about this is that so frequently was the imprint "Made in Salem" seen
that in the early 1700's "Salem" was believed by many to be the name of a
really big country.
It is surprising to many but the USA was the world's dominant clock and
watch producer from about 1820 to 1920. We are left to remember this time
by a Swiss watchmaker's prouncement that "Not one in fifty thousand Swiss
watches is as good as an American watch that sells for a dollar!" The famous
watchmakers IWC in Schaffhausen began as a American company in 1860 looking
for low paid labor!
During the Great Depression of the 1930's students learned technical skills,
and how to fend for themselves. But we gradually lost our dominance after
the 1950's when the rest of the world was recovering from the rubble of
world war two and rebuilt their industry and economies with the latest new
machinery.
Zenith and Motorola assembly plants in South Central Los Angeles started
buying circuit boards from Japan in the late1950's. But, of course, we would
keep the engineering here....Now all my home electronics seem to say "Sony".
You can still go to seminars where gurus will tell you that the Orientals
are good at copying things but are short on creativity. (HAH!) The Japanese
and Chinese will humbly agree--but this is just polite oriental deference.
There are smart people everywhere.
They will eat our lunches, sure. But for now we enjoy the bountiful fruits
of their low-paid labor.
The Chinese are worried that the low-cost labor in India and Indonesia will
take their jobs. Read Thomas L. Friedman's "The World is Flat". Enjoy....
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Donald Garcia" <donaldautocenter(at)outgun.com> |
help please
| Subject: | Re: RAC servo and Landing light - wiring |
help please
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Donald Garcia"
---Hello Paul
I do not need this kind of shit in my box anymore, i do understand why u should
be sending this , pls stay clear from my box
Original Message -----
From: "Paul Weismann" <pw(at)weismannassociates.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RAC servo and Landing light - wiring help please
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Weismann"
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> This is my first of probably many posts. I have read many of the posts
> and done searches on several issues I am having, and this is a very
> valuable resource, thanks.
>
>
> I am installing landing lights in a hatch under the belly of my
> helicopter. The hatch is extended/retracted with an RAC servo.
>
> My goal is to be able to:
>
> 1. flip a single toggle switch to a) turn on the lights and b)
> extend the hatch to a pre-determined position.
>
> 2. once the hatch is extended, I want to be able to adjust its angle
> with the coolie hat on my infinity grip in the up/down axis.
>
> 3. whatever position the hatch is in, I want the lights to switch
> off and the hatch to retract once the toggle switch is flipped off.
>
>
> I am assuming I will need a micro-switch or some kind of limit switch,
> but if any of you gurus could point me in the right direction in terms
> of circuit design, I would be extremely grateful. I am trying to learn
> as much as I can about this stuff but this one is just too complex for
> my laymans brain to make sense of. Any descriptions of components and
> layouts would be more appreciated if they were in "beginner" language,
> if you know what I mean. :-)
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Paul
>
>
--
Outgun.com free e-mail @ www.outgun.com
Check out our Premium services - POP3 downloading, e-mail forwarding, and 25MB
mailboxes!
Powered by Outblaze
________________________________________________________________________________
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio(at)aol.com
Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to the best
one to buy? Tom Saccio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio(at)aol.com
>
>Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
>battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to
>the best
>one to buy? Tom Saccio
I posted that note and referred to this item:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/HF_Battery_Maintainer.jpg
I don't know about the performance of this device. I've
got it on my list of things to do in the not too distant
future. If you're interested in a known good device
for battery charging and maintenance, check out
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=79845&item=5774201356&rd=1
and
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=7973379892&category=63687
I have three of the "junior" models that are used to
recharge/maintain my RG instrumentation batteries. I also
use them on my father's seldom driven vehicles. At the
moment, they are my all-time favorite battery service
tools.
Here's where you get all the technical scoop on these
critters.
http://batterytender.com/
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health
club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is
Flat", which Eric mentioned. The young woman next to me had a tiny cell
phone which would chime on occasion and she would pick it up and punch the
keys for a few minutes, then put it back down. She never actually answered
the phone; just picked it up and punched the keys.
I asked her if it was a new phone, since I thought she must be trying to
figure it out. She replied with a distinct Russian accent that yes, it was
new, but that she was exchanging text messages with her father in central
Russia. She also said that her father had a summer home in Siberia, and that
even there, she could just call him up on her phone, or send him text
messages, and that it was so very inexpensive.
Those who think that the Chinese only build clunky cast iron tools are in
for a very rude awakening. The "all-American" Garmin 196 that I bought a few
years ago came in a box, clearly marked "Made in Taiwan". I'm quite sure my
Toyota pickup was assembled in California.
We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or
country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of
low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times.
Terry
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
Subject: GLOBALIZATION
INTERNATIONAL THINKING
AT ITS BEST!
Question: What is the truest definition of Globalization?
Answer: Princess Diana's death.
Question: How come?
Answer: An English princess
with an Egyptian boyfriend
crashes in a French tunnel,
driving a German car
with a Dutch engine,
driven by a Belgian who was drunk
on Scottish whisky, (check the bottle before you change the spelling)
followed closely by Italian Paparazzi,
on Japanese motorcycles;
treated by an American doctor,
using Brazilian medicines.
This is sent to you by an Englishman,
using Bill Gates's technology,
and you're probably reading this on your computer,
that uses Taiwanese chips,
and a Korean monitor,
assembled by Bangladeshi workers
in a Singapore plant,
transported by Indian lorry-drivers,
hijacked by Indonesians,
unloaded by Sicilian longshoremen,
and trucked to you by Mexican illegals.....
That, my friends, is Globalization
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | B Tomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm
Well, when there are no more "developing countries" left (to work cheaper
than anyone else so they can get themselves "developed), it will go back to
"developed countries" who are willing to take a pay cut to get the work.
This will not come without controversy though as everybody will claim
their workers are worth more than what the rest of the world is willing to
pay. Nothing really has changed, except the names and places. We, in the
western, world have had it pretty good for as long as most of us have been
alive, but it hasn't always been this way, nor will it always be. Change
is inevitable and we live in a global economy whether we like it or not.
I wonder how many "undeveloped countries are there left before we should
expect higher prices, disrupted supply and/or cheaper quality. This topic
is way to heavy, back to pounding rivets.
Bevan
RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Jensen [SMTP:cjensen(at)dts9000.com]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
Forever be it. We do some business with Korea Electric Power Company.
They recently delayed, for 18 months, 4 nuclear plants they have on the
drawing board because of slack electrical demand. They said the problem
was all their manufacturing jobs were being exported to China. I felt like
telling him that's EXACTLY how we felt 20 years ago when all of our
manufacturing jobs were going to Korea and Japan.
It's economically efficient to have this constant change as
countries/economies develop and each specializes in those products and
services where they have a competitive advantage. It's actually to
everyone's (at least in a plural sense) long term benefit--but don't tell
that to the U.S. textile worker that just lost his/her job to Chinamen who
make 3 bowls of rice per hour. The scary part is, "what products and
services do we have a competitive advantage in anymore?"
Chuck
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric
M. Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
I live in Southbridge, Massachusetts--- the Optical Capital of the World
from 1837 until the 1970's. People around here remember on Friday when the
jeweler's rouge was dumped into the river. It ran red to the ocean. Now
there are more than FIVE MILLION square feet of abandoned industrial space
in this little town. Touring this vast space is a journey to another
dimension. There are empty hallways a thousand feet long and vast spaces
where indoor flight tests are a real possibility.
We tend to think that industry seeking lower costs is a recent and local
issue but it's been going on for as long as there has been trade. Those
darned Arabs---importing oriental fabrics via the silk route....Those
darned
Romans using cheap slave labor...Damned those Phoenicians....
There was a time, for hundreds of years when America was the low-cost
high-quality producer to the world. In fact, New England clipper ships
moved
goods made in Salem, Massachusetts to the consumers of the world. What is
odd about this is that so frequently was the imprint "Made in Salem" seen
that in the early 1700's "Salem" was believed by many to be the name of a
really big country.
It is surprising to many but the USA was the world's dominant clock and
watch producer from about 1820 to 1920. We are left to remember this time
by a Swiss watchmaker's prouncement that "Not one in fifty thousand Swiss
watches is as good as an American watch that sells for a dollar!" The
famous
watchmakers IWC in Schaffhausen began as a American company in 1860 looking
for low paid labor!
During the Great Depression of the 1930's students learned technical
skills,
and how to fend for themselves. But we gradually lost our dominance after
the 1950's when the rest of the world was recovering from the rubble of
world war two and rebuilt their industry and economies with the latest new
machinery.
Zenith and Motorola assembly plants in South Central Los Angeles started
buying circuit boards from Japan in the late1950's. But, of course, we
would
keep the engineering here....Now all my home electronics seem to say
"Sony".
You can still go to seminars where gurus will tell you that the Orientals
are good at copying things but are short on creativity. (HAH!) The Japanese
and Chinese will humbly agree--but this is just polite oriental deference.
There are smart people everywhere.
They will eat our lunches, sure. But for now we enjoy the bountiful fruits
of their low-paid labor.
The Chinese are worried that the low-cost labor in India and Indonesia will
take their jobs. Read Thomas L. Friedman's "The World is Flat". Enjoy....
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
--Princess Diana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
I have less of a problem with someone who manufactures a product in China and then
sells it for a cheap price. What's worse is companies that move production
from America to China, sell at the same price, and pocket a bigger margin at
the expense of the American worker.
The real irony will be when the missiles start flying in the Taiwan Strait - those
"Made in China" gym shoes will look like less of a deal then . . .
TDT
-----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: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters -
OT rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health
club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is
Flat", which Eric mentioned. The young woman next to me had a tiny cell
phone which would chime on occasion and she would pick it up and punch the
keys for a few minutes, then put it back down. She never actually answered
the phone; just picked it up and punched the keys.
I asked her if it was a new phone, since I thought she must be trying to
figure it out. She replied with a distinct Russian accent that yes, it was
new, but that she was exchanging text messages with her father in central
Russia. She also said that her father had a summer home in Siberia, and that
even there, she could just call him up on her phone, or send him text
messages, and that it was so very inexpensive.
Those who think that the Chinese only build clunky cast iron tools are in
for a very rude awakening. The "all-American" Garmin 196 that I bought a few
years ago came in a box, clearly marked "Made in Taiwan". I'm quite sure my
Toyota pickup was assembled in California.
We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or
country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of
low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times.
Terry
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis"
I checked my HF digital meters (2) and my expensive large meters. All were
very clear and easy to read in direct sunlight. There should not be any
problem with the sun heating your meter. If there is send it back as
defective.I do have a Radio Shack digital tire pressure gage that wipes out
in direct sun and shows all 8 s. This is a "feature" of the display
technology in the LCD. The only answer is shade it.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rico Voss" <vozzen(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss
>
>
>> Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight.
