AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fr
May 16, 2006 - June 02, 2006
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
5/16/2006
Responding to a previous posting by brinker@cox-internet.com.
Hello Randy, I think that Mid Continent makes the GI-106A for Garmin. They
may be identical except for labeling. You could check with Mid Continent to
confirm.
http://www.mcico.com/master1.html?contact.html&1
OC
Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Can anyone tell me the difference between the
GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
same features.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | OT: Nothing to do with airplanes, but all about batteries.... |
This has nothing to do directly with airplanes, but has a lot to do
with batteries that would be very good to use in airplanes.
We traveled all the way to Joliet IL, but the event was rained out. We
got a great write-up in the Chicago Herald, however. We also enjoyed
talking shop with the other hard-core EV drag racers.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/sports/4_2_jo13_electric_s2.asp
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/sports/4_2_jo13_electric_s1.asp
Electrifying Times ran a few pictures from the test session on the 26th:
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/a123/KillaCycle.html
We ran 9.024 @ 139 MPH at the test session. The bike was set at a modest
power setting for these test runs. It should go even faster when we turn
it up to maximum HP.
If you want to know how safe these particular batteries are, look at
the video on this web page:
http://www.a123systems.com/html/tech/safety.html#
Bill Dube'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <jlundberg(at)cox.net> |
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
Can anyone tell me the difference between the
GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
same features.
Randy
---I have a Garmin GI-106A and it came in a MidContinent box with installation
instructions from MidContinent.
John Lundberg
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks John I thought they we're both manufactured by mid cont.
but since Garmin sells both it has been somewhat confusing to me. I have
sent Mid Cont. an email so maybe I can get to the bottom of this. I would
like to order a cdi/gs/loc and figured one of these 2 would be my best bet
since Im' also going with a sl30. And they are priced close.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: <jlundberg(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>
> From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
>
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Can anyone tell me the difference between the
> GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
> I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
> same features.
>
> Randy
>
> ---I have a Garmin GI-106A and it came in a MidContinent box with
> installation instructions from MidContinent.
>
> John Lundberg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "james wickert" <jimw_btg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | OT: Nothing to do with airplanes, but all about |
batteries....
Congratz Bill
Great article.
Jim Wickert
Vision corvAir #159
> [Original Message]
> From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
> To:
> Date: 5/16/2006 3:10:18 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT: Nothing to do with airplanes, but all
about batteries....
>
>
> This has nothing to do directly with airplanes, but has a lot to do
> with batteries that would be very good to use in airplanes.
>
> We traveled all the way to Joliet IL, but the event was rained out. We
> got a great write-up in the Chicago Herald, however. We also enjoyed
> talking shop with the other hard-core EV drag racers.
>
>
>
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/sports/4_2_jo13_electric_s2.as
p
>
>
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/sports/4_2_jo13_electric_s1.as
p
>
> Electrifying Times ran a few pictures from the test session on the 26th:
>
> http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/a123/KillaCycle.html
>
> We ran 9.024 @ 139 MPH at the test session. The bike was set at a modest
> power setting for these test runs. It should go even faster when we turn
> it up to maximum HP.
>
> If you want to know how safe these particular batteries are, look at
> the video on this web page:
>
> http://www.a123systems.com/html/tech/safety.html#
>
> Bill Dube'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sportav8r(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Ryton sumps |
I guess if one is wired per the AeroElectric schematic for dual P-mags, that the
RMSD bypass can be accomplished by use of the Ignition Maintenance Mode switch
in conjunction with the progressive transfer toggles that control normal ignition
operation. I have the old firmware and the Nuckolls wiring, and love the
way it starts my Lycoming on the first or second blade. I'd hate to give that
up for a firmware upgrade (which I need for the stumble issue) and not having
a Ryton sump to fret over.
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe & Jan Connell <jconnell(at)rconnect.com>
Subject: Fw: RV-List: Ryton sumps
--> RV-List message posted by: "Joe & Jan Connell"
Guys,
Here is an item from E-Magair regarding composite sumps.
He indicates back-firing can fracture composite sumps. I
hope this info is of value. I have an Aerosport O-320 with a
Slick and a P-Mag...
Joe Connell
Stewartville, MN
RV-9A, baffle & cowling
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Dement
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Service Update
Service Update
Run Mode Starting Delay:
Starting September, 2005 new production units (as well as units getting =
firmware updates after this time) will have a Run Mode Starting Delay =
("RMSD") feature that will prevent plug firing until the ignition sees =
two (2) passes of the TDC index. At start up, this will help ventilate =
the intake and exhaust chambers of accumulated vapor.
Normal RMSD Operation - RMSD will engage when a "normal" start up =
sequence is followed. i.e. The ignition is powered ON WHILE the key (or =
other p-lead switch) is in the OFF position. (Note: This is the same =
sequence used for entering Set Up Mode). Pilots then turn ON =
(unground) the p-lead switch and start the engine.
Bypassing the RMSD - The RMSD can be bypassed (fire on the first index =
pass) simply by powering the ignition ON WHILE the key (or other p-lead =
switch) is in the ON position. This will enable prop starting, if =
needed. Keep in mind that bypassing RMSD will increase the possibility =
of igniting fuel vapor (if present) on the "wasted" side of the spark - =
see below. At the time of this writing, this is felt to be problematic =
only for those customers using composite oil sumps. For them, bypassing =
RMSD will risk damaging the sump.
Emulating RMSD - It is also possible to emulate the RMSD manually =
(without the update) if you use toggle (or similar) switches instead of =
a key type ignition switch. Keeping the ignition p-lead switches =
grounded (OFF) for a few revolutions during engine start, will =
accomplish the same thing. Those who elect to not get the RMSD update =
might use this technique when performing hot starts. See below.
Background - Wasted spark systems avoid the weight, mechanical =
complexity, and high altitude operating issues associated with =
traditional ignition distributors. In a wasted spark system, plugs are =
fired in pairs at A) the charged cylinder that's ready to ignite, as =
well as B) the opposing cylinder during the exhaust stroke. This second =
spark is not intended to ignite, hence the name "wasted spark". =
However, when restarting an engine shortly after shut down (a hot =
start), it is possible for fuel vapor to accumulate in the intake =
manifold. This vapor can be ignited by what is normally the "wasted" =
side of the spark during valve overlap. [Valve overlap is when intake =
and exhaust valves are momentarily open at the same time.] Even so, in =
the one controlled (test cell) instance where this was observed, the =
event itself was rather unremarkable. It was heard only as a hard =
"puff" prior to engine start. However, in the test cell instance, the =
intake manifold channeled this "puff" to the sump, which was later =
measured as a 15 to 20 psi pulse. This pulse cracked the light weight =
composite sump installed on this particular engine. An identical =
replacement sump did the same thing during a second hot start. When =
replaced with a standard aluminum sump, the problem did not recur on any =
subsequent (hot or cold) starts.
To date, we have no other reports of sump related issues. So it's =
tempting (and maybe appropriate) to narrowly define this as the only =
configuration (fuel injection with side entry composite sumps) at risk, =
but we don't know that with certainty. Either way, we'd rather engage =
such issues with solutions, rather than require customers avoid =
innovative and exciting new products. So the Run Mode Starting Delay =
will be incorporated as a standard feature. It is also available as an =
upgrade (free of charge) to all customers getting a firmware update =
after September 1, 2005. The RMSD update is not mandatory unless you =
are using, or plan to use a composite sump. NOTE: RMSD is a new =
feature, and we cannot guarantee it will, in all cases, prevent ignition =
on the wasted spark side if conditions are just right. In which case, a =
composite sump, if used, could be damaged.
We hope this update is in keeping with your expectations of E-MAG =
customer service and support. As always, your questions and comments =
are welcome and very much appreciated.
Brad Dement
E-MAG Ignitions
649 Boling Ranch Road
Azle, Texas 76020
(817) 448-0555
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
5/17/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Brinker"
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Hello Again Randy, I have a single GI-106A being fed selectively by either a
Garmin GNS 430 or an SL-30.
The change over between the two sources is done by a split lighted push
button switch that activates a Northern Airborne Technologies RS 16-001 Data
Switch. Each push of the push button switch changes the lighted portion of
the push button switch and causes a shift from one navigation source to the
other.
The GI-106A has three light indications on its face. "NAV" is lighted when
the SL-30 is feeding the CDI. "GPS" is lighted when the GPS portion of the
GNS 430 is feeding the CDI. "VLOC" is lighted when the VOR or localizer
portion of the GNS 430 is feeding the CDI. There is no back course light or
indication on the GI-106A.
The SL-30 does have both a BC selection and an indication on the display on
the box itself.
As I wrote previously I normally use the SL-30 to feed the external CDI for
VOR, Localizer, or ILS approaches and the GNS 430 to provide big picture
situational awareness. I am very pleased with this equipment and feel that
the SL-30 is one of the most capable pieces of avionics gear in existence.
OC
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Thanks John I thought they we're both manufactured by mid cont.
but since Garmin sells both it has been somewhat confusing to me. I have
sent Mid Cont. an email so maybe I can get to the bottom of this. I would
like to order a cdi/gs/loc and figured one of these 2 would be my best bet
since Im' also going with a sl30. And they are priced close.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
I am building RV8. I am trying to figure out all the antenna placements
before closing up the wings.
Here is my current plan. I would appreciate feedback.
* Com antenna on belly - poor reception on the ground, but only
have to go short distances. Good in air because it is looking down at
station. Needs to be vertical for a bit to match the polarization of
the ground station.
* Nav antenna in one wing. Combines GS antenna thru a spliter.
Compromise over a good external antenna, but no drag. (Bob Archer)
* Marker beacon antenna in other wing tip.
* Transponder - little short antenna coming out the belly.
* ELT - should be on top - maybe just ahead of Vert Stab.
* GPS - under canopy on panel eyebrow.
We are planning GNS430, Grand Rapids EFIS with GPS, Garmin XPndr and
Audio Panel. Is this a good antenna match for this equipment?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics(at)rv8.ch> |
> * Com antenna on belly - poor reception on the ground, but only
> have to go short distances. Good in air because it is looking down at
> station. Needs to be vertical for a bit to match the polarization of
> the ground station.
> * Nav antenna in one wing. Combines GS antenna thru a spliter.
> Compromise over a good external antenna, but no drag. (Bob Archer)
> * Marker beacon antenna in other wing tip.
> * Transponder - little short antenna coming out the belly.
> * ELT - should be on top - maybe just ahead of Vert Stab.
> * GPS - under canopy on panel eyebrow.
On my RV8 I didn't have room for the ELT antenna on top
of the fuselage in front of the VS. The canopy slides
all the way back to the VS. I put it just under the
VS like this:
http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story050226171858929
The rest of your locations are pretty much the same place I
have either put my antennas or plan to.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
Dan,
I have my comm and transponder antennas on the bottom of the airplane as you
say. I am amazed at how well the comm antenna works. My runway is inside
Grissom's class D, and I am always able to contact the tower about 3 miles
away before I take off.
I am having very good results with a VOR antenna under the canopy in my
RV-7A. Mine is a homemade dipole with white no. 22 wire fastened to the canopy
with 4 small suction cups -- a little cheesy, but free and it probably
outperforms the wingtip mounted antennas. Maybe you could mount a commercial
VOR/Glideslope antenna under the canopy also.
I also have the GPS antenna on the glare shield under the canopy and it
works very well. I am using a BNC bulkhead fitting (BNC to BNC) with the
portable antenna from the back of the Garmin 295 sitting on the mounted fitting
--
fitting vertical, antenna horizontal. A short (about 6 inch) piece of RG-400
connects the bottom side of the fitting to the panel mounted 295. Perhaps a
little cheesy, but again -- basically free.
An external ELT antenna is best, but few RVs use them. Quite a bit of drag
at 200 mph! Putting the ELT antenna under the empennage fairing as some are
doing is basically no antenna at all. I have mine in the baggage compartment
and aimed away from metal as much as possible -- definitely a compromised
location -- that wouldn't work on an 8. It should be close to the ELT, so
wingtips are out. This is a hard one!
I don't think it matters what antenna is used with what equipment, except in
the case of GPS where the antenna has an internal amplifier. In that case I
think the antenna should be the same brand as the receiver. All the passive
antennas will work as well with one brand of equipment as with another brand.
All IMHO, of course.
Dan Hopper
Walton, IN
RV-7A -- Flying about 170 hours now
In a message dated 5/17/2006 11:38:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Beadle"
I am building RV8. I am trying to figure out all the antenna placements
before closing up the wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Just a thought but to avoid a long wiring run out to a wingtip why not
put the marker beacon glued to the lower cowl.
I should be able to just get a 40" piece of stripped coax along there.
Frank
RV7a..almost painting
> * Marker beacon antenna in other wing tip.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/17/2006 10:38:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com writes:
* GPS - under canopy on panel eyebrow.
We are planning GNS430, Grand Rapids EFIS with GPS, Garmin XPndr and
Audio Panel. Is this a good antenna match for this equipment
Good Morning Dan,
I might look carefully at your GPS antenna location. It would probably work
acceptably, but I am not sure it would meet the requirements for IFR
certification without flight testing.
The guidance for antenna placement is located in an AC. I believe it is
AC-138. You may not have full 360 degree coverage. As long as you have that high
powered 430, it would be a shame to get less than optimum performance.
You might also consider that there will be an upgrade soon that will allow
the 430 to receive WAAS signals. For WAAS reception, you have to have a good
line of sight to the south as the WAAS satellites are located over the equator.
Heading north, that may be a problem.
Just something to think about.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Avionics Cooling |
Folks,
I did the test suggested by Brian Lloyd below, and was pleasantly surprised.
My stack is an EIS4000, 2 Comms, 1 Xponder, 1 Audio Panel. Started at 83.0f
after 15 mins 87.0, so guess I won't have to mess with no stinkin'
fan....???? BTW, checked over, under, around... Thanks, Brian.
Also, Fry's has a nice little 12v fan with real bearings for $11.00, 29CFM
Draws .13a, 26db. 30,000 hours... *they say*
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
Whether or not you need a cooling fan depends on how you have the radios
stacked in there. A single radio has all its surface area available to get
rid of heat by convection and probably doesn't need extra airflow. I have
my Terra radios stacked vertically, single wide, and the temperature rise
is minimal because they still have plenty of surface area so I don't need a
fan. When you really pack the radios in there the ratio of surface area to
volume/heat goes down so you need to make what area you do have shed heat
more rapidly. A fan is an asset there.
You know, the military uses conduction cooling of equipment. You can do
the same thing by placing a finned heat sink on the sides of your radio
stack with the fins oriented vertically. Natural convection will carry
away a lot of heat without the need for a fan.
So, in answer to the question, "do I need a fan for my radio stack." the
answer is an unqualifed, "maybe and maybe not." What matters is
temperature rise. Turn on the master (use a battery charger or, better
yet, a regulated power supply to keep from running the battery down), turn
all the radios on, and then measure the temperature of your radio stack
after about 15 minutes of operation. If the temperature rise is 5-10
degrees C, don't worry about it. If it is 30 degrees C, you definitely
need to help the radios shed heat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Out of pocket for a week |
Dr. Dee and I are packing the van so as to charge off for
Prescott, AZ in the morning. We'll be gone for a week. Due
back in Wichita next Wednesday night.
Hope to meet some of you Saturday in Prescott!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antennas
>From: "Dan Beadle"
>
> *Com antenna on belly - poor reception on the ground, but
>only have to go short distances. Good in air because it is
>looking down at station. Needs to be vertical for a bit to match
>the polarization of the ground station.
Dan I would disagree in that you are NOT guaranteed poor
reception (or transmission) on the ground. I had my COM on
the belly of my RV-4 and never had a big problem, even at
large towered airports. I do find buildings or hangers are the
biggest impediment. I fly large jets and only one airport (LGA)
do I have to switch to the #1 radio (antenna on top) to talk to
ground/clearance, and that is only when I am in alley way. One
of those scary alley ways that where made for piston planes
55 years ago not jets with larger wing spans.
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antennas
>From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
>
>An external ELT antenna is best, but few RVs use them.
>Quite a bit of drag at 200 mph! Putting the ELT antenna under
>the empennage fairing as some are doing is basically no
>antenna at all... Dan Hopper
Dan: You have to qualify what you mean about quite a bit of
drag. I disagree that is quite a bit.
From my calculations at 200 MPH the drag penalties are:
ELT = 1/8 to 3/16 th mph MAX
COM = 0.25 to 0.30 mph MAX
Transponder = 0.06 to 0.10 mph MAX
Total is less than 2/3 rds mph.
The above are from my own calculations. I dusted off my
mechanical pencil and aerodynamics book (yes I was an
engineer for a large aircraft manufacture at one time.)
To back up my numbers here is a quote:
***************************************
"There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which
features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough,
the engineers at Socata actually quantified the
cruise speed impact of each antenna:"
ADF - .75 knots
G/S - .32 knots
VOR - .59 knots
ELT - .16 knots
***************************************
This is for a Aerospatiale-Socata TB-20 with a listed
184 mph cruise and 192 mph top speed so these
drag penalties are equivalent for a fast amateur built
experimental aircraft.
If you assume 1/2 of a VOR is about equal to a COM
than 0.25 to 0.30 mph drag at 200 mph is reasonable.
The ELT is almost exactly what I calculated.
The exaggerate rumors and urban legend of antenna
drag are probably spread by people who want you to
use wing tip antennas, which perform poorly. Not to
mention the long (heavy) coax runs that result in more
signal loss. The wing tip antennas also are more
troublesome to install.
For all you racers and go fast guys, here is an idea that
worked for me very well for years on my RV-4. I made it
so I could remove the belly COM and VOR antenna in a
matter of minutes. I would replace the COM with an
antenna in the cockpit for races and performance contest.
The VOR was also on the belly under the horizontal
stabilizer. With nut plates it came off with two screws
and the coax was secured inside the fuselage with a
lanyard and then the hole was taped over. To put them
back on took as long as it took to remove, a few minutes.
If you want to pick you the 2/3 rds to 3/4 MPH, its an idea.
Cheers George RV-4/RV-7
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ELT Antenna Placement |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Dan
Beadle"
I am building RV8. I am trying to figure out all the antenna placements
before closing up the wings.
......skip.......* ELT - should be on top - maybe just ahead of Vert
Stab.....skip
5/18/2006
Hello Dan, One of my friends commented that I had my ELT antenna installed
with
improper orientation. I said "Fine, tell me just exactly what attitude my
fuselage will be in when I am finished crashing and I will reinstall my
antenna accordingly." He smiled and got the point.
What attitude will your fuselage be in when you finish crashing?
OC
PS: The garden variety 121.5 Mhz ELT is just congressionally mandated dead
weight. Put the ELT in because you have to. Carry a personal locator beacon
because you want to. http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html. A cell phone
and a hand held VHF comm radio are also beneficial.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
Great information. I am convinced about using external Com antenna.
Where do you suggest I mount an externally mounted VOR antenna?
Vertical Stab seems obvious choice, but antenna cable length is about
the same as in wingtip.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Antennas
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antennas
>From: "Dan Beadle"
>
> *Com antenna on belly - poor reception on the ground, but
>only have to go short distances. Good in air because it is
>looking down at station. Needs to be vertical for a bit to match
>the polarization of the ground station.
Dan I would disagree in that you are NOT guaranteed poor
reception (or transmission) on the ground. I had my COM on
the belly of my RV-4 and never had a big problem, even at
large towered airports. I do find buildings or hangers are the
biggest impediment. I fly large jets and only one airport (LGA)
do I have to switch to the #1 radio (antenna on top) to talk to
ground/clearance, and that is only when I am in alley way. One
of those scary alley ways that where made for piston planes
55 years ago not jets with larger wing spans.
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antennas
>From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
>
>An external ELT antenna is best, but few RVs use them.
>Quite a bit of drag at 200 mph! Putting the ELT antenna under
>the empennage fairing as some are doing is basically no
>antenna at all... Dan Hopper
Dan: You have to qualify what you mean about quite a bit of
drag. I disagree that is quite a bit.
From my calculations at 200 MPH the drag penalties are:
ELT = 1/8 to 3/16 th mph MAX
COM = 0.25 to 0.30 mph MAX
Transponder = 0.06 to 0.10 mph MAX
Total is less than 2/3 rds mph.
The above are from my own calculations. I dusted off my
mechanical pencil and aerodynamics book (yes I was an
engineer for a large aircraft manufacture at one time.)
To back up my numbers here is a quote:
***************************************
"There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which
features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough,
the engineers at Socata actually quantified the
cruise speed impact of each antenna:"
ADF - .75 knots
G/S - .32 knots
VOR - .59 knots
ELT - .16 knots
***************************************
This is for a Aerospatiale-Socata TB-20 with a listed
184 mph cruise and 192 mph top speed so these
drag penalties are equivalent for a fast amateur built
experimental aircraft.
If you assume 1/2 of a VOR is about equal to a COM
than 0.25 to 0.30 mph drag at 200 mph is reasonable.
The ELT is almost exactly what I calculated.
The exaggerate rumors and urban legend of antenna
drag are probably spread by people who want you to
use wing tip antennas, which perform poorly. Not to
mention the long (heavy) coax runs that result in more
signal loss. The wing tip antennas also are more
troublesome to install.
For all you racers and go fast guys, here is an idea that
worked for me very well for years on my RV-4. I made it
so I could remove the belly COM and VOR antenna in a
matter of minutes. I would replace the COM with an
antenna in the cockpit for races and performance contest.
The VOR was also on the belly under the horizontal
stabilizer. With nut plates it came off with two screws
and the coax was secured inside the fuselage with a
lanyard and then the hole was taped over. To put them
back on took as long as it took to remove, a few minutes.
If you want to pick you the 2/3 rds to 3/4 MPH, its an idea.
Cheers George RV-4/RV-7
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
On May 17, 2006, at 8:33 AM, Dan Beadle wrote:
> We are planning GNS430, Grand Rapids EFIS with GPS, Garmin XPndr and
> Audio Panel. Is this a good antenna match for this equipment?
Sounds fine to me.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Cooling |
On May 17, 2006, at 6:00 PM, Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I did the test suggested by Brian Lloyd below, and was pleasantly
> surprised.
> My stack is an EIS4000, 2 Comms, 1 Xponder, 1 Audio Panel.
> Started at 83.0f
> after 15 mins 87.0, so guess I won't have to mess with no stinkin'
> fan....???? BTW, checked over, under, around... Thanks, Brian.
You are welcome. How long ago did I write that? It has been awhile.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 5/18/2006 9:50:16 A.M. Central Standard Time,
Dan.Beadle(at)hq.InclineSoftworks.com writes:
Great information. I am convinced about using external Com antenna.
Where do you suggest I mount an externally mounted VOR antenna?
Vertical Stab seems obvious choice, but antenna cable length is about
the same as in wingtip.
Dan
Good Morning Dan,
If you are going to use an external VHF Nav antenna, consider using a set of
blades. They have superior reception patterns and one set can be used to feed
two nav receivers and two glide slopes by using an appropriate splitter.
Nice looking, no wires to stick in folks eyes, handle icing conditions well
and have relatively low drag.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
George,
I went thru the calculations a couple of years ago and came up with somewhat
larger numbers than that. At least that's how I remembered it. I guess I
was mistaken!
I do agree with OC that we don't know how the airplane will end up in a
crash. Its not that unlikely that an RV will be on its top (again IMHO). The
convenience of an easy installation for the ELT in the baggage compartment of
my -7 is what drove my decision as much as anything. At the time, I was in a
hurry to get it in the air, and figured that it was a temporary location for
the antenna until I figured out the best place. Still trying to figure that
one out!
Regards,
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying since July 2004
In a message dated 5/18/2006 6:29:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antennas
>From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
>
>An external ELT antenna is best, but few RVs use them.
>Quite a bit of drag at 200 mph! Putting the ELT antenna under
>the empennage fairing as some are doing is basically no
>antenna at all... Dan Hopper
Dan: You have to qualify what you mean about quite a bit of
drag. I disagree that is quite a bit.
>From my calculations at 200 MPH the drag penalties are:
ELT = 1/8 to 3/16 th mph MAX
COM = 0.25 to 0.30 mph MAX
Transponder = 0.06 to 0.10 mph MAX
Total is less than 2/3 rds mph.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi gmcjetpilot and all,
>
> ***************************************
> "There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which
> features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough,
> the engineers at Socata actually quantified the
> cruise speed impact of each antenna:"
>
> ADF - .75 knots
> G/S - .32 knots
> VOR - .59 knots
> ELT - .16 knots
> ***************************************
>
> This is for a Aerospatiale-Socata TB-20 with a listed
> 184 mph cruise and 192 mph top speed so these
> drag penalties are equivalent for a fast amateur built
> experimental aircraft.
>
> If you assume 1/2 of a VOR is about equal to a COM
> than 0.25 to 0.30 mph drag at 200 mph is reasonable.
> The ELT is almost exactly what I calculated.
>
> The exaggerate rumors and urban legend of antenna
> drag are probably spread by people who want you to
> use wing tip antennas, which perform poorly.
Glad you took the Socata TB-20 Trinidad as an example. It is a French
airplane and its performance is very well known.
It takes a Trinidad a 250 hp engine to cruise at 155 knots TAS (75 % power).
Your 1.82 knot cruise speed impact on this large draggy spam can amounts
to more than 3 % of the Trinidad total drag. That means about 6.5 hp
just to carry your antennas in the breeze.
Our MCR-4S four seater has a 100 hp engine and cruises at 140 knots TAS.
(75 % power).
Total drag is much lower. Those same antennas would spend 4.8 hp on our
MCR. Much more significant when compared to the 75 hp cruise setting.
I'd say something on the order of 2 to 3 knots for an MCR. 3 knots or 5
km/h is something we can easily see on the ASI or when flying formation.
That is the difference we currently measure between clean and dirty MCRs.
Of course there is no point in hiding antennas on a Pitts or a Cessna,
but small and sleek airplanes will really benefit.
And it is so easy to do, so why not try ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
The GI-106A is for use with Garmin's "home grown" gear; i.e. GNS 430, GNS
530, etc.
The MD200-306 is for use with the "AT" line stuff; i.e. GNS 480, SL30, etc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
jlundberg(at)cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:00 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List:
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Can anyone tell me the difference between the
GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
same features.
Randy
---I have a Garmin GI-106A and it came in a MidContinent box with
installation instructions from MidContinent.
John Lundberg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott" <scott(at)randolphs.net> |
| Subject: | KMA-24 Audio Panel |
Does anybody have the pinouts and/or installation manual for a Bendix/King
KMA-24 audio panel?
I need to figure out how to interface it with my intercom and radios. I've
heard it might need a speaker load as well, but that seems questionable to
me.
Thanks!
Scott.
N30DD
scott@randolphs net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z11 architecture question |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
I'm in the process of "designing" my electrical system,
more-or-less following diagram Z11. I think I get the overall
goal - near-automatic shedding of non-essential electrical load
in the event of an alternator failure. As my CFI drummed into
my head over and over again during emergency procedure training
"Fly the airplane !!" - you can't do that if you're head's
inside the plane futzing with switches and breakers.