>
> My curiosity has overcome me.
> I bought one of those famous HarborFreight multimeters,
> made in China. I've found, however that voltage readings
> are affected significantly by whether the display is
> exposed to bright light.
>
> Any comments or explanations welcome (other than "you get
> what you pay for")
>
> Richard, Zenith XL
> do not archive
>
>
> Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Leo Corbalis" <leocorbalis(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis"
The British Empire tried "free trade" just within the empire starting before
WW 1. Their empire has finished swirling around the bowl and gone down the
"crapper" (British). Our idiot socialists have set us on the same swirling
ride. WTO regulations are a pile of paper 23 inches thick!!! Is that really
free trade ? The Chinese are grossly undervaluing their money to steal our
manufacturing jobs. They may be communists but they understand economics.
Bring back tariffs ! They protect jobs and are a form of national sales
tax. The more you spend , the more you pay.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
>
>
> Forever be it. We do some business with Korea Electric Power Company.
> They recently delayed, for 18 months, 4 nuclear plants they have on the
> drawing board because of slack electrical demand. They said the problem
> was all their manufacturing jobs were being exported to China. I felt
> like telling him that's EXACTLY how we felt 20 years ago when all of our
> manufacturing jobs were going to Korea and Japan.
>
> It's economically efficient to have this constant change as
> countries/economies develop and each specializes in those products and
> services where they have a competitive advantage. It's actually to
> everyone's (at least in a plural sense) long term benefit--but don't tell
> that to the U.S. textile worker that just lost his/her job to Chinamen who
> make 3 bowls of rice per hour. The scary part is, "what products and
> services do we have a competitive advantage in anymore?"
>
> Chuck
> Do Not Archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric
> M. Jones
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
> rant
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
>
> I live in Southbridge, Massachusetts--- the Optical Capital of the World
> from 1837 until the 1970's. People around here remember on Friday when the
> jeweler's rouge was dumped into the river. It ran red to the ocean. Now
> there are more than FIVE MILLION square feet of abandoned industrial space
> in this little town. Touring this vast space is a journey to another
> dimension. There are empty hallways a thousand feet long and vast spaces
> where indoor flight tests are a real possibility.
>
> We tend to think that industry seeking lower costs is a recent and local
> issue but it's been going on for as long as there has been trade. Those
> darned Arabs---importing oriental fabrics via the silk route....Those
> darned
> Romans using cheap slave labor...Damned those Phoenicians....
>
> There was a time, for hundreds of years when America was the low-cost
> high-quality producer to the world. In fact, New England clipper ships
> moved
> goods made in Salem, Massachusetts to the consumers of the world. What is
> odd about this is that so frequently was the imprint "Made in Salem" seen
> that in the early 1700's "Salem" was believed by many to be the name of a
> really big country.
>
> It is surprising to many but the USA was the world's dominant clock and
> watch producer from about 1820 to 1920. We are left to remember this time
> by a Swiss watchmaker's prouncement that "Not one in fifty thousand Swiss
> watches is as good as an American watch that sells for a dollar!" The
> famous
> watchmakers IWC in Schaffhausen began as a American company in 1860
> looking
> for low paid labor!
>
> During the Great Depression of the 1930's students learned technical
> skills,
> and how to fend for themselves. But we gradually lost our dominance after
> the 1950's when the rest of the world was recovering from the rubble of
> world war two and rebuilt their industry and economies with the latest new
> machinery.
>
> Zenith and Motorola assembly plants in South Central Los Angeles started
> buying circuit boards from Japan in the late1950's. But, of course, we
> would
> keep the engineering here....Now all my home electronics seem to say
> "Sony".
>
> You can still go to seminars where gurus will tell you that the Orientals
> are good at copying things but are short on creativity. (HAH!) The
> Japanese
> and Chinese will humbly agree--but this is just polite oriental deference.
> There are smart people everywhere.
>
> They will eat our lunches, sure. But for now we enjoy the bountiful fruits
> of their low-paid labor.
>
> The Chinese are worried that the low-cost labor in India and Indonesia
> will
> take their jobs. Read Thomas L. Friedman's "The World is Flat". Enjoy....
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones(at)charter.net
>
> "People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
> --Princess Diana
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
Interesting... I took Richard's comment to mean that the accuracy of the
meter (the value of the readings) was changed by exposure to sunlight, not
the readability of the display. I can see why you interpreted the
comment differently. So Richard, which is it?
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo Corbalis"
>
>
> I checked my HF digital meters (2) and my expensive large meters. All
> were very clear and easy to read in direct sunlight. There should not
> be any problem with the sun heating your meter. If there is send it
> back as defective.I do have a Radio Shack digital tire pressure gage
> that wipes out in direct sun and shows all 8 s. This is a "feature" of
> the display technology in the LCD. The only answer is shade it.
>
> Leo Corbalis
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rico Voss" <vozzen(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss
>>
>>
>>> Buy a cheap digital multimeter from Harbor Freight.
>>
>> My curiosity has overcome me.
>> I bought one of those famous HarborFreight multimeters,
>> made in China. I've found, however that voltage readings
>> are affected significantly by whether the display is
>> exposed to bright light.
>>
>> Any comments or explanations welcome (other than "you get
>> what you pay for")
>>
>> Richard, Zenith XL
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>> Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it
>> out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Stone" <jrstone(at)insightbb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RAC servo and Landing light - wiring help please |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
Paul,
Can you operate a collective and two joysticks at the same time, at night,
without getting vertigo? Not me.
You must play a lot of XBox with your kids.
Sounds like a cool set up. Sorry I can offer no help, standby, you'll get
some soon.
Jim Stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Weismann" <pw(at)weismannassociates.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RAC servo and Landing light - wiring help please
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Weismann"
>
>
> Hello all,
>
>
> This is my first of probably many posts. I have read many of the posts
> and done searches on several issues I am having, and this is a very
> valuable resource, thanks.
>
>
> I am installing landing lights in a hatch under the belly of my
> helicopter. The hatch is extended/retracted with an RAC servo.
>
> My goal is to be able to:
>
> 1. flip a single toggle switch to a) turn on the lights and b)
> extend the hatch to a pre-determined position.
>
> 2. once the hatch is extended, I want to be able to adjust its angle
> with the coolie hat on my infinity grip in the up/down axis.
>
> 3. whatever position the hatch is in, I want the lights to switch
> off and the hatch to retract once the toggle switch is flipped off.
>
>
> I am assuming I will need a micro-switch or some kind of limit switch,
> but if any of you gurus could point me in the right direction in terms
> of circuit design, I would be extremely grateful. I am trying to learn
> as much as I can about this stuff but this one is just too complex for
> my laymans brain to make sense of. Any descriptions of components and
> layouts would be more appreciated if they were in "beginner" language,
> if you know what I mean. :-)
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rico Voss <vozzen(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss
> accuracy of the
> meter (the value of the readings) was changed by exposure
> to sunlight, not
> the readability of the display.
Yes, Matt, the actual voltage reading changed, and the
amount it's off is proportional to how bright the light
hitting the display is. I was just wondering if there was
any precedent for this, or did I get a (Chinese)lemon.
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net |
| Subject: | S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
<<.......skip.....He (John Stark) recommended getting the MD200-306 instead
of the GI-106A. The GI can't do the back coarse ILS, if I recall the
comparison he gave me correctly. Mid Continent builds both the 106 & 200
series and the prices are very close......skip....>>
5/16/2005
Hello John, I flew a simulated localizer back course** today with my SL-30
feeding my GI-106A. It worked perfectly. There is no back course indication
on the GI-106A itself when it is being fed back course inputs from the
SL-30, but the SL-30 indications clearly show that it is in the back course
mode when you place it there.
What features does the MD200-306 have that would make it superior for back
course work?
OC
**PS: I couldn't find a published back course approach in the Northeast
Volume 3 U. S. Terminal procedures book so I had to simulate a back course
while flying a front course.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the older
King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know that.
--- bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
>
>
> <<.......skip.....He (John Stark) recommended getting the MD200-306 instead
> of the GI-106A. The GI can't do the back coarse ILS, if I recall the
> comparison he gave me correctly. Mid Continent builds both the 106 & 200
> series and the prices are very close......skip....>>
>
> 5/16/2005
>
> Hello John, I flew a simulated localizer back course** today with my SL-30
> feeding my GI-106A. It worked perfectly. There is no back course indication
> on the GI-106A itself when it is being fed back course inputs from the
> SL-30, but the SL-30 indications clearly show that it is in the back course
> mode when you place it there.
>
> What features does the MD200-306 have that would make it superior for back
> course work?
>
> OC
>
> **PS: I couldn't find a published back course approach in the Northeast
> Volume 3 U. S. Terminal procedures book so I had to simulate a back course
> while flying a front course.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
older
King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know that.
How many back course approaches are still in service?
I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
I know Appleton, WI (ATW) has one. Only one that comes to mind in my area.
--- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> older
> King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know that.
>
>
> How many back course approaches are still in service?
>
> I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/16/2005 10:38:47 P.M. Central Standard Time,
paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
I know Appleton, WI (ATW) has one. Only one that comes to mind in my area.
Good Evening Paul,
I found only two in Illinois. Forty years ago there were a dozen in
Northern Illinois alone. I wouldn't spend much to have back course capability.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
>
>A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health
>club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is
>Flat", which Eric mentioned.
I just ordered that book on a audio CD from my local library.
I'll keep it in the CD player in my car for the next week or so.
>We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or
>country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of
>low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times.
Well put. I've been gigged by many dishonorable and/or incapable
individuals over the years. Some were in China, most were not.
I have several machine tools from HF that have demonstrated
some limitations but for the most part, have been good value.
I was able to produce parts that sold for a great deal more than
the tools cost. In the grand scheme of things, the consumer/
supplier transactions were all accomplished to the satisfaction of
persons involved.
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
I know this probably shouldn't turn into a "There's one here... There's
one here too..." type thing... But, I am finishing up my instrument
rating right now, and use the Localizer Back Course a couple of times each
week at Boise. Fly the ILS to published missed, then vectors (normal
because of terrain) for the BC going the opposite direction, then miss -
climb runway heading for the procedure turn back to the ILS. Keeps the
neurons whirring..
Regards,
Matt-
do not archive
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> older
> King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> that.
>
>
> How many back course approaches are still in service?
>
> I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Absolutely agree.
If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with bureaucrats
and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to raise children,
when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases), how to teach them to
use condoms (how about introducing that in kindergarden), how to accept the
unacceptable as "normal", "politically correct", or whatever nonsense
adjective or noun they describe it with, the future does not look rosy. I
don't remember that from my childhood and have my solution: that's the way
I like it, that's the way it's gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh,
well...
Rumen
do not archive
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
>>
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
............
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley"
MLI has one I believe.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
>
> Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> older
> King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> that.