The problem I'm having is deciding what's non-essential and
what's not. Landing lights can be shut off in-route, but they
become very desireable in the terminal area at night - for
landing in "comfort". Its almost as though you need 2
essential buses - one for in-route and one for the terminal area.
Any thoughts ?
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: KMA-24 Audio Panel |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Cc:
Bob has graciously provided a place to view a number of avionics pinouts:
http://aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
The KMA-24:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KMA24.pdf
Don't know about the speaker load.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> Does anybody have the pinouts and/or installation manual for a
> Bendix/King KMA-24 audio panel?
>
> I need to figure out how to interface it with my intercom and radios.
> I've heard it might need a speaker load as well, but that seems
> questionable to me.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Scott.
> N30DD
> scott@randolphs net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I did get a reply from Garmin stating: These two indicators are almost
identical. The GI 106A was designed to work
with the GNS430/530's where the MD-200 was designed for the CNX 80 and SL
30's although ether indicator will work with your SL 30 or the GNS's.
And also got a reply from Mid Continent stating: The only difference
between the two, is the presentation and one annu. The 206 has a v/loc annu
and the 306 has a b/c annu. You can view these units on our web sight
www.mcico.com. Any questions please call me .
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
> The GI-106A is for use with Garmin's "home grown" gear; i.e. GNS 430, GNS
> 530, etc.
>
> The MD200-306 is for use with the "AT" line stuff; i.e. GNS 480, SL30,
> etc.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> jlundberg(at)cox.net
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 3:00 PM
> To: aeroelectric list
> Subject: AeroElectric-List:
>
>
> From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
>
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Can anyone tell me the difference between the
> GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
> I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
> same features.
>
> Randy
>
> ---I have a Garmin GI-106A and it came in a MidContinent box with
> installation instructions from MidContinent.
>
> John Lundberg
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z11 architecture question |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Gerry:
Went through this same thought process myself a short while ago and am now
hip deep in wiring. But did get to turn my master switch on for the first
time the other day, and was pleased as punch to hear the battery contactor
thump and then be able to turn on my EFIS and light up the screen. Very
cool.
Im a Z-13 guy, but I dont think you need to worry about near-terminal
operations. This is short-time duration stuff and assuming you have a
properly maintained battery (which you WILL have lest Bob reach up and
personally grab you right out of the sky), you should be able to rely on
your battery to make up the extra amps during the time it takes you to get
on the ground.
Make sense?
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | KMA-24 Audio Panel |
Scott-
I don't think the KMA-24 needs a speaker load to function. I have tried it
without and it worked. Also make sure you provide a pin T connection
(pigtail), even if you don't need it now, in case you want to add
non-soft-muted alerts/alarms in the future - will save you a lot of work
others (like me) have to sweat about later.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Matt Prather; Date: 01:25 PM 5/18/2006
-0600)
________________________________________________________________
Bob has graciously provided a place to view a number of avionics pinouts:
http://aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data
The KMA-24:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KMA24.pdf
Don't know about the speaker load.
Regards,
Matt-
>
> Does anybody have the pinouts and/or installation manual for a
> Bendix/King KMA-24 audio panel?
>
> I need to figure out how to interface it with my intercom and radios.
> I've heard it might need a speaker load as well, but that seems
> questionable to me.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Scott.
> N30DD
> scott@randolphs net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Allison <stevea(at)svpal.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Z11 architecture question |
Gerry Filby wrote:
> I'm in the process of "designing" my electrical system,
> more-or-less following diagram Z11. I think I get the overall
> goal - near-automatic shedding of non-essential electrical load
> in the event of an alternator failure.
>
> The problem I'm having is deciding what's non-essential and
> what's not. Landing lights can be shut off in-route, but they
> become very desireable in the terminal area at night - for
> landing in "comfort".
>
Gerry,
Here is what is on my Z11 based e-bus (VFR day/night): turn
coordinator, boost pump, panel flood, GPS, COM/intercom, XPONER/encoder,
electric elevator trim. The full electrical system load is 20-30 amps,
depending on flight configuration (takeoff, landing, cruise, day/night,
etc.). Max e-bus load (all e-bus loads ON) is 6.7 amps, typical e-bus
load is 5 amps (boost pump OFF). Everything on the e-bus has its own
ON/OFF switch (built in or on the panel) except the turn coordinator and
electric trim. Minimum e-bus load (all switchable loads OFF) is 0.7 amps.
Landing lights are in the nice to have category, rather than essential
(at least for me). If really needed after an alternator failure my
landing lights can be run by turning the master switch back ON and
turning the landing lights ON.
At some point after the alternator quits running, switch/breaker
settings must be dealt with. The Z11 e-bus design does not eliminate
dealing with switches, it just bypasses the no longer needed battery
relay with an alternate e-bus feed (to drop the 1 amp relay load).
Dealing with switches and breakers does not have to be done
immediately. It is ok to take a few minutes (after a few choice words
about the alternator :-) ) to run through the alternator failure
checklist. Here's mine:
alternate e-bus feed ON
master OFF
panel flood AS REQUIRED
avionics AS REQUIRED
terminate flight as soon as practical
Steve
RV-6A ...... under construction.......still
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
On May 18, 2006, at 6:40 AM, Dan Beadle wrote:
>
>
> Great information. I am convinced about using external Com antenna.
> Where do you suggest I mount an externally mounted VOR antenna?
> Vertical Stab seems obvious choice, but antenna cable length is about
> the same as in wingtip.
Antenna cable length at 108 MHz is really not an issue.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pfsiegel <psiegel(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets |
I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose Noise Cancelling
Headsets.
Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take them on trade-in
for the new style)
My portable interface box no longer works.
Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might be able to get this
unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have one of the portable
interface boxes they would like to get rid of?
Thanks!
Paul Siegel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets |
Paul, Try Ben Dover Avionics at Falcon Field Peachtree
City, Ga. The gentleman who is the proprieter there
used to fix broken headsets for quite a few Delta
pilots. He knows what he is doing. Bob
--- pfsiegel wrote:
>
>
> I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose
> Noise Cancelling
> Headsets.
>
> Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take
> them on trade-in
> for the new style)
>
> My portable interface box no longer works.
>
> Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might
> be able to get this
> unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have
> one of the portable
> interface boxes they would like to get rid of?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paul Siegel
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
>From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>Hi gmcjetpilot and all,
>
>It takes a Trinidad a 250 hp engine to cruise at 155 knots
>TAS (75 % power). Your 1.82 knot cruise speed impact on
>this large draggy spam can amounts to more than 3 % of
>the Trinidad total drag. That means about 6.5 hp just to
>carry your antennas in the breeze.
cher monsieur
Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with
analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention.
Here is the calculations for one COM at 200 mph:
Area: 2.88 in-sq (.04 ft-sq)(assume 20"x3/16" bent-whip w/ base)
Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9)
Drag: 1.02 lbs
HP req: 0.54
HP act: 0.68 (assume prop efficency 0.80)
Speed penalty: 0.25 mph (0.22 kts)
0.68 HP not 3 HP. This is what I am talking about.
If I used 3.75 in-sq the drag would be 0.89 HP/ 0.33 mph lost.
These numbers are WAY conservative.
Remeber the TB-20 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) placed the
penalty of the VOR (about twice a COM antenna in frontal area)
at 0.59 kts (.68 mph). Half is .34 MPH. This is what I got. This
is equal to less then 1 HP not 6.5 HP. If you had a VOR and COM
(like 3 COM's) we have about 2.1 to 2.7 HP MAX.
I agree IF you can get rid of this drag great, but we need
antennas. A metal plane is limited in where the antennas can go.
>Our MCR-4S four seater has a 100 hp engine and cruises at 140
>knots TAS. (75 % power). Total drag is much lower. Those same
>antennas would spend 4.8 hp on our MCR. Much more significant
>when compared to the 75 hp cruise setting.
I don't know what a MCR-4S. It does not matter drag is drag, but
if it is fiberglass than by all means hide your antenna's. However
I only fly metal airplanes, fiberglass is for hot tubs and boats.
(I am kidding, joke, ha ha).
Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide antennas like a
composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read on).
>I'd say something on the order of 2 to 3 knots for an MCR. 3 knots
>or 5 km/h is something we can easily see on the ASI or when flying
>formation. That is the difference we currently measure between clean
>and dirty MCRs.
When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the speed differnce was
NIL or negligible. However from flight test it did appear I picked up a
some speed. Of course measuring such a small change is hard with
flight test that has errors. Analytically I know its good for about 1/3rd
mph. Flight test back up the calculations. Drag is not that large.
An antenna is just not that big of a deal. Now 5 or 10 antennas
would get your attention, but one antenna or two antenna, no.
YOUR MCR-4S:
Drag is a function of airspeed. With your 140 kt cruise, your speed
loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM. With frontal area, coefficient
of drag conservatively assumed, calculated drag is very straight
forward. Your 2 to 3 kts is off by a factor of 16 to 24 too high.
For your 140 kt (160 mph plane) one COM the calculations:
Area: 2.88 in sq (0.04 ft sq) (assume 20"x3/16" bent whip w/base)
Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9)
Drag: 0.66 lbs
HP req: 0.28
HP act: 0.36 (assume prop efficency 0.80)
Speed penalty: 0.11 mph (0.095 kts)
That is hard to read on the IAS. IT IS NOT THAT BAD :-)
Even if I assumed a large frontal areal say 3.75 in-sq,
speed lost = .14 mph, it is no big deal.
Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about small losses.
Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people assume.
ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme
>Of course there is no point in hiding antennas on a Pitts or a Cessna,
>but small and sleek airplanes will really benefit.
>And it is so easy to do, so why not try ?
I appreciate your opinion and I guess any plane can benefit from less
drag. However in a metal plane antenna placement it pretty limited
to external locations. Again the drag from on COM, Tpx or VOR is
about 3/4 - 1 mph tops on a 200 mph plane, or I should say a 199 mph
plane.
It does not matter if it is a RV-7, MCR-4S, Cessna or Pitts, DRAG is
DRAG. However if fiberglass HIDE AWAY. However if it is good to
bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus aircraft
sprout external antennas? http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount antennas on the
airframe and fly. I have done this. It just is not a big deal.
Cheers George
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
In order to gain certification something must be done to make the composite
structure electrically conductive in order to deal with a lightning strike.
So, unlike experimental composite aircraft, the certificated variety have a
metallic mesh, Al or Cu, imbedded in the laminate. This precludes mounting
antennas internally.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Antennas
>From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>Hi gmcjetpilot and all,
>
>It takes a Trinidad a 250 hp engine to cruise at 155 knots
>TAS (75 % power). Your 1.82 knot cruise speed impact on
>this large draggy spam can amounts to more than 3 % of
>the Trinidad total drag. That means about 6.5 hp just to
>carry your antennas in the breeze.
cher monsieur
Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with
analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention.
Here is the calculations for one COM at 200 mph:
Area: 2.88 in-sq (.04 ft-sq)(assume 20"x3/16" bent-whip w/ base)
Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9)
Drag: 1.02 lbs
HP req: 0.54
HP act: 0.68 (assume prop efficency 0.80)
Speed penalty: 0.25 mph (0.22 kts)
0.68 HP not 3 HP. This is what I am talking about.
If I used 3.75 in-sq the drag would be 0.89 HP/ 0.33 mph lost.
These numbers are WAY conservative.
Remeber the TB-20 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) placed the
penalty of the VOR (about twice a COM antenna in frontal area)
at 0.59 kts (.68 mph). Half is .34 MPH. This is what I got. This
is equal to less then 1 HP not 6.5 HP. If you had a VOR and COM
(like 3 COM's) we have about 2.1 to 2.7 HP MAX.
I agree IF you can get rid of this drag great, but we need
antennas. A metal plane is limited in where the antennas can go.
>Our MCR-4S four seater has a 100 hp engine and cruises at 140
>knots TAS. (75 % power). Total drag is much lower. Those same
>antennas would spend 4.8 hp on our MCR. Much more significant
>when compared to the 75 hp cruise setting.
I don't know what a MCR-4S. It does not matter drag is drag, but
if it is fiberglass than by all means hide your antenna's. However
I only fly metal airplanes, fiberglass is for hot tubs and boats.
(I am kidding, joke, ha ha).
Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide antennas like a
composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read on).
>I'd say something on the order of 2 to 3 knots for an MCR. 3 knots
>or 5 km/h is something we can easily see on the ASI or when flying
>formation. That is the difference we currently measure between clean
>and dirty MCRs.
When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the speed differnce was
NIL or negligible. However from flight test it did appear I picked up a
some speed. Of course measuring such a small change is hard with
flight test that has errors. Analytically I know its good for about 1/3rd
mph. Flight test back up the calculations. Drag is not that large.
An antenna is just not that big of a deal. Now 5 or 10 antennas
would get your attention, but one antenna or two antenna, no.
YOUR MCR-4S:
Drag is a function of airspeed. With your 140 kt cruise, your speed
loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM. With frontal area, coefficient
of drag conservatively assumed, calculated drag is very straight
forward. Your 2 to 3 kts is off by a factor of 16 to 24 too high.
For your 140 kt (160 mph plane) one COM the calculations:
Area: 2.88 in sq (0.04 ft sq) (assume 20"x3/16" bent whip w/base)
Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9)
Drag: 0.66 lbs
HP req: 0.28
HP act: 0.36 (assume prop efficency 0.80)
Speed penalty: 0.11 mph (0.095 kts)
That is hard to read on the IAS. IT IS NOT THAT BAD :-)
Even if I assumed a large frontal areal say 3.75 in-sq,
speed lost = .14 mph, it is no big deal.
Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about small losses.
Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people assume.
ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme
>Of course there is no point in hiding antennas on a Pitts or a Cessna,
>but small and sleek airplanes will really benefit.
>And it is so easy to do, so why not try ?
I appreciate your opinion and I guess any plane can benefit from less
drag. However in a metal plane antenna placement it pretty limited
to external locations. Again the drag from on COM, Tpx or VOR is
about 3/4 - 1 mph tops on a 200 mph plane, or I should say a 199 mph
plane.
It does not matter if it is a RV-7, MCR-4S, Cessna or Pitts, DRAG is
DRAG. However if fiberglass HIDE AWAY. However if it is good to
bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus aircraft
sprout external antennas? http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount antennas on the
airframe and fly. I have done this. It just is not a big deal.
Cheers George
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Rob Housman a crit :
>
> In order to gain certification something must be done to make the composite
> structure electrically conductive in order to deal with a lightning strike.
> So, unlike experimental composite aircraft, the certificated variety have a
> metallic mesh, Al or Cu, imbedded in the laminate. This precludes mounting
> antennas internally.
>
>
Hi Rob,
Aren't we talking about experimental aircraft ?
By the way, why should aluminum RVs be able to hide antennas and not
compsite airplanes ? Wingtips, fin cap, etc...
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
Dear Monsieur gmcjetpilot,
>
> Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with
> analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention.
>
Thank you for your message.
I was quoting your numbers :
***************************************
"There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which
features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough,
the engineers at Socata actually quantified the
cruise speed impact of each antenna:"
ADF - .75 knots
G/S - .32 knots
VOR - .59 knots
ELT - .16 knots
***************************************
The total speed reduction is indeed in the vicinity of 1.82 knot. We
ought to include one COM antenna.
>
> I don't know what a MCR-4S.
Oh, you really should check
http://contrails.free.fr/index_en.php
> Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide antennas like a
> composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read on).
>
They do have plastic wingtips and fin tops.
>
> When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the speed differnce was
> NIL or negligible.
What type airplane ? No wonder if it is some aluminum box with short
wings and a big engine ;-)
> With your 140 kt cruise, your speed
> loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM.
How come ? With a speed loss of 0.3 kt at 155 kt, the same antenna
would lose only 0.1 kt at 140 ?
>
> Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about small losses.
> Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people assume.
> ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme
>
>
Just like weight reduction, small gains add to small gains, and in the
end it makes quite a difference. That's how Michel Colomban's two seater
and the MCR01 need only an 80 hp engine to CRUISE at 155 kt TAS.
Those who indulge in the "ce n'est pas une affaire" attitude are
achieving much lower speeds.
> However if it is good to
> bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus aircraft
> sprout external antennas? http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
>
They are designed by, ahem, aircraft engineers. Many of them have the
same "pas une affaire" background.
The industry doesn't believe in the existence of drag. Especially in the
land of cheap gas and big engines.
>
> I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount antennas on the
> airframe and fly.
>
No need. I just have to watch similar airplanes with their antennas
sticking out, and receding in my slipstream ;-)
Oh, and by the way, do you really count the Cirrus in the sleek airplane
category ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
Gilles, see the bottom of my reply to George's message - he is asking why
Cirrus and Columbia have external antennas..
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gilles
Thesee
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Antennas
<Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Rob Housman a crit :
<robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
> In order to gain certification something must be done to make the
composite
> structure electrically conductive in order to deal with a lightning
strike.
> So, unlike experimental composite aircraft, the certificated variety have
a
> metallic mesh, Al or Cu, imbedded in the laminate. This precludes
mounting
> antennas internally.
>
>
Hi Rob,
Aren't we talking about experimental aircraft ?
By the way, why should aluminum RVs be able to hide antennas and not
compsite airplanes ? Wingtips, fin cap, etc...
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Morgan <wmorgan31(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KMA-24 Audio Panel "speaker load" |
Scott,
The 19/L and 16/M pin pairs labeled "speaker load" are for some
radios that require a load on their built in audio amps, the King
KX170B comes to mind.
If your radios have no speaker output, you do not need to connect these pins.
Scott
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
Monsieur:
I noticed you live in Grenoble. Ah, I remember the
great Jean-Claud Killy and the 1968 Winter Olympic
Games. Is that correct? Il y a quarante annee's?
C'est impossible! How is the skiing there these days?
Magnificent, n'est pas?
Bob Sultzbach
--- Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
wrote:
> Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Dear Monsieur gmcjetpilot,
>
>
> >
> > Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my
> point with
> > analytical values and flight test data, beg your
> attention.
> >
>
> Thank you for your message.
> I was quoting your numbers :
>
> ***************************************
> "There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which
> features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough,
> the engineers at Socata actually quantified the
> cruise speed impact of each antenna:"
>
> ADF - .75 knots
> G/S - .32 knots
> VOR - .59 knots
> ELT - .16 knots
> ***************************************
>
> The total speed reduction is indeed in the vicinity
> of 1.82 knot. We
> ought to include one COM antenna.
>
> >
> > I don't know what a MCR-4S.
>
> Oh, you really should check
>
> http://contrails.free.fr/index_en.php
>
> > Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide
> antennas like a
> > composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read
> on).
> >
>
> They do have plastic wingtips and fin tops.
> >
> > When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the
> speed differnce was
> > NIL or negligible.
>
> What type airplane ? No wonder if it is some
> aluminum box with short
> wings and a big engine ;-)
>
> > With your 140 kt cruise, your speed
> > loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM.
>
> How come ? With a speed loss of 0.3 kt at 155 kt,
> the same antenna
> would lose only 0.1 kt at 140 ?
>
> >
> > Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about
> small losses.
> > Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people
> assume.
> > ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme
> >
> >
> Just like weight reduction, small gains add to small
> gains, and in the
> end it makes quite a difference. That's how Michel
> Colomban's two seater
> and the MCR01 need only an 80 hp engine to CRUISE at
> 155 kt TAS.
> Those who indulge in the "ce n'est pas une affaire"
> attitude are
> achieving much lower speeds.
>
> > However if it is good to
> > bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia
> and Cirrus aircraft
> > sprout external antennas?
> http://www.cirrusdesign.com/
> >
> They are designed by, ahem, aircraft engineers. Many
> of them have the
> same "pas une affaire" background.
> The industry doesn't believe in the existence of
> drag. Especially in the
> land of cheap gas and big engines.
>
> >
> > I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount
> antennas on the
> > airframe and fly.
> >
> No need. I just have to watch similar airplanes with
> their antennas
> sticking out, and receding in my slipstream ;-)
> Oh, and by the way, do you really count the Cirrus
> in the sleek airplane
> category ?
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z11 architecture question |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
Thanks all - that seems to make sense.
g
>
>
>
> Gerry Filby wrote:
> > I'm in the process of "designing" my electrical system,
> > more-or-less following diagram Z11. I think I get the overall
> > goal - near-automatic shedding of non-essential electrical load
> > in the event of an alternator failure.
> >
> > The problem I'm having is deciding what's non-essential and
> > what's not. Landing lights can be shut off in-route, but they
> > become very desireable in the terminal area at night - for
> > landing in "comfort".
> >
> Gerry,
>
> Here is what is on my Z11 based e-bus (VFR day/night): turn
> coordinator, boost pump, panel flood, GPS, COM/intercom,
> XPONER/encoder,
> electric elevator trim. The full electrical system load is 20-30 amps,
> depending on flight configuration (takeoff, landing, cruise, day/night,
> etc.). Max e-bus load (all e-bus loads ON) is 6.7 amps, typical e-bus
> load is 5 amps (boost pump OFF). Everything on the e-bus has its own
> ON/OFF switch (built in or on the panel) except the turn
> coordinator and
> electric trim. Minimum e-bus load (all switchable loads OFF)
> is 0.7 amps.
>
> Landing lights are in the nice to have category, rather than essential
> (at least for me). If really needed after an alternator failure my
> landing lights can be run by turning the master switch back ON and
> turning the landing lights ON.
>
> At some point after the alternator quits running, switch/breaker
> settings must be dealt with. The Z11 e-bus design does not eliminate
> dealing with switches, it just bypasses the no longer needed battery
> relay with an alternate e-bus feed (to drop the 1 amp relay load).
> Dealing with switches and breakers does not have to be done
> immediately. It is ok to take a few minutes (after a few choice words
> about the alternator :-) ) to run through the alternator failure
> checklist. Here's mine:
>
> alternate e-bus feed ON
> master OFF
> panel flood AS REQUIRED
> avionics AS REQUIRED
> terminate flight as soon as practical
>
>
> Steve
> RV-6A ...... under construction.......still
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Dube <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov> |
| Subject: | "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling |
Headsets)
"Ben Dover" Avionics?
Someone in this chain has a sense of humor. It is either the poster, the
person that named the company, or Mr Dover's parents.
Robert Sultzbach wrote:
>
>Paul, Try Ben Dover Avionics at Falcon Field Peachtree
>City, Ga. The gentleman who is the proprieter there
>used to fix broken headsets for quite a few Delta
>pilots. He knows what he is doing. Bob
>
>--- pfsiegel wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose
>>Noise Cancelling
>>Headsets.
>>
>>Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take
>>them on trade-in
>>for the new style)
>>
>>My portable interface box no longer works.
>>
>>Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might
>>be able to get this
>>unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have
>>one of the portable
>>interface boxes they would like to get rid of?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>Paul Siegel
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>browse
>>Subscriptions page,
>>FAQ,
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
>>Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Gilles, see the bottom of my reply to George's message - he is asking why
> Cirrus and Columbia have external antennas..
>
>
>
Rob,
Understand.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling |
Headsets)
Ha Ha if the name is for real I'll bet he caught heck in school and
probably still does. LOL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <william.p.dube(at)noaa.gov>
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise
Cancelling Headsets)
>
>
> "Ben Dover" Avionics?
>
> Someone in this chain has a sense of humor. It is either the poster, the
> person that named the company, or Mr Dover's parents.
>
>
> Robert Sultzbach wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Paul, Try Ben Dover Avionics at Falcon Field Peachtree
>>City, Ga. The gentleman who is the proprieter there
>>used to fix broken headsets for quite a few Delta
>>pilots. He knows what he is doing. Bob
>>
>>--- pfsiegel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose
>>>Noise Cancelling
>>>Headsets.
>>>
>>>Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take
>>>them on trade-in
>>>for the new style)
>>>
>>>My portable interface box no longer works.
>>>
>>>Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might
>>>be able to get this
>>>unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have
>>>one of the portable
>>>interface boxes they would like to get rid of?
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>
>>>Paul Siegel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>browse
>>>Subscriptions page,
>>>FAQ,
>>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>>
>>>
>>>Admin.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
> Monsieur:
>
> I noticed you live in Grenoble. Ah, I remember the
> great Jean-Claud Killy and the 1968 Winter Olympic
> Games. Is that correct? Il y a quarante annee's?
> C'est impossible! How is the skiing there these days?
> Magnificent, n'est pas?
>
>
Hi Bob,
You're correct. Were you there during those golden days of French skiing ?
I wasn't in Grenoble at the time, but I followed Jean-Claude Killy's
downhill at a TV store before going to school.
Killy is still around, he is a member of the International Olympic
Committee.
Skiing is great here, but building took sooo much time !
Amicalement,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN CRATE" <johncrate(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | PTT (PS Engineering PCD7100) |
Hi
I am trying to connect a ptt switch to a PCD 7100. The intercom/CD player
is working fine, as is the audio output of the 250XL through the PCD 7100. I
am stumped on how to incorporate a PTT switch for transmitting. I believe
the drawings are telling me that I just need a switch wired in such a way
that it will cause the mic ptt (tip) to ground out at the barrel of the
connector when the switch is activated. When I tried this, I ended up
blowing a fuse, thus I am very reluctant to experiment much further without
some advice (I only used a 3A fuse, but don't think that is relevant).
Any pearls of wisdom greatly appreciated.
John Crate
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | MB antenna length |
Where is the source for a 40" MB coax antenna? All I find in the Connection
is a 75" length for a quarter wave balun.
Rob Wright
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets |
On May 19, 2006, at 7:35 AM, pfsiegel wrote:
>
> I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose Noise Cancelling
> Headsets.
>
> Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take them on trade-in
> for the new style)
>
> My portable interface box no longer works.
>
> Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might be able to get
> this
> unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have one of the
> portable
> interface boxes they would like to get rid of?
> (snip)
>
>
Paul, if you have the box with a 6-pin connector, it's a pretty easy
fix. Some of the very earliest ones had a 9-pin connector, but mine
had a 6-pin that turns out to be the same pinout as the connectors
that are becoming increasingly common in new aircraft for ANR headsets.
If your jacks are easy to get to (and your headset has the 6-pin
connector) it's pretty simple solder the connector in parallel with
your existing jacks, and you no longer need the interface box. You
can still use regular headset connectors, just not both at the same
position at the same time.
Bose sells the jack with a wiring harness (way longer than you
probably need) for $30. Part number is 178035.
Hope this helps--I loved getting the interface box out of the
cockpit, and I'm saving a fortune in AA batteries.
James Freeman
I've got a few pics if needed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: MB antenna length |
On May 19, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Robert G. Wright wrote:
>
>
> Where is the source for a 40" MB coax antenna? All I find in the
> Connection
> is a 75" length for a quarter wave balun.
Antennas don't necessarily need to be resonant and/or efficient. If
you have a lot of signal you might not need a lot of antenna.