>
>
> How many back course approaches are still in service?
>
> I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas
Hello Robert,
Monday, May 16, 2005, 9:02:44 PM, you wrote:
RLNI> However, I've observed first hand, a very
RLNI> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
RLNI> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
RLNI> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
I have been very impressed lately by a pervasive attitude of
entitlement. It seems to me that a lot of our crime, welfare state,
education, job, retirement, and daily life activities are becoming
centered on a you-owe-me or government-owes-me attitude. This is a
180 degree shift on what this country was founded upon. Consider this
quote from Alexis de Toqueville, a Frenchman touring this country in
the early 19th century:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
We have arrived, have we not?
Do Not Archive
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists(at)stevet.net.nospam
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
It does. What got it for me was just thinking "same direction as course -
normal sensing; opposite direction of course - reverse sensing". It'll come
one day and then you'll never think about it again.
--- Matt Prather wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
>
> I know this probably shouldn't turn into a "There's one here... There's
> one here too..." type thing... But, I am finishing up my instrument
> rating right now, and use the Localizer Back Course a couple of times each
> week at Boise. Fly the ILS to published missed, then vectors (normal
> because of terrain) for the BC going the opposite direction, then miss -
> climb runway heading for the procedure turn back to the ILS. Keeps the
> neurons whirring..
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> do not archive
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> > older
> > King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> > that.
> >
> >
> > How many back course approaches are still in service?
> >
> > I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8502
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Casey Rayman <theturbodog(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Casey Rayman
> Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
> to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
> There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
> to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
I have had great luck with most HF tools. Their hand electric tools
like drills and jugsaws are not worth the trouble unless you are only
going to use them once or twice. The heavier tools like bandsaws and
mills are actually decent, but they are definately put together in
the quickest/easiest way possible. Out of the box they are not too
accurate or easy to work with, but once they are cleaned up they work
great.
My opinion on the future is that we, the US, has lost focus. In the
last century we had back to back war for almost the entire century.
War gives people great focus. I'm not saying we should create war or
anything, but lack of a genuine goal leads us to boredom and
lazyness. Which is where we as a nation are right now. I suspect as
oil supplies get tighter(40 or 50 years from now) we will get back in
the saddle again if we still have it in us.
Casey
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley"
MLI has one I believe.
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. Flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying
away from the needle with the VAR. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more normal
than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley"
MLI has one I believe.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I
pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition
is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow
a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems.
The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests
the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in
the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
battery any more.
My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
something preventable.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> >
> >
> >Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately
on
> >the ground.
> >
> >I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the
> >aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had
> >been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
> >
> >The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency
> >buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery
> >buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click sometimes.
> >It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3
> >years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of impending
> >failure.
> >
> >I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts
> >as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
>
> You say "sometimes" . . . on times that it DID click, did the
> system come up? Were you able to start the engine? How did you
> get the airplane home or is it stuck on the other airport.
>
> If your battery started the airplane earlier that day, it's
> far from DEAD. If the contactor made no noise at all, the
> most likely problem is the battery-master side of your
> DC POWER MASTER switch. Do you have a diode across the
> coil of the battery contactor as illustrated in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg
>
> If not, then the contactor's de-energizing spike
> may have burned the contacts of the master switch
> so as to make it unreliable. Replacement of the switch
> and ADDITION of the diode would be indicated.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I
no longer have the battery.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> >
> >
> >I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three
> >switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the
clicks
> >from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss
was
> >turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the
> >electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery.
> >That circuit was dead also.
> >
> >Replacing the battery corrected all the problems.
> >
> >I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence.
>
> Yes, periodic cap testing of your battery . . . or some
> other considered preventative maintenance program. I think
> you mentioned that the battery was several years old.
> 95% of the time, my "sudden" failures of batteries in
> my vehicles was a loose post on the battery. Several
> years ago, I did have a flooded battery behave as you've
> described. Got in the car at store 2 miles away and it
> started right up. Ten minutes after arriving home, I
> identified another procurement task and the car wouldn't
> start. Battery refused to carry even 8A worth of headlamp
> loads. I stuck one of my 32 a.h. RG instrumentation batteries
> in and drove to the parts store to buy a new battery for
> the van. This battery was several years old too . . . more
> than 3 and probably less than 5.
>
> Do you still have the old battery? Are you SURE that the
> problem wasn't a poor connection at the battery post?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Morning Bill,
Just as a data point, I had a similar failure in a sealed battery on my
minivan.
One day it would start fine, the next day it did not. Tapping the
connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting,
and so
forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour
again. Replacing the battery fixed the problem. My local auto service person
tells me that such internal failures are relatively common.
I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily
as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in
competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider it was
that was doing the bragging!
In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft
have been Recombinant Gas Concordes.
So far, so good.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/17/2005 8:47:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
>>
Yes, I got about a dozen bounces of the same message sent to a
lot of folks I don't know and services I don't subscribe to.
Actually, the bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net is my personal account that
I run with a server based spam filter. The filter is fairly effective
but I still get 20-30 pieces a of spam per day to that account.
I've been hijacked several times before and both were cases
where my email address was clearly published on my website.
Since I went to a hidden address accessed through a form-mailer,
the incidences have dropped way off . . . but that still doesn't
keep the 'bots from finding your address in someone's address
files.
This goes directly to the point I was making about how children
are raised. A very wise philosopher once noted:
-----------------
"If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought
to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid
the punishment, but have no sense of shame. "If they be
led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them
by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense
of shame, and moreover will become good."
------------
With the probability of punishment becoming ever more remote
in both our courts and other institutions of authority, many
citizens are operating as if "freedom" means a license to
indulge in any whim. When our parents (AND TEACHERS) don't
endow their charges with a sense of shame, then it is
expected that many will take pleasure in attacking the
liberties of others be it through direct assault upon their
persons or property or indirectly through things like floods
of spam on the 'net.
It takes no great talent or resources to be terribly
destructive or disruptive. 9-11 demonstrated that. The roots
of that behavior by any individual are firmly
grounded in the absence of shame for not behaving
in honorable ways. I have to believe that this is what
the philosopher was thinking about when it was observed
that, "The sins of the fathers shall beset the children
for generations." This wasn't about observance of any
particular dogma but the byproduct of having lost or
ignored one's sense of shame.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Kilovac Konfession |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
In case you were wondering, John, Steve, Scott and others...I confess--Yes,
it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay
yesterday.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father did....
Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his airplane."
--anonymous
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>
>Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
>corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
>very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
>and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
>lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
>didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
>
>That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I
>no longer have the battery.
Too bad. I would ask that anyone on the list who
observes or experiences a mystifying failure of ANY
device . . . be it a battery, contactor, switch, etc.
to try and capture the offending article and send it
to me.
We are beset by innumerable anecdotal incidences that
go forever unexplained and never understood. Yet
the fear of potential consequences for these incidences
prompt decisions that drive up costs and may even drive
system reliability down. In any case, no real considered
design changes can take place unless we can get beyond
the "tis so, taint so" phase of deliberations and deduce
the simple-ideas upon which the failure was based.
This battery may have suffered some form of chemical
failure which might have been deduced in advance by
periodic testing. It may have suffered a crack in a
major conductor.
I note that many battery manufacturers are moving away
from pure lead terminal posts and bringing harder, more
durable connections to the outside world. But in any
case, please consider using 4AWG welding cable jumpers
for your short leads from battery(-) to ground and
battery(+) to contactor. This will greatly reduce the
installation and operating stresses on the battery's
terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>
>Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I
>pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
>activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
>instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition
>is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
>
>I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow
>a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems.
>The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests
>the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
>Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
>about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
>about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in
>the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
>battery any more.
>
>My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
>something preventable.
>
>Bill
It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor
perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know
that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast majority
will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We
also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary
and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such products
in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope
with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity.
In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying failures
and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure
evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made
on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet,
such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly
reduce perceived value of the brand.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily
>as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in
>competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider
>it was
>that was doing the bragging!
>
>In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft
>have been Recombinant Gas Concordes.
>
>So far, so good.
>
>Happy Skies,
When I visited the Concord manufacturing facility about two
years ago, folks there shared their personal experiences concerning
internal connection failures (do to battery abuse) which
ultimately produced a battery explosion. I related this
story in a post about a month ago. Since that time, the
same batteries have been deliberately abused by Navy battery
testing labs in Crane, Indiana. The failure mode could not
be re-produced.
I've seen the Hawker production facilities too . . . they
spot weld their inter-cell connections. One could debate
reliability due to process sensitivity of the hand welded
(see http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg
and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg )
crossovers versus spot welded. I know that both companies
have submitted numerous test articles to the Crane labs
for evaluation and both companies are qualified suppliers
to the military based on those evaluations.
I cannot speak to other brands . . . However, this failure
mode included a pre-abuse cycle of the battery that damaged
the crossovers. An aggressive recharge was next followed
by an attempt to start which produced the final failure
of the crossover and the explosion (which did no damage
to the airplane). This is not likely to occur in a piston
powered light aircraft.
This, my friends, is the kind of data upon which rational
design, purchasing and operating decisions are made. Anything
less than this detail is is only fodder for television
advertising or perhaps an "investigative report" by
popular news media.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
<>
5/17/2005
Hello John, Thanks for the input. Yes, I think the light is coming on a
little. I am at a real disadvantage in discussing this subject since I know
very little about the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of CDI's and the
means of feeding them.
Here is my current thinking / guessing. The problems arise when you are
trying to feed two different CDI's with one SL-30 and try to shift between
CDI's. Since each CDI (and its resolver?) is a bit different it is not
possible / convenient to accurately calibrate both of them to the one SL-30.
But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one
SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in
calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30
by means of the multiple pole relay box installed.
I am not sure how or why that same CDI stays accurately matched up to both
the GPS outputs and the VOR/LOC outputs from the Garmin GNS 430, as mine
does, when that source is connected to the CDI. It may have something to do
with the nature of the signals coming from the GNS 430 and the devices
within the CDI receiving those signals so that, no matter how the CDI may
have been calibrated to the SL-30, the GNS 430 outputs are accurately
displayed.
So my conclusion about all the problems people discuss regarding shifting
back and forth between CDI's and SL-30's is only a real problem if one is
trying to feed two different CDI's / resolvers with one SL-30. Or if one is
trying to feed one CDI with an SL-30 and another source (including a second
SL-30) that demands that the CDI also be calibrated to it and the two
calibrations are not compatible.
It would be nice if David Buckwalter or John Stark would participate on this
subject and provide some additional insight.
OC
PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours. Mine is
dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of 560-0404-01. What
is the date, company, and part number of your manual?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 10:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one
SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in
calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30
by means of the multiple pole relay box installed.