Consider that a marker beacon transmitter may run 50W of power or so
into a directional antenna beaming it straight up at your airplane.
Now consider that you need to receive it from only a couple thousand
feet away at most. It doesn't take a lot of antenna at the receiver
to pick up that signal.
Frankly, just about any piece of wire will suffice as a marker beacon
antenna.
So, take a piece of coax, strip the shield off of about 40" of it
(length is not critical) and connect the other end to your MB
receiver. Put the unshielded 40" or so where it might be able to see
the ground without to much shielding from the airframe. There is your
MB antenna.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Aart van't Veld" <avtveld(at)tiscali.nl> |
| Subject: | Where to install the hall effect sensor |
Guys,
I have read all available info in the list on the Hall effect sensor to
measure currents but would like some detailed input and pro's and cons on
the different positions where to put these sensors, be it over battery
cables, bus feeders or alternator b-leads. Your help is appreciated!
Aart van't Veld, RV7, wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott" <scott428(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | SL-30 Nav Audio Connection... |
Is the Garmin SL-30 nav audio output (pins 20 and 23) only used if one has
an audio panel? If pins 20 and 23 are not used, is nav audio output on the
com side via pins 13 and 14? Or should the nav audio output (pins 20 and
23) be tied to the headphone circuit? Thanks for saving me the
experimentation.
-Scott Fifield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to install the hall effect sensor |
Hi Aart
FWIW I put one on the main b-lead. It lets me see how hard the
alternator is working and it still confirms various items are working
(drawing current) similar to the way it would if on the main bus feeder.
I quickly learned to tell how much charging current is going into the
battery by subtracting the normal running loads from the reading. I'd
put it in the same place if doing it again.
Ken
Aart van't Veld wrote:
>
>Guys,
>
>I have read all available info in the list on the Hall effect sensor to
>measure currents but would like some detailed input and pro's and cons on
>the different positions where to put these sensors, be it over battery
>cables, bus feeders or alternator b-leads. Your help is appreciated!
>
>
>
>Aart van't Veld, RV7, wiring
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
| Subject: | SL-30 Nav Audio Connection... |
As part of the "setup" for the SL30, you are given the option of having the
NAV audio "mixed" with the COM audio. This will make the NAV audio also
appear on pins 13 and 14.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:24 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Nav Audio Connection...
Is the Garmin SL-30 nav audio output (pins 20 and 23) only used if one has
an audio panel? If pins 20 and 23 are not used, is nav audio output on the
com side via pins 13 and 14? Or should the nav audio output (pins 20 and
23) be tied to the headphone circuit? Thanks for saving me the
experimentation.
-Scott Fifield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Mac Arthur" <jetfr8t(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | ANL current limiters |
I understand that the ANL current limiter installed by the starter contactor
protects the "B" lead from a large current draw from the battery.
My somewhat philosophical question is this: Why not use one to protect the
fat wire from the battery contactor to the main power distribution bus? Of
course, the battery contactor can be manually opened, but there is
recognition time and action required. Also, in the case of an accident that
damages where that wire penetrates the firewall, there is no automatic
protection for that wire.
Craig Mac Arthur
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Scott" <scott428(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Nav Audio Connection... |
Bill, and Aeroelectric Gang-
Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Is it true that when the Nav is selected, the com side is disabled? If so,
the "mixing" of the com and nav on pins 13 and 14 would not be an issue. Is
there any advantage at all to using Nav Audio on pins 20 and 23 if I'm not
using an audio panel?
Thanks again-
Scott Fifield
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Nav Audio Connection...
>
> As part of the "setup" for the SL30, you are given the option of having
the
> NAV audio "mixed" with the COM audio. This will make the NAV audio also
> appear on pins 13 and 14.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Scott
> Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:24 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Nav Audio Connection...
>
>
> Is the Garmin SL-30 nav audio output (pins 20 and 23) only used if one has
> an audio panel? If pins 20 and 23 are not used, is nav audio output on
the
> com side via pins 13 and 14? Or should the nav audio output (pins 20 and
> 23) be tied to the headphone circuit? Thanks for saving me the
> experimentation.
>
> -Scott Fifield
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiters - Bob need you comment |
I would think the ANL would go on the output lead/terminal of the
alternator to reduce the noise component alternators generate. Time
to see guidance form a higher level, Bob would you mind commenting on
this topic.
jerb
At 04:56 PM 5/20/2006, you wrote:
>
>
>I understand that the ANL current limiter installed by the starter contactor
>protects the "B" lead from a large current draw from the battery.
>
>My somewhat philosophical question is this: Why not use one to protect the
>fat wire from the battery contactor to the main power distribution bus? Of
>course, the battery contactor can be manually opened, but there is
>recognition time and action required. Also, in the case of an accident that
>damages where that wire penetrates the firewall, there is no automatic
>protection for that wire.
>
>Craig Mac Arthur
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | ANL current limiters - Bob, need your comment. |
Good Evening jerb
Not sure, but I believe 'Lectric Bob told us he would be off list while he
and his bride were enjoying a trip to conduct a seminar.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 5/20/2006 9:42:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
ulflyer(at)verizon.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jerb
I would think the ANL would go on the output lead/terminal of the
alternator to reduce the noise component alternators generate. Time
to see guidance form a higher level, Bob would you mind commenting on
this topic.
jerb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vic Yerevanian" <vicster(at)netvigator.com> |
| Subject: | Thermocouple wire near ignition harness |
Hello,
I am thinking of routing the thermocouple wires to the ungrounded EGT and
CHT probes along side the ignition harness. I do recall reading in a
previous message that the sensors have a low impedance and do not require
shielding. My installation manual doesn't caution against tying the TC wires
with the ignition harness, but I know of one manual that does. Can I firstly
tie the TC wires along side the ignition harness, and secondly does it need
to be shielded even though the probe is of the ungrounded type.
Thank you
Vic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Mac Arthur" <jetfr8t(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiters - Bob need you comment |
The ANL is a current limiter, not a noise limiter as the initials would make
you think. I'm not sure what ANL stands for. Probably a trade name. Anyhow,
their purpose is to protect the "B" lead against a large flow of current
from the battery if the alternator diodes get shorted to ground.
Craig
>From: jerb <ulflyer(at)verizon.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ANL current limiters - Bob need you
>comment
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 21:31:08 -0500
>
>
>I would think the ANL would go on the output lead/terminal of the
>alternator to reduce the noise component alternators generate. Time
>to see guidance form a higher level, Bob would you mind commenting on
>this topic.
>jerb
>
>At 04:56 PM 5/20/2006, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >I understand that the ANL current limiter installed by the starter
>contactor
> >protects the "B" lead from a large current draw from the battery.
> >
> >My somewhat philosophical question is this: Why not use one to protect
>the
> >fat wire from the battery contactor to the main power distribution bus?
>Of
> >course, the battery contactor can be manually opened, but there is
> >recognition time and action required. Also, in the case of an accident
>that
> >damages where that wire penetrates the firewall, there is no automatic
> >protection for that wire.
> >
> >Craig Mac Arthur
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
I have a 10A CB that I want to feed off a buss bar (60A) it's only an
inch . . . what the proper way to do this . . . or is it a concern . .
. I't will be feeding a WigWag flasher on the other side of the CB so
it's not mission critical.
Regards,
Bob - SE Iowa (RV-8)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Mac Arthur" <jetfr8t(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | ANL current limiters |
I found the answer to my own question. Bob answered it in another form a few
years ago. It's in a FAQ file, but it took me a couple of sessions to find
it. Here is the exchange:
Circuit protection for big wires
>I'm building an RV-8 with an aft mounted battery. I note that the
>electrical system schematics
in Bob's Appendix Z don't show any circuit protection on the big wires going
to the starter
contactor, and to the main fuse block. Both those wires will be quite long
in my installation,
and I'm concerned about the lack of protection. I have visions about a major
smoke in the
cockpit triggered by something chafing one of those cables, or a post crash
fire triggered by
arcing from the broken, but still live cables. I'm seriously considering
mounting the starter
contactor aft, beside the main contactor, next to the battery. That way the
cable going to the
starter will only be live during a start. That still leaves the long cable
going to the main fuse
block. Would it be practical to either make a large capacity fuselink, or
install a large CB or fuse
in that line? I would rather deal with an inflight short by seeing
everything go black, and then
selecting the essential bus alternate feed, than scrambling to throw the
battery master in the
middle of a major smoke in the cockpit event. Comments?
A The interesting thing about FAT wires in an airplane is that while they
carry the greatest
energy and potential for current flow, they represent the least hazard with
respect to electrical
faults. It's very difficult to create a hard fault on one of these wires.
Study the wire's pathway
through the airframe. What items of structure or loose systems might come to
bear on one of
these wires with sufficient force to compromise its insulation and produce a
hard short? If the
possiblity of such a scenario exists, it's easier to design out the
possibility than to provide
fusible protection for the wire.
If a fault does develop, it's most likely a "soft" fault that causes some
arcing (battery
wires rubbing the edge of a lightening hole is a good example) that simply
burns away the area
it touches without bringing down the system. Over 200,000 airplanes have
been built in this
country without fusible protection of the FAT wires. Like wing struts,
propeller shafts, flight
controls . . . it's relatively easy to product very low probability of
failure by design.
Another reader suggested that the battery contactor should be a hot-side
control as
opposed to cold-side control. A little study will show that it doesn't make
any difference which
side of the contactor is switched. A severe fault on the feedline downstream
of the contactor
will load the battery to a point perhaps low enough to cause the contactor
to open. When it
does, battery voltage comes back up and the contactor recloses. This sets up
a scenario for
"buzzing" of the battery contactor which almost always results in a welding
of the contactor.
It's really easy to protect he wire from faults to the degree that fuses
and/or breakers are not
necessary.
>>I have visions about a major smoke in the cockpit triggered by something
>>chafing one of
those cables, or a post crash fire triggered by arcing from the broken, but
still live cables.
A If it's an impending crash that you're preparing for, ALL SWITCHES OFF is
a good thing
to do before coming into contact with the earth.
>I'm seriously considering mounting the starter contactor aft, beside the
>main contactor, next to
the battery. That way the cable going to the starter will only be live
during a start.
A If you do this, you'll lose the advantage of tying alternator b-lead power
feeds to the
starter contactor and avoid bringing the noisiest wire in the airplane into
the cockpit for
attachment to the bus along with your audio system and radios. The power
distribution
diagrams in Appendix Z have evolved over more than 12 years of refining
ideas and
philosophies on owner built and maintained (OBAM) aircraft. I won't say that
they're infallible
nor would I suggest that we won't deduce good reasons for changes in the
future. Given the
rich database of history about fat wires in little airplanes and our
understanding of the
designed in failure modes of certified airplanes (see Chapter 17 of the
AeroElectric
Connection) I would counsel caution about major departures the philosophies
presently
illustrated by those drawings. Bob . . .
------
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
>From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>Aren't we talking about experimental aircraft ?
>By the way, why should aluminum RVs be able to
>hide antennas and not composite airplanes ?
>Wingtips, fin cap, etc...
>Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France
>http://contrails.free.fr
s'il vous plat
Yes Sir, there is no reason, but they work terribly,
that is a fact. The word, WORKS, to might mean
you can talk to the tower 5 miles in front of you,
but ATC 100-140 miles away no. I am totally put
off by wing tip antennas and like ideas (in metal
planes) because there is such a huge compromise
in radio performance. To me communications and
navigation is too important to safety to compromise
on so much for such a small gain in drag reduction.
> From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with
>analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention.
>
>Thank you for your message.
>I was quoting your numbers :
>***************************************
>"There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which
>features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough,
>the engineers at Socata actually quantified the
>cruise speed impact of each antenna:"
>ADF - .75 knots
>G/S - .32 knots
>VOR - .59 knots
>ELT - .16 knots
>***************************************
>The total speed reduction is indeed in the vicinity of
>1.82 knot. We ought to include one COM antenna.
Fair enough but experimental's usually do not have
ADF's. Most split the VOR for the G/S so the speed
would be 0.75kts + COM, or about 1 kt (1.15 mph).
The values are MAX drag, but still it matches my
number with in 3% to 18%. Again the point is that
most people assume too much drag from the antennas
alone, so consider external antennas for max radio
performance for a little drag (metal planes. There is
lots of drag to get rid if, like cooling drag.
>Oh, you really should check
>http://contrails.free.fr/index_en.php
NICE!
>Just like weight reduction, small gains add to small
>gains, and in the end it makes quite a difference.
NO argument from me. Every little bit helps, however
the BIG PICTURE is on metal planes we just have
lousy, awful, terrible, severely restricted and limited
radio performance when we use wing top, empennage
cowl and cockpit antennas. They WORK but again
I want more than a 5 mile conversation with tower.
In the US we have large expanse of land and REMOTE
radio outlets. To get ATC for radar, Flight Watch for
weather or Flight Service to open / close flight plans,
a clear powerful radio is so so important. Also we
have many class B and C air spaces that require a
good radio.
This is what my hidden antenna friends heard all the time:
AIRCRAFT CALLING WASHINGTON CENTER YOU ARE
WEAK AND SCRATCHY, WHAT IS YOUR REQUEST?
SAY AGAIN?
It's not worth 1 mph, when you are going 195 mph.
>They are designed by, ahem, aircraft engineers. Many of
>them have the same "pas une affaire" background. The
>industry doesn't believe in the existence of drag. Especially
>in the land of cheap gas and big engines.
What land and engineers are we talking about, monsieur.
American engineers? pardonnez-moi
Land of cheap gas and big engines? America?
No offense taken, but give some examples to back up
your comment, aircraft engineers just know how to put a
big engines in from the "land of cheap gas and big engines".
I think a debate of airframes and engines are better for
another time or off this aeroelectric list.
I would say a long EZ, even with 160HP is way more efficient
than a MCR 4S or even a RV-9A with 115HP, and it has nothing
to do with engine size. I also say a RV-9A is more efficient than
your MCR 4S. Looking at the RV-9A with 115HP it has 10kt
faster speed (150kts). Not sure what engine you have 80 or
115 hp.
Anyway we can talk off line about efficency and
engine size. They are two different things.
>I just have to watch similar airplanes with their antennas
>sticking out, and receding in my slipstream ;-)
Ha ha ha ha good for you. Want to race my big engined
RV-7 with O360 190HP?
It would be a good experiment to take your buddies plane's
antennas off and do a before and after. You will than see what
it they really cost in speed.
As far as big engine's, I can dial my RV-7 back and fly
140 kts and burn about the same fuel as you do. However
I have the option to fly as fast as 192 kts. How do I say in
French, as I pass you?
au revoir, mangez ma poussire, voyez-vous plus
Cheers nice talking to you,
George
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Where to install the hall effect sensor |
On May 20, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Aart van't Veld wrote:
>
>
> Guys,
>
> I have read all available info in the list on the Hall effect
> sensor to
> measure currents but would like some detailed input and pro's and
> cons on
> the different positions where to put these sensors, be it over battery
> cables, bus feeders or alternator b-leads. Your help is appreciated!
Well, there are three basic places you can put a current sensor
(shunt or hall-effect):
1. alternator B-lead (current source);
2. battery lead (current sink on charge or source on discharge);
3. bus feed (current sink).
If you want the whole picture you need at least two. If you know what
the alternator is producing and what the loads are consuming, the
difference is what is going into (or coming out of) the battery. If
you know what is going into the battery and coming out of the
alternator, the difference is what is being consumed in your loads.
If you have only one sensor you don't have enough information.
And of course this gets a bit more complex with multiple busses,
multiple alternators, and multiple batteries but the basic statements
above remain relevant.
But if I could have only one current sensor it would be in the B-lead
as an alternator load meter. By watching my load start higher and
then drop off, I know the battery is charging. I can also use it to
see what each load draws by turning loads on and off. It will also
tell you if you are working your alternator too hard.
But don't forget your voltmeter. That is more important than the
ammeter.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thermocouple wire near ignition harness |
On May 21, 2006, at 3:01 AM, Vic Yerevanian wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am thinking of routing the thermocouple wires to the ungrounded
> EGT and
> CHT probes along side the ignition harness. I do recall reading in a
> previous message that the sensors have a low impedance and do not
> require
> shielding.
That is true.
> My installation manual doesn't caution against tying the TC wires
> with the ignition harness, but I know of one manual that does. Can
> I firstly
> tie the TC wires along side the ignition harness, and secondly does
> it need
> to be shielded even though the probe is of the ungrounded type.
If you are using an ungrounded type of thermocouple that is usually
because the instrument maker opted to save money on the device and
not use a differential input. Still, one side of the thermocouple
should be grounded in the instrument which will protect against any
high-voltages induced in the TC wiring.
And no, no shielding is necessary.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ANL current limiters - Bob need you comment |
On May 21, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Craig Mac Arthur wrote:
>
>
>
> The ANL is a current limiter, not a noise limiter as the initials
> would make
> you think. I'm not sure what ANL stands for. Probably a trade name.
> Anyhow,
> their purpose is to protect the "B" lead against a large flow of
> current
> from the battery if the alternator diodes get shorted to ground.
It is just a kind of fuse.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aircraft performance (was Antennas) |
Cher George Mc. Jetpilot,
Thank you for replying.
Hope the group won't mind this conversation. After all, the initial
topic was about hiding or not hiding antennas.
> In the US we have large expanse of land and REMOTE
> radio outlets. To get ATC for radar, Flight Watch for
> weather or Flight Service to open / close flight plans,
> a clear powerful radio is so so important. Also we
> have many class B and C air spaces that require a
> good radio.
>
Would 100 NAUTICAL miles at 2000 ft AMSL, or 140 NM when above 5000 ft
fill your requirements ? I'm quite satisfied with that performance.
By the way, in the old continent, towers are more closely spaced than
that, and we seldom have to contact anyone that far. Except for the fun
of testing actual range.
>
>
> This is what my hidden antenna friends heard all the time:
>
> AIRCRAFT CALLING WASHINGTON CENTER YOU ARE
> WEAK AND SCRATCHY,
>
Hmm, maybe they would benefit from the Aeroelcectric List...
By the way, my radio is loud and clear.
>
> ....
>> industry doesn't believe in the existence of drag. Especially
>> in the land of cheap gas and big engines.
>>
> What land and engineers are we talking about, monsieur.
> American engineers? pardonnez-moi
>
Very few light aircraft engineers anywhere are concerned with cooling
drag, internal flow mechanics or drag reduction.
Those who really do their homework design faster airplanes.
>
> Land of cheap gas and big engines? America?
>
Ever bought gas in Europe ? Then you'll understand what I mean ;-)
>
> I would say a long EZ, even with 160HP is way more efficient
> than a MCR 4S
Two of our 5 hangar mates happen to fly Long EZ, and I'm not much
impressed by their performance. And believe me, when taking off or
landing on our less-than 2000 ft grass strip with no wind, they have
their hands full.
> ...I also say a RV-9A is more efficient than
> your MCR 4S. Looking at the RV-9A with 115HP it has 10kt
> faster speed (150kts).
Hey, that's cheat !
You're confusing TOP speed (100% power) and CRUISE speed (75%). The
RV-9A numbers on their website are phony. We all know that 75 % power
speed is 91 % of top speed, that's elementary flight mechanics.
So the RV-9A should either cruise at 136 kt, or peak at 159.
As very few people will minimize their top speed, I'd say that the
little bird tops at 150 kt, and their 75% power cruise is nearer to 90%...
And our bird tops at 155 kt true on 100 hp only.
Oh, and by the way, that's with four on board and 4 hr fuel...
> Not sure what engine you have 80 or
> 115 hp.
>
115 hp takeoff, 100 hp top speed, 75 hp cruise at 140 kt true.
838 lbs empty, 1100-1200 ft/min @ gross weight.
> Want to race my big engined
> RV-7 with O360 190HP?
>
>
Why not race with a two-seater ?
The MCR 01 top speed is 168 kt on 80 hp. If you really want to cling
behind at 80 hp, you better remove those antennas...;-)
Regards,
Gilles
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft performance (was Antennas) |
On 22 May 2006, at 09:40, Gilles Thesee wrote:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Hey, that's cheat !
> You're confusing TOP speed (100% power) and CRUISE speed (75%). The
> RV-9A numbers on their website are phony. We all know that 75 % power
> speed is 91 % of top speed, that's elementary flight mechanics.
> So the RV-9A should either cruise at 136 kt, or peak at 159.
> As very few people will minimize their top speed, I'd say that the
> little bird tops at 150 kt, and their 75% power cruise is nearer to
> 90%...
>
Top speed (100% power) will be achieved at sea level, as the power
will be lower at higher altitudes (assuming a normally aspirated
engine). At sea level, the speed at 75% power should be about 91% of
the speed at 100% power. As you said. But, at a given amount of
power, the speed increases as the altitude increases. So, the best
speed at 75% power will be at the highest altitude at which the
engine will produce this amount of power. That is usually around
8,000 ft for normally aspirated engines, and the speed at that
altitude should only be a few percent slower than the speed with max
power at sea level.
The CAFE Foundation tested Van's 160 hp RV-9A demo aircraft, and they
found that the speed was higher than Van quotes on his web site (193
mph at 8,500 ft density altitude, vs 188 mph claimed by Van's).
Van's claimed 75% cruise number for a 118 hp engine falls pretty much
where you would expect given the difference in power, so I have no
reason to believe that it is phony. I'd be interested in knowing
what test data you have that contradicts the CAFE Foundation results.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics BBS Forums |
Hello Listers,
I just wanted to send out a reminder to all of the Listers regarding the new-ish
BBS (Bulletin Board System) Forums that are available at Matronics for the Email
Lists. The BBS Forums give you Web-based access into the same email content
that is generated by the Email Lists. When an email message is posted to
any of the email lists, a copy of the message is also copied to the respective
List forum section on in the BBS Forums. By the same token, when a message is
posted within the BBS Forum interface context, it will also be posted to the
respective email list.
Basically, the BBS Forums give you yet another method of accessing the Matronics
Email List content. Some people prefer email, some prefer web forums; now you
can have it either way or both with the Matronics Lists!
You'll have to register for a login/password on the BBS Forum to _post_ from the
BBS, but you can view message content without registering for an account. To
Register for an account, look for the link at the top of the main BBS Forum
page entitled "Register". Click on it and follow the instructions. Site Administrator
approval will be required (to keep spammers out), but I will try to
get these approved in less than 24 hours.
If you haven't yet taken a look at the Matronics Email List content over on the
BBS Forum, surf on over and take a peek. Its pretty cool. The URL is:
http://forums.matronics.com
I want to stress that the BBS Forums are simply an adjunct to the existing Matronics
Email Lists; another way of viewing and interacting with the Matronics List
content. If you like Email, great. If you like Web Forums, great. If you
like both, great. Its up to you how you view and create your content.
You will also find a URL link at the bottom of this email called Matronics List
Features Navigator. You can click on this link at any time to find URL links
to all of the other great features available on the Matronics site like the Archive
Search Engine, List Browse, List Download, FAQs, Wiki, and lots more.
There is a specific Navigator for each Email List and the link for this specific
List is shown below.
Thanks for all the great list participation and support; it is greatly appreciated!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
I'm building a tube and fabric and fiberglass plane, and I'm to the
point of trying to decide where to put the antennae. Keeping drag down
is of upmost importance to me, 'cause I feel that if I wish hard enough
I could be a Reno contender some day 8*)
Well, back to reality....
How about some comments on this person's work in combining the com
antennae with the pitot tube.
http://contrails.free.fr/instruments_ant_sonex.php
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft performance (was Antennas) |
Kevin,
> ... and the speed at that
> altitude should only be a few percent slower than the speed with max
> power at sea level.
>
You're right, we should take air density into account. But at lower
altitudes, the angle of attack is less, and so is drag, so the effect
you describe is somewhat compounded.
I just phoned a buddy aircraft engineer on that matter. A 75% cruise at
only 3 % below top speed still seems rather close, but who knows ?
Please consider that we only talked about the RV-9A because George chose
it for a comparison with our 4-seater. I was not criticizing any of the
RV models.
> The CAFE Foundation tested Van's 160 hp RV-9A demo aircraft, and they
> found that the speed was higher than Van quotes on his web site (193
> mph at 8,500 ft density altitude, vs 188 mph claimed by Van's).
How come ? 2 % more speed means 8 % more power. Please note I'm not
questioning the CAFE ability to test an aircraft.
>
> Van's claimed 75% cruise number for a 118 hp engine falls pretty much
> where you would expect given the difference in power,
118 hp to 160 hp yields a 10-11 % speed gain. And here we have 14 %...
> so I have no
> reason to believe that it is phony.
Please pardon me for questioning those numbers, but at first sight,
they seemed strange to me.
I should have said that I always take published numbers with a grain of
salt.
And there is that tendancy for homebuilts to lose airspeed once they've
crossed the Atlantic ...;-)
> I'd be interested in knowing
> what test data you have that contradicts the CAFE Foundation results.
>
Kevin, all I know is what you just told us, so why would I contradict ?
Hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers.
Best regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Ensing" <densing(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch |
I'm just in the process of designing the electrical system for my RV-7
and I'm trying to figure out why we need a field switch and/or breaker
for the alternator? I've searched and searched, I can find lot's of
information on how to wire it, but as to the questions "why?", or what
does the "field" wire do ; I can find nothing. I'm guessing it is a very
simple answer and it is just my inexperience showing
In simple terms.........
The field switch supplies current to the alternator field which is required
for the alt. to produce electricity.
The breaker the field switch draws current from is to protect the wiring in
case of an excessive current such as a short.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/22/06 |
Not to jump into the middle of so delicious a cat fight, but you guys might
be interested in this data. I have an insurance company database with
manufacturers specified horsepower, max speed, and 75% cruise speed numbers
for 440 (mostly American) light aircraft. The average horsepower is 220.5,
average top speed is 164.4 knots, and the average manufacturers claimed 75%
power cruise speed is 153.5 knots. That works out to 93.4% of the average
top speed.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Alternator Field Breaker/Switch |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
Think of the alternator as having leverage: you put a little current
into the alternator to get a lot out. Kind of like an amplifier. (Of
course, there is no free lunch - the power for the leverage comes from
the engine a HP load).
The Field switch lets you turn off the demand for power from the
alternator.
WHY would this be important? Suppose you have an electrical fire and
you need to turn off all power to the busses - the field switch is the
key.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Ensing
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch
I'm just in the process of designing the electrical system for my RV-7
and I'm trying to figure out why we need a field switch and/or breaker
for the alternator? I've searched and searched, I can find lot's of
information on how to wire it, but as to the questions "why?", or what
does the "field" wire do ; I can find nothing. I'm guessing it is a very
simple answer and it is just my inexperience showing
In simple terms.........
The field switch supplies current to the alternator field which is
required
for the alt. to produce electricity.
The breaker the field switch draws current from is to protect the wiring
in
case of an excessive current such as a short.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/22/06 |
| From: | "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com> |
Aren't catfights great?
I too have been on the receiving end of massively overinflated speed
claims by kit manufacturers. However if there is one thing everyone says
in their first flight reports of a Vans aircraft is..."Performance as
advertised"...More in some cases.
Other kit's false advertising drove me straight into the arms of the RV
fraternity...Now if only I could get my 7a finished!
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lee
Logan
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 7:05 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs -
05/22/06
-->
Not to jump into the middle of so delicious a cat fight, but you guys
might be interested in this data. I have an insurance company database
with manufacturers specified horsepower, max speed, and 75% cruise speed
numbers for 440 (mostly American) light aircraft. The average
horsepower is 220.5, average top speed is 164.4 knots, and the average
manufacturers claimed 75% power cruise speed is 153.5 knots. That works
out to 93.4% of the average top speed.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/22/06 |
Ah! I agree, I'm not a cat either, but a simple engineer. Let's see, drag
goes up as the square of speed so power required goes up as the cube of speed.
(Power=force x velocity) Force in this case is the thrust required to
overcome the drag. Now, the cube root of .75 is 0.90856. So we should expect
speed at 75 percent power to be 91 percent of the speed at 100 percent power.
Isn't math beautiful?
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying 164 hours now. What a wonderful airplane!
In a message dated 5/23/2006 10:43:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
Not to jump into the middle of so delicious a cat fight, but you guys
might be interested in this data. I have an insurance company database
with manufacturers specified horsepower, max speed, and 75% cruise speed
numbers for 440 (mostly American) light aircraft. The average
horsepower is 220.5, average top speed is 164.4 knots, and the average
manufacturers claimed 75% power cruise speed is 153.5 knots. That works
out to 93.4% of the average top speed.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch |
On May 22, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Mark Chamberlain wrote:
> information on how to wire it, but as to the questions "why?", or what
> does the "field" wire do ; I can find nothing. I'm guessing it is a
> very
> simple answer and it is just my inexperience showing through.
If you go back to an elementary science class, someone once told you
that if you wave a magnet around a wire, that wire will produce an
electric current. They also probably told you that if you pass a
current through a wire it will produce a magnetic field around the
wire. This was the amazing discovery of Michael Faraday and upon
which all electrical and radio theory is based.
Some alternators or generators do indeed use a permanent magnet
whirling around inside a coil of wire to produce power but the output
is directly proportional to how fast you spin it. If it makes more
output than you need you must find a way to get rid of the excess.
This is not a problem if the output is relatively small but if you
want something that can produce a lot of output for the times when
you need a lot of output, it produces way too much when you don't
need it all. Hence permanent magnet alternators, officially known as
"dynamos", tend to be small things.
But if you want one that can produce a lot of output when needed but
not much output when not needed you need a way to vary the
effectiveness. If you remember the two things that our buddy Mike
discovered, i.e. that moving magnetism generates an electric current
and moving electrons generate magnetism, you have the basic
components you need. If you want to increase the output of your
alternator at a given rotational velocity you need more magntism and
vice versa. So how can we turn the magnatism up and down as needed?
Why, we use a coil of wire with a current flowing through it. If we
increase the current, the magnetism increases and the output of our
alternator increases. If we reduce the current, the output of our
alternator decreases. This electromagnet is the rotating part of the
alternator. It is called the rotor but it is also called the field
winding from the olden days when we used generators.
A generator has the power-producing windings on the spinning part
called the armature and the magnetic field producing part, the field
windings, around the outside. An alternator has the magnetic field
windings on the spinning part (rotor) and the power-producing coils
(stator) are around the outside. You see I keep using the term
"magnetic field producing part" over again. That just got shortened
over time to the word "field".
So the way this whole thing works is to have an external sensor
determine if the alternator is producing as much power as needed. It
does this by measuring the voltage on the bus. If the voltage is too
low it allows more current to flow through the field winding. This
increases the magnetism in the center of the alternator and that then
induces more output in the stator winding. The voltage rises. If the
voltage gets higher than we want the VR reduces the current in the
field, the magnetic field is decreased, the output of the stator
windings is less, and the voltage at output is reduced. To me this
represents PFM (Pure f'n magic) and is also PFN (pretty f'n neat).
Thanks Mike!
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
| Subject: | Marketing research question - Annunciator panels |
Hi Bob,
Did anything come of these discussions? I know lots of suggest labels were
put forward, my current challenge is finding the illumination (LED based)
component that is neat, light and can have text on it.....
Thanks,
Carl
--
RV7A - finishing, New Zealand
> -----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
> Sent: Friday, 10 March 2006 3:21 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Marketing research question
>
>
> III"
>
> I've got a couple of guys scratching on napkins at Connie's
> El Mexico cafe over ways to do an annunciator system.
> They're considering system sizing and trying to deduce
> whether to craft a 9 or 12 slot annunciator panel. It seems that
> the largest segment of the OBAM aircraft community would have
> trouble filling up a 9-slot annunciator panel.
>
> A 9-slot panel is looking like 4.2 x 1.6 inches. A 12-slot
> would be 5.3 x 1.6 inches. We're considering processes for
> both fabrication and software that would make the product
> highly customizable. I.e. you decide whether incoming signals
> are analog, pull up to bus, pull down to ground, what
> the legends say, and colors of the legends. Of course this
> is a 'dead front' design . . . legends essentially disappear
> when not illuminated.
>
> Just for grins, I'll toss the question out to the list.
> From of the list items below, what additional or alternative
> points of interest might be important enough to light a light
> and/or blow in your ear?
>
> Main Volts Lo
> Aux Volts Lo
> Left Fuel Lo
> Right Fuel Lo
> Oil Pres Lo
> Canopy Latch
> OAT Warn
> Pitot Heat
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | alternator field breaker switch |
| From: | Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com |
Thanks for the interesting lesson on alternator fundamentals Brian. But
now you have me curious. Just what does my little 8 or nine amp PM
alternator (dynamo?) that I use as a backup do with the unused amperage
that its constanly generating?
Erich Weaver
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: alternator field breaker switch |
> Just what does my little 8 or nine amp PM
> alternator (dynamo?) that I use as a backup do with the unused amperage
> that its constanly generating?
>
Erich,
I'd say it is constantly generating VOLTAGE. No amperage if the circuit
is open.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "n801bh(at)netzero.com" <n801bh(at)netzero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch |
VERY WELL PUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this needs to be archived too...
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- Brian Lloyd wrote:
m>
On May 22, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Mark Chamberlain wrote:
> information on how to wire it, but as to the questions "why?", or what
> does the "field" wire do ; I can find nothing. I'm guessing it is a
> very
> simple answer and it is just my inexperience showing through.
If you go back to an elementary science class, someone once told you
that if you wave a magnet around a wire, that wire will produce an
electric current. They also probably told you that if you pass a
current through a wire it will produce a magnetic field around the
wire. This was the amazing discovery of Michael Faraday and upon
which all electrical and radio theory is based.
Some alternators or generators do indeed use a permanent magnet
whirling around inside a coil of wire to produce power but the output
is directly proportional to how fast you spin it. If it makes more
output than you need you must find a way to get rid of the excess.
This is not a problem if the output is relatively small but if you
want something that can produce a lot of output for the times when
you need a lot of output, it produces way too much when you don't
need it all. Hence permanent magnet alternators, officially known as
"dynamos", tend to be small things.
But if you want one that can produce a lot of output when needed but
not much output when not needed you need a way to vary the
effectiveness. If you remember the two things that our buddy Mike
discovered, i.e. that moving magnetism generates an electric current
and moving electrons generate magnetism, you have the basic
components you need. If you want to increase the output of your
alternator at a given rotational velocity you need more magntism and
vice versa. So how can we turn the magnatism up and down as needed?
Why, we use a coil of wire with a current flowing through it. If we
increase the current, the magnetism increases and the output of our
alternator increases. If we reduce the current, the output of our
alternator decreases. This electromagnet is the rotating part of the
alternator. It is called the rotor but it is also called the field
winding from the olden days when we used generators.
A generator has the power-producing windings on the spinning part
called the armature and the magnetic field producing part, the field
windings, around the outside. An alternator has the magnetic field
windings on the spinning part (rotor) and the power-producing coils
(stator) are around the outside. You see I keep using the term
"magnetic field producing part" over again. That just got shortened
over time to the word "field".
So the way this whole thing works is to have an external sensor
determine if the alternator is producing as much power as needed. It
does this by measuring the voltage on the bus. If the voltage is too
low it allows more current to flow through the field winding. This
increases the magnetism in the center of the alternator and that then
induces more output in the stator winding. The voltage rises. If the
voltage gets higher than we want the VR reduces the current in the
field, the magnetic field is decreased, the output of the stator
windings is less, and the voltage at output is reduced. To me this
represents PFM (Pure f'n magic) and is also PFN (pretty f'n neat).
Thanks Mike!
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
=======================
==========
VERY WELL PUT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
this needs to be archived too...
Ben Haas
N801BHwww.haaspowerair.com
-- Brian Lloyd <brian-ya
k(at)lloyd.com> wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List messag
e posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.co
m>
On May 22, 2006, at 7:19 PM,&
nbsp;Mark Chamberlain wrote:
> information on&
nbsp;how to wire it, but as to the&nb
sp;questions "why?", or what
> does the&n
bsp;"field" wire do ; I can find noth
ing. I'm guessing it is a
>&n
bsp;very
> simple answer and it is j
ust my inexperience showing through.
If
you go back to an elementary science
class, someone once told you
that&nbs
p;if you wave a magnet around a wire,
that wire will produce an
elect
ric current. They also probably told you&n
bsp;that if you pass a
current t
hrough a wire it will produce a magne
tic field around the
wire. This
was the amazing discovery of Michael Farad
ay and upon
which all electrical
;and radio theory is based.
Some alterna
tors or generators do indeed use a pe
rmanent magnet
whirling around inside
;a coil of wire to produce power but&
nbsp;the output
is directly proportional&n
bsp;to how fast you spin it. If it&nb
sp;makes more
output than you need&nb
sp;you must find a way to get rid&nbs
p;of the excess.
This is not a&n
bsp;problem if the output is relatively sm
all but if you
want something th
at can produce a lot of output for&nb
sp;the times when
you need a lot
of output, it produces way too much&
nbsp;when you don't
need it all.
;Hence permanent magnet alternators, officially
;known as
"dynamos", tend to be
small things.
But if you want one t
hat can produce a lot of output when&
nbsp;needed but
not much output when&
nbsp;not needed you need a way to var
y the
effectiveness. If you remember&
nbsp;the two things that our buddy Mike&nb
sp;
discovered, i.e. that moving magnetism&
nbsp;generates an electric current
and&nbs
p;moving electrons generate magnetism, you have
the basic
components you need.
If you want to increase the output of
your
alternator at a given rota
tional velocity you need more magntism and
vice versa. So how can we
turn the magnatism up and down as nee
ded?
Why, we use a coil of
wire with a current flowing through it.&nb
sp;If we
increase the current, the&nb
sp;magnetism increases and the output of o
ur
alternator increases. If we reduce
the current, the output of our
;
alternator decreases. This electromagnet is&nbs
p;the rotating part of the
alternator
. It is called the rotor but it
is also called the field
winding
;from the olden days when we used gen
erators.
A generator has the power-producing&
nbsp;windings on the spinning part
ca
lled the armature and the magnetic field&n
bsp;producing part, the field
windings,&nb
sp;around the outside. An alternator has t
he magnetic field
windings on the&nbs
p;spinning part (rotor) and the power-producing
coils
(stator) are around the o
utside. You see I keep using the term
"magnetic field producing part" over
again. That just got shortened
over time to the word "field".
So t
he way this whole thing works is to&n
bsp;have an external sensor
determine
;if the alternator is producing as much&nb
sp;power as needed. It
does this
;by measuring the voltage on the bus.
;If the voltage is too
low it&nb
sp;allows more current to flow through the
field winding. This
increases the&nb
sp;magnetism in the center of the alternat
or and that then
induces more ou
tput in the stator winding. The voltage&nb
sp;rises. If the
voltage gets higher&
nbsp;than we want the VR reduces the
current in the
field, the magnetic&nb
sp;field is decreased, the output of the&n
bsp;stator
windings is less, and the&
nbsp;voltage at output is reduced. To me&n
bsp;this
represents PFM (Pure f'n mag
ic) and is also PFN (pretty f'n neat)
.
Thanks Mike!
Brian Lloyd &n
bsp; &n
bsp; 361
;Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com&n
bsp; Folsom, C
A 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) &nbs
p; +1.270.912.0788 (
fax)
I fly because it releases my m
ind from the tyranny of petty things
. . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>_
-=======================
=======================
sp; - NEW
the All New Matronics Email List Wiki!
nbsp; &
nbsp; &
=======================
=======================
sp; - List Contribution Web S
nbsp; &
nbsp; -
=======================
=======================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator field breaker switch |
On May 23, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Erich_Weaver(at)URSCorp.com wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the interesting lesson on alternator fundamentals
> Brian. But
> now you have me curious. Just what does my little 8 or nine amp PM
> alternator (dynamo?) that I use as a backup do with the unused
> amperage
> that its constanly generating?
Well, it doesn't generate any amps if there is no load but it does
generate voltage.
I haven't looked at how B&C regulates its dynamo but I have seen both
shunt and series regulators used with dynamos. A shunt regulator
draws current from the dynamo until its output drops to what you
want. The regulator just burns up the excess as heat. In the case of
a series regulator a pass transistor functions as a variable resistor
to drop the voltage to the desired value.
Nowadays they are probably using switch-mode regulators which are
much more efficient.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Schematics: turbo cad and Z-11 |
I was looking over the cad software that is supplied on the Aeroelectric
CDROM. Turbo cad looks quite usable. Does Bob, or any one have the
standard Z-11 schematic already rendered in a turbo cad file? It would
save a lot of work compared to starting from scratch.
--
Tom Sargent
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nathan Ulrich" <nulrich(at)technq.com> |
Math is beautiful, but more so when it's accurate ;).
If you were calculating the speed increase for a car, you'd be pretty close
assuming that speed increases with the cube root of power, but it's not
quite true for an airplane.
The power required to overcome parasitic drag (that of the non-lifting
surfaces) increases proportionally to the cube of the velocity, but the
induced drag (that of the wing) actually decreases with increasing speed.
The lift required to maintain altitude remains the same, but the required
wing angle of attack decreases as the speed increases (lift is proportional
to the square of the speed) so the drag of the wing decreases.
Also, as you go faster, the advance ratio of your propellor increases, which
typically makes the propellor more efficient.
Of course, the overall result is that power required still increases
exponentially with speed, but it's not nearly as bad as the cube. How much
will depend a lot on where on the L/D curve you are, but for typical cruise
speeds in my Bonanza, adding 10% power results in about a 5% speed increase.
At just above best glide (max L/D) speed, where the drag curve is very flat,
adding 10% power results in a 9% increase in speed.
Nathan
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs -
05/22/06
Ah! I agree, I'm not a cat either, but a simple engineer. Let's see, drag
goes up as the square of speed so power required goes up as the cube of
speed.
(Power=force x velocity) Force in this case is the thrust required to
overcome the drag. Now, the cube root of .75 is 0.90856. So we should
expect
speed at 75 percent power to be 91 percent of the speed at 100 percent
power.
Isn't math beautiful?
Dan Hopper
RV-7A Flying 164 hours now. What a wonderful airplane!
In a message dated 5/23/2006 10:43:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
frank.hinde(at)hp.com writes:
Not to jump into the middle of so delicious a cat fight, but you guys might
be interested in this data. I have an insurance company database with
manufacturers specified horsepower, max speed, and 75% cruise speed numbers
for 440 (mostly American) light aircraft. The average horsepower is 220.5,
average top speed is 164.4 knots, and the average manufacturers claimed 75%
power cruise speed is 153.5 knots. That works out to 93.4% of the average
top speed.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry2DT(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch |
Brilliant! I have passed this on to my Electron-challenged associates...
Thanks Brian.
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 5/24/2006 12:05:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
On May 22, 2006, at 7:19 PM, Mark Chamberlain wrote:
> information on how to wire it, but as to the questions "why?", or what
> does the "field" wire do ; I can find nothing. I'm guessing it is a
> very
> simple answer and it is just my inexperience showing through.
If you go back to an elementary science class, someone once told you
that if you wave a magnet around a wire, that wire will produce an
electric current. They also probably told you that if you pass a
current through a wire it will produce a magnetic field around the
wire. This was the amazing discovery of Michael Faraday and upon
which all electrical and radio theory is based.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Field Breaker/Switch |
Jerry2DT(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Brilliant! I have passed this on to my Electron-challenged associates...
> Thanks Brian.
You are welcome. Sometimes we get so involved in a detailed discussion
of the trees we forget how interesting the forest is.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/22/06 |
On 23-May-06, at 11:22 AM, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Ah! I agree, I'm not a cat either, but a simple engineer. Let's
> see, drag
> goes up as the square of speed so power required goes up as the
> cube of speed.
> (Power=force x velocity) Force in this case is the thrust
> required to
> overcome the drag. Now, the cube root of .75 is 0.90856. So we
> should expect
> speed at 75 percent power to be 91 percent of the speed at 100
> percent power.
>
> Isn't math beautiful?
Math is beautiful, but it can mislead you too.
For an aircraft with a normally aspirated engine, it can only produce
100% power at sea level. So, that means that the max speed with 100%
power is at sea level. The speed with 75% power at sea level should
be about 91% of the speed with 100% power, as you calculated.
However, if we keep the power level the same (i.e. 75%), and we
increase the altitude, the true airspeed will increase, as the air
density is lower, and thus the drag is lower. So, the speed at 75%
power will be highest at the highest altitude at which the engine can
produce 75% power. This will probably be somewhere around 8,000 ft,
and the speed at 75% power at this altitude will be more than 91% of
the speed with 100% power at sea level.
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " Peter Laurence" <Dr.Laurence(at)mbdi.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematics: turbo cad and Z-11 |
Tom
I believe Turbocad will import autocad files.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 12:11 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Schematics: turbo cad and Z-11
>
> I was looking over the cad software that is supplied on the Aeroelectric
> CDROM. Turbo cad looks quite usable. Does Bob, or any one have the
> standard Z-11 schematic already rendered in a turbo cad file? It would
> save a lot of work compared to starting from scratch.
> --
> Tom Sargent
> RV-6A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematics: turbo cad and Z-11 |
>
>I was looking over the cad software that is supplied on the Aeroelectric
>CDROM. Turbo cad looks quite usable. Does Bob, or any one have the
>standard Z-11 schematic already rendered in a turbo cad file? It would
>save a lot of work compared to starting from scratch.
>--
>Tom Sargent
>RV-6A
As I reported on the list a few weeks ago, TurboCAD V10 which
I purchased off Ebay for a pittance will open, edit, print and
save the native AutoCAD .dwg files.
Just for grins, I just opened Z-11 and the Lancair IVP wirebook
sample, printed portions and saved as native TurboCAD files
at http://aeroelectric.com/temp
You should be able to take any of the .dwg files offered
under the various directories at:
http://aeroelectric.com/PPS
and use them to any advantage you see fit.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KMA-24 Audio Panel |
>
>Does anybody have the pinouts and/or installation manual for a Bendix/King
>KMA-24 audio panel?
>
>I need to figure out how to interface it with my intercom and radios. I've
>heard it might need a speaker load as well, but that seems questionable to
>me.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Scott.
>N30DD
>scott@randolphs net
Here's all I have:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/KMA24.pdf
Most panels do are not at-risk for leaving the speaker
outputs unloaded but I don't have specific data on the KMA24
in this regard.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z11 architecture question |
>
>
>I'm in the process of "designing" my electrical system,
>more-or-less following diagram Z11. I think I get the overall
>goal - near-automatic shedding of non-essential electrical load
>in the event of an alternator failure. As my CFI drummed into
>my head over and over again during emergency procedure training
>"Fly the airplane !!" - you can't do that if you're head's
>inside the plane futzing with switches and breakers.
>
>The problem I'm having is deciding what's non-essential and
>what's not. Landing lights can be shut off in-route, but they
>become very desireable in the terminal area at night - for
>landing in "comfort". Its almost as though you need 2
>essential buses - one for in-route and one for the terminal area.
>
>Any thoughts ?
Re-read Chapter 17 and then change "essential bus" to "endurance
bus". The e-bus was not crafted to help you deal with an
electrical emergency . . . but to keep your failure from becoming
an electrically induced emergency.
Stuff that goes on the e-bus are those items needed for continued
comfortable flight sans alternator . . . hopefully for as much
as duration of fuel aboard. When you have airport in sight and
are cleared to land, then turn the battery master back on and
use up whatever is left in the battery . . . if it makes it
all the way to the ramp, great. If it dies right then, it
doesn't matter.
Better yet . . . pitch the pump, install an SD8 and have
UNLIMITED endurance under e-bus ops with 100% of battery retained
for approach to landing. But in any case, we craft to avoid
needing words like emergency, essential, critical, etc. etc.
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
>
>Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Dan
>Beadle"
>
>I am building RV8. I am trying to figure out all the antenna placements
>before closing up the wings.
>
>......skip.......* ELT - should be on top - maybe just ahead of Vert
>Stab.....skip
>
>5/18/2006
>
>Hello Dan, One of my friends commented that I had my ELT antenna installed
>with
>improper orientation. I said "Fine, tell me just exactly what attitude my
>fuselage will be in when I am finished crashing and I will reinstall my
>antenna accordingly." He smiled and got the point.
>
>What attitude will your fuselage be in when you finish crashing?
>
>OC
The reasoning behind placement of ELT antennas just forward of
the vertical fin has nothing to do with final orientation of
wreckage . . . and lots to do with using the vertical fin
structure to protect the antenna as much as possible.
The 121.5/406 MHz antennas on a Beechjet are mounted under
a fiberglas toe-cap at the base of the vertical fin. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/400A_ELT.jpg
This is about as protected a location as one can devise . . .
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Marketing research question - Annunciator panels |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Did anything come of these discussions? I know lots of suggest labels were
>put forward, my current challenge is finding the illumination (LED based)
>component that is neat, light and can have text on it.....
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carl
I passed the survey data on to my lunch partners. We've only
met once since then and the discussion was centered on another
topic. I'll see if I can find out what they did with the data
and where their efforts might be going.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Z11 architecture question) |
On May 25, 2006, at 5:31 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> Better yet . . . pitch the pump, install an SD8 and have
> UNLIMITED endurance under e-bus ops with 100% of battery retained
> for approach to landing. But in any case, we craft to avoid
> needing words like emergency, essential, critical, etc. etc.
Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.
What it boils down to is being able to point to certain devices and
say, "I *really* want that thing to keep working until I get back on
the ground." Whether you consider that thing to be 'essential', an
'endurance' item, or loss of that item to be an 'emergency', is of no
real import. You think it is important and you take steps to ensure
it keeps working.
The real kicker is that most people don't really think about the
difference between essential and desirable. I suspect that a lot of
people put things on the e-bus that don't belong there. Let me give
some examples. I would be willing to bet that there are a LOT of e-
busses with the transponder and comm radio connected. If you think
about it, the transponder is really for the benefit of ATC, not you.
I can get to my destination very comfortably if my transponder quits
so it is NOT an essential item. Likewise with a comm radio. Sure it
is nice to be able to talk to ATC and other aircraft but loss of comm
will not pose a danger to my continued safe flight.
OTOH loss of my attitude instrument or my overall navigation
capability is a serious handicap when under IFR conditions. Either of
those events would constitute an emergency in my book. When flying
under VFR conditions only the loss of an engine would really
constitute an emergency so if you have an electronic ignition, it
would probably come under the heading of "essential".
Here are some things I consider to be nonessential:
* landing lights
* pitot heat
* airspeed indicator (unless the attitude indicator fails while under
IFR)
* needle-ball (unless the attitude indicator fails while under IFR)
* comm radio
* transponder
* position lights
* electric fuel pump (assuming the aircraft has a mechanical fuel
pump that normally works)
Someone mentioned landing lights. IMHO they are, for the most part,
superfluous. I had an airplane that had only one landing light and it
was notorious for having it burn out. (The light was in the cowl and
I suspect suffered from too much vibration.) I just got used to
landing without a landing light. In fact, I got so I preferred it and
just stopped using it during landing. (Of course the airports had
runway lights.) I would only turn it on to taxi once I got on the
ground. And there were times when I taxied by holding my flashlight
outside the window to see where I was going.
(And I would love to debate the need for an airspeed indicator.)
Getting back to the issue at hand, here are some things I consider to
be essential:
* stuff that keeps the engine running and makes all the fuel
available for use. (There are a number of airplanes at the bottom of
the ocean because an electric fuel transfer pump failed which made a
big portion of the fuel unavailable to the engine.)
* attitude indicator (IFR)
* altimeter
* basic radio navigation, VOR/ILS and perhaps GPS (IFR)
* compass
If you think about this for awhile you will probably come to the
conclusion that there isn't a lot that you *really* need.
But most devices have on/off switches. Frankly, I would probably go
ahead and attach my transponder and comm radio to the e-bus. I can
always turn them off to conserve necessary energy in the battery or
to stay within the capacity of my backup power source. But the pitot
heat and landing light certainly don't belong on the e-bus.
When something breaks it is up to the pilot to make decisions and
reconfigure the aircraft for continued safe flight. If that means
turning off some devices, no problem. Going to extreme lengths to
make things happen automatically is probably counterproductive as you
are going to end up adding complexity which makes for more possible
points of failure. Keeping the systems in your airplane simple is
going to go a long way toward making it more reliable. The critical
point is to ensure that there is no single point of failure that will
make you very uncomfortable or unable to continue your flight safely.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | ruffled feathers |
From: Speedy11(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aircraft performance (was Antennas)
In a message dated 05/23/06 3:02:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Hope I didn't ruffle too many feathers.
Gilles,
I doubt you ruffled any feathers. Personally, I find your comments
entertaining, so keep them coming.
I also admire anyone who builds an airplane in Europe. The rules and
restrcitions are much more severe than in the US - and the cost of fuel is
almost
prohibitive. Not to mention the cost of avionics, paint, interior, etc.
All is
more expensive in Europe and more difficult to obtain.
My hat's off to you.
Stan Sutterfield"
I'll second that motion, Stan!
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z11 architecture question |
| From: | Gerry Filby <gerf(at)gerf.com> |
Thanks Bob ... chapter re-read, and I see your point.
g
(There never was a pump and never will be :)
> >Any thoughts ?
>
> Re-read Chapter 17 and then change "essential bus" to "endurance
> bus". The e-bus was not crafted to help you deal with an
> electrical emergency . . . but to keep your failure from becoming
> an electrically induced emergency.
>
> Stuff that goes on the e-bus are those items needed for continued
> comfortable flight sans alternator . . . hopefully for as much
> as duration of fuel aboard. When you have airport in sight and
> are cleared to land, then turn the battery master back on and
> use up whatever is left in the battery . . . if it makes it
> all the way to the ramp, great. If it dies right then, it
> doesn't matter.