Good Morning OC,
The entire discussion is way over my head, but I do know that my local
electronics guru does occasionally use a "smart box" to convert a non compatible
signal to a compatible one when mixing various boxes together. What is inside
the smart boxes and what the efficiency, or failure rate is, is another
thing about which I know nothing, but it does seem to work!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
HF tools are very good value for money...
Good tools I have bought
10" wood compound miter saw $100
14" benchtop bandsaw $100
6" chop saw/aluminium oxide wheels for alu angles $34
Due grinders...Superb $8 to 29
14" metal chop saw $49
Bunch of other stuff...which I can't remember right now.
As to how fast the economy is going to slip away...try working in hi
tech...All of our IT support is already in India and if you go on the
web and put in "China manufacturing" you will get forms to fill in, send
a drawing and the quote will come back...All shipping and customs taken
care of. They will do anything from injection molding to CNC machining.
I bet within 10 years we won't have a manufacturing economy and to be
honest there is only so much innovation that the world needs.
Sad but I think when you realise the Global rate for an IT professional
is $320 a month....Well...we're screwed!
Do not archive
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rd2(at)evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Absolutely agree.
If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with
bureaucrats and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to
raise children, when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases),
how to teach them to use condoms (how about introducing that in
kindergarden), how to accept the unacceptable as "normal", "politically
correct", or whatever nonsense adjective or noun they describe it with,
the future does not look rosy. I don't remember that from my childhood
and have my solution: that's the way I like it, that's the way it's
gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh, well...
Rumen
do not archive
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls(at)cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
>>
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
............
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me
for the last five years.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
TSaccio(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: (no subject)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio(at)aol.com
Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to
the best one to buy? Tom Saccio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris"
Watch it if you wish to tap on connections of a suspect bad internal connection
battery. My
brother did such a thing on a car, it really was a bad connection internal where
the
terminals were, anyway the thing exploded and spewed acid all over. We had a pool
pretty
close, besides burning in his eyes for a while he was OK. Symptoms were as described,
started OK, then bearly would light a few lights. When it exploded I was in the
car and only
the key was in the on position, no other load. I forget brand but it was kinda
sortta a
maintenance free battery, but you could still take the covers off to top up, but
they were
the type that were plenty stuck in place.
Ron Parigoris
> Tapping the
> connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting,
and so
> forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour
> again."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
<<....skip....... I wouldn't spend much to have back course capability. Old
Bob
5/17/2005
Hello Old Bob, I agree, but then one doesn't have to spend anything extra to
have localizer back course capability in their aircraft. If they have basic
localizer front course capable airborne equipment they also have the
capability to fly a published back course approach. They just need to
remember to turn away from the needle to get to the localizer course
centerline when actually flying inbound on a localizer back course approach.
The fundamental airborne equipment capability is the same for either front
course or back course operations.
The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether
you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles:
1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You
are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the
needle to get to the course centerline."
2) One can have equipment selectability that feeds the CDI in a fashion so
that one would turn towards the needle to get to the localizer course
centerline even though one is flying a localizer back course. This
capability should also be accompanied by a cockpit indicator showing that
that capability has been selected.
UPS / Garmin built item 2) capability inherently into the SL-30 VHF Nav
Comm. It probably took only a few lines of computer code in that digital
device and the cost differential was trivial. But, as has been pointed out,
published localizer back course approaches are not very common these days
and as more GPS approaches and WAAS capability become available localizer
back courses may become even rarer.
OC
PS: One should also use caution in attempting to fly on the localizer
center line beyond the localizer antenna into the back course region if
there is no published back course approach for that facility. There may be
no relationship between your position, your CDI indications, and a
hypothetically projected back course localizer centerline.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
Bob,
I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have
reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are
very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
do not archive
--- BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
>
> I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
> you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
> that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "cgalley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley"
You see what happens when old memory and being a non-instrument pilot
brings.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
>
> Good Morning Cy,
>
> I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
>
> That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
>
> When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were
> very
> common.
>
> The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
> obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
>
> As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
> ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we
> must
> remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range
> stations
> were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the
> direction
> you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more
> normal
> than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots
> lost
> comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
>
> The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and
> utilize,
> circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
> approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
>
> By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
> training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those
> conditions,
> but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six
> month
> hood check.
>
> But I digress!
>
> The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
>
> I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt
> if
> you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The
> ones
> that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
>
> If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not
> providing
> the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt
> for
> the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
>
> If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost,
> that
> is fine with me!
>
> I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
>
> S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
> substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide
> that function.
>
> When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course
> localizer
> approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space,
> and
> weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
>
> Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in
> Instrument
> Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
> difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I
> know of in
> Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
>
> Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
>
>
> I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
> believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see
> that it
> now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first
> ones
> certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to
> be
> the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
> used low weather runway.
>
>
> I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho
> Falls
> Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
> point.
>
> The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways
> where
> the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument
> conditions.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
> In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley"
>
> MLI has one I believe.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics breaker |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons"
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought about the basic similarity to the Z drawings.
I do have another question for you. I understand the diode in the Z drawings
prevents back feeding the main bus during a "main buss loss" event. In my
case I can isolate these two buses by the use of the avionics master/relay without
a diode.
I can see a potential procedural problem if feeding the aux avionics breaker from
the battery, though. If the normal avionics master and the aux avionics switch
were on at the same time during a start I can see a potential for a big current
through a little wire problem. I'm sure I can add the diode, but if I can
eliminate a component and achive the same functionality, why not?
I could "interlock" the two switches by using a double throw, but I have the Honeywell/Microswitch
AML34 series rocker switches. I can't find one of these in
a double through configuration, just SPST and DPST. If you or anyone else knows
otherwise please let me know.
It may be a moot point anyway. Moving the feed for the aux avionics breaker to
the battery will take a bunch more work. There is a wire from the battery now
(in the rear of the plane) to the breaker panel that feeds an LSE ignition. It's
only 16AWG, though, so I couldn't enlist it to feed the aux avionics breaker.
That's assuming I'm reading the current capacity numbers correctly.
I hope I made all that clear enough.
Thanks.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons"
>>
>>My flying Glastar has a "conventional" electrical system with an avionics
>>master switch and solenoid. I guess for fault tolerance reasons there is
>>also a separate "aux avionics switch" with a separate breaker that can
>>bypass the avionics solenoid and feed the avionics bus directly.
>>
>>This seems to add a level of complexity that provides very little if any
>>benefit. There are only three pieces of avionics, a GNC250XL(10A), a
>>GTX320(3A) and an intercom(1A). The aux avionics breaker is 15 Amps.
>>
>>As they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". In this case I'm not trying
>>to fix it, I'm trying to add a Trutrak autopilot and I'm trying to figure
>>out the best way to wire in the power. The quickest would be to feed it
>>separately from the main bus and not use the avionics bus. The most
>>complex would be to re-wire the entire plane using a Z-drawing type
>>configuration. I'm looking for a in-between solution, preferably closer to
>>the first idea.
>
> the only difference between what you describe and what I've recommended
> in the z-figures is where the alternate power feed for the endurance
> (avionics) bus comes from. I prefer to take it right from the battery
> bus . . . and then move a few useful items like minimal panel lighting,
> turn coordinator and perhaps a voltmeter to the endurance bus.
>
> your autopilot could run from the endurance bus nicely . . . I think
> I'd add a no-feedback diode into the normal feedpath and move the second
> feedpath to the battery. The "aux avionics" breaker could move to the
> battery bus and you could use miniature contactor (relay) to support
> the larger than normal aux feed path. See figure Z-32.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kilovac Konfession |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>-Yes,
>it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay
>yesterday.
>
>
>
Eric,
Would you care to conduct some tests on these babies and share the
results with us ?
Two questions keep nagging at me :
- What was that Kilovac-induced noise that was disturbing my LVWM ?
- Do the Kilovacs really need a diode across the coil/control wires ?
To this moment I've not been in a position to perform such tests,
although I've just been given an ITT/Metrix OX 7520 oscilloscope.
By the way, anyone around happen to have a manual for this 'scope ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT |
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
Perhaps not all hope is not lost. My company is doing fine
(www.astsensors.com) and we do all our design and manufacturing in the
USA. We do buy a few machined parts from China when the cost is
significantly lower, but we buy the majority from US suppliers. Yes,
the prices are a little higher for the US parts but that is outweighed
by the response time, the ease of interfacing with local vendors and the
lack of international shipping. Our annual sales have been growing by
40-50% per year for the last five years and we expect that to continue
(60% for the first quarter this year). We successfully compete with
manufacturers in the US, Europe (including Eastern Europe) and China for
sales internationally. It turns out that treating your employees right,
good customer support and a quality product allows you to remain
competitive despite slightly higher manufacturing costs. Our major
hindrance to even faster growth is lack of available financing. It
seems that the banks (and everyone else for that matter) don't want to
talk to you unless you don't really need money or unless you have a
pie-in-the-sky idea with no actual product. Someone like us - who have
a viable product and growing sales - don't interest them. Sorry for the
rant, but it is very frustrating and one of the reasons there are not
more successful small businesses.
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
>>
>>A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health
>>club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is
>>Flat", which Eric mentioned.
>>
>>
>
> I just ordered that book on a audio CD from my local library.
> I'll keep it in the CD player in my car for the next week or so.
>
>
>
>
>>We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or
>>country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of
>>low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times.
>>
>>
>
> Well put. I've been gigged by many dishonorable and/or incapable
> individuals over the years. Some were in China, most were not.
> I have several machine tools from HF that have demonstrated
> some limitations but for the most part, have been good value.
> I was able to produce parts that sold for a great deal more than
> the tools cost. In the grand scheme of things, the consumer/
> supplier transactions were all accomplished to the satisfaction of
> persons involved.
>
> Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
> to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
> There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
> to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:14:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
paulfolbrecht(at)yahoo.com writes:
Bob,
I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and
have
reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches
are
very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
do not archive
Good Afternoon Paul,
Obviously, if one is to fly outbound via the localizer front course, the
pilot should be aware of how that is done.
What I was trying to emphasize is that there is very little, if any,
advantage to be gained by spending any extra funds to get an autopilot that will
track in that mode. If you can get the capability in a flight management system
or on an autopilot at no cost in dollars, weight or extra panel space, I
would go for it, but I would not spend one red cent, give up one once of
payload, one inch of panel space, for that capability.
Modern navigation is all To-To navigation and flying outbound on any
approach is such a very rare thing that I feel it can be handled comfortably using
raw data and visual pilot observation and manipulation.
If someone absolutely has to use an autopilot to fly that outbound leg, use
the heading mode!.
Better yet, load the point being flown TO in an IFR approved GPS and couple
the autopilot to that.
More than one way to skin a cat.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:11:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether
you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles:
1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You
are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the
needle to get to the course centerline."
Good Afternoon OC,
That is, of course, completely correct.
I was commenting primarily on those autopilots and flight directors which
have the extra bells and whistles to help the folks who have not been taught to
"pull" the needle. As I mentioned earlier, in the days of VARs, we all knew
how to do that, but the technique is rarely used these days.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
>backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
>outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
>full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have
>reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are
>very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
At Cessna in the 60's we offered an optional double-pole, double-throw
switch next to the LOC indicator that would reverse the connections to the
needle for flying the back-course. It's an easy thing to add to an
installation
where the back-course capability is desired.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
| Subject: | Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons"
Does anyone know a source for these rocker switches other than NewGlasair. I finally
got ahold of them today and the factory has given them a six week lead time.
Thanks.
Ken
DO NOT ARCHIVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
AI Nut wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut
>
>Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
>don't mean just the boats, either.
>And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
>impunity.
>
The 1st statement is obviously not true.
As to the 2nd, perhaps you are better informed than the rest of us & can
enlighten us?
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours.
> Mine is dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of
> 560-0404-01. What is the date, company, and part number of your manual?
OC:
My Manual is: August 2003 560-0404-03A
I would agree with your interpretation of the page I referenced: You
should not switch the SL-30's between separate OBS's (CDI's) without
calibrating the instrument per the book before using the OBS.
As to why yours appears to work when it is switched from the 430 between
its nav section to its GPS section: Perhaps, Garmin specked that their
"G-106A" have circuitry that automatically does this. Another alternative
is that the signals in the 430 are sync'd to a standard before they are
sent to the OBS (G-106). These are guesses.
Does the installation manual for the 430 have a calibration procedure for
the VOR/ILS section to an external OBS? From the GPS section to an
external OBS. Might be worth a check.
Best,
John
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Lehman" <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Trickle Chargers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman"
Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will
typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few
days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a
timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage
adapter can used with a LM317 regulator.
Mike
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me
for the last five years.
-----Original Message-----
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio(at)aol.com
Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to
the best one to buy? Tom Saccio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
Thanks, Bob and all. The new battery has noticably larger posts, but they
are still lead. The cables are #4 welding cable, but due to geometry issues
the one on the "+" post is pretty short where it goes through the side of
the battery box. The cables do lie pretty much parallel to the side of the
battery posts and within about 1/8" of them so the strain on the battery
posts from the cables should be minimal.
Thanks again for the help.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> >
> >
> >Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until
I
> >pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
> >activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
> >instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic
ignition
> >is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
> >
> >I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to
borrow
> >a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other
problems.
> >The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor
tests
> >the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
> >Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
> >about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
> >about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault
in
> >the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
> >battery any more.
> >
> >My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
> >something preventable.
> >
> >Bill
>
> It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor
> perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know
> that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast
majority
> will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We
> also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary
> and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such
products
> in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope
> with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity.
>
> In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying
failures
> and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure
> evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made
> on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet,
> such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly
> reduce perceived value of the brand.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> --
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flmike <flmike2001(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike
Allied shows stock.
http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=642-0131&SEARCH=aml34&ID=&DESC=AML34FBA4AC01
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Simmons" <ken(at)truckstop.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons"
Thanks for the help. I finally found the same one at Newark. This one is a double
pole. That's why I couldn't find it before because I was looking for a specific
part number. Shouldn't make a difference in this application. I think this
is what NewGlasair calls their master switch. The one from Allied is cheaper
and the one from Newark is cheaper still.
Thanks.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: flmike <flmike2001(at)yahoo.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike
>
>Allied shows stock.
>
>http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU=642-0131&SEARCH=aml34&ID=&DESC=AML34FBA4AC01
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Trickle Chargers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman"
>
>Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will
>typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few
>days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a
>timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage
>adapter can used with a LM317 regulator.
>
>Mike
A few years ago, I published a compendium of circuits which
suggested various power sources and techniques for long term
storage and controlled charging of batteries. Several circuits
touch on Mike's suggestion above.
If you have the goodies laying around and really want to spend
the time to assemble your own, by all means. It's an excellent
learning experience. However, please consider commercial off-the-
shelf (COTS) products that do a better job and often cost less than
the bill of materials for a DIY project. I've added the Battery Tender
data to the back of the diagrams now available at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Charger_Maintainers.pdf
I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which
cost me right at $30 each.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Trickle Chargers |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
Or $7.99 from Harbor Freight...:)
www.harborfreight.com
Frank
I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which
cost me right at $30 each.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
> OC -
>
> My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back
> course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to
> intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of
> the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns
> opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot
> topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course
> ILS's. John
5/18/2005
Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it
easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course
mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back
on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course
approach -- one less "different thing" to remember.
Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna
remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or
the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical
action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or
the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that
equipment to:
1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
equipment.
If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
change the mode of needle movement.
The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
OC
PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dsvs(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs(at)comcast.net
OC,
The HSI is no smarter, the needle is always pointed aat the transmitter. When
you are in the backcourse it points behind the ac nose and this corrects for the
"backwards" needle. Don
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
>
>
> > OC -
> >
> > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back
> > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to
> > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of
> > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns
> > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot
> > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course
> > ILS's. John
>
> 5/18/2005
>
> Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it
> easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course
> mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back
> on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course
> approach -- one less "different thing" to remember.
>
> Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna
> remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or
> the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical
> action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or
> the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that
> equipment to:
>
> 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
> centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
> region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
> to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
>
> 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
> cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
> equipment.
>
> If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
> light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
> might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
> has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
> movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
> course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
> change the mode of needle movement.
>
> The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
> localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
>
> OC
>
> PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
> more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
> course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
> the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
> produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states
verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the
"BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel.
Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203
& 206/207 are all the same instrument.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
5/18/2005
1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
equipment.
If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
change the mode of needle movement.
The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
OC
PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
| From: | "Tim Dawson-Townsend" <Tdawson(at)avidyne.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches
if you follow the correct procedure.
The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI
. . .
TDT
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein
Bruch
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states
verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the
"BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel.
Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203
& 206/207 are all the same instrument.
Just my 2 cents as usual!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net>
Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course
5/18/2005
1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the
centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course
region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order
to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point.
2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the
cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my
equipment.
If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a
light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one
might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which
has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle
movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back
course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to
change the mode of needle movement.
The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which
localizer region that the aircraft is flying in.
OC
PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit
more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound
course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region
the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would
produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
While we're on the subject of CDI's.
Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven
from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions?
Does it really work?
Frank
Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
-->
The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for
backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure.
The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a
conventional CDI . . .
TDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com |
05/18/2005 02:56:20 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
the following:
When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
transmit.
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
Depends if you intend to transmit all the time I guess?...:)
The steady state loads for sizing the alternator and wiring...Use the
transient loads only if the load is sustained...say more than 10
seconds?...That should give you a cut off.
The little bit of extra the alt needs to give will be taken care by the
fact you will oversize the alt by some margin...Say 5amps minimum.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure
on the following:
When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each
equipment item, there's usually a steady state current and a max
current. For the purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the
max or steady state?
Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up
on transmit.
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <davgray(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not be getting
a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is made. If true,
this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5
Any clarification would be appreciated.
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
>
>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
>the following:
>
>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
>transmit.
STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB
sizing.
On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for
some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked
about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a
22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more?
I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list,
folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and
smoke at just over the "rated" current.
Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment
of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a
thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A.
The picture at . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg
was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire
temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for
150C. I was going to increase the current until the
wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it,
the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need
to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can
finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears
about burning wires when even severely overloaded
with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are
not well founded. These wires are quite robust and
in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting
VERY robust electrical systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
Jim, it's good to analyze both.
The sum of steady state loads should be about 80% or less of your
alternator rating, in 'normal' configuration (typical worst case flight
such as night operations). Any excess capacity is good for charging
your battery.
Worst case transient loads, such as your comm in tx mode can be handled
by the battery.
If the worst case transient is less than your alternator rating, your
battery will be somewhat less stressed.
Vern Little
Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
>
>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on
>the following:
>
>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
>transmit.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jim
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris"
Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
expensive and not worth it?
Thanks
Chris Lucas
RV-10
#40072
wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis(at)sybase.com
>>
>>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7
>>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure
>>on
>>the following:
>>
>>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment
>>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the
>>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state?
>>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on
>>transmit.
>
> STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB
> sizing.
>
> On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for
> some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked
> about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a
> 22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more?
> I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list,
> folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and
> smoke at just over the "rated" current.
>
> Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment
> of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a
> thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A.
> The picture at . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg
>
> was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire
> temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for
> 150C. I was going to increase the current until the
> wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it,
> the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need
> to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can
> finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears
> about burning wires when even severely overloaded
> with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are
> not well founded. These wires are quite robust and
> in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting
> VERY robust electrical systems.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott Winn <sbwinn(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn
Hi,
I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on
the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall
or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there
is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery
contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This
would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the
plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to
run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the
alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two
runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If
the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire
just for the alternator.
My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that
runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it
really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+
amps all the way down the plane?
Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is
there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an
external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods
are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the
nose then I'll have to use an external one.
Thanks for your thoughts!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>
>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not
>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
>
>http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5
>
>Any clarification would be appreciated.
The 14.4 to 14.7 value is recommended for rapid recharge
of the battery . . . and probably assumes that the battery
was deeply discharged before the recharge cycle begins.
The charging recommendations publication for Odyssey can
be found at . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/odycharg_a.asp
. . . where we read that the fast recharge voltage
should not be sustained for more than 24 hours. They
recommend reduction to a "standby" charge value of
13.6 to 13.8 volts. A value that is consistent with
the rest of the lead-acid battery industry. One could
use the numbers on this chart for ANY lead-acid technology
except that I would say that you don't leave the fast-charge
level on for more thank, say one tank of fuel duration
or much less than 24 hours. Any battery in an airplane
should be fully recharged in about one hour after
starting the engine. This is the reason for the "75%
rule" on alternator sizing in certified ships. If one
has used a max of 45A on a 60A machine to run the
airplane, you have 15A left over to quickly recharge
a deeply discharged battery. Boosting the voltage
to 14.7 increases the battery's willingness to accept
energy . . . but this level should not be maintained
indefinitely.
Check out page 8 of . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf
and you see the same kinds of fast charge and float
voltage ranges. Same goes for Panasonic where on
page 3 of . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf
. . . we find 13.7 as a recommended float charge and 14.7
as a recommended fast charge voltage at 25C.
Bottom line is that ANY lead acid battery by ANY manufacturer
will ultimately achieve 100% charge at 13.8V at 25C. It'a all
a matter of how long you want to wait. If you're in a hurry,
then jack the voltage up a tad for a SHORT period of time to
speed up the recharge process. If your system is not endowed
with a automatic recharge/float voltage controller . . . well
shucks. Guess we'll have to compromise and set the critter up
for 14.2 and quit worrying about it. That's the lead-acid
set-point of choice for light aircraft since Duane Wallace
bolted the first batteries into the C-140/C-170 products nearly
60 years ago.