>
> Better yet . . . pitch the pump, install an SD8 and have
> UNLIMITED endurance under e-bus ops with 100% of battery retained
> for approach to landing. But in any case, we craft to avoid
> needing words like emergency, essential, critical, etc. etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
__g__
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf(at)gerf.com
Tel: 415 203 9177
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 13 Msgs - 05/23/06 |
A little further info from my database: I already noted that the average
"claimed" 75% performance was 93.5% of mfg's stated top speed in my
database. Interestingly, the average numbers for the entire RV series (32
models from RV-3 to RV-10 inclusive, if you count all the engine sizes
identified for each model) is 95.3%! I'm not knocking Van's (I have an
RV-4), I just wonder how they do it? If the math is insurmountable, the
Cd's must be very low... Mine is not as fast as it's supposed to be, but I
have the old style wheel pants, no lower strut fairings, and poor fitting
upper strut fairings. I know those are critical---I plan to clean them all
up this summer. I once had just one upper fairing on the right side come
loose and slide down the strut about 10 inches (held by a spring). Cost me
20 mph in cruise speed!
I'm not *even* going to talk about antennas!!
Regards,
Lee..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Duane Wilson <aaa(at)pacifier.com> |
| Subject: | Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
Is there any reason not to connect the EFIS audio output to the DME
input to the audio panel, and connect the AOA audio output to the ADF
input of the SL-15.
It seems like a good way to get the signals into the audio chain while
being able to turn them on or off as needed.
Is this a good idea?
Duane Wilson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lee Logan" <leeloganster(at)GMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 05/24/06 |
Kevin, your extension of the discussion between you and Dan sounds like the
right track to me. Readily explains how so many of these aircraft
(apparently) really do fly faster at 75% than the straight "math" would hav=
e
you to believe. I am pretty confident that Van's numbers are right, but so
are you. There is a little aviation "slight of the hand" going on here.
Speeds go up as density comes down with altitude, but normally aspirated hp
goes down too. The two cross over at around 8,000' and 75%. No surprise
the manufacturers ALL picked 75% hp as the benchmark for their specified
high speed cruise numbers.
Regards,
Lee...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
Duane,
I have a PS Engineering PMA7000MS (same hardware - different badge). I put my
AOA and ATD to the 'documentation specified' inputs (don't remember right off
the top of my head what they were though - but they both work).
I like your idea better - you'll be able to deselect the audio.
The only catch is the specs of the outputs from your EFIS and AOA matching the
inputs of the SL-15. When I get back from visiting my granddaughters, I'll be
checking these specs out myself - unless someone else has done it by then. Whether
I rewire or not - I haven't decided.......
I'll be following this one....
Ralph Capen
-----Original Message-----
>From: Duane Wilson <aaa(at)pacifier.com>
>Sent: May 25, 2006 12:36 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio
>
>
>Is there any reason not to connect the EFIS audio output to the DME
>input to the audio panel, and connect the AOA audio output to the ADF
>input of the SL-15.
>
>It seems like a good way to get the signals into the audio chain while
>being able to turn them on or off as needed.
>
>
>Is this a good idea?
>
>Duane Wilson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
Duane Wilson wrote:
>
> Is there any reason not to connect the EFIS audio output to the DME
> input to the audio panel, and connect the AOA audio output to the ADF
> input of the SL-15.
>
> It seems like a good way to get the signals into the audio chain while
> being able to turn them on or off as needed.
>
>
> Is this a good idea?
Yes.
Brian Lloyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
Duane,
Why would you want to deactivate the audio on a
stall warning device? If you are concerned with
spurious warnings becoming a distraction, which I
think would only happen very, very, infrequently, why
not have a guarded AOA deactivate switch? I think
stall warning or any warning system is a poor place
for a regular on/off audio switch. It's just too easy
to accidentally have the switch in the wrong place and
these warnings can save your bacon in a tight spot.
Safe flying,
Bob
--- Duane Wilson wrote:
> Wilson
>
> Is there any reason not to connect the EFIS audio
> output to the DME
> input to the audio panel, and connect the AOA audio
> output to the ADF
> input of the SL-15.
>
> It seems like a good way to get the signals into the
> audio chain while
> being able to turn them on or off as needed.
>
>
> Is this a good idea?
>
> Duane Wilson
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Deems Davis <deemsdavis(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Grounding question |
The RV-10 requires the battery to be mounted aft of the baggage area for
CG purposes. I just got back from Bob's seminar and like the idea of a
common ground buss on the firewall. (with the engine grounded on the
forward side and everything else on the aft side) In Van's wiring
harness they have the battery grounded to the airframe close to where
it's mounted. (way aft) I would prefer to not have to pull/run two (pos
& neg) 8-10 ft #2 welding cables all the way from the battery forward.
If I were to ground the battery close to it's mount on the airframe,
whould this cause any problems using a 'common ground buss'?
Thanks for any illumination to this 'electron challenged' builder.
Deems Davis # 406
Fuse
http://deemsrv10.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
Robert Sultzbach wrote:
>
> Duane,
> Why would you want to deactivate the audio on a
> stall warning device? If you are concerned with
> spurious warnings becoming a distraction, which I
> think would only happen very, very, infrequently, why
> not have a guarded AOA deactivate switch? I think
> stall warning or any warning system is a poor place
> for a regular on/off audio switch. It's just too easy
> to accidentally have the switch in the wrong place and
> these warnings can save your bacon in a tight spot.
Having spent a significant amount of time flying behind an AoA based
stall warning system, I found that it could drive you nuts when you are
flying aerobatics and always looking for that last little bit of lift
before the stall. You do want a way to turn off the audio from the stall
warning system (if possible).
And you might consider your aircraft's stall behavior when trying to
decide just how important stall warning is. Frankly, most of the
aircraft we fly offer plenty of warning before stalling and then have a
benign stall behavior.
But your point is well taken that you probably don't want the stall
warning turned off by accident.
Brian Lloyd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LarryMcFarland <larry(at)macsmachine.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
Deems,
I did exactly as you suggest and have had no problems with it. Note in
the link below, the
positive side to each contactor and the negative sides bolt-connected to
the battery tray with five A5 rivets
on the negative ground lug. It has good contact area being riveted to my
rear spar and elsewhere. The firewall ground
block and lug work really well, even considering the firewall, which is
.015 stainless.
http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/chargebatteryconnection.gif
I also used a #4 welding cable for positive going forward to the
firewall, but my engine is also a 100 h.p. Subaru.
Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
Deems Davis wrote:
>
>The RV-10 requires the battery to be mounted aft of the baggage area for
>CG purposes. I just got back from Bob's seminar and like the idea of a
>common ground buss on the firewall. (with the engine grounded on the
>forward side and everything else on the aft side) In Van's wiring
>harness they have the battery grounded to the airframe close to where
>it's mounted. (way aft) I would prefer to not have to pull/run two (pos
>& neg) 8-10 ft #2 welding cables all the way from the battery forward.
>If I were to ground the battery close to it's mount on the airframe,
>whould this cause any problems using a 'common ground buss'?
>
>Thanks for any illumination to this 'electron challenged' builder.
>
>Deems Davis # 406
>Fuse
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Sparling" <jhs_61(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Running COM/NAV/MB/FM cable |
I have COM/NAV/MB & FM antennas in the wing tips of my RV-10 and want a
"disconnect" at the wing root. I have Cannon Plug connector for all of the
other wires in the wing, with the exception of the strobe, which is
stand-alone. The plug has solder type connectors. I want to pass the
antenna cables through the cannon plug using two pins each, one for the
conductor and one for the shield. Has anyone had any experience in doing
this? What are the expected results? Pros/Cons, etc.? Your input is
appreciated.
Thanks,
Jack Sparling
RV-10 Canopy Installation
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
There is no reason that it won't work. I know it works with the Garmin 340
Audio panel. The only thing you have to beware of is the need to
re-placard the switches to not their new functions on the audio panel.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
>
> Is there any reason not to connect the EFIS audio output to the DME
> input to the audio panel, and connect the AOA audio output to the ADF
> input of the SL-15.
>
> It seems like a good way to get the signals into the audio chain while
> being able to turn them on or off as needed.
>
>
> Is this a good idea?
>
> Duane Wilson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Morgan" <zk-vii(at)rvproject.gen.nz> |
| Subject: | Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA audio |
Which leads to the question - anybody know a good way of replacing /
sourcing GMA340 buttons with different text on them, eg. EFIS, AoA.
Carl
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
> Schroeder
> Sent: Friday, 26 May 2006 9:58 a.m.
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Interface Apollo SL-15 with EFIS and AOA
> audio
>
>
>
>
> There is no reason that it won't work. I know it works with the
> Garmin 340
> Audio panel. The only thing you have to beware of is the need to
> re-placard the switches to not their new functions on the audio panel.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John Schroeder
>
>
>
> >
> > Is there any reason not to connect the EFIS audio output to the DME
> > input to the audio panel, and connect the AOA audio output to the ADF
> > input of the SL-15.
> >
> > It seems like a good way to get the signals into the audio chain while
> > being able to turn them on or off as needed.
> >
> >
> > Is this a good idea?
> >
> > Duane Wilson
> >
>
>
> --
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 90 degree BNC |
>
>
>OK here we go again.
>
>I have searched high and low in the archives. No Joy.
>
>There was a bnc connector that allowed you to crimp or solder a ring on
>the center conductor of the coax and then use a tiny screw to screw the
>ring to the connector to allow for a for what amount to a 90 degree BNC.
>I read Bobs trick, and I don't have room for that. Does someone have a
>link and a source for what Im asking for?
Is this short enough?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Short_BNC_RA_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Short_BNC_RA_2.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Running COM/NAV/MB/FM cable |
On May 25, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Jack Sparling wrote:
>
>
> I have COM/NAV/MB & FM antennas in the wing tips of my RV-10 and
> want a
> "disconnect" at the wing root. I have Cannon Plug connector for
> all of the
> other wires in the wing, with the exception of the strobe, which is
> stand-alone. The plug has solder type connectors. I want to pass the
> antenna cables through the cannon plug using two pins each, one for
> the
> conductor and one for the shield. Has anyone had any experience in
> doing
> this? What are the expected results? Pros/Cons, etc.? Your input is
> appreciated.
In short, don't do it. If you want quick-disconnect for your antennas
install a male and a female BNC connector.
Longer version: a cannon connector is not a constant impedance
connector. It also doesn't preserve the shielding. A BNC does.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | sarg314 <sarg314(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Schematics: turbo cad and Z-11 |
Bob:
I just tried it with the older version of turbo cad on your CDROM and it
works. So I now have the schematics and all the symbols. That will
help a lot, Thanks.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> As I reported on the list a few weeks ago, TurboCAD V10 which
>
> I purchased off Ebay for a pittance will open, edit, print and
> save the native AutoCAD .dwg files.
>
> Just for grins, I just opened Z-11 and the Lancair IVP wirebook
> sample, printed portions and saved as native TurboCAD files
> at http://aeroelectric.com/temp
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
--
Tom Sargent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
Battery can be locally grounded as can other devices REMOTE
from the cockpit equipment like:
(1) Landing, taxi and recognition lights,
(2) nav lights,
(3) strobe power supply,
(4) most fuel pumps ground through their mounting bases,
(5) hydraulic landing gear pumps,
(6) pitot heaters,
(7) and of course antennas which always ground locally
and are independent of power system grounding
considerations.
The picture Larry posted is a good example of a technique
which I've amplified with captions on Larry's picture posted
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Grounding/Local_Battery_Grounds_1.jpg
Bob . . .
>
>
>Deems,
>I did exactly as you suggest and have had no problems with it. Note in
>the link below, the
>positive side to each contactor and the negative sides bolt-connected to
>the battery tray with five A5 rivets
>on the negative ground lug. It has good contact area being riveted to my
>rear spar and elsewhere. The firewall ground
>block and lug work really well, even considering the firewall, which is
>.015 stainless.
>
>http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/chargebatteryconnection.gif
>
>I also used a #4 welding cable for positive going forward to the
>firewall, but my engine is also a 100 h.p. Subaru.
>
>Larry McFarland - 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com
>
>Deems Davis wrote:
>
> >
> >The RV-10 requires the battery to be mounted aft of the baggage area for
> >CG purposes. I just got back from Bob's seminar and like the idea of a
> >common ground buss on the firewall. (with the engine grounded on the
> >forward side and everything else on the aft side) In Van's wiring
> >harness they have the battery grounded to the airframe close to where
> >it's mounted. (way aft) I would prefer to not have to pull/run two (pos
> >& neg) 8-10 ft #2 welding cables all the way from the battery forward.
> >If I were to ground the battery close to it's mount on the airframe,
> >whould this cause any problems using a 'common ground buss'?
> >
> >Thanks for any illumination to this 'electron challenged' builder.
> >
> >Deems Davis # 406
> >Fuse
> >http://deemsrv10.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Running COM/NAV/MB/FM cable |
>
>I have COM/NAV/MB & FM antennas in the wing tips of my RV-10 and want a
>"disconnect" at the wing root. I have Cannon Plug connector for all of the
>other wires in the wing, with the exception of the strobe, which is
>stand-alone. The plug has solder type connectors. I want to pass the
>antenna cables through the cannon plug using two pins each, one for the
>conductor and one for the shield. Has anyone had any experience in doing
>this? What are the expected results? Pros/Cons, etc.? Your input is
>appreciated.
Suggest you use . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/crimpcf.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/s605cm.jpg
available from http://bandc.biz
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
>
>The RV-10 requires the battery to be mounted aft of the baggage area for
>CG purposes. I just got back from Bob's seminar and like the idea of a
>common ground buss on the firewall. (with the engine grounded on the
>forward side and everything else on the aft side) In Van's wiring
>harness they have the battery grounded to the airframe close to where
>it's mounted. (way aft) I would prefer to not have to pull/run two (pos
>& neg) 8-10 ft #2 welding cables all the way from the battery forward.
>If I were to ground the battery close to it's mount on the airframe,
>whould this cause any problems using a 'common ground buss'?
>
>Thanks for any illumination to this 'electron challenged' builder.
Batteries (and lots of other stuff) have been grounded locally
to airframe structure since day-one. ALL of our aircraft at RAC
ground batteries to local structure. This isn't an inherently
evil thing to do as long as potential victims (generally stuff in
cockpit and on panel) get the single-point ground treatment. See
My response and amplification to Larry's photo cited in his
reply to this thread.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
Deems,
I asked the exact same question about 6-8 months ago, answer: try it as the
plans suggest and see if it works OK.
I still have not made up my mind. Grounding the battery locally to the
airframe will probably work fine, but on the other hand I would much rather
run the ground cable now while it is easy rather than later after the
airplane is flying. I don't like the weight but will probably run the bat
ground to the common ground at the firewall. It may not be much of a factor
but all of my structural parts were primed before assembly so there are
numerous thin coats of paint in an airframe ground path.
Dick Sipp
40065
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grounding question
>
> The RV-10 requires the battery to be mounted aft of the baggage area for
> CG purposes. I just got back from Bob's seminar and like the idea of a
> common ground buss on the firewall. (with the engine grounded on the
> forward side and everything else on the aft side) In Van's wiring
> harness they have the battery grounded to the airframe close to where
> it's mounted. (way aft) I would prefer to not have to pull/run two (pos
> & neg) 8-10 ft #2 welding cables all the way from the battery forward.
> If I were to ground the battery close to it's mount on the airframe,
> whould this cause any problems using a 'common ground buss'?
>
> Thanks for any illumination to this 'electron challenged' builder.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>I have a 10A CB that I want to feed off a buss bar (60A) it's only an
>inch . . . what the proper way to do this . . . or is it a concern . .
>. I't will be feeding a WigWag flasher on the other side of the CB so
>it's not mission critical.
From your words, I deduce that you are wanting to add a breaker
to an existing bus bar where the bar cannot be extended to
include the new breaker. A short jumper wire with terminals
on each end would do. Since the new circuit isn't mission critical,
you can "share" a bus-screw with the closest breaker.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Grounding question |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
In my case in my RV Super 8 with my Batt in the back, I grounded it
locally & ran a 12ga to the front, from the battery, for grounding of
all the 'stuff' to a single point. I have a perfectly quiet electrical
system. For all practical purposes, only the starter & alternator, are
using the airframe ground.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Sipp
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Grounding question
Deems,
I asked the exact same question about 6-8 months ago, answer: try it as
the
plans suggest and see if it works OK.
I still have not made up my mind. Grounding the battery locally to the
airframe will probably work fine, but on the other hand I would much
rather
run the ground cable now while it is easy rather than later after the
airplane is flying. I don't like the weight but will probably run the
bat
ground to the common ground at the firewall. It may not be much of a
factor
but all of my structural parts were primed before assembly so there are
numerous thin coats of paint in an airframe ground path.
Dick Sipp
40065
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deems Davis" <deemsdavis(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 1:51 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grounding question
>
> The RV-10 requires the battery to be mounted aft of the baggage area
for
> CG purposes. I just got back from Bob's seminar and like the idea of a
> common ground buss on the firewall. (with the engine grounded on the
> forward side and everything else on the aft side) In Van's wiring
> harness they have the battery grounded to the airframe close to where
> it's mounted. (way aft) I would prefer to not have to pull/run two
(pos
> & neg) 8-10 ft #2 welding cables all the way from the battery
forward.
> If I were to ground the battery close to it's mount on the airframe,
> whould this cause any problems using a 'common ground buss'?
>
> Thanks for any illumination to this 'electron challenged' builder.
>
> Deems Davis # 406
> Fuse
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Yes bob I believe that would work, albeit a little tougher to fabricate.
Whats the square u tube made of?
-----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
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 90 degree BNC
Atlanta)"
>
>
>OK here we go again.
>
>I have searched high and low in the archives. No Joy.
>
>There was a bnc connector that allowed you to crimp or solder a ring on
>the center conductor of the coax and then use a tiny screw to screw the
>ring to the connector to allow for a for what amount to a 90 degree
BNC.
>I read Bobs trick, and I don't have room for that. Does someone have a
>link and a source for what Im asking for?
Is this short enough?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Short_BNC_RA_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Short_BNC_RA_2.jpg
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Bob,
I'm also using rear mounted batteries (RV-7A - electrically dependent
engine) and I found a diagram somewhere on your site that showed rear
mounted batteries with a note NOT to ground them locally to the airframe
- it showed a ground going to a forward mounted grounding point (forest
of tabs). So I'm curious: what circumstances would prompt this
recommendation?
2 questions to enhance my understanding:
- In this situation, are there any considerations required for single
heavy power wire running forward (i.e. things to avoid running along the
same path)? =20
- Are there any practical advantages to running a parallel ground as
well (which might balance the disadvantage of the added weight)?
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Chapter 8 Update |
Chapter 8 of the Connection has been updated with the
corrected temperature rise data in the figures. For a
limited time, folks on the List can download and print
a complete replacement for Chapter 8 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CH_8/Ch8_R12.pdf
Print odd pages only in reverse order, turn stack over
in printer and print even pages only to get fronts and
backs.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>Yes bob I believe that would work, albeit a little tougher to fabricate.
>Whats the square u tube made of?
Square brass tube stock. Probably the best thing to do is
assemble this for you. You need to use a connector with Teflon
insulation (see the plastic oozing from holes in the pix?).
If you tell me how long a coax you need, I can put the connector
on one end for you.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Grounding question |
>
>
>In my case in my RV Super 8 with my Batt in the back, I grounded it
>locally & ran a 12ga to the front, from the battery, for grounding of
>all the 'stuff' to a single point. I have a perfectly quiet electrical
>system. For all practical purposes, only the starter & alternator, are
>using the airframe ground.
>Mike
Not a good deal. That long ground isn't really a ground. Please
consider using the single point ground block mounted on the firewall
as depicted in the Connection and making all cockpit and forward
accessory grounds at that point limiting your local airframe grounds
to the list cited in my posting of last night.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I'm also using rear mounted batteries (RV-7A - electrically dependent
>engine) and I found a diagram somewhere on your site that showed rear
>mounted batteries with a note NOT to ground them locally to the airframe
>- it showed a ground going to a forward mounted grounding point (forest
>of tabs). So I'm curious: what circumstances would prompt this
>recommendation?
The independent ground for battery minus leads is the electrically
elegant technique. If I were building an airplane, I'd probably run
the independent ground.
Local grounding for batteries and the list of items in last night's
posting poses no risks to those accessories because they are not
particularly large contributors as antagonists nor are they potential
victims.
>2 questions to enhance my understanding:
> - In this situation, are there any considerations required for single
>heavy power wire running forward (i.e. things to avoid running along the
>same path)?
What we're trying to avoid is having MULTIPLE grounds to an airframe
where heavy current accessories like landing lights, pitot heat, etc
SHARE the airframe with multiply grounded potential victims like
intercom and radios. It is 99.99% sufficient to pay attention to
single point grounding of potential victims while letting the airframe
go ahead and carry the ugly amps for devices which are not potential
victims.
> - Are there any practical advantages to running a parallel ground as
>well (which might balance the disadvantage of the added weight)?
Small and probably negligible as long as the victims remain "protected".
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Electrical grounding block |
Anybody care to share whwer they purchased a grounding block?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Electrical grounding block |
| From: | "George Neal E Capt HQ AU/XPRR" <Neal.George(at)maxwell.af.mil> |
I made my own.
I cut chunks of brass sheet stock from a decorative door kickpanel.
The tab blocks came from SteinAir.
Neal
RV-7 N8ZG
Wiring
-->
Anybody care to share whwer they purchased a grounding block?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Grounding question |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Everything goes to a single point ground block up front. That block is
isolated from the airframe and gets it ground supply from the 12ga
coming directly from the battery in the back.
-----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
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:14 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Grounding question
Atlanta)"
>
>
>In my case in my RV Super 8 with my Batt in the back, I grounded it
>locally & ran a 12ga to the front, from the battery, for grounding of
>all the 'stuff' to a single point. I have a perfectly quiet electrical
>system. For all practical purposes, only the starter & alternator, are
>using the airframe ground.
>Mike
Not a good deal. That long ground isn't really a ground. Please
consider using the single point ground block mounted on the firewall
as depicted in the Connection and making all cockpit and forward
accessory grounds at that point limiting your local airframe grounds
to the list cited in my posting of last night.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Thanks for the offer bob.
A friend said this thing, with the relief off, has what im looking for.
Im going after work today to see what it looks like.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103434&tab=summar
y
Mike
-----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
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 90 degree BNC
Atlanta)"
>
>
>Yes bob I believe that would work, albeit a little tougher to
fabricate.
>Whats the square u tube made of?
Square brass tube stock. Probably the best thing to do is
assemble this for you. You need to use a connector with Teflon
insulation (see the plastic oozing from holes in the pix?).
If you tell me how long a coax you need, I can put the connector
on one end for you.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | A mechanical model of the electrical system (was: Grounding |
question)
On May 26, 2006, at 8:12 AM, Mickey Coggins wrote:
> matronics(at)rv8.ch>
>
>>> In my case in my RV Super 8 with my Batt in the back, I grounded it
>>> locally & ran a 12ga to the front, from the battery, for
>>> grounding of
>>> all the 'stuff' to a single point. I have a perfectly quiet
>>> electrical
>>> system. For all practical purposes, only the starter &
>>> alternator, are
>>> using the airframe ground.
>>> Mike
>>
>> Not a good deal. That long ground isn't really a ground. Please
>> consider using the single point ground block mounted on the
>> firewall
>> as depicted in the Connection and making all cockpit and forward
>> accessory grounds at that point limiting your local airframe
>> grounds
>> to the list cited in my posting of last night.
>
> I'm confused. Why wouldn't Mike's 12ga wire extended to an
> isolated forest of tabs be a ground?
>
> I considered doing the same, but decided to ground the
> forest of tabs to the front of the aircraft as well.
I tend to be a visually-oriented person. I am going to try to paint a
mental picture for you that will let you see how all this stuff works
the way it does with the picture in my mind.
Since it is hard to visualize what electrons do when they flow
through a conductor I came up with a graphic physical representation
that models things pretty well. I think of wires and conductors as
stretchy things that go between the floor (ground) and the ceiling
(source of power or positive bus). The distance between the floor and
ceiling is the voltage. Think of a wire as a sort of bungee cord that
gets longer the harder you pull on it. The pull is current and how
far it stretches is the voltage drop. The amount of stretch for a
given current is the resistance. Fat wires don't stretch as much as
thin ones for a given pull (current). If you pull too hard on a
bungee it breaks (wire burns through).
If the wire "bungee" is connected to ground (the floor) the more I
pull on it (pass current through it) the more it stretches away from
the floor (ground potential) and it has some voltage above ground.
Likewise if I attach a wire to the ceiling (positive bus) the harder
I pull on it the more it stretches toward the floor. The end that is
attached to my load, e.g. light, radio, whatever, is below the level
(voltage) of the ceiling. How much it is below the level of the
ceiling (voltage drop) depends on the current draw and the thickness
of my wire.
So your airplane is a forest of these things stretching from floor
(ground) to ceiling (positive bus). Each wire is represented by a
bungee whose thickness is a function of wire thickness and each load
is a thinner bungee that stretches without breaking. In a perfect
world the load bungees would make it all the way from floor to
ceiling with no added distance but we have the wires which stretch a
little bit themselves so the stretch of our load isn't quite the full
distance.
I hope this is making sense so far and everyone can see the picture
in their minds.
Let's use this to model Mike's 12awg wire from ground to his isolated
forest of tabs. The 12awg wire is itself a bungee. One end is
attached to the floor and the other end has an eye bolt to which we
attach all the other "ground" bungees from all our loads. Each of our
loads adds more pull to our ground wire as it is attached. Our ground
wire "stretches" a little more each time another load is attached.
Now imagine we have a load that pulls and lets go (current increase
and decrease such as a flashing light) over and over. If we look at
our ground wire it will be bouncing up and down just a little bit as
the pull changes. This "bouncing" will be transmitted to all the
other ground wires and therefore to their loads. Everything will
start bouncing up and down in time with the load that is switching on
and off. The only way we can reduce the bouncing is to make the
ground wire fatter so it doesn't stretch as much when you pull on it.
This is why we use "fat" ground wires where we can. By the way, this
bouncing is current-induced noise in the ground.
Now to make the model a bit more realistic I am going to change our
"floor" and "ceiling" to be more realistic. Even the floor and
ceiling have some "stretch" and "bend" to them. Think of our ground
and positive buses as being like the cantilever spar of our wing and
anchored at one point each -- the positive and negative terminals of
our battery. As we attach our loads farther and farther out on our
buses (spars) there is more flex when we pull on them. Other loads
that we attach to the spar will also "feel" the flex of our buses as
we draw current from them.
I need to run and do some other stuff today but I will come back and
post again using this model to explain how varying current in one
place can be picked up as noise in a different place. I will also use
this model to explain the issues of using the airframe as our ground
bus and how a single-point ground will help eliminate noise.
OTOH the teacher invites others in the classroom to think about this
as homework and come back and explain how attaching things to our
ground "spar" (bus) can induce noise in our avionics if you don't use
a single point ground. ;-)
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding Question |
Hi All,
I too have an aft-mounted battery and semi-crucial
starter requirement (high-compression pistons) and had
been assuming a dedicated ground wire of the same size
as the positive lead running forward. After thinking
about the posts on this; would it be reasonable to
locally ground the battery and run a smaller-sized
ground lead forward to a grounding-buss; with the
reasoning that the starter load would use both this
smaller ground lead and the airframe?? Or is this plain
obvious :-) How then would one size this ground lead??
If I had primed all (and bonded some) of my airframe
parts before riveting - would this approach be
not-a-good-idea??
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Up Time Technology, and is
believed to be clean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Making those funny holes |
There is plenty of information in the archives on drilling the holes for
toggle switches and their anti-rotation washers. I have two other items
going into my control panel that pose different problems. First my magneto
switch (like a toggle switch) has a channel machined along the threaded
shaft. But it was not supplied with a matching anti-rotation washer. The
diameter of the shaft is 7/8th of an inch. Second my power outlet (cigarette
lighter socket) needs a 1 1/8th inch hole but has flats on each side to keep
it from rotating. The flats are about 3/8th of an inch wide.
How do I cut the holes to match these parts?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
Reading TSO'ed instructions for different brands of ELT's
they all tell you basically the same thing, to mount antenna:
-Vertical
-Top of fuselage
-Externally mounted
-Near ELT transmitter
-ELT is far aft as possible w/ access
(if you read between the lines there are good reasons
for every point in the installation instructions. The ELT
manufacture, not the aircraft manufactures, researched
tons of data from accidents. For best survivability of
antenna and ELT follow the instructions.)
Here is a typical oh-oops:
http://img344.imageshack.us/img344/7985/eltant7cc.jpg
I marked possible locations for ELT antenna. Of course who
know what position or condition the plane will be after a crash,
but the ELT makers know after much study the most likely.
I never read an ELT installation instruction where it stated the
reason for the ELT antenna top location is protection by the
Vert stab as Bob suggest, but from the picture it makes sense.
I also read accident reports where the ELT's are ripped off mounts
in a crash. Some crashes are just not survivable for the ELT or
the people, however talking to ELT mafct they might know better
than anyone.
FACTORY installations of ELT antennas and ELT's are not a
model of best practice. Don't know about Beech Jets but
in at least two ELT instructions there are warnings not to
necessarily follow previous factory installations when replacing
an ELT. Some factory installations are terrible.
Of course the old debate is do experimental aircraft need to
follow the TSO'ed equipments TSO'ed installation instructions?
Leave the answer to you.
As was stated there is no TSO'ed approved CRASH, so who
knows. However it's fair to say if you do want to be found the
installation instruction that came with your ELT should be
followed
If you really want to be found, the new 406 Mhz will do that better
than the old 243. The search area ratio is:
450 sq miles (old 121.5/243 Mhz)
12.5 sq miles (new 121.5/406 Mhz)
1.5 mile radius (new w/gps 121.5/406 Mhz)
How long do you think 450 sq nm can be searched with a
121.5 direction finder when your antenna is smashed down
into the ground or hidden UNDER your vertical & horz stab?
Cheers George
>>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>>Responding to post by
>>"Dan Beadle"
>>
>>I am building RV8. I am trying to figure out all the antenna
>>placements before closing up the wings.
>>
>>......skip.......* ELT - should be on top - maybe just ahead
>>of Vert Stab.....skip
>>
>>
>>Hello Dan, One of my friends commented that I had my
>>ELT antenna installed with improper orientation. I said "Fine,
>>tell me just exactly what attitude my fuselage will be in
>>when I am finished crashing and I will reinstall my antenna
>>accordingly." He smiled and got the point.
>>
>>What attitude will your fuselage be in when you finish
>>crashing?
>>
>>OC
>The reasoning behind placement of ELT antennas just forward
>of the vertical fin has nothing to do with final orientation of
>wreckage . . . and lots to do with using the vertical fin
>structure to protect the antenna as much as possible.
>The 121.5/406 MHz antennas on a Beechjet are mounted
>under a Fiberglas toe-cap at the base of the vertical fin. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/400A_ELT.jpg
>
>This is about as protected a location as one can devise . . .
>Bob . . .
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
The instructions for my new Artex ME406 406 MHz ELT have additional
requirements:
"Locate the antenna at least 30 inches away from other antennas, wires,
vertical stabilizer, etc. to minimize distortion of the radiated field and
interference with other equipment. The antenna must be installed VERTICALLY
(within 15 of the vertical plane is acceptable). Artex has no performance
data for installations that deviate from the stated requirements."
(http://www.artex.net/documents/570-1600Rev-1.pdf)
This is almost impossible on my Zenith 601XL so I am doing the best I can.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Making those funny holes |
>> It is round - who cares what orientation it is in? *grin*
Sadly mine is round but labeled, has a captive rubber cap and accepts a
optional locking plug which inserts in one orientation to lock. You twist it
to remove.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
| From: | "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams(at)yahoo.com> |
Seems like everyone is talking in circles here. You can ground all your peripheral
stuff (battery, landing lights, strobes etc) locally to the airframe (if it's
not plastic), and use the common block on the firewall for your panel and
engine stuff. Vans recommends it, Bob recommends it, Zenith/Zenair recommends
it, and most certified small metal planes do it that way. You don't have to re-invent
the wheel, you won't make it any better, you might make it worse, and
you'll definitely add complexity to the system.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36644#36644
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Making those funny holes |
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Drill the smaller diameter and then get out the file and make it fit.
It the hard way but it works
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Making those funny holes |
>> not that hard with a good set of small files and drills
Given the small number that I have to make I guess that is what I will have
to do. I was just looking for a trick. Good idea to make a steel master
first. That reduces the chance of my screwing up the actual panel. For the
magneto switch I may isolate the problem by just making my own anti-rotation
washer, a scaled-up version of the ones that come with a toggle switch. The
same idea could be used with the power outlet.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Making those funny holes |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Is the panel mounted in the plane? If not, how about waterjet?
Course, as someone else suggested, trace the shape of the cutout carfully,
drill a hole smaller than required, and then use files to open up the hole
to the tracing.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> There is plenty of information in the archives on drilling the holes for
> toggle switches and their anti-rotation washers. I have two other items
> going into my control panel that pose different problems. First my
> magneto switch (like a toggle switch) has a channel machined along the
> threaded shaft. But it was not supplied with a matching anti-rotation
> washer. The diameter of the shaft is 7/8th of an inch. Second my power
> outlet (cigarette lighter socket) needs a 1 1/8th inch hole but has
> flats on each side to keep it from rotating. The flats are about 3/8th
> of an inch wide.
>
> How do I cut the holes to match these parts?
>
> -- Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical grounding block |
I bought mine from B&C electric. I bought one of each size. A small one
for the main buss, and large one for the ground, and the medium size for the
e-buss. I had to double up a few on the ground buss cause I ran every
ground back to the buss. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Marlow" <sam.marlow(at)adelphia.net>
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electrical grounding block
>
>
> Anybody care to share whwer they purchased a grounding block?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Michael <jm(at)10squaredcorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making those funny holes |
Someone installed a VOR head in my Stinson before I bought it and it
looks like the cutout was done by a six year old. I'm guessing it was
done with a file. Perhaps there are talented file users out there,
but let me throw out this suggestion: create a template for the curve
you need and attach a guide to a high speed grinding tool with a fine
stone wheel. Similar to technique used with a router.
Cheers,
Jim
On Friday 26 May 2006 21:39, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> Is the panel mounted in the plane? If not, how about waterjet?
>
> Course, as someone else suggested, trace the shape of the cutout
> carfully, drill a hole smaller than required, and then use files to
> open up the hole to the tracing.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> >
> >
> > There is plenty of information in the archives on drilling the
> > holes for toggle switches and their anti-rotation washers. I have
> > two other items going into my control panel that pose different
> > problems. First my magneto switch (like a toggle switch) has a
> > channel machined along the threaded shaft. But it was not
> > supplied with a matching anti-rotation washer. The diameter of
> > the shaft is 7/8th of an inch. Second my power outlet (cigarette
> > lighter socket) needs a 1 1/8th inch hole but has flats on each
> > side to keep it from rotating. The flats are about 3/8th of an
> > inch wide.
> >
> > How do I cut the holes to match these parts?
> >
> > -- Craig
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net> |
| Subject: | Century IV Schematics |
I was wondering if anyone on here has an install manual or the schematics
for a Century IV autopilot system.
Thanks
Peter D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Z11 architecture question) |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Brian Lloyd
Hello Brian,
You wrote: "....skip.....I can get to my destination very comfortably if my
transponder quits so it is NOT an essential item.....skip..."
Not true if your destination is inside the Washington DC ADIZ.
You wrote: "...skip.... But most devices have on/off switches. Frankly, I
would probably go
ahead and attach my transponder and comm radio to the e-bus. I can
always turn them off to conserve necessary energy in the battery or
to stay within the capacity of my backup power source.....skip....."
Good solution.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z11 architecture question) |
On May 26, 2006, at 8:14 PM,
wrote:
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by:
> Brian Lloyd
>
>
> Hello Brian,
>
> You wrote: "....skip.....I can get to my destination very
> comfortably if my
> transponder quits so it is NOT an essential item.....skip..."
>
> Not true if your destination is inside the Washington DC ADIZ.
Perhaps not in that case, but that is about the only place.
OTOH, if you are on an IFR flight plan in IMC and you lose your
transponder and your comm, the regs say you should proceed to your
destination, hold, and then shoot the approach at your scheduled
arrival time. That rule hasn't changed so if your destination is in
the Washington, DC, ADIZ, the right answer is to proceed following
your flight plan, transponder or no transponder. Don't worry; they'll
keep an eye out for you.
>
> You wrote: "...skip.... But most devices have on/off switches.
> Frankly, I
> would probably go
> ahead and attach my transponder and comm radio to the e-bus. I can
> always turn them off to conserve necessary energy in the battery or
> to stay within the capacity of my backup power source.....skip....."
>
> Good solution.
But the point still stands. Many things that people think are
essential are really only just very desirable and not essential at
all. Case in point, I recently had a student who spent most of his
time chasing airspeed so I finally just covered up his airspeed
indicator and made him fly an entire lesson without any ASI. He
smoothed right out and started flying pitch and power. When I would
let him steal a look at the ASI he invariably found he was within 5
kts of his target airspeed. Most people think that the ASI is a
critical instrument and it really isn't (provided you know your
airplane). What else might fall into that category?
(I would much rather have AoA than ASI any day of the week.)
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
>
>
>The instructions for my new Artex ME406 406 MHz ELT have additional
>requirements:
>
>"Locate the antenna at least 30 inches away from other antennas, wires,
>vertical stabilizer, etc. to minimize distortion of the radiated field and
>interference with other equipment. The antenna must be installed VERTICALLY
>(within 15 of the vertical plane is acceptable). Artex has no performance
>data for installations that deviate from the stated requirements."
>
>(http://www.artex.net/documents/570-1600Rev-1.pdf)
>
>This is almost impossible on my Zenith 601XL so I am doing the best I can.
. . , which is all anyone can. Virtually every manufacturer cites
their fondest wishes in the installation manual that virtually
never work out in real life.
Generally, effects of 'deviations' require laboratory grade
instruments to detect and quantify . . . and most have no
major contribution to the outcome of any given crash/recovery
scenario.
Don't loose any sleep over it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical grounding block |
>
>
>I bought mine from B&C electric. I bought one of each size. A small one
>for the main buss, and large one for the ground, and the medium size for the
>e-buss. I had to double up a few on the ground buss cause I ran every
>ground back to the buss. Larry in Indiana
Don't understand how you used these for "the main buss" and
"e-bus" . . . I can't think of any rationale for having separate
grounds dictated by which power bus they're associated with . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding question |
>
>
> >> In my case in my RV Super 8 with my Batt in the back, I grounded it
> >> locally & ran a 12ga to the front, from the battery, for grounding of
> >> all the 'stuff' to a single point. I have a perfectly quiet electrical
> >> system. For all practical purposes, only the starter & alternator, are
> >> using the airframe ground.
> >> Mike
> >
> > Not a good deal. That long ground isn't really a ground. Please
> > consider using the single point ground block mounted on the firewall
> > as depicted in the Connection and making all cockpit and forward
> > accessory grounds at that point limiting your local airframe grounds
> > to the list cited in my posting of last night.
>
>I'm confused. Why wouldn't Mike's 12ga wire extended to an
>isolated forest of tabs be a ground?
>
>I considered doing the same, but decided to ground the
>forest of tabs to the front of the aircraft as well.
>
>Here's how mine is set up:
>
>http://www.rv8.ch/article.php?story=20060301215616213
>
>I added the "fat" ground wire between the front forest
>of tabs to the batteries in the back mainly to carry
>starter currents a bit more efficiently. I was afraid
>that if I didn't, something between where I ground
>the engine and the battery would get welded together
>when I cranked the starter.
>
>BTW, the engine cranks fine, but I have no idea about
>noise, since I don't yet have my radio installed.
"Ground" systems are much more than multiple systems
simply sharing a common conductor to satisfy their
individual needs for conductivity. The dynamic nature
of "ground" is dependent on its conductivity, geometry
and discontinuities. The ideal vehicular "ground" conductor
would probably be a welded joint, relatively thick sheet
of highly conductive material . . . say copper or silver
and have the minimum possible surface area to enclose
a given volume . . . hence a sphere.
Spheres and copper do not lend themselves well to
the fabrication of vehicular structures so instead
we find ourselves dealing with a variety of materials
ranging from excellent insulators (epoxy/glass) to
pretty good conductors (stir-welded aluminum) and all
technologies in between. Further, they're not spherical.
To make matters more interesting, the conduction pathways
for systems that share "ground" in any vehicle are never
straightest lines between two points on the system.
Just to make matters still more interesting, the
prudent designer has to consider the effectiveness
and cross coupling of signals for frequencies ranging
from DC to microwave. There's a condition in the
RAC Hawker 800 series aircraft where an antenna system
using airframe for part of the antenna's RF 'ground'
excites spaces in the hell-hole to the tune of over
100 volts/meter at various HF frequencies when the
transmitter is keyed. It varies from airplane to airplane
and is not a "problem" for most airplanes. But the effects
are present on every airplane and from time to time,
rise up and halt delivery of a multi-million dollar
machine because the ground system was not properly
configured for this application. Worse yet, it
would cost staggering amounts of money to fix it
now. Instead, we craft individual Band-Aids
on an airplane-by-airplane basis when a particular
combination of circumstances rise to intolerable
interference levels.
This dissonant array of conditions that never
approach the ideal ground system is NEVER a problem
for any one system operating by itself . . . nor is
it a problem for systems that are generally not vulnerable
to ground induced coupling of noises from a potential
antagonist to a potential victim system.
This gives rise to many builder's assertions that
their particular version of a ground system "works
just fine" . . . and he's not wrong. Just as I've cited
for the Hawkers above, there are ground system issues
that while they are predictable and even measurable,
the magnitude of the 'interference' is below the
threshold of deleterious effects. This is why
99.9% of all airplanes crafted over the last
100 years are considered by their owners to be
'satisfactory' performers. Only the occasional
machine comes to the attention of some poor
avionics tech who now has to figure out how to
work around a noise problem that would have best
been designed out in the first place.
Ladies and gentlemen, to offer a comprehensive
course in ground system design features and effects
of poor science is beyond the scope of activities
we can offer in this venue. You folks need to concentrate
on getting first-light-under-the-wheels with a minimum
of $time$ and lowest practical cost of ownership later.
Be wary of variations on a theme for ground system
features that depart from those suggested in the
'Connection and in the considered words of the
grey-beards on the List. Virtually every variation
offered to you by some builder you met at a fly-in
will be touted as a 'solution' to some unfounded
concern or a desire to cut a corner . . . and since
the airplane flew to that gathering, no doubt the
owner will report "it works fine". The grounding
philosophies offered in this venue are a prophylactic
effort designed to avoid that 0.1%, pain-in-the-arse
airplane that's going to be expensive in $time$
at some point in the future. These same philosophies
also attenuate the 10-20% of the airplanes that have
some degree of noise issue which the owner is willing
to accept as below his personal threshold of deleterious
performance.
The double-grounding architecture described above is
generally not a significant improvement in ground
system performance and opens the doors for new issues.
In another time, I'll tell you the saga of a "double
ground" issue that rose up in a Beechjet a year or
so ago that had a very expensive airplane down for
months (at taxpayer expense) and took hundreds of
hours to find and fix.
"Extending" ground busses for major chunks of system
hardware on the end of a 12AWG wire makes everything
'grounded' by that wire subject to single point failure
of one wire. Further, the resistance/inductance
contributed to the system by the wire length makes
it less than ideal ground.
These are 'experimental' airplanes and one can certainly
do as he/she wishes in terms of personalizing the
electrical system architecture. Most variations will
be found to function in a 'satisfactory' manner.
Just be aware that departures from architectures
configured with use of well considered science and experience
tosses out the $time$ invested in crafting those architectures.
They also elevate the risk for added expense and aggravation
at some later date. The fruits of those investments are being
shared with you at virtually zero expense so as to minimize
$time$ to first-light and $time$ needed to fix something later
when you'd rather be flying.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
>> Don't loose any sleep over it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
The other listed requirement is "do not crash" :-)
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ELT Rubber Ducky Antenna? |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
Bob N.,
In the past you've cited the possibility using a rubber ducky style antenna for
ELTs. Would this also be an option for the newer style 121.5/406 MHz types such
as the Artex ME406?
Thanks
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=36874#36874
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical grounding block |
You have lost me somewhere Bob. I agree there is no need for separate
ground busses. Your book sold me on the need for separate power busses. I
was referring to all busses when I mentioned large, medium and small. The
busses -- which ever purpose they are placed into duty for -- are all sold
by B&C under the description of buss. There is no distinction of their use.
There are different sizes and the grounding buss, which serves all power
needs, requires the largest number of terminals. Thanks for calling this
need for clarification to my attention. Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>I bought mine from B&C electric. I bought one of each size. A small one
>>for the main buss, and large one for the ground, and the medium size for
>>the
>>e-buss. I had to double up a few on the ground buss cause I ran every
>>ground back to the buss. Larry in Indiana
>
>
> Don't understand how you used these for "the main buss" and
> "e-bus" . . . I can't think of any rationale for having separate
> grounds dictated by which power bus they're associated with . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Rubber Ducky Antenna? |
>
>
>Bob N.,
>
>In the past you've cited the possibility using a rubber ducky style
>antenna for ELTs. Would this also be an option for the newer style
>121.5/406 MHz types such as the Artex ME406?
>
>Thanks
>Bob
Only if the "rubber duck" has been crafted for dual frequency
operations. The instance I suggested that the shortened antenna
be considered was the case where a pair of antennas . . . a 121.5
and a 406 MHz device were mounted side by side under the fiberglas
toe cover of the vertical fin fairing on a Beechjet:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/400A_ELT.jpg
When the fairing cover was installed, metallic braces in
the fairing upset the SWR on the longer, 121.5 MHz antenna
and caused self-test failures. They considered the short antenna
until we discovered that the ELT had been qualified under TSO with
these specific antennas . . . we couldn't use a different
antenna without re-qualifying. So . . . they widened the
trip tolerance on the SWR self check . . . another case where
under very un-helpful regulation, two wrongs made a "right."
(sigh)
Anywho, I suspect your more modern design is paired with
an antenna designed for optimum performance at two frequencies
and the simple rubber duck is not an option for you.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | ELT Rubber Ducky Antenna? |
>>
Anywho, I suspect your more modern design is paired with
an antenna designed for optimum performance at two frequencies
and the simple rubber duck is not an option for you.
Bob . . .
<<
The Artex 121.5/406.028 MHz ELTs can be bought bundled with antennas
selected to support the dual frequencies. That's what I did. I'll tell you
how it works after my next crash.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
hi all, this topic was recently discussed on another list. timely as i =
was installing my elt. a few facts came out of the discussion
1] elts fail to function in over 90% of accidents
2] no matter where you mount an elt you have no control how the =
airplane will come to rest in a crash...upside down, right side up, on =
its nose.
3] the best insurance for a quick recovery is filing a vfr flight plan =
if you can.
after the discussion i quit losing sleep about where to put my elt =
antenna.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lapsley R & Sandra E. Caldwell" <caldwel(at)ictransnet.com> |
Does anyone have experience with "Flag Terminals" (right angle fast-on
terminals)?
What tools do you use to crimp them, crimping instructions, reliability etc.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>hi all, this topic was recently discussed on another list. timely as i =
>was installing my elt. a few facts came out of the discussion
> 1] elts fail to function in over 90% of accidents
I read a piece some time ago . . . I think in AOPA Pilot.
The stats on ELT effectiveness were discussed. I'm think I'm
recalling that the data being studied was for all ELTs which
included a large population of the earliest 121.5, carrier
plus modulation suitable only for aural i.d. of a beacon.
The numbers were NOT encouraging.
It's true that the earliest systems were hampered by the
inability of a satellite system's rudimentary position
calculation system to get a location on the beacon.
It took multiple passes of satellites and some calculation
to get a rough idea of where to look for you. Read HOURS
ELT's are now available that report your GPS position
so that your location is known upon first detection of
the signal. The advantages of this feature are obvious.
If ANY ELT is installed, I'd use one with the GPS reporting
feature.
Even without the reporting feature, ELT locating hardware
and software is much more sophisticated. Your location
is likely to be deduced in minutes and with much greater
accuracy.
> 2] no matter where you mount an elt you have no control how the =
>airplane will come to rest in a crash...upside down, right side up, on =
>its nose.
True . . . but being upside down is not an automatic
turn-off of the ELT's ability to transmit. Remember,
we're talking line of sight transmission where very
small transmitters and relatively inefficient antennas
are able to cross the gap. It's more important that the
antenna and transmitter remain INTACT than to worry
about perfect positioning. This is why a location in
front of the vertical fin was chosen . . . for the
any benefits that the fin structure might offer in
keeping the antenna from being broken off.
> 3] the best insurance for a quick recovery is filing a vfr flight plan =
>if you can.
Every little bit helps. Having someone watch
to see if you arrive at the expected time and location
is yet another layer of risk mitigation . . . but simply
knowing that you're not at the appointed place at the
appointed time is a small piece of a huge puzzle.
Having a beacon broadcasting your location to the world
with a accuracy of a few meters is about the best risk
mitigator we have in the current tool box.
I would also carry a hand held and plenty of spare
batteries. In the US at least, there are dozens of
aircraft within your line of sight location at any
given time. If I ran the FAA, I'd allocate a second
emergency frequency, SEPARATE from 121.5 as a CRASHCOM
service. Alerts for missing aircraft could be put out
not unlike the Amber Alerts for missing children. If
any en route air transport category airplane within
150 miles of your location is listening, you'll be
able to talk to them from your hand-held. Having a hand
held GPS to back up your ELT's ability to report position
is a good thing to have too.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flag Terminals |
Lapsley R & Sandra E. Caldwell a crit :
>
> Does anyone have experience with "Flag Terminals" (right angle fast-on
> terminals)?
>
> What tools do you use to crimp them, crimping instructions, reliability etc.
>
>
I've used some PIDG flag terminals in tight places. Same tool and
technique as with any PIDG terminal.
Regarding reliability, I got the impression that the portion between the
the crimp sleeve and the terminal itself, is rather thin and easily bent.
I'm not going to use them again.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
Dear Bob:
To imply or suggest that an ELT is not important or complying
with installation instructions is of little consequence is not the
precise scientific well thought out response I've come to expect
out of you. The manufactures of ELT's provide instructions based
on facts and service (crash) history.
I partially agree with you, not to lose sleep and often the ELT
installation instructions can't be fully met on some small planes.
However to say:
*deviations..MOST have no major contribution to the outcome
of ANY crash/recovery scenario* is shooting from the hip.
MOST? ANY? Have proof? Data? Define, what is a deviation?
No offense, flying over Kansas or what ever flat state you're in,
is not like flying over wilderness in the Western half of the US,
Canada and Alaska, I am glad to have an ELT installed per
manufactures recommendations.
ELT manufactures might know something, you think Bob?
My suggestion is try to comply as much as possible. I know if
you call the manufacture they can provide guidance solution
(compromise). It will be more than it does not matter.
Please don't make this about you being right and me wrong.
This is about learning. A cavalier attitude is not appropriate to
the topic. Bob, you pride yourself in your facts and repeatable
experiments. I say the 1000's of crashes that the manufacture
and FAA have studied in developing the guidelines have merit,
period. If you have specifics than please say, but the general
dismissal of ELT manufactures recommendation as found
wishes is condescending.
Bob you often have FONDEST WISHES for your ideas and
concepts, you claim are based on irrefutable logic and
experiments. I think you should give other professionals in
the aerospace industry the same professional courtesy and
respect for their expertise.
Cheers George ATP/CFII-MEI, B73/75/767
>posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>. . , which is all anyone can. Virtually every manufacturer cites
>their fondest wishes in the installation manual that virtually
>never work out in real life.
>
>Generally, effects of 'deviations' require laboratory grade
>instruments to detect and quantify . . . and most have no
>major contribution to the outcome of any given crash/recovery
>scenario.
>Bob . . .
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
As best I can tell feeding GPS coordinates into the new generation of ELTs
is a *very* expensive proposition - at least when sticking to Artex's
products. First you have to switch from their "cheap" model ME406 to the
G406 to get a unit which accepts GPS coordinates ($1456 vs. $839). Then you
have to buy their Nav/ELT interface box (455-6500), about $1358). And (from
what I can make out from the specs) the interface box only accepts serial
data in the form sent by expensive in-panel GPS receivers, not the NMEA 0183
format from cheap portable units.
The alternative is to buy a Personal Locator Beacon like the McMurdo
Fastfind. The model with a GPS built-in costs $573. But a PLB is manually
triggered, not by a G sensor. So it doesn't do any good if you are
unconscious. I live in the mountainous west where there are lots of out of
the way places to crash. I guess I can rationalize buying a PLB by saying
that if I remain unconscious too long to activate the PLB then I'll probably
be dead by the time I am rescued. The PLB would just get me found faster
after a crash where I am in relatively good shape.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
On May 28, 2006, at 11:43 AM,
wrote:
>
> Dear Bob:
>
> To imply or suggest that an ELT is not important or complying
> with installation instructions is of little consequence is not the
> precise scientific well thought out response I've come to expect
> out of you. The manufactures of ELT's provide instructions based
> on facts and service (crash) history.
>
> I partially agree with you, not to lose sleep and often the ELT
> installation instructions can't be fully met on some small planes.
>
> However to say:
>
> *deviations..MOST have no major contribution to the outcome
> of ANY crash/recovery scenario* is shooting from the hip.
George,
The ELT is a waste of time and money. They have 97% false positives
and who knows how many false negatives. Precious few have been saved
by an ELT but a lot of people have gone on wild goose chases because
of 'em.
So, based on those facts, the placement and installation of your ELT
is going to have very little effect on its actual usefulness since it
is basically useless from the get-go. Since we are bound by law to
install these useless things in our airplanes at least we have the
option of putting them where they will be the least intrusive.
As others have stated, telling someone where you are going, what
route you are taking, and when you are going to get there is much
more effective in case of an accident than is an ELT.
And last but not least, dumping on Bob for stating the obvious is
pretty useless too.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
> The ELT is a waste of time and money. They have 97% false positives
> and who knows how many false negatives. Precious few have been saved
> by an ELT but a lot of people have gone on wild goose chases because
> of 'em.
>
>
I have personnaly witnessed more than a dozen such wild goose chases for
ELT gone wild while sitting on the ramp.
About a decade ago, two friends took a plane in our flying club, for a
40 minute flight to Annecy in the French Alps. They never returned.
We spent more than a week searching the whole area, by air and on the
ground.
Finally a rambler found the wreck just two miles South of the airfield,
6000 ft high in the mountains. When the rescue helicopter landed near
what remained of the airplane, they heard the ELT transmitting : the
battery was still in good shape after 8 days, but the certified factory
installed antenna radiated only only a few yards away.
At least one of them had survived the crash, and died of exposure...
Had the antenna worked as expected, they would have been found within
hours after being overdue.
As homebuilts are not subject to ELT obligations in may area, I have the
impression that a cellphone provides much more accurate positioning
information, and for free.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Banus" <mbanus(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Load Meter Hall effect sensor |
Bob,=20
When you were at the Chesapeake VA seminar you mentioned that a Hall =
effect sensor could be used with your load meter in stead of the shunt. =
What hall effect sensor do you recommend?=20
Thanks
Mark Banus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Load Meter Hall effect sensor |
I'm using a Honeywell CSLA1CE. I believe both Blue Mountain Avionics and
Advanced Flight Systems use a part from the same family.
http://www.honeywell-sensor.com.cn/prodinfo/sensor_current/catalog/c20058.pd
f
Or as a Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/pfkz8
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm chasing down a new noise in the headset on my 60 hour RV-6A with the Z-11
architecture. The whine starts when I turn the radio on and will go off when
the alternator switch is turned off (or, of course, if the radio goes off), and
is RPM dependent.
The noise is not load dependent, i.e. after the battery is topped off ( I have
an ammeter) the whine is still the same intensity. The funny thing is that
after an hour flight the noise intensity is much less (maybe only 1/3 the level)
than the first 10-20 of flight. Is the alternator is now "warmed up" and
producing less noise?
I'm thinking the source is the alternator (#$%&* Van's special) and the victim
is the radio, but how and where is the RF leaking and absorbing?
More Info:
B & C linear regular inside the cockpit.
All fat wire seperated from skinny wires.
Recently did some work on the brake hoses and could have bumped a wire.
On day one of this machine I did have a very mild whine on the intecomm that went
away with battery top off. (new noise is not affected by intercomm settings.)
Should I be thinking about wire routings, loose connections, grounds first?
Then check the power wire from a clean source?
Please help.
Dumfounded in Honolulu.
Greg
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Strategies for survival |
Talking to center for flight following is even better. You've got
somebody who knows your N number and position (on their radar) and to
whom you can tell you've got a problem before you make that forced
landing.
Don't count on your cell phone working in the middle of nowhere, by the
way. A handheld radio is a much better bet. You can catch a passing
airliner with it. Remember that frequency on which you were talking to
center? Many of them monitor the guard frequency also. 121.5
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
>As others have stated, telling someone where you are going, what
route you are taking, and when you are going to get there is much
more effective in case of an accident than is an ELT.
And last but not least, dumping on Bob for stating the obvious is
pretty useless too.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
Here is why ELT's exist (first par):
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/aviation/SAR/ELT_History.htm
The rest is extremely interesting and highlights the state of
confusion with the new 406 ELT's. You may be able to use
your old 121.5/243 ELT after Feb 2009 but it may be even
less effective than it's today. Clearly the 406 ELT can get
your position within a mile or two to 100 yards with GPS.
Faults alarms where addressed with TSO-C91a (verse the old C91)
http://www.avionicswest.com/myviewpoint/boringarticle.htm
The newer TSO ELTs require small annunciator/control
panel to be installed somewhere in the cabin and provide a
visual indication via a blinking light when the ELT is
activated and of course, turn off the ELT if need be.
However the wsdot article says many ELT faults alerts
are not even from ELT's!
The avionicswest article mentions the new PLB's as
others have mentioned. I agree there awesome devices
many should consider as a backup, especially if you are
into outdoor sports of any kind. I remember stories of
people going off the side of the road and not being
found for many days just feet from a major freeway, hurt
but alive. Many PLB's have built in GPS position!
What I hear and read the 2009 deadline may be extended.
That's not a good thing since the satellites WILL? still stop
monitoring 121.5/243 regardless! AOPA is asking for a
voluntary replacement program. Reading the advantage
of 406 ELT's it seems like a no brainier?
Before the satellites monitored for ELT's in the 70's ELT
location method was with local DF only. Lets say 406 ELTs
are not made mandatory. With out the satellites your
chance of being found with old fashion DF is slim to none.
George
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
Like you report, I too developed a whine --and-- within a month my
alternator failed. This all happened shortly after I did my night flights
where I stressed my alternator to 90% of its limit by having all my
electronics on while doing the required take offs and landings. I plan to
install a larger alternator that will have a rating about twice what my
maximum draw need will be. I was able to replace the 30A Vans alt. with the
same type that I purchased at the local AutoZone store. I believe my
original 30A came from a Suzuki of some sort about 1987. For now with
replaced alt. I do not turn all the lights on at one time.
It is in the archives somewhere and I believe Sam Buchanan made a post about
it.
Larry in Indiana
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> I'm chasing down a new noise in the headset on my 60 hour RV-6A with the
> Z-11 architecture. The whine starts when I turn the radio on and will go
> off when the alternator switch is turned off (or, of course, if the radio
> goes off), and is RPM dependent.
>
> The noise is not load dependent, i.e. after the battery is topped off
> ( I have an ammeter) the whine is still the same intensity. The funny
> thing is that after an hour flight the noise intensity is much less (maybe
> only 1/3 the level) than the first 10-20 of flight. Is the alternator is
> now "warmed up" and producing less noise?
> I'm thinking the source is the alternator (#$%&* Van's special) and the
> victim is the radio, but how and where is the RF leaking and absorbing?
>
> More Info:
> B & C linear regular inside the cockpit.
> All fat wire seperated from skinny wires.
> Recently did some work on the brake hoses and could have bumped a wire.
> On day one of this machine I did have a very mild whine on the intecomm
> that went away with battery top off. (new noise is not affected by
> intercomm settings.)
>
> Should I be thinking about wire routings, loose connections, grounds
> first? Then check the power wire from a clean source?
>
> Please help.
> Dumfounded in Honolulu.
> Greg
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
>
>Dear Bob:
>
> To imply or suggest that an ELT is not important or complying
>with installation instructions is of little consequence is not the
>precise scientific well thought out response I've come to expect
>out of you. The manufactures of ELT's provide instructions based
>on facts and service (crash) history.
And when did I say any such thing? What I said was that
every manufacturer of a product has his/her wish list
of things you should do to optimize the performance of his/her
product. Your ABILITY to comply with all those wishes is limited
by the particulars of your installation and one seldom
finds it possible to comply with ALL the manufacturer's
wishes.
The notion that the ELT manufacturer did anything based on
service history (other than fixing failures) is wishful thinking.
ELTs, like all other black boxes on TC aircraft are built to
specifications written by folks who almost never have any
experience in the manufacturing venue. The specs are then blessed
by a cadre of bureaucrats who have some knowledge of crash
history but only a few understand what they know. The golden
idea is that if Tonka Toys decides to get into the ELT business
and they've been ISO 9000 qualified, then all the have to do
is jump the intermediate hoops and meet the spec and all will
be right with the world. The idea that most manufacturers
have a nervous system that extends to the far reaches of
their customer's experience base is wishful thinking.
>
> I partially agree with you, not to lose sleep and often the ELT
>installation instructions can't be fully met on some small planes.
>
>However to say:
>
> *deviations..MOST have no major contribution to the outcome
>of ANY crash/recovery scenario* is shooting from the hip.
>
> MOST? ANY? Have proof? Data? Define, what is a deviation?
A deviation is anything which does not fully comply with
the manufacturer's recommendations . . . which are often
sufficiently vague as to defy any quantification as to
cause/effect or cost/benefits.
Knowing what I've learned and come to understand about
over the years about transmitters, receivers, antennas,
patterns and propagation efficiencies, I was NOT shooting from the
hip. Each communications link is first designed with
head-room for uncontrollable losses due to atmospheric and
physical conditions. We know that NO ELT antenna installation
on an aircraft can be ideal, especially small aircraft.
Therefore, worries as to exact placement are pointless.
As I mentioned, it's more important that the antenna SURVIVE
than for the antenna to be 100% effective with respect to
ideal conditions.
>
> No offense, flying over Kansas or what ever flat state you're in,
>is not like flying over wilderness in the Western half of the US,
>Canada and Alaska, I am glad to have an ELT installed per
>manufactures recommendations.
>
> ELT manufactures might know something, you think Bob?
Yup, they USUALLY know everything there is to know about
their product (until the guy who designed it retires or
gets a better job, then big chunks of tribal-knowledge
goes out the door with him).
But they have limited understanding of the situations in which
their product will be used . . . there are simply too many
variations on a theme. Hence, the broad brush, sweeping,
generally non-quantified recommendations.
>
>My suggestion is try to comply as much as possible. I know if
>you call the manufacture they can provide guidance solution
> (compromise). It will be more than it does not matter.
Never recommended anything different . . . do the BEST
you can knowing that even the manufacturer cannot tell
you what effect "deviations" might have. They can only
say that deviations generate risks to performance. Will
your particular "deviation" reduce probability of being
found by 50%, 1%, 0.1%? Nobody knows, ESPECIALLY the
folks who make the ELT.
I work with those folks George. I install and trouble
shoot installations of their equipment. For the most part,
when things are not going well their fall-back position
is the same as for any other farmed-out black-box installed
on a certified aircraft: "We meet the specs, we passed our
acceptance test procedure, and our QA manual has been
blessed by your QA police. Therefor, our product is golden."
Translation: "Yes, we know how our box works but haven't
the foggiest notion of how YOU might have screwed up
in YOUR installation." In the recent case cited for
ELT self-test trips, we DID screw it up.
>
>Please don't make this about you being right and me wrong.
>This is about learning. A cavalier attitude is not appropriate to
>the topic. Bob, you pride yourself in your facts and repeatable
>experiments. I say the 1000's of crashes that the manufacture
>and FAA have studied in developing the guidelines have merit,
>period. If you have specifics than please say, but the general
>dismissal of ELT manufactures recommendation as found
>wishes is condescending.
>
> Bob you often have FONDEST WISHES for your ideas and
>concepts, you claim are based on irrefutable logic and
>experiments. I think you should give other professionals in
>the aerospace industry the same professional courtesy and
>respect for their expertise.
Respect is not a right George, it must be earned. Many
folks I've worked with over the years have my highest
respect and confidence. Others in spite of their QA manuals,
holy-watered PMAs and TSOed products would not be allowed
to wash my dog. It's not that they're evil, have unsavory
personalities, etc. They just don't understand and do
not have a charter from their management to achieve
necessary levels of understanding.
It's the very rare manufacturer who understands both
his product and its utilization well enough to be an
effective assistant in solving problems. I've been doing
this for 25 years George and I can remember only a hand-full
of cases where the manufacturer of a mis-behaving product
has been helpful in deducing and fixing root cause. The
sum total of these situations have cost my employers
tens of $millions$ . . . I can name you a half dozen
situations right now that piddle away $millions$ a year
on truly dumb wrestling matches between suppliers (them)
and customers (us).
But I never said that it wasn't a good thing to attempt
compliance with the ELT manufacturer's instructions
to the letter. What I did say was that your ability to
fully comply was not only difficult but that the effects
of your non-compliance are impossible to deduce. I'll
suggest further that no fielded installation fully complies
with the manufacturer's fondest wishes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>
>As best I can tell feeding GPS coordinates into the new generation of ELTs
>is a *very* expensive proposition - at least when sticking to Artex's
>products. First you have to switch from their "cheap" model ME406 to the
>G406 to get a unit which accepts GPS coordinates ($1456 vs. $839). Then you
>have to buy their Nav/ELT interface box (455-6500), about $1358). And (from
>what I can make out from the specs) the interface box only accepts serial
>data in the form sent by expensive in-panel GPS receivers, not the NMEA 0183
>format from cheap portable units.
Here's an opportunity for some of you byte thrashers out there.
A $1 PIC microcontroller and a handful of jellybean parts could
probably be crafted to convert NMEA 0183 into the golden format.
GPS engines are about $50 each. You could craft a stand-alone
GPS enhancement adapter for the bare-bones GPS capable ELT.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
On May 28, 2006, at 11:23 PM, Greg Grigson wrote:
>
>
> I'm chasing down a new noise in the headset on my 60 hour RV-6A
> with the Z-11 architecture. The whine starts when I turn the radio
> on and will go off when the alternator switch is turned off (or, of
> course, if the radio goes off), and is RPM dependent.
In all probability one or more diodes in your alternator have failed.
This is usually a precursor to total alternator failure. Pull your
alternator and get it checked at an alternator shop.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Strategies for survival |
HI All-
Not to beat a dead horse, but it's sometimes easy to forget that we have a
very diverse crowd on the list and sometimes things that some of us take
for granted are unclear or unknown to others. Along those lines, I'd like
to make a few points about VFR flight following. First, ATC's role in this
is to offer traffic advisories to participating aircraft. To participate,
all you need a radio and a transponder. That's it. Also, you are NOT
under ATC control. When using flight following you can loop, roll, change
altitude, go sight seeing, generally wander about, and perhaps not even
leave the local area. ATC doesn't care, as long as what you are doing is
legal.
The second point is that when you participate, they generate a data block
for you and positively identify your aircraft. Should radar contact be
lost, the controller gets active notification of that fact. If radio
contact is also lost, the controller will pass that info along to their
supervisor. Actually initiating SAR procedures is discretionary and the
timing will vary with the specific circumstances, but if you end up being
overdue they know where to start the search. Of course, if you are talking
to them and know you're going down, help is just one push of the PTT away.
Might as well put our tax dollars to work-
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps jumping from
+ 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace the second alternator.
Is there a way to test it on the plane?
Greg
---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone. Get Yahoo! Messenger
with Voice
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strategies for survival |
On May 29, 2006, at 9:08 AM, Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
>
> HI All-
>
> Not to beat a dead horse, but it's sometimes easy to forget that we
> have a
> very diverse crowd on the list and sometimes things that some of us
> take
> for granted are unclear or unknown to others. Along those lines,
> I'd like
> to make a few points about VFR flight following.
Flight following is a pretty good thing. It gets you another set of
eyes looking for traffic (and, no, they won't point out every bit of
traffic to you), and if you do have a problem, it does mean someone
knows where you are. Out here in the west RADAR coverage does not go
all the way to the ground so you can't get it everywhere and
sometimes they are busy and tell you to go away. But, as Glen put it,
the price is right.
And one other thing: with this being an election year you can expect
TFRs to pop up around places where the Grand PooBahs go. If you don't
want to bust a TFR you need to *always* get a briefing before flying.
Getting traffic advisories from ATC will also usually catch the
surprise TFR that happens after you got your weather briefing.
The other thing I have found is that if you are on VFR flight
following and the weather starts to degrade, it is a lot easier to
get a pop-up IFR clearance since you are already "in the system."
So, I don't see any down-side to asking ATC for VFR traffic
advisories. You can't be the service for the price.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
On May 29, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Greg Grigson wrote:
>
>
> Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps
> jumping from + 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace
> the second alternator. Is there a way to test it on the plane?
Yes. Put it under some kind of load and look at the output with an
oscilloscope. Just connect the o-scope to the main distribution bus
where the alternator B-lead connects. Do you have a 12VDC power jack
for your GPS? That will work too and it is very easy to get to.
An alternator with all three phases working will have almost ripple-
free output. An alternator that has lost a diode will lose the phase
associated with that diode. The result will be greatly increased
ripple in the bus voltage. (That ripple is what you are hearing in
your comm radio.) Some automotive test meters have an "alternator
test" scale that just measures the amount of ripple and gives you a
"good/bad" reading which accomplishes essentially the same thing.
And if you have lost one diode it means that the load is being
carried on only two of the three phases. This means that the
remaining phases are now carrying 50% more load (each) for the same
output from the alternator. That is why I said that losing a diode is
a precursor to losing the whole alternator since most people don't
think to reduce the load on the alternator by 1/3.
I wish I could give you better news. This is why it is probably
cheaper to buy a really good alternator that is "hot rated" to run at
its full rated output. Not having to fix it several times is worth a
fair amount of money.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net> |
I feel much the same as Bob Nuffs. However I NEVER file an VFR flight =
plan. UHHHH...... OOOOHHHH
I ALWAYS use flight following and have been refused service rarely and =
only in high density areas around Class B airspace. If one has a problem =
while under radar contact, you get immediate assistance in the form of =
radar vectors if needed. AND more importantly, they know precisely =
where you are. Only in very mountainous situations is radar contact =
lost, but at least the area of crash landing is known. Too many =
searches, when there is one, begin searching nearly a whole state. More =
important than that is the search will be put in motion right then at =
the time of radar contact lost. ATC can even be an aid in vectoring =
search aircraft to the general area.=20
ELT's need a quantum jump is technology to provide the needed =
information and reliability to be truly useful.
Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Placement |
The April 2006 issue of Sport Aviation, the EAA's primary magazine, had a
lengthy article on ELTs. Here are some quotes:
[....with studies showing the false alarm rate is 99 percent.
[....with the older units failing to activate when intended two-thirds of
the time.
[Evidence also suggests the units broadcast a satellite-useable post-crash
signal only a tenth of the time.
[The new ELTs...digital transmitter broadcasts in bursts at 5 watts, a huge
improvement over the 0.1 watt analog signal of the 121.5 frequency ELTs.]
So Bob has it right. The ELT manufacturers and the FAA came up with a
flawed system using 30 year old technology, which never worked as intended.
Unlike some participants on this forum, they have learned from experience,
and designed the new 406 MHz ELT system as a replacement.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
>
> Please don't make this about you being right and me wrong.
> This is about learning. A cavalier attitude is not appropriate to
> the topic. Bob, you pride yourself in your facts and repeatable
> experiments. I say the 1000's of crashes that the manufacture
> and FAA have studied in developing the guidelines have merit,
> period. If you have specifics than please say, but the general
> dismissal of ELT manufactures recommendation as found
> wishes is condescending.
>
> Bob you often have FONDEST WISHES for your ideas and
> concepts, you claim are based on irrefutable logic and
> experiments. I think you should give other professionals in
> the aerospace industry the same professional courtesy and
> respect for their expertise.
>
> Cheers George ATP/CFII-MEI, B73/75/767
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Strategies for survival |
>> VFR flight following
Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft? My vague
memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if their IFR
workload is too high.
Also does coverage exist outside the mode C veil and IFR flyways? Here in
the western US there is lots of terrain outside of that.
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
Since ELTs are required (and not a bad investment either) I see PLBs as an
addition, not an alternative. And my expected mode of use would be after
extracting myself (if possible) from the plane. Certainly as a general plan
those of us flying planes with bubble canopies should plan ahead for ways to
get ourselves out of an inverted plane on the ground. Or have a tool at hand
that can at least cut or break a hand-sized (and PLB-sized?) opening in the
canopy.
www.ch601.org/stories.htm
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hey Brian,
Seems like you could use the AC setting on a DVM to see how much ripple
there is (if you don't have easy access to an Oscope)..
Also, I think diode packs are usually pretty easy to replace. And for
MUCH less money than a completely new alternator will run you.
And finally, does anyone have any temperature data on this kind of
installation? Does this airplane have a blast tube directed at the
alternator. It might be as simple as adding one to the cooling baffle to
keep the temperature in check when you've got it running flat out. If the
alternator IS overloaded, and not dieing from some other cause, keeping it
cooler will be to its benefit. When plumbing a blast tube into the
baffling, it might be worth considering adding it to the side (above one
of the valve covers) instead of at the back. Pulling air from the side
may allow for a bit of 'inertial seperation' which may help keep the
alternator drier when flying through rain..
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Greg Grigson wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps
>> jumping from + 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace
>> the second alternator. Is there a way to test it on the plane?
>
> Yes. Put it under some kind of load and look at the output with an
> oscilloscope. Just connect the o-scope to the main distribution bus
> where the alternator B-lead connects. Do you have a 12VDC power jack
> for your GPS? That will work too and it is very easy to get to.
>
> An alternator with all three phases working will have almost ripple-
> free output. An alternator that has lost a diode will lose the phase
> associated with that diode. The result will be greatly increased
> ripple in the bus voltage. (That ripple is what you are hearing in
> your comm radio.) Some automotive test meters have an "alternator
> test" scale that just measures the amount of ripple and gives you a
> "good/bad" reading which accomplishes essentially the same thing.
>
> And if you have lost one diode it means that the load is being
> carried on only two of the three phases. This means that the
> remaining phases are now carrying 50% more load (each) for the same
> output from the alternator. That is why I said that losing a diode is
> a precursor to losing the whole alternator since most people don't
> think to reduce the load on the alternator by 1/3.
>
> I wish I could give you better news. This is why it is probably
> cheaper to buy a really good alternator that is "hot rated" to run at
> its full rated output. Not having to fix it several times is worth a
> fair amount of money.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | Grounding Question |
Bob,
I appreciate your sentiments to the effect that our
focus needs to be to "get light under the wheels" .....
boy do I agree !!
But you went over my head. Is the short version that
one big Ground wire the same size as the main Positive
lead (2awg) should run forward to a combo
thru-the-firewall-lug / Gound "forest" ?? In other
words; one ground wire to one ground block and
continuing to the starter?? I'm after just the simple
answer :-)
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Up Time Technology, and is
believed to be clean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder! |
Dear Listers,
I have added two new email Lists to the Matronics Line up today. These include
a Continental engine List and a Lightning aircraft List:
===========
continental-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Continental-List
Everything related to the Continental aircraft engine. Sky's the limit on discussions
here.
===========
===========
lightning-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
This is an exciting new design from Arion Aircraft LLC in Shelbyville Tennessee. Pete Krotje has a very nice web site on the aircraft that can be found here: http://www.arionaircraft.com/
===========
Also, if you haven't checked out the new Matronics Aircraft Wiki, swing by and
have a look. Remember, a Wiki is only as good as the content that the members
put into it. Have a look over some of the sections, and if you've got some interesting
or useful, please add it to the Wiki! Its all about YOU! :-) The
URL for the Matronics Wiki is:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GRT / Radio interference |
| From: | "N777TY" <microsmurfer(at)yahoo.com> |
Something similar in a friend's -7.. EIS would reboot when hitting PTT. It turned
out to be wire routing... play with it a bit... separate coax from other stuff...
move it away etc..
--------
RV-7A
N777TY (res)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37305#37305
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strategies for survival |
On May 29, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
>
>
>>> VFR flight following
>
> Isn't all this subject to how busy they are with IFR aircraft?
Yes.
> My vague
> memory is that they can turn down your request for tracking if
> their IFR
> workload is too high.
They can and they do. There have been a couple of flights recently
where I have been told they couldn't provide service but those time
are few and far between. Most of the time you can can get advisories.
It is worth the effort.
It is also a good thing to use as you start working toward your IFR
rating. Getting used to ATC communications now will make things
easier later. I introduce my students to ATC advisories when I
introduce cross-country flying and then encourage them to use it for
all flights when they leave the home airport traffic pattern.
>
> Also does coverage exist outside the mode C veil and IFR flyways?
Yes, wherever there is RADAR coverage. Mostly that is limited by
altitude in the western US. I find that I usually enjoy continuous
coverage if I am above 12,000' (and I am almost always above 12,000'
if I am on a long cross-country flight).
I do find that I have switched back to flying on the victor airways
for the most part. It isn't that much farther and that is where the
airports are anyway.
> Here in the western US there is lots of terrain outside of that.
True but it is still worthwhile to use radar advisories where possible.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GRT / Radio interference |
On May 29, 2006, at 1:12 PM, Marcus Cooper wrote:
>
>
> I have a Garmin 480 and SL-30 in my RV-10 running to a bent whip
> antenna =
> on
> the bottom and a copper foil antenna on the roof. Anytime I
> transmit on =
> the
> bent whip antenna (regardless of radio, I tried swapping things
> around), =
> the
> Grand Rapids EFIS displays and Engine monitor get very unhappy.
> The EIS
> displays bad data and the EFIS pitches up and banks heavily. There =
> doesn't
> appear to be any impact on the Dynon EFIS.
Troubleshooting EMI (electromagnetic interference) to non-radio
devices is always a crap shoot. The first thing I would check is to
verify that the shield for the comm antenna cable is intact. Next
check to make sure that the base of your comm antenna is well bonded
to the aircraft skin. Those are likely to be the two biggest problems.
If those don't work you might try putting bypass capacitors right at
the power input of the GR boxes.
See what happens with that.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whining Radio |
On May 29, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Matt Prather wrote:
>
>
> Hey Brian,
>
> Seems like you could use the AC setting on a DVM to see how much
> ripple
> there is (if you don't have easy access to an Oscope)..
That is possible but it must be an AC-only mode (cap coupled) and not
measuring AC+DC.
>
> Also, I think diode packs are usually pretty easy to replace. And for
> MUCH less money than a completely new alternator will run you.
You can do that. The alternator shop can do that pretty quickly. Of
course, the question is now why he has had TWO alternator failures.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Strategies for survival |
Thanks for the information. I hold a Sport Pilot license and (for medical
reasons) will probably never move up to a Private Pilot rating. So I won't
be practicing for IFR (except for emergency IFR). And a Sport Pilot can't
fly above 10,000 feet (which kind'a crimps my style as I am surrounded by
peaks from 9,000 to 13,000 feet).
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | noise filter alternative? |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
Hi Bob,
Since Radio Shack has discontinued their noise filter, I was
wondering if you know of an alternative, or parts/schematic to build an
equivalent?
Could a noise filter be installed on a "certified" spam can by
a mechanic and a log book entry, or would this require something more
substantial like a form 337 and blessings of the FAA?
Thanks! :-)
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strategies for survival |
On May 29, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Craig Payne wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the information. I hold a Sport Pilot license and (for
> medical
> reasons) will probably never move up to a Private Pilot rating. So
> I won't
> be practicing for IFR (except for emergency IFR). And a Sport Pilot
> can't
> fly above 10,000 feet (which kind'a crimps my style as I am
> surrounded by
> peaks from 9,000 to 13,000 feet).
What do you do when the rules conflict with safety ...
ATC: "Europa 1234X, we aren't receiving your mode-C reply. Please
recycle your transponder and say altitude."
You: "Roger center. It looks normal from here. I have a normal reply
light. Altitude niner-thousand five hundred."
And I bet you never do go over 10,000'.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Question |
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Bob,
> I appreciate your sentiments to the effect that our
> focus needs to be to "get light under the wheels" .....
> boy do I agree !!
> But you went over my head. Is the short version that
> one big Ground wire the same size as the main Positive
> lead (2awg) should run forward to a combo
> thru-the-firewall-lug / Gound "forest" ?? In other
> words; one ground wire to one ground block and
> continuing to the starter?? I'm after just the simple
> answer :-)
> --
> Larry E. James
> Bellevue, WA HR2
>
> --
Larry, you have it right except for the grounding of the starter. The
starter is grounded/connected to the engine block. You need to
ground/connect the engine to the forest of ground tabs. I used a 3/8" brass
bolt for this that passes through the FW. The engine ground should be
flexible due to the engine vibrating and the FW not. I found a convenient
bolt on the rear of the engine for this connection. You do not want to
ground the engine to the engine mount. Larry in Indiana
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Question |
>
>Bob,
>I appreciate your sentiments to the effect that our
>focus needs to be to "get light under the wheels" .....
>boy do I agree !!
>But you went over my head. Is the short version that
>one big Ground wire the same size as the main Positive
>lead (2awg) should run forward to a combo
>thru-the-firewall-lug / Gound "forest" ?? In other
>words; one ground wire to one ground block and
>continuing to the starter?? I'm after just the simple
>answer :-)
Yes, the ground lead should be the same size as the
(+) lead and 2AWG is a good size for a remotely
mounted battery.
2AWG other than nice, soft welding cable should
not be bolted directly to a battery. If you run
22759 or copper clad aluminum wire from batteries
to the firewall ground stud, I'd recommend
a short (6") 4AWG welding cable jumper be used to
make the leap from battery(-) to the end of the
battery ground feeder.
You could bolt the two wires together with ring
terminals and cover with heatshrink.
For local airframe grounding of batteries, I've
published a new Shop Notes at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Grounds/Battery_Grounds.html
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | alternator trouble shooting |
On May 29, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Greg Grigson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wow. I replaced the first Van's alternator at 10 hours due to amps
>> jumping from + 32 amps to - 32 amps. I would hate to just replace
>> the second alternator. Is there a way to test it on the plane?
>
>
Yes. Put it under some kind of load and look at the output with an
oscilloscope. Just connect the o-scope to the main distribution bus
where the alternator B-lead connects. Do you have a 12VDC power jack
for your GPS? That will work too and it is very easy to get to.
An alternator with all three phases working will have almost ripple-
free output. An alternator that has lost a diode will lose the phase
associated with that diode. The result will be greatly increased
ripple in the bus voltage. (That ripple is what you are hearing in
your comm radio.) Some automotive test meters have an "alternator
test" scale that just measures the amount of ripple and gives you a
"good/bad" reading which accomplishes essentially the same thing.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Another tactic is to use a digital volt meter, one of those $3 Harbor Freight jobs,
and read the bus voltage on the AC scale. AC volts will be zero on the battery,
starts increasing when the alternator is brought online and slowly gets
progressively worse as the loading increase. It takes a big jump when a diode
goes out.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Well I went to 2 Rat shacks and the trays holding my parts were empty in
both stores.
ARGH!
I think all you Aerolectric guys went out and scoffed em up!
Going to have to wait for restocking.
Whilst perusing my bins of bnc connectors, I ran across one and took a
crappy picture from my phone.
Here is exactly what I am looking for. I need about 4 more.
Who knows where to fine em?
www.mstewart.net/deletesoon/bncscrew.jpg
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 90 degree BNC
Atlanta)"
Thanks for the offer bob.
A friend said this thing, with the relief off, has what im looking for.
Im going after work today to see what it looks like.
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103434&tab=summar
y
Mike
-----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
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:11 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 90 degree BNC
Atlanta)"
>
>
>Yes bob I believe that would work, albeit a little tougher to
fabricate.
>Whats the square u tube made of?
Square brass tube stock. Probably the best thing to do is
assemble this for you. You need to use a connector with Teflon
insulation (see the plastic oozing from holes in the pix?).
If you tell me how long a coax you need, I can put the connector
on one end for you.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Michael" <jm(at)10squaredcorp.com> |
Perhaps try searching DigiKey? http://www.digikey.com
> Atlanta)"
>
> Well I went to 2 Rat shacks and the trays holding my parts were
> empty in both stores. ARGH! I think all you Aerolectric guys went
> out and scoffed em up! Going to have to wait for restocking. Whilst
> perusing my bins of bnc connectors, I ran across one and took a
> crappy picture from my phone. Here is exactly what I am looking for.
> I need about 4 more. Who knows where to fine em?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Strategies for survival |
Hi All-
On the operational side of this, I'd just like to restate that loss of
radar contact during flight following ops does not trigger SAR. Loss of
radar contact and com together triggers notification of the supervisor, who
notifies the operations desk for the ARTCC. Initiation of SAR is
discretionary and will depend upon circumstances. The operations desk here
in Indy told me just yesterday that most of VFR flight following lost
contact cases turn up at their destinations. To me, this implies that
folks using flight following will occasionally decide to just 'screw it',
squawk 1200, and change freqs. If this is indeed the case, we are our own
worst enemies, and are in essence crying wolf.
VFR flight following can be initiated within radar coverage, but you can
also make position reports with FSS in non-radar areas when on a VFR flight
plan. Obviously, contact with the FSS must be available.
And now, what you've all been waiting for, the political hour!
ATC is short staffed and about broke. One of the solutions they came up
with is to use less people when things are slow. As I understand the
system, in the enroute centers each of the 4 strata of a given sector was
intended to be staffed by 3 people. When things are slow, like the dead of
night in the middle of nowhere, those different strata and even different
sectors can be combined such that one person is covering all the positions.
Hence, one bleary eyed controller might be responsible for airspace that
was covered by a dozen or more people earlier in the day. To a point, this
is a good procedure. Unfortunately, it got pushed too far and operational
errors increased. The response was to go back to full staffing all the
time, so there is now typically more likelihood of getting flight
following. Of course there is a lot more overtime being made now at the
broke agency. The new contract will include a 'B' scale for new people
that greatly mitigates their career earning potential in an effort to cut
expenditures. This isn't going to help recruitment of new controllers, and
a quarter of the controllers currently on staff will be eligible to retire
within the next year. The short sighted politicos have trashed the
situation (starting with rolling all the discrete funding schemes into the
general fund lo those many years ago), can't seem to solve it, and want to
make the whole stink go away by dumping user fees / privatization on us.
Not that I have an opinion on the subject....
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strategies for survival |
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>
>> To me, this implies that
>> folks using flight following will occasionally decide to just 'screw it',
>> squawk 1200, and change freqs. If this is indeed the case, we are our own
>> worst enemies, and are in essence crying wolf.
>
> Well, sometimes if the ATC people are *really* busy, it's kind
> of hard to get their attention to cancel flight following.
> I suspect that may be why some people fail to do so. Not
> a good excuse, but I'll bet it happens.
And I think that just about anyone who uses flight following regularly
has been faced with this problem and forced into this solution.
>> ...The short sighted politicos have trashed the
>> situation (starting with rolling all the discrete funding schemes into the
>> general fund lo those many years ago), can't seem to solve it, and want to
>> make the whole stink go away by dumping user fees / privatization on us.
>>
>> Not that I have an opinion on the subject....
>>
>> Glen Matejcek
>
> ...and it seems to exactly match mine, BTW.
It has been said that politics is the art of unequal and unfair
redistribution of resources.
I am of two minds. The selfish me wants these services for free but the
rational me knows that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Is
this the best way to spend our tax dollars? Still, the money has been
taken from us in the form of use taxes on avgas so it strikes me that it
should be spent for aviation-related activities such as maintenance of
our facilities (airports, navaids, and services). But then I remember
the part about unequal and unfair redistribution of resources.
Brian
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Neubauer" <markn(at)fuse.net> |
| Subject: | L-40 Alternator Output |
I am using B&C's L-40 alternator and have just completed the 40 hour Phase 1
flight testing. Now that I am considering night flight, I have begun testing
my lighting system.
I noticed that turning all electrical equipment (Nav, landing, panel lights,
pitot heat and radios) puts a draw of about -15 amps on the ammeter at 1500
RPM. I did a load analysis earlier and I calculated full system load is 34
amps.
Is this just a simple case of alternator overload or could there be
something else? I put in the alt field test point as The Aeroelectric
Connection suggests. At full load, the field voltage is changing between 11
and 12 volts. I would conclude from this that the alternator is putting out
everything it has but I'm still at a deficit.
Is this alternator really able to put out the full 40 amps as advertised, or
am I just drawing more power than calculated?
Any suggestions on a 60-80 amp automotive alternator with external
regulation?
Mark Neubauer
(513) 583-1222
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | L-40 Alternator Output |
| From: | "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net> |
Mark hows your system voltage while at a cruise rpm?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Neubauer
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:50 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: L-40 Alternator Output
I am using B&C's L-40 alternator and have just completed the 40 hour
Phase 1
flight testing. Now that I am considering night flight, I have begun
testing
my lighting system.
I noticed that turning all electrical equipment (Nav, landing, panel
lights,
pitot heat and radios) puts a draw of about -15 amps on the ammeter at
1500
RPM. I did a load analysis earlier and I calculated full system load is
34
amps.
Is this just a simple case of alternator overload or could there be
something else? I put in the alt field test point as The Aeroelectric
Connection suggests. At full load, the field voltage is changing between
11
and 12 volts. I would conclude from this that the alternator is putting
out
everything it has but I'm still at a deficit.
Is this alternator really able to put out the full 40 amps as
advertised, or
am I just drawing more power than calculated?
Any suggestions on a 60-80 amp automotive alternator with external
regulation?
Mark Neubauer
(513) 583-1222
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
If you are going to mail order both B&C and Stein Air carry BNC connectors
along with other specialized aircraft parts and wire.
www.bandc.biz
www.steinair.com
The photo you supplied looked to me like a straight male BNC connector. B&C
has these but not a 90 one. Stein Air does (#SA-1010R).
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Carey" <markacarey(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | L-40 Alternator Output |
>From what I understand there is a considerable variation with RPM. For
instance the 20 AMP B&C only puts out 12 amps at 2000 but it generates 18 at
2500. My approach is to install the 40 as a primary and use the 20 in place
of the vacuum pump for night approaches if needed (or rely on the battery
for a short time). The pitot is a big draw that is likely a rare need at
night.
>From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart(at)iss.net>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: L-40 Alternator Output
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 18:05:40 -0400
>
>
>
>Mark hows your system voltage while at a cruise rpm?
>Mike
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mark
>Neubauer
>Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:50 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: L-40 Alternator Output
>
>
>
>I am using B&C's L-40 alternator and have just completed the 40 hour
>Phase 1
>flight testing. Now that I am considering night flight, I have begun
>testing
>my lighting system.
>
>I noticed that turning all electrical equipment (Nav, landing, panel
>lights,
>pitot heat and radios) puts a draw of about -15 amps on the ammeter at
>1500
>RPM. I did a load analysis earlier and I calculated full system load is
>34
>amps.
>
>Is this just a simple case of alternator overload or could there be
>something else? I put in the alt field test point as The Aeroelectric
>Connection suggests. At full load, the field voltage is changing between
>11
>and 12 volts. I would conclude from this that the alternator is putting
>out
>everything it has but I'm still at a deficit.
>
>Is this alternator really able to put out the full 40 amps as
>advertised, or
>am I just drawing more power than calculated?
>
>Any suggestions on a 60-80 amp automotive alternator with external
>regulation?
>
>Mark Neubauer
>(513) 583-1222
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Strategies for survival |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
If I were a controller and on one radar sweep an airplane went from
sqwaking the assigned code to, on the next, sqwaking 1200, I'd assume a
different outcome than if an airplane goes from sqwaking the assigned code
to nothing.. And, that would depend on how low the airplane had been
flying compared to the minimum coverage altitude.
Here in Idaho, there are big patches of real estate on IFR airways where
radar coverage isn't available below 12000MSL.
ATC is usually very cooperative wherever I go. Even in places where radar
coverage is spotty, as long as they aren't too busy, they'll try to keep
you on, and handed off to the next sector. Nice to be able to talk to
somebody, even if you aren't actually visible on their scope..
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
>> To me, this implies that
>> folks using flight following will occasionally decide to just 'screw
>> it', squawk 1200, and change freqs. If this is indeed the case, we
>> are our own worst enemies, and are in essence crying wolf.
>
> Well, sometimes if the ATC people are *really* busy, it's kind
> of hard to get their attention to cancel flight following.
> I suspect that may be why some people fail to do so. Not
> a good excuse, but I'll bet it happens.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Grigson <iflyhawaii2(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator trouble shooting |
OK Good advice. I'll test the alternator and get back to you.
Thanks.
Greg
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | L-40 Alternator Output |
>
> >From what I understand there is a considerable variation with RPM. For
>instance the 20 AMP B&C only puts out 12 amps at 2000 but it generates 18 at
>2500. My approach is to install the 40 as a primary and use the 20 in place
>of the vacuum pump for night approaches if needed (or rely on the battery
>for a short time). The pitot is a big draw that is likely a rare need at
>night.
The stated RPM vs. OUTPUT values are for alternator RPM, not
engine RPM. If you're mounted on a Lycoming with about 4:1
pulley ratio, you should be able to get full output from
any alternator at anything higher than taxi RPM on engine.
You need to conduct some data measurements per Note 8 of:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11G.pdf
And get back to us. In particular, we need to know the field
voltage and bus voltage when you're experiencing the "insufficient
output" condition noted in your first posting. The need for
knowing field voltage as a diagnostic tool was the reason
for crafting Z-23 in the Z-figures.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
The surprising thing is that ATC is not really of great utility. We
have better ways to provide traffic separation now (TIS, TCAS, ADS-B)
so the only real service they perform is long-distance flow control
into the major hubs and that does not require controllers sitting at
scopes. That is just a function of when you release the airliners so
they don't all arrive at ORD, ATL, or DEN at the same time. It just
requires a computer on the ground noting the arrival time at the
gates (entry points to a sector where the approaches will begin) and
then providing feedback to the aircraft as to whether they need to
slow down or not. This is just a data link problem and we have that
with Mode-S and ADS-B.
The only service that only ground radar can perform, that of
providing ground-controlled approaches, i.e. ASR or PAR, is almost
never used anymore. Even that is being moved into the cockpit through
the use of WAAS precision GPS approaches.
I would be fine with ATC wanting user fees so long as I could opt
out. Let the market decide. Widespread deployment of ADS-B would let
me see and avoid the other airplanes around me. (Heck, I do that with
my Mk-I eyeball just fine now.) Maybe ATC would find that there isn't
a market for their "service".
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
I have the audio output of my EIS 4000 hooked up thru my Flightcom
403 intercom. As soon as the EIS powers up, I have a tone that is
constant. It is maybe 1/4 (very subjective)as loud as the actual
warning tone(I thought it WAS the warning tone before I set the
limits on the EIS and heard the actual tone). Any thoughts how to
get rid of it? I have isolated various audio inputs with a 510K
resistor before feeding them into the aux audio. I know it is the
EIS b/c if I power the EIS down, the tone goes away.
Thanks,
Pete
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
Sounds like you are getting a tone from the microprocessor in the EIS. Make
sure the CPU of the EIS is in a properly installed grounded case. Also the
power supply for your intercom should be off it's own circuit breaker. One
last thing is the wire connections to your intercom should all be shielded
and the shield should be grounded at one end only. Yes not at both ends but
only one end.
If you still get the tone you may have to put a choke on your B+ to the
intercom.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Pete Howell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:00 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: EIS 4000 tone
>
>
> <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
> I have the audio output of my EIS 4000 hooked up thru my Flightcom
> 403 intercom. As soon as the EIS powers up, I have a tone that is
> constant. It is maybe 1/4 (very subjective)as loud as the actual
> warning tone(I thought it WAS the warning tone before I set the
> limits on the EIS and heard the actual tone). Any thoughts how to
> get rid of it? I have isolated various audio inputs with a 510K
> resistor before feeding them into the aux audio. I know it is the
> EIS b/c if I power the EIS down, the tone goes away.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
Can you describe the frequency of the tone? Low hum, musical note,
high-pitched whine?
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
Brian, Being a pilot and therefore a lover of
technology, I would love to subscribe to the new
theory of ATC. Unfortunately, how do you handle
dynamic responses to unforeseen situations with a
computer program? I still like talking to someone
with gray matter calling the shots when things get
irregular. Bob
--- Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
>
> The surprising thing is that ATC is not really of
> great utility. We
> have better ways to provide traffic separation now
> (TIS, TCAS, ADS-B)
> so the only real service they perform is
> long-distance flow control
> into the major hubs and that does not require
> controllers sitting at
> scopes. That is just a function of when you release
> the airliners so
> they don't all arrive at ORD, ATL, or DEN at the
> same time. It just
> requires a computer on the ground noting the arrival
> time at the
> gates (entry points to a sector where the approaches
> will begin) and
> then providing feedback to the aircraft as to
> whether they need to
> slow down or not. This is just a data link problem
> and we have that
> with Mode-S and ADS-B.
>
> The only service that only ground radar can perform,
> that of
> providing ground-controlled approaches, i.e. ASR or
> PAR, is almost
> never used anymore. Even that is being moved into
> the cockpit through
> the use of WAAS precision GPS approaches.
>
> I would be fine with ATC wanting user fees so long
> as I could opt
> out. Let the market decide. Widespread deployment of
> ADS-B would let
> me see and avoid the other airplanes around me.
> (Heck, I do that with
> my Mk-I eyeball just fine now.) Maybe ATC would find
> that there isn't
> a market for their "service".
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline
> Way
> brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788
> (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny
> of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Brian Lloyd <brian-yak(at)lloyd.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
On May 31, 2006, at 9:05 PM, Robert Sultzbach wrote:
>
>
> Brian, Being a pilot and therefore a lover of
> technology, I would love to subscribe to the new
> theory of ATC. Unfortunately, how do you handle
> dynamic responses to unforeseen situations with a
> computer program? I still like talking to someone
> with gray matter calling the shots when things get
> irregular. Bob
Of course, you still are. You are communicating with the grey matter
in your own head.
Regardless, the flow control that takes place now in ATC is not done
by people anyway. When the automation breaks down flow control
becomes virtually nonexistent regardless of the number of "brains"
running the system.
The problem is, solving the flow-control problem for all the aircraft
in "the system" for the whole of the US on any given day is beyond
the capacity of any particular human brain. It requires computers to
ensure that not all the airplanes arrive at the same airport at the
same time. GA is sufficiently distributed that random statistical
distribution is sufficient for GA. The airlines with their hub-and-
spoke architecture and the need to coordinate huge numbers of
arrivals and departures at relatively few airports is just a big,
messy queueing problem, one that is ideally solved by automation.
And when the automation breaks down and you have to solve the problem
on the fly, the pilots will be able to make it work out. Now with
things like TIS and ADS-B, the pilot will have the necessary
information.
When we fly mass formations we get a lot of airplanes up in the air
and back on the ground with very minimal separation. It is done by
the pilots, not by ATC.
So the real future of ATC is distributed processing, not centralized
processing. And the processing elements belong in the aircraft, not
on the ground. Time for a change.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ATC (was: strategies for survival) |
> I still like talking to someone
> with gray matter calling the shots when things get
> irregular.
As an ex-UASF ATC type, I'll second that. Had several situations that could
only be human controlled...but also had a couple that were human induced
as well.
; )
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: EIS 4000 tone |
There's a Grand Rapids Tech. product user group on Yahoo that you can look up using
GRT_EFIS
It's not a EFIS only users group so you can join and ask and EIS question you want
and search the archives for that matter.
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Pete Howell" <pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
>
>
>
> I have the audio output of my EIS 4000 hooked up thru my Flightcom
> 403 intercom. As soon as the EIS powers up, I have a tone that is
> constant. It is maybe 1/4 (very subjective)as loud as the actual
> warning tone(I thought it WAS the warning tone before I set the
> limits on the EIS and heard the actual tone). Any thoughts how to
> get rid of it? I have isolated various audio inputs with a 510K
> resistor before feeding them into the aux audio. I know it is the
> EIS b/c if I power the EIS down, the tone goes away.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
There's a Grand Rapids Tech. product user group on Yahoo that you can look
up using
GRT_EFIS
It's not a EFIS only users group so you can join and ask and EIS question
you want and search the archives for that matter.
Lucky
pete.howell@gecko-group.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Pete Howell"
> <PETE.HOWELL@GECKO-GROUP.COM>
>
>
> I have the audio output of my EIS 4000 hooked up thru my Flightcom
> 403 intercom. As soon as the EIS powers up, I have a tone that
is
> constant. It is maybe 1/4 (very subjective)as loud as the actual
> warning tone(I thought it WAS the warning tone before I set the
>
limits on the EIS and heard the actual tone). Any thoughts how to
>
get rid of it? I have isolated various audio inputs with a 510K
> resistor
before feeding them into the aux audio. I know it is the
> EIS b/c
if I power the EIS down, the tone goes away.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
>
>
>
>
&g
======
================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
It is a high pitched whine. I think it might be the microprocessor,
as suggested. I'm working with the folks at GRT on it as well.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Giffen Marr" <GAMarr(at)charter.net> |
This was posted today on the Air Transport Association daily news flyer. As
you know, ATA is pushing user fees big time. I would think that a better
place to put your comments is with AOPA.
"Airlines urge user fees to fund air traffic control
Major airlines believe the air traffic control system should be funded by a
user-fee system because business jets, like commercial aircraft, take up
space in the sky, no matter how many passengers are on board. And because
only one plane can take off at a time, the system experiences similar
strains from both groups. Such a system would increase fees for business
aircraft, which represent 18% of flights but pay just 5% of Federal Aviation
Administration fees. "We've in effect been subsidizing Lee Raymond of Exxon
Mobil and all these corporate guys flying around," Air Transport Association
President and CEO James May said. The Wall Street Journal (subscription
required)"
Giff Marr
Lancair IVP/20B 48%
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
Talk to Hi-Tech Foams. Aside from foam for seat cushions they also sell
sound insulation foam:
http://www.seatfoam.com/text/ADCproduct.htm
402/470-2346
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Firewall Penatration |
I have been to Bob's site and looked at Bob's Shop Notes:
Getting the wires in while keeping the flames out . . .
Question is : What is the recommended packing material for the sleeve and
where to get these stainless sateel sleeves. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Duane Wilson <aaa(at)pacifier.com> |
| Subject: | How do I hook up EIS4000 to the shunts on z-14 |
I am building and RV9A using the Z-14 diagram as a start. Also
installing EIS-4000. How do I go about getting a load reading from the
shunts into the EIS?
Make your reply really detailed, I am a newbie!!!
Thanks,
Duane
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Firewall Penatration |
Try www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penatration
--> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
I have been to Bob's site and looked at Bob's Shop Notes:
Getting the wires in while keeping the flames out . . .
Question is : What is the recommended packing material for the sleeve and
where to get these stainless sateel sleeves. Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
Reminds me of chicken..... Buy it by the pound and sell it by the piece.
Then only buy smaller birds... More pieces per pound. They are talking user
fees up this way too. If they want to be totally fair then charge by the
filled seat.... Crew seats included. I figure for less than four seats the
postage would be more than the fees.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Giffen Marr
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: ATC User Fees
>
>
>
>
>
> This was posted today on the Air Transport Association daily
> news flyer. As
> you know, ATA is pushing user fees big time. I would think
> that a better
> place to put your comments is with AOPA.
>
> "Airlines urge user fees to fund air traffic control
> Major airlines believe the air traffic control system should
> be funded by a
> user-fee system because business jets, like commercial
> aircraft, take up
> space in the sky, no matter how many passengers are on board.
> And because
> only one plane can take off at a time, the system experiences similar
> strains from both groups. Such a system would increase fees
> for business
> aircraft, which represent 18% of flights but pay just 5% of
> Federal Aviation
> Administration fees. "We've in effect been subsidizing Lee
> Raymond of Exxon
> Mobil and all these corporate guys flying around," Air
> Transport Association
> President and CEO James May said. The Wall Street Journal
> (subscription
> required)"
>
> Giff Marr
> Lancair IVP/20B 48%
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Penatration |
Craig thanks for the link. It looks and sounds real good.
Although it looks a little pricey for one little piece of stainless tube
with a bit of sealer and some fire sleve. But looks as though that Bob is
mentioned as an endorser of the product. So it must work. Any comments Bob ?
Also looks as though they have a neat heater tube penetration
valve as well. Which is priced reasonable upon comparison. Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 4:13 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penatration
>
>
> Try www.epm-avcorp.com/tubeseal.html
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 1:47 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Firewall Penatration
>
> --> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> I have been to Bob's site and looked at Bob's Shop Notes:
> Getting the wires in while keeping the flames out . . .
> Question is : What is the recommended packing material for the sleeve and
> where to get these stainless sateel sleeves. Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall Penatration |
| From: | cecilth(at)juno.com |
I got mine at the local hardware store. Mine was a stainless 90 degree
found in the plumbing dept for sinks.
Cecil
writes:
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> I have been to Bob's site and looked at Bob's Shop Notes:
> Getting the wires in while keeping the flames out . . .
> Question is : What is the recommended packing material for the
> sleeve and
> where to get these stainless sateel sleeves. Randy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
| Subject: | Chapter 8 Update |
Bob
The reply claims the file is damaged and cannot be repaired. Something
special that needs to be done?
Jonesy
-----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
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:09 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Chapter 8 Update
Chapter 8 of the Connection has been updated with the
corrected temperature rise data in the figures. For a
limited time, folks on the List can download and print
a complete replacement for Chapter 8 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CH_8/Ch8_R12.pdf
Print odd pages only in reverse order, turn stack over
in printer and print even pages only to get fronts and
backs.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Firewall Penatration |
Also see here for cabin heat boxes and "plumbing" (Aircraft Spruce carries
their products):
www.aviacompworldwide.com
-- Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Payne" <craig(at)craigandjean.com> |
| Subject: | Chapter 8 Update |
Hmm, works ok for me right now. Do you have the latest version of Acrobat?
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Jones
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Chapter 8 Update
-->
Bob
The reply claims the file is damaged and cannot be repaired. Something
special that needs to be done?
Jonesy
-----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
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:09 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Chapter 8 Update
Chapter 8 of the Connection has been updated with the corrected temperature
rise data in the figures. For a limited time, folks on the List can download
and print a complete replacement for Chapter 8 at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/CH_8/Ch8_R12.pdf
Print odd pages only in reverse order, turn stack over in printer and print
even pages only to get fronts and backs.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net> |
| Subject: | Chapter 8 Update |
Thanks for the idea. I have the 7.0.7 version. That appears to be the
current version. It still give me the file is damaged message.
May 16, 2006 - June 02, 2006
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-fr