With respect to the writer's objections about "Pulse Current
Amps" take a peek at . . .
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?routine=ody_dchrg&brandID=5
The graphical data for battery performance under various loads
is quite specific and yields factual engineering data. The
fact that Odyssey quantifies their batteries in a different manner
than some industry standards doesn't automatically mean that
their product is inferior or that the company is trying to
obscure any facts as to their product's performance.
Take a peek at . . .
http://www.batteryweb.com/faq.cfm
. . . where we find the following definitions:
Cold Cranking Amps (CCA): "Discharge load measured in amps that a
fully charged battery at 0 F can deliver for 30 seconds
while maintaining its voltage above 7.2V"
Hmmm . . . Odyssey gives similar data but at 25C. Could it
be that the majority of Odyssey's customers use their
batteries as more mundane temperatures wherein the high
discharge rate performance data is more useful when plotted
at the higher temperatures? Don't know. But I doubt that
Odyssey believes they are competing with Die Hards and
boat batteries. And what's all this 7.2 volt stuff anyhow?
B&C has quantified their batteries for a 15 second dump
based on dragging the battery down to and holding it at
8.5 volts. This is easily accomplished with the tester that
both B&C and the 'Connection use in their shops. See . . .
http://www.batteryweb.com/autometer-detail.cfm?Model=SB-5
Does that mean that B&C's marketing numbers are
bad or that they're trying to obscure any facts? No, I picked
that value 15 years ago because I didn't know of any starters
that would continue to crank an engine all the way down to
7.2 volts . . . And guess what? We DON'T do that test at
0C.
Reserve Capacity (RC): "Number of minutes a fully charged battery
at 80.F can be discharged at 25 amps until the voltage drops below
10.5 volts."
Well fooey, my e-bus runs only 5 amps . . . should I be bent
out of shape that Odyssey or any other manufacturer doesn't
give me a 5A value instead of the 25A value? Only if I'm
an ignorant consumer likely to make decisions based on a
particular manufacturer's marketing hype. If I'm a designer
who deals in engineering facts and data, then what ever data the
manufacturer supplies is GOOD data as long as it's accurate.
If I need ADDITIONAL data plotted in some other venue, then it's my
responsibility go get that data myself or request it from
the manufacturer. Most have much more data than they publish
and will supply it as needed.
Deltran's position on Odyssey products is not well researched.
It does not mirror any considered understanding of lead-acid
technology in general nor Odyssey's engineering and marketing
philosophies in particular.
The short answer is, "I'm not going to loose any sleep over it."
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris"
>
>Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
>expensive and not worth it?
What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You
can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way
you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the
products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running
130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't
get you any more snort . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W."
C'mon Bob, don't yank the guy like that. You know he's talking about
home "built" aircraft :-)
I'm also interested in the issue of TKT wire because I've seen a couple
of references that TKT is supposedly the ONLY safe way to go for aircraft
wiring. Yet, I haven't found any supplier that offers it. All I find with a
Google search is a whole bunch of articles about how good it is and how bad
everything else is (including Tefzel) and how you're going to fall to the
ground in a ball of flames if you use anything but TKT (at least that's the
tone I get from what I read).
I'm going with Tefzel, but I'm intrigued by the panic mode that some
writers have gone into that leads them to want every aircraft flying to be
wired with TKT.
Just Wondering
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris"
> >
> >Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it
> >expensive and not worth it?
>
> What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You
> can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way
> you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the
> products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running
> 130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't
> get you any more snort . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Bernard" <billbernard(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage
in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
Anybody know?
Thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GI-106A Back Course |
| From: | "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly"
Except Bob, I tend to see them used when they have equipment outages.
That happens more than one would desire.
I caught one for real about a year or so ago - unexpectedly.
GPS should largely solve that.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley"
MLI has one I believe.
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. Flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying
away from the needle with the VAR. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
---
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
| From: | "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle(at)austin.utexas.edu> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
Frank,
Suggest you go to their web site (www.bluemountainavionics.com) and read
through the "Discussion Group" postings. It is divided by subjects, so
it shouldn't be too difficult to find what you're looking for.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
While we're on the subject of CDI's.
Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven
from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions?
Does it really work?
Frank
Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Dawson-Townsend
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend"
-->
The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for
backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure.
The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a
conventional CDI . . .
TDT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
I originally stood for "Intensity".
I also notice that a lot of people are using the V=IR formula now
instead of the one I learned 45 years ago, E=IR. But, if you also use
E=IR and wonder why "E" when they mean "Volts"...it stands for
"Electromotive Force"
Maybe they should change it to V=AR now!
Harley
William Bernard wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage
in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
>
>Anybody know?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different] |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley
Oops...I meant "It originally stood for 'Intensity'"...
"I" was never very intense!
Harley
I originally stood for "Intensity".
I also notice that a lot of people are using the V=IR formula now
instead of the one I learned 45 years ago, E=IR. But, if you also use
E=IR and wonder why "E" when they mean "Volts"...it stands for
"Electromotive Force"
Maybe they should change it to V=AR now!
Harley
William Bernard wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage
in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
>
>Anybody know?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other
references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3
volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero
current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated
at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka
http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but
my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>
>>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not
>>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
>>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines.
>>
>>
snip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol
>for amperage in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?"
>
>Anybody know?
For the same reason some folks call it a "hood" and others call it
a "bonnet". The advancements of every discipline took place all over
the world and while various cultures injected their own flavors to the
language of description, the physics remained uniform and inviolate.
Depending on where you went to school on the surface of the planet,
there may be yet more commonly used symbols to represent the various
units in physics.
I don't recall the exact dates but even in my span of experience
in engineering, I recall being somewhat put upon when the folks
around me began to refer to the periodic rate of a signal or wave
as "Hertz" as opposed to "cycles/second" or "megacycles/second".
Both were correct and I was already quite comfortable with my
usage of language so far. None the less, I now refer to this unit
as "Hertz" and write it MHz and KHz, etc.
The recommendation for shifting to "Hertz" was based on meetings
and agreements between large groups of individuals who took on
the task of recommending adoption of worldwide, uniformity of titles
and symbols for things physical. Some recommendations took hold,
others were not so successful . . . we still cling 6-32 screws,
14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in
spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports
individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. Here the
pressures to resist were driven more by market forces than
for stubborn resistance to change . . . while the US represented
a small portion of the total population, the proportionate cost
to change over was much greater for a country that was producing
so much of the world's technologies, goods and services.
There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by
emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts
of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric
components and measures in our society. My hardware store now
stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware.
So the short answer is, "language" . . . while the schematic
and foundations in physics are fundamental and invariable
between languages and cultures, we are still mindful of the
fact that someone may express a concept in E = I x R or volts amps x ohms
or V = A * R, etc. Here is an excellent case
for multiculturalism . . . instead of fussing over whether
or not kids should be allowed to wear their native dress to
school, we should be concentrating on whether or not they
KNOW how to get their money's worth when purchasing products
offered in a variety of measures that describe value and
performance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W."
>
> C'mon Bob, don't yank the guy like that. You know he's talking about
>home "built" aircraft :-)
Ah but of course. Amazing what can happen to your head after
midnight . . .
> I'm also interested in the issue of TKT wire because I've seen a couple
>of references that TKT is supposedly the ONLY safe way to go for aircraft
>wiring. Yet, I haven't found any supplier that offers it. All I find with a
>Google search is a whole bunch of articles about how good it is and how bad
>everything else is (including Tefzel) and how you're going to fall to the
>ground in a ball of flames if you use anything but TKT (at least that's the
>tone I get from what I read).
> I'm going with Tefzel, but I'm intrigued by the panic mode that some
>writers have gone into that leads them to want every aircraft flying to be
>wired with TKT.
Agreed. The do-gooders have raised a great deal of fuss over
wire types and what the industry ought to be doing about
certain wire failures . . . and of course, their recommendations
almost never include widespread adoption of a technology already
available in low cost quantity.
We've discussed wire insulations several times here on the list
and I'm planning a much expanded discussion on insulations in the
next update to the wire chapter.
The air transport category aircraft builders will be on a
never ending quest for LIGHTER technologies due to the massive
amounts of wire in their products. This may take a rapid
turnaround as fiber optics take a larger role in airframe
systems control. It was predicted by some 40 years ago that
the world was going to suffer a severe shortage in copper at
the current rate of expansion of communications networks.
Others predicted that new technologies would replace copper and
that the shortage would never materialize. Indeed, copper prices
after adjusted for inflation have never been cheaper and tons
of copper are being pulled out of the ground for salvage when
replaced with glass fibers.
Watch for the war-of-wires to continue unabated with lots
of enthusiasm . . . especially from folks who's jobs depend
on expansion of a "problem" so that they continue to
be employed at public expense in a task for which they'll
never have consumer/supplier accountability.
In the mean time, your Tefzel wired airplane will go
to the scrap yard having never suffered an insulation
failure due to shortcomings in the insulation's performance.
Chris, my apologies for the brain fart. Vern, thanks for
the heads-up!
The short answer is "Tefzel is about as close to the ideal
insulation as has ever existed." It's cost/performance model
has yet to exceeded by any other technology. I'm aware of no
instance where insulation failure in a Tefzel wired airplane
would have been averted had the airplane been wired with any
other technology.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>
>Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other
>references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3
>volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero
>current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated
>at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka
>http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but
>my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename.
>Ken
After achieving full charge, there's no big driver for selection
of one "float" voltage over another as long as it's above the
open circuit voltage of the battery.
After a battery has been setting for some hours off the charger,
it assumes an open circuit voltage just under 13.0 volts. Internal
discharge paths are operating at this voltage level and begin to
tax the battery's stored energy.
The simple act of supporting the battery's terminal voltage at
or slightly above the open circuit voltage says there is now
an EXTERNAL supply of energy to source the battery's built in
losses and such losses no longer tax the battery. Anything
from 13.0 to 13.8 would be just fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn
>
>Hi,
>
>I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on
>the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall
>or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there
>is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery
>contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This
>would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the
>plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to
>run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the
>alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two
>runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If
>the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire
>just for the alternator.
I think you've answered your own question. Putting it back on
the firewall reduces wire runs and reduced losses because the
alternator can share the same fat wire with the starter.
>My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that
>runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it
>really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+
>amps all the way down the plane?
Got into this discussion at RAC a few weeks ago. I could relate
a long and reasonably exciting blow-by-blow on the event but
bottom line is that risks to these wires, PARTICULARLY in a
plastic airplane are exceedingly low. Even in metal airplanes,
protection of long feeders in the cranking circuits have not
been demonstrated to be useful or add value.
>Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is
>there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an
>external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods
>are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the
>nose then I'll have to use an external one.
It's a matter of service life on starter switch, and size of
wire needed for a long run to the tail to accommodate
the extraordinary solenoid/contactor current draw. Finally,
you may have some issues with respect to whether the starter
uses a PM motor in which case figure Z-22 is recommended
anyhow.
See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf
and figure Z-22 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11B.pdf
and notes for Figure Z-22 on page Z-5.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn
fell on her head
"Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and
tell the king."
The tone of this TKT issue on the WWW is remarkable. Yikes the sky is
falling!
Years back, when my knickers were in a twist about something, a friend used
to imitate John Wayne and drawl, --"Stop yer bleedin' if ya' ain't been
shot". So if you are building a plastic airplane fueled with gasoline burned
by fiery spark systems. Chill...partner.
What the commercial aircraft builders are after is the lightest-weight wire
that can carry current at the highest temperatures without problems.
Remember that they have huge amounts of current at much higher voltages,
carried by smaller wires, packed into gigantic bundles. And they don't mind
the Isq X R losses since they have plenty of power generating capability.
But it's not magic.
See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php
Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961
Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up
when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"Mankind faces a cross-roads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."
--Woody Allen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
| Subject: | toggle switch action? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong
Small question:
Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand
movements to move it from end to end?
And:
Are 3-position toggle switches as mechanically reliable as 2-position
toggle switches?
Thank you,
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
Out of interest...I found that instrumentation wire that is normally
"plenum rated" for use in buildings is usually teflon coated. The
"Belden" instrumentation wire we use here at work is as such and tends
to populate our scrap bins in enourmous quantities.
Just a thought for those of you that work in this kind of industry....:)
Frank
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Good Morning George,
It is nice that one was available when you needed it, but it is still true
that they are disappearing fast. As you say, with GPS, the need is minimized.
In an emergency, even a handheld GPS would probably provide guidance as
useful as the average back course.
My point is not that we should disregard the capability when it is
available, but that I (me personally) would not spend any money, weight or panel
space
to have the capability of annunciation or back course manipulation.
I figure if the need arises, as it did for you, "pulling" the needle is
adequate. I don't need switches to reverse sensing, lights to tell me sensing
has been changed or an autopilot that is capable of flying the reversed signals.
It is a matter of where my limited funds are to be spent. Those extra bells
and whistles that are designed to make it easier to fly a back course seems
to be funds wasted for me.
Fact is, I sometimes wonder whether all of those things don't add more
confusion than just flying the back course with raw data as we did in the days
before all that stuff was developed.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/19/2005 8:02:22 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly(at)gami.com writes:
Except Bob, I tend to see them used when they have equipment outages.
That happens more than one would desire.
I caught one for real about a year or so ago - unexpectedly.
GPS should largely solve that.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: toggle switch action? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong
>
>Small question:
>Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand
>movements to move it from end to end?
Not real clear on question . . . the 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-50
and 2-70 switches are all three position meaning that you have
three stable positions for the handle . . . one at each extreme
and one in the center.
>And:
>Are 3-position toggle switches as mechanically reliable as 2-position
>toggle switches?
I'm unaware of any reliability issues with three position switches.
The vast majority of switch failures in light aircraft are from old age
and disuse . . . not from service stress or operating cycles. A large
number of switch and relay failures in large aircraft are due
to mis-application of the device in the system.
Since our design goal is to fabricate failure tolerant systems
then "reliability" of any single component is a very low order
concern.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
>
>
>But it's not magic.
>
>See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php
>
>Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961
A couple of great examples of do-gooders running amok. If
the $time$ required to support these folks salaries added
to the $time$ industry expends to modify behaviors and processes
to address "concerns" were expended instead on figuring out
how to reduce PREVENTABLE accidental death in hospitals,
tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year starting
NEXT year.
Instead, these same authors who have been beating the same
drums for decades will still be beating them decades hence.
Further, it will be difficult if not impossible to quantify
ANY numbers of lives saved . . . but certainly not in the
same orders of magnitude as lives lost in hospitals for
stupid reasons.
>Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up
>when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff.
Well put sir.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Girard <fly.ez(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard
i would be for inductance, wouldn't it?
Rick Girard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BTomm <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm
Interesting.
If my batteries are located aft of the baggage bulkhead (ie in a non heated
space), should their charge voltage be higher or lower than that at room
temp? Electrically dependant engine, dual batts with only one batt
designated for starting the engine.
Bevan
planning for H6 Subaru
On Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:22 AM, Ken [SMTP:klehman(at)albedo.net] wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>
> Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other
> references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3
> volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero
> current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated
> at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka
> http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but
> my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename.
> Ken
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> >>
> >>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may
not
> >>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is
> >>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent
engines.
> >>
> >>
> snip
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
>
>This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol
>for amperage in Ohn's [Ohm's] Law an 'i' ?"
>Anybody know?
Okay, but be careful....your brain might explode--
Georg Simon Ohm (German 1789-1854) discovered the law governing the
relationships between voltage resistance and electric currents. This was
published in 1827 in an obscure and very hard to get for free 'Die
Galvanische Kette, Mathematische Bearbeitet'. Although I have not seen the
book, I can guarantee that it has a whole bunch of differential equations.
But until WWI, most books on physics used the letter "C" for current and
ignored the German usage. My guess is that the letters were simply the
common letters used in the electro-mathematics of the late 18th and early
19th century--"I subscript m" which stands for Intensity (magnetic), and of
course there was an "I subscript s" for Intensity (static).
Why this should be so requires some explanation: The physics of the late18th
century (at the time called "Natural Philosophy"), recognized electrical
potential V (from Volta) also called E.M.F. or electromotive force, or just
E. And it recognized that different materials were better or worse
conductors (rho and then R for resistance). The only way of measuring
currents then was by measuring how much a compass needle was deflected
(Oersted). Thus Intensity (magnetic) seemed as good a way as any to describe
the invisible force in the wire. Only after Ampere was the idea of "flowing
current" made popular. (And by the way the popular idea of current flow is
basically wrong). Ohm tied this all together.
But tiny bits of knowledge like this are incredibly volatile. And the
assignment of a letter in an equation is so spur-of-the-moment that it seems
almost random. Who remembers what a Mho is or how a quark got it's name? Who
will know in 100 years? One of my pet projects is to distribute a small book
on how California got its name. It was named by Cortez in 1537 but by 1600
NOBODY KNEW! Today 99.9% of Californians do not know that the golden state
was named after a mythical land ruled by bejeweled naked black Amazon
warriors who had pet griffins and who captured men only for breeding
purposes--from a 15th century trashy novel carried by Cortez. But I
digress....
> I don't recall the exact dates but even in my span of experience
> in engineering, I recall being somewhat put upon when the folks
> around me began to refer to the periodic rate of a signal or wave
> as "Hertz" as opposed to "cycles/second" or "megacycles/second".
> Both were correct and I was already quite comfortable with my
> usage of language so far. None the less, I now refer to this unit
> as "Hertz" and write it MHz and KHz, etc.
I have a really handy chart showing the conversion between Hertz and
cycles-per-second.
>. . . we still cling 6-32 screws, 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute
miles to the next town in
>spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area
supports
>individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. Here the
>pressures to resist were driven more by market forces than
>for stubborn resistance to change . . . while the US represented
>a small portion of the total population, the proportionate cost
>to change over was much greater for a country that was producing
>so much of the world's technologies, goods and services.
>There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by
>emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts
>of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric
>components and measures in our society. My hardware store now
>stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware. Bob . . .
My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The
international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they
make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the
metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
simply not done in Inches anymore.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones(at)charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
Eric wrote....
My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The
international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they
make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the
metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
simply not done in Inches anymore.
Well, the reasons for not converting to metric is simple,"it ain't natural" and
"its not mentioned in the bible", so there--we don't nee any other reasons.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> . . . we still cling 6-32 screws,
> 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in
> spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports
> individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. ...
>
> There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by
> emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts
> of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric
> components and measures in our society. My hardware store now
> stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware.
I was at the EBACE trade show today in Geneva, and I asked
the guys showing the Socata TBM 700, a French-built aircraft,
if they used metric or imperial hardware, and they said most
is imperial. Market forces win again!
I wouldn't complain too loudly if the aviation world switched
to metric hardware, but I'm sure that won't happen in my lifetime!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <vernw(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W."
Bob,
As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the
Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use?
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> >
> >
> >
> >But it's not magic.
> >
> >See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php
> >
> >Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961
>
> A couple of great examples of do-gooders running amok. If
> the $time$ required to support these folks salaries added
> to the $time$ industry expends to modify behaviors and processes
> to address "concerns" were expended instead on figuring out
> how to reduce PREVENTABLE accidental death in hospitals,
> tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year starting
> NEXT year.
>
> Instead, these same authors who have been beating the same
> drums for decades will still be beating them decades hence.
> Further, it will be difficult if not impossible to quantify
> ANY numbers of lives saved . . . but certainly not in the
> same orders of magnitude as lives lost in hospitals for
> stupid reasons.
>
> >Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me
up
> >when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff.
>
> Well put sir.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should dissipate
a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the middle of a
wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why most in
aerospace insist on significant derating.
Have fun
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Swales contractor to the
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mail to:
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | metric and units and stuff... |
| From: | "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen"
Eric,
> ignored the German usage. My guess is that the letters were simply the
> common letters used in the electro-mathematics of the late 18th and early
> 19th century--"I subscript m" which stands for Intensity (magnetic), and of
> course there was an "I subscript s" for Intensity (static).
Neat. I don't know if that's right or not, but it certainly makes
sense.
> current" made popular. (And by the way the popular idea of current flow is
> basically wrong). Ohm tied this all together.
Well, it's wrong in a few ways that for the purposes of electrical
engineering mostly don't matter. Equations for charge flow refer to
positive charge flow, despite the fact that it's the negative
particles (electrons) that do the moving. I don't know if it's true
or not, but at least one of my physics classes attributed this error
to Ben Franklin, who was a superb embassador and statesman, but only a
resonably competent experimental scientist.
So in what other ways are the popular ideas of current flow "basically
wrong"?
> My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go
> metric.
It's not a matter of being pea-brained, just conservative. The US
Government declared that the US was officially on the metric system
in...was it the 60s? However, so much of industry was (and still is)
on inches that there was too much inertia to just change. I think
part of it was nationalistic, too. Going to a system that was
invented by "those damn Europeans" seems like giving in.
The International System of units and measures (usually called
"metric") is indeed a much easier to use system, if you're taught with
it...but people are just set in the ways of what they know. Anyone
who wasn't exposed to meters before they were 25 years old just isn't
ever going to adapt to them, no matter how much sense they make.
Much farther ingrained in our way of doing things is our completely
bizarre numbering system for time; 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes
in an hour, and 24 hours in a day. (365 days in a year has to do with
the motion of the earth; we can't do anything about that one.) It
would make much more sense to divde the day into 10 segments, or 25,
some nice multiple.
> The
> international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
> half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
> against our own best interests.
Thanks for the confidence. The Space Station was designed by
committee, because that was the only way that it could be done. Half
of the station runs on 110V DC power (the US half), and the other runs
on 28V DC (the Russian Half).
> metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
> had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
> simply not done in Inches anymore.
I really don't care which one, I just want to use only one. That
doesn't seem to be the way of things, though. I think what's dragging
people in the US into metric kicking and screaming is that so many car
parts nowadays have metric parts, any sensible mechanic has to have
sets of hardware for both. That, milling machines and lathes with
electronic position readouts that can go from inches to mm with the
touch of a button.
Craig Steffen
--
craig(at)craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
>
>
>A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should dissipate
>a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the middle of a
>wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why most in
>aerospace insist on significant derating.
Not a problem at all. The experiment shows what the experiment
shows . . . 20A through a 22AWG wire in free air runs at about
100C . . . WELL below the rating of the insulation. This speaks
nothing to de-rating the wire for lots of reasons including voltage
drop due to length, elevated temperature of the environment AND
restriction of heat rejection capabilities due to bundling of
the wire.
I wasn't suggesting that one should even consider running 20A
through a 22AWG wire as an installed equipment design goal. What
I WAS suggesting is that folks who worry about wire behaving
like fuses and breakers have mis-placed their concerns. The fusing
constant (I-squared*T) for wire is many times that of a breaker
and still more times that of most fuses. The notion that just because
a 5A breaker opens pretty quickly at 10A somehow translates to
a 22AWG wire treading up to the edge of destruction is a waste of
worry resources.
Wires installed and protected in accordance with the recommendations
of AC43-13 or any other reference document are de-rated and VERY
conservative with respect to risks to wire . . . the fact that
circuit protection operates relatively quickly does not mean that the
wire cheated death by a narrow margin.
Bob. . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
In Canada, we have the worst of both worlds...
My altimeter and aviation charts are in feet.
My ASI and navigation is in knots and nautical miles.
I buy avgas in liters, and convert to US Gallons (not Imperial Gallons)
to determine weight in pounds. EXCEPT our 1956 Cessna 172 (model A) is
rated in Imperial Gallons.
I measure temperatures in degrees Celcius and in degrees Farenheit
Altimeter settings are provided in inches of mercury and sometimes
kilopascals
Gasoline motors are rated in horsepower, electrical motoros in watts.
My engineering education was almost exclusively in the MKS system
(meters-kilograms-seconds, a convention based on the metric system)....
except for 2nd year thermodynamics final exam in which there was a
question using British Thermal Units - what a nice suprise!
The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
I am fluent in both systems, and I prefer neither. The problem is in
conversion... just Google 'Gimli Glider' to find out how Canada's
conversion to metric almost cost the lives of a 767 full of passengers.
Vern Little
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
>
>Eric wrote....
>
>My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The
>international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US
>half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting
>against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they
>make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the
>metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I
>had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is
>simply not done in Inches anymore.
>
>
>Well, the reasons for not converting to metric is simple,"it ain't natural" and
"its not mentioned in the bible", so there--we don't nee any other reasons.
>
>Chuck
>Do Not Archive
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
Hogwash?...I don't think so.
Where else do you find that one unit of volume of water at room
temperature is the same as one unit of mass...You now have a direct
comparison bewteen weight of water and its volume. Very handy for a
piping designer. About the only place the "Power of ten" principle does
not work is in pressure where 1 bar is 10 to the power 5 pascals (not
the power of three or six like everything else is)..I'm a british
engineer transferred to the USA and am also kinda fluent in both.
But the metric is far superior...even if it is French...;)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rv-9a-online
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
-->
In Canada, we have the worst of both worlds...
My altimeter and aviation charts are in feet.
My ASI and navigation is in knots and nautical miles.
I buy avgas in liters, and convert to US Gallons (not Imperial Gallons)
to determine weight in pounds. EXCEPT our 1956 Cessna 172 (model A) is
rated in Imperial Gallons.
I measure temperatures in degrees Celcius and in degrees Farenheit
Altimeter settings are provided in inches of mercury and sometimes
kilopascals Gasoline motors are rated in horsepower, electrical motoros
in watts.
My engineering education was almost exclusively in the MKS system
(meters-kilograms-seconds, a convention based on the metric system)....
except for 2nd year thermodynamics final exam in which there was a
question using British Thermal Units - what a nice suprise!
The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
I am fluent in both systems, and I prefer neither. The problem is in
conversion... just Google 'Gimli Glider' to find out how Canada's
conversion to metric almost cost the lives of a 767 full of passengers.
Vern Little
C
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
| From: | "Craig P. Steffen" <craig(at)craigsteffen.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen"
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
> The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the
> distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of
> measurement, not a natural system of measurement.
The meter is defined such that the distance from the earth to the
equator _through_ Paris is 10,000 km. This is actually extremely
useful in test questions that involve the size of the earth (of the
sort that I used to have in physics exams). It's easy to remember
that the earth has a circumference of almost exactly 40,000 km.
All the systems in use are based on physical convention with no
fundamental basis. We could define a system based purely on physical
constants, but then everyone would have to re-memorize all their
conversion constants yet again.
The only reason that I prefer the International System (metric) to
American is that in the meter-kilogram-second system, the roles of
mass and weight are clearly defined. In the american system, mass and
weight are muddied together, which makes distinguishing them even
harder for physics students.
> The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just
> adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and
> have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this
> system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude].
Natical miles are based on the earth's circumference too, tied into
the Babylonian idea of dividing things into multiples of 60.
Craig Steffen
--
craig(at)craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Full Charge on Battery? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
Higher.
A cold cell needs higher voltage to fully charge it.
Or as a memory aid only, you want to reduce voltage to a hot cell to
reduce boiling... ;)
However the difference probably isn't worth being concerned about for
most practical purposes and the limited hours that most private aircraft
seem to operate.
Ken
BTomm wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm
>
>Interesting.
>
>If my batteries are located aft of the baggage bulkhead (ie in a non heated
>space), should their charge voltage be higher or lower than that at room
>temp? Electrically dependant engine, dual batts with only one batt
>designated for starting the engine.
>
>Bevan
>planning for H6 Subaru
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard
>
>i would be for inductance, wouldn't it?
>
>Rick Girard
Depends on who's sandbox you're playing and what language
or discipline they embrace. My 1959 edition of the CRS
Math and Physics Handbook lists about a dozen variants
on the letter "i" as representative of some unit in
physics . . . but none of them are inductance.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
The official measurement system of the US has been metric since 1866. There
is no Inch system, only a mishmash of collected conventions. How many quarts
in an acre-feet of water.......give me a break. Gimli Glider indeed.
The nice thing about the metric system is that it is a rational measurement
SYSTEM. I'll use any system--no matter what it's called or who invented
it--over a pile of half-forgotten conventions. Know how they measure shotgun
gauges?
I would surmise that there are NO new science books except metric now being
published.
Eric
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Tondu <walter(at)tondu.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu
On 05/19 4:37, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>
> The official measurement system of the US has been metric since 1866. There
> is no Inch system, only a mishmash of collected conventions. How many quarts
> in an acre-feet of water.......give me a break. Gimli Glider indeed.
>
> The nice thing about the metric system is that it is a rational measurement
> SYSTEM. I'll use any system--no matter what it's called or who invented
> it--over a pile of half-forgotten conventions. Know how they measure shotgun
> gauges?
The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
I used to shoot a LOT.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex & Gerry Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)earthlink.net> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson"
>
> My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to
> go metric. The international Space Station is Metric on the
> EU half and Inch on the US half. I think the powers that be
> are simply cowards and certainly acting against our own best
> interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they make no
> sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in
> the metric system than the inch system. When I taught
> Physics the first thing I had to teach students was the
> metric system, since Physics and Science is simply not done
> in Inches anymore.
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
One good reason why the US hasn't converted is because no one wanted to
modify hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of machine tools such as
mills and lathes. Not to mention the accessories for these machines. While
CNC machining and digital position readouts have removed this concern, most
machine tools last many, many decades, and their lead screws (and hence
position indicators) were designed around inches. Most machine tools are
not CNC. Everything that you see around you was created, or their molds
were, on machine tools. It isn't as simple as just changing the units on
drawings.
I have designed things (in both systems) for a living for almost 25 years,
and I find absolutely no particular advantages in either system. For some
entertainment, ask your favorite European why the lug nuts on their cars are
still English (or at least were as of a decade ago), or why the pipe threads
in the plumbing in their house are still English.
In-lbs-sec, gm-cm-s, kg-m-s, lightyear-megaton-eon, I don't give a rip.
Compared to the other stuff I had to learn in engineering school, dealing
with these different "languages" is a non issue.
Do not archive
Alex Peterson
RV6-A 617 hours
Maple Grove, MN
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W."
>
>Bob,
> As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the
>Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use?
When I had the electrical/avionics group on the GP-180 project
at Lear about 22 years ago, 22759 was an export controlled substance
and we needed special licences to sell airplanes overseas that were
wired with 22759. I was ready to use Spec 55 wire in the GP-180
until my betters decided to go for the export license.
It's very good wire too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
Walter wrote...
The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would
equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit
into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun.
Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2".
Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns.
I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound
more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but
fossilized minds want to know--at least this one.
chuck
DO NOT ARCHIVE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Brown <dan(at)familybrown.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Brown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Chuck Jensen wrote:
| I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres.
| It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge.
It's as Walter said--the "guage" system is defined by the number of
lead balls of a certain diameter whose weight adds up to one pound.
Twelve balls of 0.729" diameter weigh a total of one pound, so a shotgun
with a bore of 0.729" is a 12 ga shotgun. This is why larger numbers
indicate smaller bore diameters. The largest that I'm aware of is 4 ga,
and the smallest is 28 ga. Do not archive this either, but it should
cover the explanation.
- --
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan(at)familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
~ -- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFCjUVPyQGUivXxtkERAtXlAKDtjAv2Ezcx//G43rVwACLEb9sNBACfUGd8
HlDFOqRU5R+Dlf+F/2g11Zo=bICK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Something Completely Different |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
>I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It
sounds more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge.
I referred to this simply to poke fun at the strange English measurements.
Most gauge sizes have some strange history behind them.
Shotgun gauges example:
1 ga. = a bore the diameter of a 1 pound lead sphere.
10 ga.=a bore the diameter of a 1/10 pound lead sphere (or if you make 10
perfect spheres from a pound of lead, each one of them has the same diameter
as the bore.
Many sheetmetal gauges are similar--basically they are the number of sheets,
each a square foot, that equal some weight. (Or somesuch.)
Eric
do not archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | |