AeroElectric-List Archive Browser

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gq
February 02, 2007 - February 10, 2007

The mike needs a bias voltage, have you tried a headset adapter cord to a handheld? I once had a problem with some headset mikes, and solved the problem by flicking them with my finger like you'd flick a fly. Apparently having them sitting unused for a time allowed the carbon granules to kinda stick together, the little shock from the snap shook them up enough to get it working again. Worth a try... Craig Smith -----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of eedetail Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 4:52 PM
Subject: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Folks, the tower's been telling me that I am barely readable - and I was blaming my radio. However, I've been flying another plane lately, and today my mike quit working. I now think that my radio is not bad, but the headset is. Anyone here have a quick and dirty ground test for a mike? I'll be trying a different brand in my plane tonite, but kinda want to double check before springing for a new headset. TimE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92437#92437 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
From: "eedetail" <eedetail(at)qwest.net>
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Havent tried that and I'll have to ask around for an adaptor. I should mention it was cold -10C outside. But, I was flying an Arrow and it warmed up pretty quickly. I am gonna try a borrowed headset in the zodiac this evening. TimE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92454#92454 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION
FOR PORTABLE GPS
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I agree Randy.. In fact I recently read an NTSB report about a (I think) 172 that crashed in IFR conditions while executing an approach in (I think) North Carolina. If I recall, the airplane actually did have the required equipment on board but interviews with people not involved with the crash indicated that the pilot was using some kind of PDA based navigator. Another possibility is that it would be obvious to assume that since the average handheld GPS _usually_ works better* than the average ADF or NAV receiver, people might start using handheld GPS's to navigate and shoot approaches while in actual conditions and just forgoe the $pendy equipment. I suppose that the FAA might figure out what you were doing if you landed out of the soup and an inspector ramp checked you and found that you didn't have any legal nav equipment. "Hey, so, how did you just execute that flight, sir?" I suspect this has happened at least once. So, the FAA can read the NTSB reports, see what people are getting dinged for on RAMP checks and guess what people might be doing based on what capabilities certain devices have.. It sounds like your position is that something shouldn't be illegal unless they can show that people are actually exhibiting a certain undesirable behavior. I think I agree. In this case, I think the FAA can probably show instances of the rule breakers. Regards, Matt- * better in some ways and not others... > > > There are cops checking for speeders and know who they are. > How > does the FAA know who is using non certified equipment for flying vor > radials ? And are they flying these radials with the gps just for > situational awareness while using they're nav for primary, just as all the > company's that sell these non cerified units reccomend ? If they are > flying > the non cert gps as primary how would these rule breakers be sought out ? > The only way I can think of is by ntsb reports stating that as a cause. If > there are no reports stating this how would the FAA get thier info ? Bill > I'm not trying to raise an argument, but I don't see how these dreaded > rebel > "rule breakers", whoever they are, can be blamed for the FAA coming up > with > new rules against portable gps's. Please explain I am at a loss. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> > To: > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:28 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION > FOR > PORTABLE GPS > > >> >> >> Not everyone who drives an automobile faster than the speed limit dies. >> >> But they are breaking rules, nonetheless... >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of 6440 >> Auto Parts >> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 2:13 PM >> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION >> FOR PORTABLE GPS >> >> >> >> >> One would think that if such rule benders exist they would be >> mentioned in the ntsb reports as the cause of their demise. Are there >> any >> such reports ? >> >> Randy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:34 PM >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION >> FOR >> PORTABLE GPS >> >> >>> >>> >>> Course, there is another issue involved... >>> >>> To my knowledge, all of the hand-held GPS units are "VFR only". >>> >>> But you don't have to do much web surfing to find a lot of >>> "suggestions" >>> about how to file an IFR flight plan "direct to" based on an "iffy" >>> flight >>> for 80 miles or so along a VOR radial, then actually flying it using a >>> hand-held GPS unit. >>> >>> So, is it not possible that, as is often the case, a bunch of "rule >>> benders" >>> are screwing things up for everybody else? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABL... Good Evening Dave, I am in your camp on this one, but I do want to point out that there is a way to use a "VFR only" GPS during IFR navigation legally. It is not a "cheater" use at all. The idea is that you request a direct routing from the controller. He/she has the authority to issue such a clearance, but there is no way specified as to how you are going to stay on course. You could use Deductive Reasoning if that were your desire. As long as you stay on course, you are legal and so is the controller. Since you are operating on his/her authority rather than your own, no cheating is taking place. In general, a controller will not issue such a clearance unless you are going to be in a radar coverage area. If your use of ded reckoning results in a deviation from course, he or she will tell you about it. You may stay on course by looking at a mountain range, following a river or noting displacement via VOR or DME, you can make corrections on the ded reckoning course as better information becomes available to you. If you use a VFR GPS to stay on course, you should also be able to make appropriate checks of the VOR and DME positions to verify the adequacy of the navigation method chosen. We as pilots are NOT authorized to navigate by using a VFR GPS, but we can use it as an aid to situational awareness as long as we stay within the navigational airspace for which the controller has issued us a clearance. IFR navigation is a cooperative venture. It is up to both we aviators and the controller to be sure that whatever we do is legal as well as an efficient use of the airspace. Using a handheld to execute a GPS approach is illegal and ill advised. Using it to provide situational awareness as a back up to navigation via Deductive Reasoning is not. 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 2/2/2007 5:01:06 P.M. Central Standard Time, N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com writes: Enroute, on the other hand, if you file direct you can fly it any way you want to, including pilotage, and who's to know whether you used your Nav radios or your dangerously unapproved GPS. Throw in a VOR in each ARTCC sector for good measure, and I think there's no way to know. Dave Morris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Those are exactly the conditions that caused the mike on my "guest' headset to solidify. It sat in the cold hangar all winter. I was miffed when it wouldn't work on the first time it was used. After giving it a good snap they stared working again. I'm guessing a bit of condensation, and cold gets the carbon stuck together. It's the vibrations of the carbon that generates the signal. Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of eedetail Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:17 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed Havent tried that and I'll have to ask around for an adaptor. I should mention it was cold -10C outside. But, I was flying an Arrow and it warmed up pretty quickly. I am gonna try a borrowed headset in the zodiac this evening. TimE ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION
FOR PORTABLE GPS
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Here's the report I mentioned below: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id 021023X05372&ntsbno=IAD03FA005&akey=1 This is an interesting one to me. If the pilot hadn't been described as "very competent," I would have guessed that it was just sloppy flying that caused the accident. In this case, however, I have to wonder whether the pilot was getting bad information from his handheld, and whether a certified install would have kept the airplane out of the rocks. He was admittadly low for that section of the approach, and somewhat off course when he hit a tower.. Link to a copy of the approach plate: http://www.airnav.com/depart?http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0701/06224G21.PDF Regards, Matt- > > > I agree Randy.. In fact I recently read an NTSB report about a (I think) > 172 that crashed in IFR conditions while executing an approach in (I > think) North Carolina. If I recall, the airplane actually did have the > required equipment on board but interviews with people not involved with > the crash indicated that the pilot was using some kind of PDA based > navigator. > > Another possibility is that it would be obvious to assume that since the > average handheld GPS _usually_ works better* than the average ADF or NAV > receiver, people might start using handheld GPS's to navigate and shoot > approaches while in actual conditions and just forgoe the $pendy > equipment. > > I suppose that the FAA might figure out what you were doing if you landed > out of the soup and an inspector ramp checked you and found that you > didn't have any legal nav equipment. "Hey, so, how did you just execute > that flight, sir?" I suspect this has happened at least once. > > So, the FAA can read the NTSB reports, see what people are getting dinged > for on RAMP checks and guess what people might be doing based on what > capabilities certain devices have.. > > It sounds like your position is that something shouldn't be illegal unless > they can show that people are actually exhibiting a certain undesirable > behavior. I think I agree. In this case, I think the FAA can probably > show instances of the rule breakers. > > > Regards, > > Matt- > > * better in some ways and not others... > > >> >> >> There are cops checking for speeders and know who they are. >> How >> does the FAA know who is using non certified equipment for flying vor >> radials ? And are they flying these radials with the gps just for >> situational awareness while using they're nav for primary, just as all >> the >> company's that sell these non cerified units reccomend ? If they are >> flying >> the non cert gps as primary how would these rule breakers be sought out >> ? >> The only way I can think of is by ntsb reports stating that as a cause. >> If >> there are no reports stating this how would the FAA get thier info ? >> Bill >> I'm not trying to raise an argument, but I don't see how these dreaded >> rebel >> "rule breakers", whoever they are, can be blamed for the FAA coming up >> with >> new rules against portable gps's. Please explain I am at a loss. >> >> Randy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> >> To: >> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:28 PM >> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION >> FOR >> PORTABLE GPS >> >> >>> >>> >>> Not everyone who drives an automobile faster than the speed limit dies. >>> >>> But they are breaking rules, nonetheless... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com >>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of 6440 >>> Auto Parts >>> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 2:13 PM >>> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT >>> OPTION >>> FOR PORTABLE GPS >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> One would think that if such rule benders exist they would >>> be >>> mentioned in the ntsb reports as the cause of their demise. Are there >>> any >>> such reports ? >>> >>> Randy >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> >>> To: >>> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:34 PM >>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT >>> OPTION >>> FOR >>> PORTABLE GPS >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Course, there is another issue involved... >>>> >>>> To my knowledge, all of the hand-held GPS units are "VFR only". >>>> >>>> But you don't have to do much web surfing to find a lot of >>>> "suggestions" >>>> about how to file an IFR flight plan "direct to" based on an "iffy" >>>> flight >>>> for 80 miles or so along a VOR radial, then actually flying it using a >>>> hand-held GPS unit. >>>> >>>> So, is it not possible that, as is often the case, a bunch of "rule >>>> benders" >>>> are screwing things up for everybody else? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Try your headset in another plane that has a perfectly working radio. I bet someone around your area would try that for you. Larry n Indiana ----- Original Message ----- From: "eedetail" <eedetail(at)qwest.net> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 3:52 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: headset - bad mike test proc needed > > Folks, > the tower's been telling me that I am barely readable - and I was blaming > my radio. However, I've been flying another plane lately, and today my > mike quit working. I now think that my radio is not bad, but the headset > is. > > Anyone here have a quick and dirty ground test for a mike? > I'll be trying a different brand in my plane tonite, but kinda want to > double check before springing for a new headset. > TimE > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92437#92437 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
From: "eedetail" <eedetail(at)qwest.net>
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Craig, Thanks for the info. This set hadnt sat in the cold all night, but it did sit for a little while. I believe it's an electret type mike, is the other type of mike any better or worse? I see your' a future 640 builder - Currently flying a 601HD. Thanks, TimE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92471#92471 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net>
Subject:
Date: Feb 02, 2007
hi bob n. thanks for the reply on the wire needed inside the control stick for the ptt switch. bob noffs ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: Re: Circuit needed
Date: Feb 02, 2007
Bob,The aux pump pushes fuel into an EFI return line, open to the header tank, via a check valve. The pressure switch that I have isa one psi oil pressure switch, hence NC. It seems to me that it's necessary to not have a null betweenOn and (On) so that pressure is maintained to keep the P-switch open as that open switch is what should keep the pump energized. So what does a "good, good" switch cost? or who makes one? If having the NC switch is causing grief, I could buy a NO switch. Upon first search, I was so happy with finding a one psi switch that I didn't think about it being an Oil Press. switch which would be normally closed to light the idiot light. The idiot light went on when I realized what I >I have auxillary fuel tanks that are pumped to a header tank for use. I >plan to use an OFF-ON-(ON) switch coupled with a pressure switch (NC, and >already in my parts bin) to activate a blinking LED when there's no >pressure and to activate the pump. When the pump pressurizes the line and >opens the p-switch, the LED goes to steady on. > >Does one use a capacitor to get the LED to blink? You can buy leds that flash . . . but it looks like you need the same led to light steady too. This will take some electronics. How does the pump develop and magnitude of pressure? Fuel transfer pumps generally operate into an open line to another tank with a very low order of pressure. You say you have a pressure switch. What pressure level causes it to change states? > and is there a "null" between the ON-(ON) positions? No . . . not if it's a really good good switch . . . > >Obviously I need help on the circuit design. Need more 'input' . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: PS6000/UPS AT Audio Panel wiring
Having bought a slow build airplane kit and wanting to do EVERYTHING on the airplane myself, I'm afraid has brought much frustration. I just spent the last 2-3 weeks of my spare time (20-30 hours) wiring the bottom connector of my UPS AT SL-15 audio panel (a PS6000 with UPS AT name plate). Words cannot describe what frustration that has been. I had to do shield "daisy chaining" for my VM1000 connectors and that worked out pretty well but this thing was a real PIA. Not only does one have to daisy chain the shields but you also have to daisy chain all the low (ground) sides of the inputs/outputs and crimp them to a single contact. I'm sorry but if the engineer who had designed this set up would have been sitting across the table from me these last couple weeks, I would have choked the life out of him. I used solder sleeves on the shields but that didn't really help keep me from creating a real mess out of the whole thing. Then I had to make another rats nest out of the other ground wires so I could connect them to the common pin. The pins were stamped sheet metal double crimp contacts and I have an IDEAL crimper with the correct dies but it still seemed a little week so I ended up soldering them as well. It will probably work ok but most cables have only 1 wire that actually has a contact crimped on it and stuffed into the connector block (the unit uses spring contacts that touch against traces on the circuit board when the box is pushed into the tray, unlike the rest of the UPS AT stuff that uses easy to work Dsub connectors and pins that I just had to strip and crimp using the B&C Dynon install kit). I'm a little worried about mechanical integrity. There is no way to secure the wires on the back of the unit, the connector blocks just bolt to the back of the tray and the wires hang off the end (actually they will lay on top of the GPS/COM tray for a couple inches before hanging off the end but I'm still worried about the wires breaking off at the contacts due to vibration, any thoughts here?). Anyone else had the "pleasure" of wiring one of these pigs? If so, any words of wisdom or did you end up with a "rats nest" on the connector also? Interestingly, there is also a top connector to this audio panel which has NO daisy chaining on those wires whatsoever, each wire has its own contact that goes into the block (and shields are crimped in together with each ground wire contact, a really inconsistent design). PS Engineering, if you're listening I suggest you fire the engineer who did this one, its pathetic! Ok, enough rant for tonight, but anyone who is electrically challenged may want to pass on wiring one of these. I'm pretty good at wiring and really enjoy it but this was a real downer. Dean RV-6A, N197DM Ending wiring, starting electrical checkout ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABLE GPS 6440 Auto Parts wrote: > > > Dave I think you may be preaching to the choir, but the the > choir needs it too. I think most of us send in our AOPA dues in hopes > that they will solve all of our woes. And they do a good job. Since > this was started by the AOPA article I'll bet they will fight it very > well. Much better than we as individuals could ever think of doing. So > those that are not a member should become one. And those that are can > send an email supporting them on this issue. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave N6030X" <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> > To: > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 2:22 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION > FOR PORTABLE GPS > > >> >> >> The problem is that 1/2 to 3/4 of the pilots are too intimidated by >> the FAA to do any jumping up and down or screaming. If they weren't, >> we would not have ever allowed the situation to become this out of >> control to begin with. These are little flying machines, for god's >> sake, not weapons of mass destruction! >> >> For instance, did you know that the ranking member of the US senate >> subcommittee on aviation has just asked the head of the TSA to become >> more focused on security IN GENERAL AVIATION? That would mean not >> just spam cans, but ALL of your airplanes. Can you imagine metal >> detectors at your airport? Confiscating your swiss army knives? >> Background checks for everybody who goes on a joy ride in your RV-10? >> >> How much worse is an accident in a Cessna 172 than in a Ford Taurus? >> How many more people can a Cherokee kill in one flight accident than >> a school bus? Are the electrical systems on school buses regulated >> as intensely as those on a Cessna 152? >> >> I suggest the reason the FAA keeps getting away with taking away more >> and more of our freedoms is that pilots in general are such patriots >> that we've always felt the government was benevolent, and so we've >> cut them more slack. It's time to start looking at these >> infringements on our liberties with a bit more suspicion. PMA for a >> piece of plastic to mount my GPS in the panel? Give me a frigging >> break. I'm writing ALL my congresspeople on this one. >> >> Dave Morris > > NEVER assume that someone else is fighting your battle. Call you senator. We should start with Inhofe, OK - he's a pilot bobf ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS Bill Denton wrote: > > Not everyone who drives an automobile faster than the speed limit dies. > > But they are breaking rules, nonetheless... > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of 6440 > Auto Parts > Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 2:13 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION > FOR PORTABLE GPS > > > > > One would think that if such rule benders exist they would be > mentioned in the ntsb reports as the cause of their demise. Are there any > such reports ? > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> > To: > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:34 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR > PORTABLE GPS > > > >> >> >> Course, there is another issue involved... >> >> To my knowledge, all of the hand-held GPS units are "VFR only". >> >> But you don't have to do much web surfing to find a lot of "suggestions" >> about how to file an IFR flight plan "direct to" based on an "iffy" flight >> for 80 miles or so along a VOR radial, then actually flying it using a >> hand-held GPS unit. >> >> So, is it not possible that, as is often the case, a bunch of "rule >> benders" >> are screwing things up for everybody else? >> > > > Ja Whol mein Herr -aber -- interresant that this all happens after the you know who's take back control of the House and Senate. Like um now? bobf ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Rick, You shouldn=92t throw stones unless you willing to take a few hits: First, the FAA is doing a great job of ending general aviation as we know it, we lost two airplane companies last week, we now have less then 600,000 total pilots in the US, most new pilots are going to the airlines and not to GA, and most importantly you can=92t save people hell bent on killing themselves. Go look at aviation anywhere around the country that is not near a big city, or in Florida, Arizona, or southern California. If you look long enough you will surmise that general aviation it is getting smaller, soon this will begin to feed on itself. At the current rate of loss of flight schools and actively flown certified airplanes, general aviation for the average person will soon be gone. My opinion for what it=92s worth is that the FAA and you folks worrying about saving the stupid are mostly to blame for this loss. Rick, don=92t be so dense! Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard Girard Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:17 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS Given that there are folks out there who shouldn't be trusted to plug a toaster into a wall socket, why in God's name do you want them futzing about with the electrical system of a TC aircraft. Like it or not there's a trail of dead bodies going back to 1909 of people who just knew better and no one could tell them different. Take a look at what happened in ultralights. I still remember Dennis telling all within earshot that he didn't think there was a way to break his aircraft, then proceeded to go up and prove how wrong he was. His reward for his innovation was a 1500 foot vertical ride, followed a few days later by a much slower 6 foot descent. The FAA owns TC aircraft, and they're within their rights to make this ruling. What happens to the guy or gal who buys that aircraft somewhere down the road? Who will step up and look out for them, the fine innovative manufacturer who sold the product in the first place? Don't be so dense. The FAA does a pretty good job of managing an extremely complex activity. All this argument does is prove the adage that, "nothing is impossible to the man who doesn't have to." Rick -- 12/12/2006 -- 12/12/2006 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Comm antenna share-box
> >I think you're on the right track here, Bob. Anything that prevents that >connection from being exceedingly clean will cause a diode effect, and >rectification in an RF circuit can cause really nasty intermittent >problems.. The kind of problem you take to your avionics guy and say "this >squealing only happens when it is raining outside", and he laughs at you. > >Also the insertion of things into RF transmission lines is not something >to be taken lightly. You are changing the impedance at that point, and >that will cause some amount of loss. Jim Weir says the amount of loss is >insignificant in the case of the IC-ANT-SB, but a poorly constructed >switchbox might introduce just enough loss to interfere with one's ability >to contact ATC at a distance when it's needed most. > >Dave Morris Yup. Jim's right. The SWR "bump" inserted by such 'non-feedline' accessories is insignificant in terms of observable performance . . . but that little hunk of brass bugs me. There is a better way and this is just the group to give some new ideas a try. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Bevan, Remember, if it looks like your having to much fun in your experimental plane, they just might change the rules. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS Another reason to stay away from "certified" aircraft. Bevan RV7A -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave N6030X Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS --> The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, by, and for the people"? Dave Morris At 10:14 AM 2/2/2007, you wrote: >Looks like Big Brother is trying to help again. > > >---------- > >---------- >FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS Think your >portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna 172's >instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to mount >it. The parts-panel dock and connective wiring-needed to mount your >portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too expensive to >buy. The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to >produce a replacement or modification part if they know (or should >know) the part would end up installed in a certified aircraft-that is >unless they obtain production approval from the agency. But that costs >tens of thousands of dollars, something many companies can't afford. >While AOPA agrees production approval is necessary for critical parts >like connecting rods and cylinders, it isn't needed for non-critical >parts like a portable GPS panel dock or traffic detector that enhance >pilot safety. See ><http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070201parts.html>AOPA Online. > -- 12/12/2006 -- 12/12/2006 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Bevin, You're right on the money. Keep flying and enjoying the freedom it brings. That way you can tell you grand kid what it use to be like in the old days. On a very serious note, the only way to save general aviation is to get more people doing it while at the same time reducing cost and improving training. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:23 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS I agree, but what to do? Do we as a group embark on mass disobedience with solidarity? Fly our aircraft by the thousands in massive formations over the state Capitol? Or do we continue what we've been doing by just building and flying and gathering at Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun, and so many other shows as a public showing of the size of our numbers. I think so. But surely as we enjoy ourselves, we must be aware of the ground-bound bureaucrats and those they wish to influence below us as they look up with some degree of jealousy. Get out there, build, fly, vote and "talk-up" aviation with all who will listen. Having fun and having the sense of freedom that flying brings is very contagious. Spread it and support those who are spreading it. Bevan RV7A Egg H6 on order -----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, February 02, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS --> >--> > >The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances >in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, >by, and for the people"? This is pretty consistent with past policies. You don't need to make log entries for things that are not physically attached . . . i.e., portable personal accessories and piloting aids. This is why my dual gps installation wedges between the of the glare shield and windshield held in place with small dollops of windshield sealant. No connections to the aircraft's wiring. All goes back into the flight bag when I park the airplane and leaves no tracks for having been there. This isn't going to get better folks. Look at it this way: Everyone has notions that what they do for a living will produce an ever increasing flow of revenue and greater stature amongst their peers. Suppose your job right out of college was: "Here's the books son. Read. Memorize. Go forth and make aviation safer." Given that the only tools of your craft are crafting of rules, publishing of rules, policing compliance with the rules and punishment of transgressors. What are your options for working up the ladder in the career of your choice? Microsoft, Sony, Chrysler, and McDonalds MUST drive up returns by judicious investments in activities designed to increase CUSTOMER perceptions of value. Their fortunes are driven by increasing gross sales by offering more attractive product or increasing numbers of customers for the current products. The FAA has no customers. I.e, no consumer/supplier relationship and therefore no accountability or perception of value-received for their efforts. Further, the only way a bureaucrat can move up in the world is to either (1) be party to expansion of the activity's operating horizons (more rules) or (2) take over command of greater numbers of bureaucrats. There are no other metrics by which an organization chartered with "enhancement of public safety" can grow professionally . . . public risks from the presence of aviation are so small that ANY endeavor to reduce them is exceedingly expensive, restrictive of personal liberties and still more difficult to demonstrate that any one effort has produced a useful outcome. When challenged on this perception by those who like to believe in the value of this activity I will ask, "How many lives did you save last year? Or if your function ceased to be performed, how many folks would die as a result next year? If you ceased to do your job, how many individuals would go elsewhere to find an alternate source for your services?" I've yet to receive a cogent answer . . . I've had a working relationship with this organization for over 30 years. If I plot observed and demonstrated present trends out to the future, our industry in its present form is doomed. 20 years? 30 years? Impossible to predict with accuracy but the TREND is relentlessly trudging on in the wrong direction. Without a fundamental change in direction, the outcome is as inevitable as the sun coming up tomorrow morning. Bob . . . -- 12/12/2006 -- 12/12/2006 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: intercom & headset kits
FWIW I have a flighttech intercom that uses a hot mic and electronic speech noise filter chip. No squelch controls, no background noise of any kind while talking or when not talking, no missed syllables when you start to talk and it works fine with mismatched headsets from different manufacturers. Best darn intercom I've ever used and I'd never be happy with a VOX unit or a PTT intercom again. Ken Bob Verwey wrote: > >Paul, >I'm particularly interested in the functionality of the 4 place intercom and >the squelch settings. What has been your experience with this aspect? > >Bob Verwey >A35 Bonanza > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: intercom & headset kits
Good company with good products and documentation but be cautious of purchasing second hand old stuff unless you try it first. For example I have a tested and calibrated but never installed or used early model (at least 10 or 12 years old) audio panel here that must be manually switched between intercom and radio to transmit. That is just too awkward and the design has been updated I think a couple of times since then as you'd expect from a good company. Similarly I was never happy with the audio quality from the mic amplifier in my older headset (8 or 10 years) but I switched to his later transistorized design and am happy with it now. In fact I also put that amplifier in another manufacturer's headset to improve it as well! Ken paul wilson wrote: > >I am interested in any evaluation of the Jim Wier kits. www.rst-engr.com. Has anybody used them? > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Not sure what other type your referring to, electret seems to be the most common type employed in headsets. I remember doing a little research into the microphone issue to try to figure out why mine weren't working, but it would take a bit of time to dig it all out. If you have a name for the type you are thinking of let me know what and I'll try to help. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 03, 2007
The repair processes that have been put forward, such as tapping the mic or slamming it against a brick wall ;-) could lead one to believe that what is being referred to is an old "carbon" mic. This type of mic used granules of carbon, which could become stuck together. Sharply tapping the mic would often free up the granules and restore the mics performance. Back in the day, Ma Bell's headsets used carbon mics, and you'd be amazed at how much of an improvement in voice quality a few taps could give you. But while I'm no longer really "in" any type of electronics field, it's been years since I've heard of carbon mics being used for anything... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of C Smith Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2007 8:17 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed Not sure what other type your referring to, electret seems to be the most common type employed in headsets. I remember doing a little research into the microphone issue to try to figure out why mine weren't working, but it would take a bit of time to dig it all out. If you have a name for the type you are thinking of let me know what and I'll try to help. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS It's past time to start firing those who endanger our safety with their meddling. David M. Dave N6030X wrote: > > > The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances > in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, > by, and for the people"? > > Dave Morris > > At 10:14 AM 2/2/2007, you wrote: > >> Looks like Big Brother is trying to help again. >> >> >> ---------- >> >> ---------- >> FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS >> Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna >> 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to >> mount it. The partspanel dock and connective wiringneeded to mount >> your portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too >> expensive to buy. The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for >> manufacturers to produce a replacement or modification part if they >> know (or should know) the part would end up installed in a certified >> aircraftthat is unless they obtain production approval from the >> agency. But that costs tens of thousands of dollars, something many >> companies can't afford. While AOPA agrees production approval is >> necessary for critical parts like connecting rods and cylinders, it >> isn't needed for non-critical parts like a portable GPS panel dock or >> traffic detector that enhance pilot safety. See >> <http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070201parts.html>AOPA >> Online. >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: FAA woes . . .
> >Yes indeed. And then spend a few minutes at www.Senate.gov and >www.House.gov and let your elected officials know you are unhappy. If all >they ever hear is bland, politically correct official statements from >AOPA, they won't know how pissed we are. >:) > >Dave Morris >Rebel with a vote Always an good place to start . . . But understand too that 'government' (just WHO is that anyway?) has us just where they want us. We're a small fraction (600K) of the whole (130 millions) of eligible voters. This is a situation shared with EVERY other special interest group in the US. The folks in Congress are delighted that we've all found niche causes to champion because it distracts us from the fundamental cause that every voting citizen should be pulling for. Our plight as an 'abused' minority is shared with every other 'abused' minority and there's not a thing we can do about it because we continue to act as minorities i.e., not enough votes in the block to be a real threat to those who 'abuse' us. To explore how these losses to liberty came to pass one needs to study and understand the simple-ideas upon which the government was originally formed and then study the history that brought us to where we are. For those interested, I'll suggest the following resources. Foundation for the original thoughts . . . See: http://12.164.81.10/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm or get the free audio book at: http://www.freeaudio.org/tpaine/commonsense.html This famous document "Common Sense" was penned by Thomas Paine. Yea, we all probably heard about it in high school . . . but I heard it from some very unimaginative teachers who were unable or unwilling to get me engaged in the significance. Then see: http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/main.htm There are audio books on this too . . . but I've not yet located a downloadable copy. I keep copies of both these documents in .mp3 format to listen too on long drives. I've listened to both perhaps three times each and try to renew my acquaintance with their wisdom regularly. Got a driving trip to Little Rock coming up next week. To recap the major thoughts brought forth by these two teachers: (1) the primary purpose of law is to protect liberty. Liberty being a condition that allows one to traverse life free of force or fraud against their person or property. (2) the role of government should be clearly and simply defined and those definitions kept in mind when sending representation to Washington. Of course, there is this docoument: http://tinyurl.com/2mukgm Reall that the Constitution was written by ordinary citizens who where farmers and merchants. None were professional legislators. None believed they were undertaking a task to lay the foundations for what passes for government today. The document is only 24 pages long and 90% of it has to do with organizational housekeeping. Take a highligher and mark those passages that speak to governmental operations that affect you personally . . . and you'll find that it's not much and the meanings are quite clear without benefit of a constitutional law student from Harvard to interpret for you. The point of this exercise is to offer some insight as to how we find ourselves commiserating over the latest perceived injustice in aviation while every other minority special interest group commiserates over their particular perceptions. The next time your prospective representative appears at a town hall meeting or campaign rally, the questions to ask should not be based on what you want from Washington. For myself, I would ask that every candidate seeking my vote be cloistered in a quiet room with their favorite music, a handful of pencils and one of those theme books we used in school to craft an example of our knowledge and understanding for the purpose of receiving a grade. Writing task for the prospective legislator: Define liberty Define honorable behavior Define dishonorable behavior Is it possible to be neither dishonorable or honorable? - explain What are the guiding principals which you call upon while considering legislation? List and explain what you consider to be the three most important. Do you believe in prime-directives? I.e, are there some lines that the legislature should never cross? Explain. What in your opinion are the three most powerful ideas in the Constitution. Explain. (no "right" answer for this - I just want to see how well the candidate understands the document . . . or even if he/she has read the thing). What are the constitutional roles of the House, the Senate and the President? Is it the roll of the courts to judge actions of citizens against the meaning your legislation or against their interpretations of the Constitution? Cite words from the Constitution that justifies government notice that I am anyone but a citizen of voting age? Where does government receive the charter to know how old I am, my sex, my job, my income, etc. Press buzzer for drinks, sandwiches or potty break. Now, the unfortunate part is that very few if any folks we've sent to Washington could produce a cogent document answering those questions. The saddest part yet is that should a candidate demonstrate an exemplary understanding of the role of government in a democratic republic, few of our fellow citizens are sufficiently cognizant of the topic to accurately judge the candidate's qualification to office. Bottom line is, yes write your Congressfolks and do it regularly. It's easy. See: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/orgs/ This is an interesting site for it not only provides a conduit into which you can place your own thoughts but it highlights the thoughts of your fellow citizens on matters of legislation and citizen expectations of Congress. Try not to get too depressed when you read them. Yes, write about specific issues of interest to your particular abused minority . . . but include words in EVERY letter that indicates your understanding of how Congress ignores their sworn duty under the Constitution. Touch also on how any particular action of Congress has attacked the liberty of yourself or fellow citizens. It doesn't hurt to quote Paine or Bastiat from time to time (But I'll bet very few legislators know who these fellows were or have read what they wrote). As a member of an abused minority focused on the complaint du jour, you don't represent much of a threat to your representative's generous salary and spectacular retirement package. But as a member of the cognizant majority who correctly identifies and spotlights their dishonor, THAT they will find worrisome. Will this 'fix' any of the current complaints? Probably not. In fact, I cannot imagine what it would be like to recover from an event that suddenly restricts government to its constituted constraints. For one thing, we would immediately have millions of unemployed workers from no-value- added careers who would suddenly have to find useful jobs like the rest of us. It wouldn't be easy but I'd welcome the short term chaos with open arms. Flying our airplanes in the future could be a whole new world! But it's a sure bet that as a minority complainer, our pleas are summarily ignored beyond, "Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I will keep them in mind as I deliberate the next attack on the liberty of you or some of your fellow citizens". Yeah, right. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
> >Folks, >the tower's been telling me that I am barely readable - and I was blaming >my radio. However, I've been flying another plane lately, and today my >mike quit working. I now think that my radio is not bad, but the headset is. > >Anyone here have a quick and dirty ground test for a mike? >I'll be trying a different brand in my plane tonite, but kinda want to >double check before springing for a new headset. >TimE Sure. Plug it into an intercom. You should be able to "talk to yourself" . . . wiggle the plugs, flex the wires. It MIGHT be that your ship's jacks are suffering from old age. Get a hand held. Leave the antenna off. Tune ship's radio and hand held to some locally unused frequency. Plug mic into ship's transceiver, headphones into the hand-held. Listen to yourself while wiggling the jacks and wires. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com>
BobF wrote, regarding the FAA proposal to restrict portable GPS.... interresant that this all happens after the you know who's take back control of the House and Senate. Like um now? Whoaaaa, I have no interest in starting a political free-for-all, but lets keep it accurate. The persons managing the FAA are political appointees of the current administration, not the new congress. Those same people are proposing to smack GA with user fees. These actions have NOTHING to do with the new people in control of the House and Senate. Now, with new people in charge of the House and Senate, we can hope they will not rubber stamp these poorly concieved ideas proferred by appointees of the current administation. There's always plenty of political shame and blame to go around, but let's keep them sorted out correctly on the score board. When the new congress approves these shameful changes, then we can give 'em hell. :-) Chuck ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS lawsuits. David M. B Tomm wrote: > >I agree, but what to do? Do we as a group embark on mass disobedience with >solidarity? Fly our aircraft by the thousands in massive formations over >the state Capitol? Or do we continue what we've been doing by just building >and flying and gathering at Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun, and so many other shows as a >public showing of the size of our numbers. I think so. But surely as we >enjoy ourselves, we must be aware of the ground-bound bureaucrats and those >they wish to influence below us as they look up with some degree of >jealousy. Get out there, build, fly, vote and "talk-up" aviation with all >who will listen. Having fun and having the sense of freedom that flying >brings is very contagious. Spread it and support those who are spreading it. > >Bevan >RV7A >Egg H6 on order > >-----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, February 02, 2007 9:54 AM >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR >PORTABLE GPS > >--> > > > > >>--> >> >>The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances >>in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, >>by, and for the people"? >> >> > > This is pretty consistent with past policies. You > don't need to make log entries for things that > are not physically attached . . . i.e., portable > personal accessories and piloting aids. > > This is why my dual gps installation wedges between > the of the glare shield and windshield held in place > with small dollops of windshield sealant. No connections > to the aircraft's wiring. All goes back into the flight > bag when I park the airplane and leaves no tracks for > having been there. > > This isn't going to get better folks. Look at it this > way: > > Everyone has notions that what they do for a living > will produce an ever increasing flow of revenue and > greater stature amongst their peers. Suppose your > job right out of college was: "Here's the books > son. Read. Memorize. Go forth and make aviation > safer." > > Given that the only tools of your craft are > crafting of rules, publishing of rules, policing > compliance with the rules and punishment of transgressors. > What are your options for working up the ladder in > the career of your choice? > > Microsoft, Sony, Chrysler, and McDonalds MUST > drive up returns by judicious investments in activities > designed to increase CUSTOMER perceptions of value. > Their fortunes are driven by increasing gross sales > by offering more attractive product or increasing > numbers of customers for the current products. > > The FAA has no customers. I.e, no consumer/supplier > relationship and therefore no accountability > or perception of value-received for their efforts. > Further, the only way a bureaucrat can move up in > the world is to either (1) be party to expansion of > the activity's operating horizons (more rules) or > (2) take over command of greater numbers of bureaucrats. > > There are no other metrics by which an organization > chartered with "enhancement of public safety" can > grow professionally . . . public risks from the > presence of aviation are so small that ANY endeavor > to reduce them is exceedingly expensive, restrictive > of personal liberties and still more difficult to > demonstrate that any one effort has produced a useful > outcome. > > When challenged on this perception by those who > like to believe in the value of this activity > I will ask, "How many lives did you save last year? Or > if your function ceased to be performed, how many > folks would die as a result next year? If you ceased > to do your job, how many individuals would go elsewhere > to find an alternate source for your services?" I've > yet to receive a cogent answer . . . > > I've had a working relationship with this organization > for over 30 years. If I plot observed and demonstrated > present trends out to the future, our industry in its > present form is doomed. > > 20 years? 30 years? Impossible to predict with accuracy > but the TREND is relentlessly trudging on in the wrong > direction. Without a fundamental change in direction, > the outcome is as inevitable as the sun coming up > tomorrow morning. > > Bob . . . > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS This will be my last comment as I have airplanes to work on and, frankly it's more fun and much more productive. Have any of you heard of the Sport Pilot Rule? If the FAA is sooooo bad, how do you explain what is arguably the most progressive movement in flying? Along with my LSA repairman maintenance ticket, I was given the phone number of Edsel Ford, the administrator in charge of Sport Pilot, and told if I had any questions or concerns, please, call him direct, he wants to keep track of "his guys". Hell, he even came and audited the first class. Seen anybody from the bureaucracy working that hard for you lately? Every barrel has a few bad apples, look at the fine time we have here with GMCjetpilot. The trick is to get rid of the bad apples and keep the rest of the barrel. As for FAA causing the demise of GA, I'd argue that cost has a lot more to do with it than anything else. Just eight years ago, when I finally got around to finishing my PPL, a 172 was $60 an hour, wet. What is it now? When I worked for Cessna in the mid seventies a new 172 was in the low $20K range. All the cost of TC had been amortised long before that and look what a 172 costs today. When you're paying a disproportionate amount of your hard earned income for catastrophic health care extortion, er insurance, where do you find the money for an activity like flying UNLESS it is directed toward your economic improvement? A fair amount of blame can be trowled on to school systems more interested in training children to take meaningless tests than in actual learning, too. Flying takes hard work and a dedication to continued learning. Our school boards seem to be more interested in finding out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, than in giving kids a good grounding in science. I've done presentations at elementary and high schools to kids who have never heard much of anything about aviation except that it is used by vacationers and terrorists. And as for my wanting to save the stupid from themselves, I believe the adage that aviation is like a self cleaning oven. When my oven is cleaned, the nightly news doesn't find much interest, unlike the Cessna 150 hanging upside down from the power lines. Rick On 2/3/07, Mike wrote: > > Rick, > > > You shouldn't throw stones unless you willing to take a few hits: First, > the FAA is doing a great job of ending general aviation as we know it, we > lost two airplane companies last week, we now have less then 600,000 total > pilots in the US, most new pilots are going to the airlines and not to GA, > and most importantly you can't save people hell bent on killing themselves. > > > Go look at aviation anywhere around the country that is not near a big > city, or in Florida, Arizona, or southern California. If you look long > enough you will surmise that general aviation it is getting smaller, soon > this will begin to feed on itself. At the current rate of loss of flight > schools and actively flown certified airplanes, general aviation for the > average person will soon be gone. My opinion for what it's worth is that > the FAA and you folks worrying about saving the stupid are mostly to blame > for this loss. Rick, don't be so dense! > > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard > Girard > *Sent:* Friday, February 02, 2007 11:17 AM > *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR > PORTABLE GPS > > > Given that there are folks out there who shouldn't be trusted to plug a > toaster into a wall socket, why in God's name do you want them futzing about > with the electrical system of a TC aircraft. > Like it or not there's a trail of dead bodies going back to 1909 of people > who just knew better and no one could tell them different. Take a look at > what happened in ultralights. I still remember Dennis telling all within > earshot that he didn't think there was a way to break his aircraft, then > proceeded to go up and prove how wrong he was. His reward for his innovation > was a 1500 foot vertical ride, followed a few days later by a much slower 6 > foot descent. > The FAA owns TC aircraft, and they're within their rights to make this > ruling. > What happens to the guy or gal who buys that aircraft somewhere down the > road? Who will step up and look out for them, the fine innovative > manufacturer who sold the product in the first place? Don't be so dense. > The FAA does a pretty good job of managing an extremely complex activity. > All this argument does is prove the adage that, "nothing is impossible to > the man who doesn't have to." > > Rick > > > -- > 12/12/2006 > > -- > 12/12/2006 > > * > > > * > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Circuit needed
>Bob, > >The aux pump pushes fuel into an EFI return line, open to the header tank, >via a check valve. The pressure switch that I have is > >a one psi oil pressure switch, hence NC. Against what resistance to flow is the 1 psi expected to develop? Is the cracking pressure of the check valve greater than 1 psi? >It seems to me that it's necessary to not have a null between >On and (On) so that pressure is maintained to keep the P-switch open as >that open switch is what should >keep the pump energized. Switches come in a host of characteristics that can define operating pressures +/- errors and drift, hysteresis, transfer times, etc. >So what does a "good, good" switch cost? or who makes one? >If having the NC switch is causing grief, I could buy a NO switch. Upon first >search, I was so happy with finding a one psi switch that I didn't think >about it being an Oil Press. >switch which would be normally closed to light the idiot light. The idiot >light went on when I realized >what I had done. Hmmmm . . . let me see if I really understand. You want a switch to operate when a pump develops a pressure against the back side of a check valve. Is it the purpose of this switch do de-energize the pump when the pressure drops below the desired switch point (i.e. is no longer moving fluid)?. Know that off-the-shelf oil pressure switches can have very wide tolerances to setpoint. Their purpose is to annunciate gross failures of oil pressure, not to warn of impending failure due to some reduction in oil pressure. There are some alternatives to oil pressure switches but I need to fully understand the task. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
> > >Those are exactly the conditions that caused the mike on my "guest' headset >to solidify. It sat in the cold hangar all winter. I was miffed when it >wouldn't work on the first time it was used. After giving it a good snap >they stared working again. I'm guessing a bit of condensation, and cold gets >the carbon stuck together. It's the vibrations of the carbon that generates >the signal. I don't think anyone has manufactured a new aviation microphone using carbon granule technology in 30-40 years. Electret and dynamic have been the technologies of choice for many a moon. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ECLarsen81(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Subject: Re: PS6000/UPS AT Audio Panel wiring
Not to justify it or condone the wiring method but the reasoning as I was told.... Actually, the messy wiring was developed by King on the KMA24, PS Engineering utilized the same design so the you could pull the block off the KMA (bottom block on the PMA) and build the new intercom block (top) to easily upgrade from the King to a PS6000. Because of the short runs of wire in the radio stack, a lot of the installers did not use shielded wire in the audio links and did the daisy chain between the low pins, using the ground bar attached to the back of the KMA tray for all the Lo attachments. I like to add a .032 flap off the back of the tray to mount strain reliefs making it similar to the KMA 26 arraingement. My 2 cents. Ed Larsen ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR
PORTABLE GPS 6440 Auto Parts wrote: > > > Thanks Dave I will send my congressman an email on the > matter too. Even though I suspect it will go to their "deleted items" > folder. Or I may even send a letter but also suspect it will be filed by > one of their aids under "T" for trash can. Sad but probably true. > > Randy snipped I'd like to offer a personal experience related to 'calling your congressman'. Several years ago there was a bill in committee to fund cancer research. Since my family has a very personal interest in cancer research, we began a letter writing campaign to influence our congressman. When my wife 1st contacted a staffer in DC about the bill, they weren't even aware that it existed. Within a few weeks we had generated around 500 letters from friends & neighbors, *faxed* to the congressman's DC office. (This was shortly after the 9/11 / anthrax hysteria & we were informed that mailed letters took months to clear security & emails were easily deleted.) The receipt of around 500 faxes resulted in our congressman moving from being unaware of the legislation to being a co-sponsor of the bill. The staffer who spoke with my wife later told her that the bill had received one of the strongest responses ever recorded in their office. When you call or write (especially when you write & fax it in) the staffers record your opinion basically with a check mark in the 'support' or 'oppose' column. With literally 99% of the population totally unaware of this pending regulation & virtually all pilots opposed to further regulation, a fax campaign of just a few hundred letters from your state almost certainly would have a huge effect on how your congressman votes. Whenever I contact our congressmen/senators I make sure to tell them that their vote influences my vote. After last November's elections, you'd better believe they are paying more attention to the voters. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: Your 2 cents' worth
Date: Feb 03, 2007
John, you sent: "my $.02 -John www.ballofshame.com" That 2 cents' worth came to over 500 lines. That's 25000 lines per buck ($1.16 Canadian). Ferg Kyle Europa A064 914 Classic ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Gosh Bob, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. The headset I have that gave me the trouble is branded flightline. They are low price economy stereo headsets purchased new 3 yrs ago. When the mike crapped out, I tried to find out how it worked. Can't remember exactly where the info came from but that's what I was told. The mike capsule is a cylinder roughly 1/4" dia. metal sidewall, 2 leads on back side circuit board, looks black from front. Tried googling flightline, and try to find manufacturers website not found. The line is still carried by aircraft Spruce, but I don't think this model is made any more. Sure wish I could find the original poop sheet. At any rate they returned to function after giving them the finger snap, electret/dynamic/condenser/carbon whatever. Craig Smith I don't think anyone has manufactured a new aviation microphone using carbon granule technology in 30-40 years. Electret and dynamic have been the technologies of choice for many a moon. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 03, 2007
For what it's worth I found this from David Clark on testing headsets. http://www.davidclark.com/PDFfiles/AvHeadsetTestProc.pdf Hope this helps someone. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
> > >For what it's worth I found this from David Clark on testing headsets. > >http://www.davidclark.com/PDFfiles/AvHeadsetTestProc.pdf > >Hope this helps someone. Cool find sir! Thank you. I've archived and indexed a copy on the website. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
I don't think it was you who mentioned carbon mics (it's true that a standard 'fix' for those things was to bang them on a bulkhead from time to time!). Obviously, any piece of electronics can develop a quirk in connectivity that may be restored to function by some shock. Didn't mean for it to look like I was suggesting any understanding or misleading info on your part. Bob . . . >Gosh Bob, I'm not trying to mislead anyone. The headset I have that gave me >the trouble is branded flightline. They are low price economy stereo >headsets purchased new 3 yrs ago. When the mike crapped out, I tried to find >out how it worked. Can't remember exactly where the info came from but >that's what I was told. The mike capsule is a cylinder roughly 1/4" dia. >metal sidewall, 2 leads on back side circuit board, looks black from front. >Tried googling flightline, and try to find manufacturers website not found. >The line is still carried by aircraft Spruce, but I don't think this model >is made any more. Sure wish I could find the original poop sheet. At any >rate they returned to function after giving them the finger snap, >electret/dynamic/condenser/carbon whatever. >Craig Smith > > > I don't think anyone has manufactured a new aviation microphone > using carbon granule technology in 30-40 years. Electret and dynamic > have been the technologies of choice for many a moon. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "kesleyelectric" <kesleyelectric(at)chooseblue.coop>
Subject: TurboCad question
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Looking through the archives, it seems that quite a number of people use TurboCad. I am in the market for a CAD program for my aircraft project and other uses. My question is this: will the earlier versions of the program (lots of ver. 10 for sale) available on Ebay function properly on the Win 98 machine that I have in the airplane shop at home? I would like to install the program on both the Win98 machine at home and the newer XP machine here at the business. I currently do not have internet access at home. The materials on the various Turbocad websites deal with far more in depth issues than basic compatibility. Any help from the List much appreciated. Regards, Tom Barter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Speaking of David Clark..... I used to have a Luscombe that I flew with a Garmin GPSCOM 190 handheld. When I bought the Luscombe about ten years ago, I bought a new David Clark H10-20 headset to go with the H10-30 that I already had. I had purchased the 10-30 2nd hand from a friend who went to the airlines and no longer needed it. My intention was to use both headsets with an intercom when someone flew with me... I started having problems with my handheld-headset setup that I don't recall the nature of now. I do remember sending my handheld back to Garmin to have them check it out. When It came back with no problems found, I called David Clark and explained my problem to them, whatever it was. I do remember that my David Clark PTT would not always open my mic. The tech rep I spoke with asked me to send both headsets and the PTT to them and he would check them out. I got a call a week later from the same tech I had spoken with who said he could find no problems with any of the stuff I sent him. He said that the mic on the 10-20 might be a little hot for the Garmin handheld, so he said he was going to send me a different one to try. He said they were going to go ahead and replace the PTT for good measure as well. He then asked me how old the 10-30 was. I told him I did not know as I had bought it second hand about 8 years prior. His response was, "Well we have made some improvements to these since then, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it also..." The next time I'm in the market for a headset, it will absolutely, positively, without a doubt, be a David Clark. The problem turned out not to have anything to do with the headsets or PTT. It was the remote connection on the side of the Garmin which I had not sent back to Garmin. Bill Settle RV-8 Wings > > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > Date: 2007/02/03 Sat PM 04:38:01 EST > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed > > > > > > > > >For what it's worth I found this from David Clark on testing headsets. > > > >http://www.davidclark.com/PDFfiles/AvHeadsetTestProc.pdf > > > >Hope this helps someone. > > Cool find sir! Thank you. I've archived and indexed a copy > on the website. > > Bob . . . > > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
Subject: Re: TurboCad question
Yup 10.2 works just fine on windoze98SE for me Tom. Ken kesleyelectric wrote: > Looking through the archives, it seems that quite a number of people > use TurboCad. I am in the market for a CAD program for my aircraft > project and other uses. My question is this: will the earlier > versions of the program (lots of ver. 10 for sale) available on Ebay > function properly on the Win 98 machine that I have in the airplane > shop at home? I would like to install the program on both the Win98 > machine at home and the newer XP machine here at the business. I > currently do not have internet access at home. The materials on the > various Turbocad websites deal with far more in depth issues than > basic compatibility. > Any help from the List much appreciated. > > Regards, > > Tom Barter > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com>
Subject: Garmin 430: Nav 1 audio hum
Okay, I'm at whit's end. I've spend the last couple weeks trying to track down a high pitched "hum" on the NAV 1 audio coming from my new Garmin 430. I have the Approach Systems Pro-G hub and cable harnesses, which they just replaced to see if that solves the hum (the hum would cut in and out when I tugged on the harness so I suspected the harness). Well, I just spent several more hours installing the new harness to where I could test it, and the hum is now there all the time. Wiggling the harness no longer makes the hum cut in and out :( I've done further troubleshooting: - all Circuit Breaks pulled except NAV (10amp) and COM (5 amp) - all fuses pulled (everything off except Garmin 430) - everything in hangar turned off (lights, heaters, etc) - tried both switching power supply and aircraft battery. - probed pin 23 on hub AUDIO PANEL HD44, hearing hum - probed pin 10 on COMM 1 cable going to HD26, hearing hum - pulled EVERY ground off forest-of-tabs grounding block except battery contactor, still hearing hum - swapped Garmin 430's with my hangar mate, still hearing hum. SO, it seems like the radio is not the problem, and the only thing between the radio and the headphones is the wire harness! Which is the second one from Approach Systems, I can't imagine it also has a problem but you never know. Here's another funny thing, even with all the grounds pulled off the Garmin 430 it's still running, does it get grounded through the case and/or plug shields? P.S. Approach Systems gets an A+++ in my book, they have been extremely responsive to my emails even on weekends. Help! ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Bill, you're right on with CD service. A couple years back, I was at Sun-N-Fun with my wife. We'd flown down in our C172 for the whole show. My wife complained of pain after a few hours of flight, and as we flew all the way from MI, she'd logged some time under her DC H10-13s. By the time a day of flying was done she needed to take something. I mentioned this when I was at the DC booth and the gentleman gave me a set of the new undercut gel seals for free. DC is the best, for customer service. Craig Smith XX On Behalf Of Bill Settle Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 6:03 PM Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed Speaking of David Clark..... Snip---------- I told him I did not know as I had bought it second hand about 8 years prior. His response was, "Well we have made some improvements to these since then, so I'm going to go ahead and replace it also..." The next time I'm in the market for a headset, it will absolutely, positively, without a doubt, be a David Clark. The problem turned out not to have anything to do with the headsets or PTT. It was the remote connection on the side of the Garmin which I had not sent back to Garmin. Bill Settle RV-8 Wings ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 03, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
This will be my last comment as I have airplanes to work on and, frankly it's more fun and much more productive. Have any of you heard of the Sport Pilot Rule? If the FAA is sooooo bad, how do you explain what is arguably the most progressive movement in flying? Yes, a step forward in one venue amongst years of stepping backward in others. We should take care lest our grateful reaction to little tid-bits of 'progress' blind our willingness to study or even be aware of the big picture. Along with my LSA repairman maintenance ticket, I was given the phone number of Edsel Ford, the administrator in charge of Sport Pilot, and told if I had any questions or concerns, please, call him direct, he wants to keep track of "his guys". Hell, he even came and audited the first class. Seen anybody from the bureaucracy working that hard for you lately? I know lots of really good people who work for the FAA too. Many are dedicated folks who have reason to be proud of their personal achievements and honorable behavior . . . Every barrel has a few bad apples, look at the fine time we have here with GMCjetpilot. The trick is to get rid of the bad apples and keep the rest of the barrel. This isn't about the people, it's about the whole premise as to what we as responsible citizens of a democratic republic should expect or even accept from government. Are we NOT the consumers who pay the tariffs for goods and services they offer? As for FAA causing the demise of GA, I'd argue that cost has a lot more to do with it than anything else. Just eight years ago, when I finally got around to finishing my PPL, a 172 was $60 an hour, wet. What is it now? When I worked for Cessna in the mid seventies a new 172 was in the low $20K range. All the cost of TC had been amortised long before that and look what a 172 costs today. When you're paying a disproportionate amount of your hard earned income for catastrophic health care extortion, er insurance, where do you find the money for an activity like flying UNLESS it is directed toward your economic improvement? True, costs have risen disproportionately to other technology driven venues. When I worked at Cessna in '63 I think a 150 cost about $5,000 and a 172 was about $7,500. In 1963 you could buy a Ford Falcon with all the goodies offered for $2,500. According to the inflation calculator at . . . http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ . . . you have to spend about $15,000 to get the same value for an entry level automobile today. Okay, go out and see what you can buy for that kind of money and compare it with the features offered cars sold for $2500 in 1963. I'd say that cars, like MOST products we buy today have improved tremendously in value after considering inflation-adjusted, lower out-of-pocket costs. A piece-o-crap Firestone 500 (best-we-knew-how-to-do) cost me about $40 in 1963. What kind of tires can I buy for $240 each today? Shucks, my last set of top-o-the- line tires for my van cost me about $500 for THE SET. Now consider that C-172. The inflation calculator says that machine should sell for $49,000 today. Hmmmm . . . are the airplane companies reaping huge windfall profits? Is somebody getting paid too much to build them? What's the deal? Aircraft manufacturing is exceedingly labor intensive. Because of low volumes and high development costs, there has been very little motion toward automated assembly . . . but there are limits to what can be realized there as well. What I've personally observed over the years is that we spend 2 to 3 times more person hours in shepherding a new product to the airplane than we did 30 years ago. Further, all of that increased labor did NOT go into improving on the-best-we- know-how-to-do . . . to the contrary, we spend less effort toward that goal. Unless you pull the wheels up, a C-172 doesn't perform any better today than in did in 1963. According to the site at . . . http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml a Garmin GA Equipped Skyhawk 172R will set you back $219,500. Take out all the avionics and I'll bet it's still about $180,000. That's $30,000 in 1963 dollars! I'm sad to report that we do less engineering and more certification in the process of bringing new products to aviation. Needless to say, all the extra labor adds to out-the-door costs for the airplane while adding nothing to its value. A fair amount of blame can be trowled on to school systems more interested in training children to take meaningless tests than in actual learning, too. An interesting point . . . but consider the bureaucrat's role in "managing" an educational system. Anybody outside the classroom except for the janitor is a bureaucrat. They do not teach, they can only make rules, police rules and punish transgressors of the rules. Furthermore, they draw salaries and benefits without adding to the task of product delivery in the classroom. Sound like government? Okay, government goes to the bureaucrats in charge of schools and says, "you ain't cut'n it Jake. Shape up or we'll punish you (cut off funds)." What tools do bureaucrats have to guage performance? Of course - standardized tests. All this posturing, rule making, policing, test taking and threat of punishment totally ignores the simple-ideas that govern the educational process: Teachers who possess a command of simple-ideas and a willingness and talent for explaining how they are used to do useful things like communicate, calculate, bring new and beneficial ideas into a free-market economy and to be responsible and honorable users of those ideas. And most important - understand how we got where we are and what duties the honorable citizen takes on under a democratic republic. This is best achieved when consumers (parents) have absolute responsibility and control over the services they're paying for (knowledge and talents of teachers). When I was in grade school, the school board (5 citizens at zero salary) hired one bureaucrat (a principal at a salary about 1.5x that of a teacher), and the principal hired teachers. The parents (through their fellow citizens on the school board and an exceedingly small bureaucracy of one) had short-coupled input to ALL the suppliers of goods and services offered in the classroom. (Medicine Lodge, KS circa 1949-1953.) Anyone from the state of Kansas or Washington, DC who decided to dictate anything would have been told to "take a hike." Our teachers goals were to EXCEED what were then suggested 'standards' for education. I suspect they met their own goals. It's a sad state of affairs when schools today are struggling to even meet perfectly reasonable minimums. It was a certainty that I received a higher quality of education then than anyone gets today where the focus shifts from teaching to raising test scores to forestall loss of funding (got to keep all those bureaucrats employed and their pension fund contributions flowing). I suspect that most school systems could get along nicely without funds from Washington if they operated with a truly utilitarian bureaucratic staff. But there are other systems that would need to be tossed out as well. A study of the big picture reveals that it's not a "breakdown of schools" but no-value added growth in several systems that have been allowed to take over schools. Systems where the consumer/supplier relationship has been corrupted to benefit the systems and forsake a responsibility to good teachers, willing students and those parents who view schools as having duties beyond that of keeping their kids off the streets a few hours a day. Flying takes hard work and a dedication to continued learning. Our school boards seem to be more interested in finding out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, than in giving kids a good grounding in science. I've done presentations at elementary and high schools to kids who have never heard much of anything about aviation except that it is used by vacationers and terrorists. And as for my wanting to save the stupid from themselves, I believe the adage that aviation is like a self cleaning oven. When my oven is cleaned, the nightly news doesn't find much interest, unlike the Cessna 150 hanging upside down from the power lines. Your cynicism is well stroked by anecdotal observations but I think the underlying cause for increases in the price of airplanes AND the perceived reduction in numbers of responsible and capable folks to use them has roots that go right down to public perceptions of the proper function of government. For every responsibility we turn over to someone else, a bit of freedom is lost. Further, a constant companion to loss of personal freedom is loss of efficiency coupled with loss of the consumer's choice to refuse to pay for an inferior product and force a poor performing producer out of business. The short answer is: Everything we allow government to touch becomes more expensive and offers less value than products which compete with each other in the marketplace. Every service supplied by government is non-competitive and what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In the few cases where we're allowed to refuse a service, we are compelled to pay for it anyhow. Therefore, producers of poor product are not at risk for going under due to lack of customer acceptance. Aviation, medicine and schools are great demonstrations of how this phenomenon works when compared to computers, automobiles, and most consumer products. Plotting present trends in aviation, medicine and schools out into the future does not paint an attractive picture in my mind. I'll leave it to you to paint your own pictures. But if we're going to react to injustices heaped upon us as a MINORITY of pilots, we'll have to support those objections as a MAJORITY of honorable citizens who expect better behavior from their government. In the final analysis, if government adhered to the Constitution, then there would be no special interest groups prowling the halls of Congress or pitching their complaint du jour to the world . . . that's because government would not be making legislation that puts one citizen or group of citizens above or below another. I.e., if the only thing your legislators are chartered to do is protect liberty, then it matters not who you send. Further, there will be no troughs to fight over for a great share of the public purse. Lobbyists would be out of a job! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Date: Feb 03, 2007
Bob, Re website with discussion on IC-ANT-SB www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
>Bob, > >Re website with discussion on IC-ANT-SB ><http://www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288>www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288 > Hmmmmm . . . the read I got on use of the word "crude" was that he didn't think that a 3.5mm audio connector was well suited for radio frequency coax transmission lines. I note that Jim Weir weighed in on the topic and rebutted someone assertions that use of the wrong connector would introduce significant loss. I didn't see anyone's teardown analysis that went in to look at the construction or robustness of the jack. THIS is where the device will become troublesome. Thanks for the link! Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Date: Feb 04, 2007
With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some weight behind the baggage compartment ... OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks protruding from the bird ... Carlos RV-9A, still wiring ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:20 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held > > > >>Bob, >> >>Re website with discussion on IC-ANT-SB >><http://www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288>www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288 > > Hmmmmm . . . the read I got on use of the > word "crude" was that he didn't think that a > 3.5mm audio connector was well suited for > radio frequency coax transmission lines. > I note that Jim Weir weighed in on the topic > and rebutted someone assertions that use > of the wrong connector would introduce > significant loss. I didn't see anyone's > teardown analysis that went in to look at > the construction or robustness of the jack. > > THIS is where the device will become troublesome. > > Thanks for the link! > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
GPS I would request anyone who writes a message here about politics (Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) to include the word SPAM in the message header so that my spam filter has a chance of catching it and if not, I know to delete it without reading it. On 2/3/07, David M. wrote: > > lawsuits. > > David M. > > > B Tomm wrote: > > > I agree, but what to do? Do we as a group embark on mass disobedience with > solidarity? Fly our aircraft by the thousands in massive formations over > the state Capitol? Or do we continue what we've been doing by just building > and flying and gathering at Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun, and so many other shows as a > public showing of the size of our numbers. I think so. But surely as we > enjoy ourselves, we must be aware of the ground-bound bureaucrats and those > they wish to influence below us as they look up with some degree of > jealousy. Get out there, build, fly, vote and "talk-up" aviation with all > who will listen. Having fun and having the sense of freedom that flying > brings is very contagious. Spread it and support those who are spreading it. > > Bevan > RV7A > Egg H6 on order > > -----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, February 02, 2007 9:54 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR > PORTABLE GPS > > --> > > > > --> > > The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances > in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, > by, and for the people"? > > > This is pretty consistent with past policies. You > don't need to make log entries for things that > are not physically attached . . . i.e., portable > personal accessories and piloting aids. > > This is why my dual gps installation wedges between > the of the glare shield and windshield held in place > with small dollops of windshield sealant. No connections > to the aircraft's wiring. All goes back into the flight > bag when I park the airplane and leaves no tracks for > having been there. > > This isn't going to get better folks. Look at it this > way: > > Everyone has notions that what they do for a living > will produce an ever increasing flow of revenue and > greater stature amongst their peers. Suppose your > job right out of college was: "Here's the books > son. Read. Memorize. Go forth and make aviation > safer." > > Given that the only tools of your craft are > crafting of rules, publishing of rules, policing > compliance with the rules and punishment of transgressors. > What are your options for working up the ladder in > the career of your choice? > > Microsoft, Sony, Chrysler, and McDonalds MUST > drive up returns by judicious investments in activities > designed to increase CUSTOMER perceptions of value. > Their fortunes are driven by increasing gross sales > by offering more attractive product or increasing > numbers of customers for the current products. > > The FAA has no customers. I.e, no consumer/supplier > relationship and therefore no accountability > or perception of value-received for their efforts. > Further, the only way a bureaucrat can move up in > the world is to either (1) be party to expansion of > the activity's operating horizons (more rules) or > (2) take over command of greater numbers of bureaucrats. > > There are no other metrics by which an organization > chartered with "enhancement of public safety" can > grow professionally . . . public risks from the > presence of aviation are so small that ANY endeavor > to reduce them is exceedingly expensive, restrictive > of personal liberties and still more difficult to > demonstrate that any one effort has produced a useful > outcome. > > When challenged on this perception by those who > like to believe in the value of this activity > I will ask, "How many lives did you save last year? Or > if your function ceased to be performed, how many > folks would die as a result next year? If you ceased > to do your job, how many individuals would go elsewhere > to find an alternate source for your services?" I've > yet to receive a cogent answer . . . > > I've had a working relationship with this organization > for over 30 years. If I plot observed and demonstrated > present trends out to the future, our industry in its > present form is doomed. > > 20 years? 30 years? Impossible to predict with accuracy > but the TREND is relentlessly trudging on in the wrong > direction. Without a fundamental change in direction, > the outcome is as inevitable as the sun coming up > tomorrow morning. > > Bob . . . > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
> > >With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob >N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to >install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated >to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the >hand held. >And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some >weight behind the baggage compartment ... >OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >protruding from the bird ... A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along with the panel mount because something common to both radios in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how vulnerable are they to failure? I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of connectors but offered nothing about real performance losses or longevity in the a/c. The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply candidates for improvement. If someone could identify a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part I used in the original article, that would be an attractive step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open and see what they look like. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. -John www.ballofshame.com Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > >> >> >> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and >> Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided >> to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively >> dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, >> exclusively for the hand held. >> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some >> weight behind the baggage compartment ... >> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >> protruding from the bird ... > > A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable > means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along > with the panel mount because something common to both radios > in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly > unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how > vulnerable are they to failure? > > I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the > ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of > connectors but offered nothing about real performance > losses or longevity in the a/c. > > The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even > if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above > the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make > the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply > candidates for improvement. If someone could identify > a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part > I used in the original article, that would be an attractive > step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open > and see what they look like. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: Re: Circuit needed
Date: Feb 04, 2007
I think the problem here is that I haven't communicated what I want this circuit to do. When I power up the aux fuel pump switch {Off-On-(On)}, I want an LED to flash, indicating power on and no fluid being pumped. When I switch to (On) the pump should energize, pump fuel and pressurize the line and P-switch upstream of the check valve. The P-switch should now take over the power delivery to the pump, as long as it's closed/open under pressure, and light a steady ON LED, indicating fluid being pumped. When the pump exhausts the aux tank fuel, pressure should go to 0psi, P-switch opens/closes, pump stops, LED flashes indicating no more fuel in line. Downstream, of the check valve, is the EFI return line flow, with some marginal amount of pressure, that I think will add to and be sufficient to actuate the P-switch. Sorry for the confusion. J ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: Re: TurboCad question
Date: Feb 04, 2007
I had TC v. 7 ( which is way overkill for any wire schematic) running on my Win 98 machine and it liked XP just fine when I upgraded my OS. I just upped TC from v. 7 to 11.2 (Ebay, $25) and I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two when dealing with 2D drawing. Version 11.x ( and maybe others) allows you to bypass installing the 3D portion if you just need 2D. My impression of TC, over the years, is that it is very stable and adaptable, and I would bet dollars to donuts that later versions will run just fine on W98 in 2D mode. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Date: Feb 04, 2007
John, Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding of the relevant terms Regards, Doug Windhorn. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john(at)ballofshame.com> Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held > > > Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance of the > antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 ohms, this > problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and >>> Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to >>> install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively >>> dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, >>> exclusively for the hand held. >>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some >>> weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >>> protruding from the bird ... >> >> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >> vulnerable are they to failure? >> >> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >> losses or longevity in the a/c. >> >> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >> and see what they look like. >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long coax, if that makes sense? So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you will loose range. Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice performance, so it's probably not viable. -John Doug Windhorn wrote: > > > John, > > Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in > "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. Or, > maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. > > Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When one > talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), impedance > is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line is rated in, > not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about measuring the > impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. > > I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look a > little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further > clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. > But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding > of the relevant terms > > Regards, > > Doug Windhorn. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john(at)ballofshame.com> > To: > Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the > hand-held > > >> >> >> Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance >> of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 >> ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 >> ohm terminator. >> >> -John >> www.ballofshame.com >> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in >>>> the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>> sticks protruding from the bird ... >>> >>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>> >>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>> >>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>> and see what they look like. >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
>In a message dated 2/4/2007 6:16:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, >trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt writes: >With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob >N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to install >2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my >panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand >held. >And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some weight >behind the baggage compartment ... >OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >protruding from the bird ... > >Carlos >RV-9A, still wiring >Good Morning Carlos, > >Many years ago in a land far, far away, I was a fairly active participant >in the competitive glider flying scene. > >Many of my friends used a hole in the belly through which they shoved an >antenna when they wanted to use their radio. I tried it a few times and it >seemed to work OK. For competitive flying, the hole was covered with a >hunk of two hundred mile per hour white racing tape (otherwise known as 3M >electrical tape.) Hmmmm . . . don't know if I dare admit this but for a time I had a "portable antenna" that could be taped to the strut of a high wing airplane, coax routed down the strut and through the lower aft corner of one of those cabin doors that never did shut tight. . . . or through a fresh air scoop that didn't feature screened ducts. It offered a quantum jump in performance for the little 1 watt hand-held and it's performance-limited rubber duck antenna. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
John, I don't think it's as simple as that. If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not sure any of them are. Dave Morris At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: > >If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you >will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so >far as back reflection is concerned. This is called >terminating. Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an >infinitely long coax, if that makes sense? > >So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to >use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 >ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you >will loose range. > >Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that >flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make >every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice >performance, so it's probably not viable. > >-John > >Doug Windhorn wrote: >> >> >>John, >> >>Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in >>"resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you >>little. Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >> >>Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When >>one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), >>impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line >>is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking >>about measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. >> >>I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself >>look a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further >>clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>But a good starting place for discussion is to have an >>understanding of the relevant terms >> >>Regards, >> >>Doug Windhorn. >> >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john(at)ballofshame.com> >>To: >>Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with >>the hand-held >> >> >>> >>> >>>Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the >>>resistance of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's >>>anywhere near 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T >>>coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. >>> >>>-John >>>www.ballofshame.com >>> >>>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>III" >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer >>>>>box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad >>>>>to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage >>>>>skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the >>>>>other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>>>some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>> >>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>> >>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>> and see what they look like. >>>> >>>> Bob . . . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
Date: Feb 04, 2007
WOW ! ! This exchange is something we could all consider for forwarding to our congressmen, state representatives, and local school boards. I for one do not know who Bob is responding to. Larry in Indiana . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 6:45 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. > > > > This will be my last comment as I have airplanes to work on and, frankly > it's more fun and much more productive. > Have any of you heard of the Sport Pilot Rule? If the FAA is sooooo bad, > how do you explain what is arguably the most progressive movement > in flying? > > Yes, a step forward in one venue amongst > years of stepping backward in others. We > should take care lest our grateful reaction > to little tid-bits of 'progress' blind our > willingness to study or even be aware of > the big picture. > > Along with my LSA repairman maintenance ticket, I was given the phone > number of Edsel Ford, the administrator in charge of Sport Pilot, and told > if I had any questions or concerns, please, call him direct, he wants to > keep track of "his guys". Hell, he even came and audited the first class. > Seen anybody from the bureaucracy working that hard for you lately? > > I know lots of really good people who work > for the FAA too. Many are dedicated folks > who have reason to be proud of their personal > achievements and honorable behavior . . . > > Every barrel has a few bad apples, look at the fine time we have here with > GMCjetpilot. The trick is to get rid of the bad apples and keep the rest > of the barrel. > > This isn't about the people, it's about the whole > premise as to what we as responsible citizens of > a democratic republic should expect or even accept > from government. Are we NOT the consumers who > pay the tariffs for goods and services they offer? > > As for FAA causing the demise of GA, I'd argue that cost has a lot more to > do with it than anything else. Just eight years ago, when I finally got > around to finishing my PPL, a 172 was $60 an hour, wet. What is it now? > When I worked for Cessna in the mid seventies a new 172 was in the low > $20K range. All the cost of TC had been amortised long before that and > look what a 172 costs today. When you're paying a disproportionate amount > of your hard earned income for catastrophic health care extortion, er > insurance, where do you find the money for an activity like flying UNLESS > it is directed toward your economic improvement? > > True, costs have risen disproportionately to other > technology driven venues. When I worked at Cessna > in '63 I think a 150 cost about $5,000 and a 172 was > about $7,500. In 1963 you could buy a Ford Falcon > with all the goodies offered for $2,500. > > According to the inflation calculator at . . . > > http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ > > . . . you have to spend about $15,000 to get the same > value for an entry level automobile today. Okay, go > out and see what you can buy for that kind of money > and compare it with the features offered cars sold > for $2500 in 1963. I'd say that cars, like MOST > products we buy today have improved tremendously in > value after considering inflation-adjusted, lower > out-of-pocket costs. > > A piece-o-crap Firestone 500 (best-we-knew-how-to-do) > cost me about $40 in 1963. What kind of tires can I buy > for $240 each today? Shucks, my last set of top-o-the- > line tires for my van cost me about $500 for THE SET. > > Now consider that C-172. The inflation calculator says > that machine should sell for $49,000 today. Hmmmm . . . > are the airplane companies reaping huge windfall profits? > Is somebody getting paid too much to build them? What's the > deal? > > Aircraft manufacturing is exceedingly labor intensive. Because > of low volumes and high development costs, there has been > very little motion toward automated assembly . . . but there > are limits to what can be realized there as well. What I've > personally observed over the years is that we spend 2 to 3 > times more person hours in shepherding a new product to the > airplane than we did 30 years ago. Further, all of that > increased labor did NOT go into improving on the-best-we- > know-how-to-do . . . to the contrary, we spend less effort > toward that goal. Unless you pull the wheels up, a C-172 > doesn't perform any better today than in did in 1963. > According to the site at . . . > > http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml > > a Garmin GA Equipped Skyhawk 172R will set you back $219,500. > Take out all the avionics and I'll bet it's still about $180,000. > That's $30,000 in 1963 dollars! > > I'm sad to report that we do less engineering and more > certification in the process of bringing new products to > aviation. Needless to say, all the extra labor adds to > out-the-door costs for the airplane while adding nothing > to its value. > > A fair amount of blame can be trowled on to school systems more interested > in training children to take meaningless tests than in actual learning, > too. > > An interesting point . . . but consider the bureaucrat's > role in "managing" an educational system. Anybody outside > the classroom except for the janitor is a bureaucrat. > They do not teach, they can only make rules, police rules and > punish transgressors of the rules. Furthermore, they draw > salaries and benefits without adding to the task of > product delivery in the classroom. Sound like government? > Okay, government goes to the bureaucrats in charge of > schools and says, "you ain't cut'n it Jake. Shape up > or we'll punish you (cut off funds)." What tools do > bureaucrats have to guage performance? Of course - > standardized tests. All this posturing, rule making, > policing, test taking and threat of punishment totally > ignores the simple-ideas that govern the educational > process: > > Teachers who possess a command of simple-ideas and > a willingness and talent for explaining how they are > used to do useful things like communicate, calculate, > bring new and beneficial ideas into a free-market > economy and to be responsible and honorable users of > those ideas. And most important - understand how we got > where we are and what duties the honorable citizen takes > on under a democratic republic. > > This is best achieved when consumers (parents) have > absolute responsibility and control over the services > they're paying for (knowledge and talents of teachers). > When I was in grade school, the school board (5 citizens > at zero salary) hired one bureaucrat (a principal at > a salary about 1.5x that of a teacher), and the principal > hired teachers. The parents (through their fellow citizens > on the school board and an exceedingly small bureaucracy > of one) had short-coupled input to ALL the suppliers > of goods and services offered in the classroom. (Medicine > Lodge, KS circa 1949-1953.) Anyone from the state of Kansas > or Washington, DC who decided to dictate anything would have > been told to "take a hike." Our teachers goals were to > EXCEED what were then suggested 'standards' for education. > I suspect they met their own goals. It's a sad state of > affairs when schools today are struggling to even meet perfectly > reasonable minimums. > > It was a certainty that I received a higher quality > of education then than anyone gets today where the > focus shifts from teaching to raising test scores > to forestall loss of funding (got to keep all those > bureaucrats employed and their pension fund contributions > flowing). I suspect that most school systems could get > along nicely without funds from Washington if they > operated with a truly utilitarian bureaucratic staff. > But there are other systems that would need to be tossed > out as well. > > A study of the big picture reveals that it's not a > "breakdown of schools" but no-value added growth in > several systems that have been allowed to take over schools. > Systems where the consumer/supplier relationship has been > corrupted to benefit the systems and forsake a > responsibility to good teachers, willing students > and those parents who view schools as having duties > beyond that of keeping their kids off the streets a few > hours a day. > > Flying takes hard work and a dedication to continued learning. Our school > boards seem to be more interested in finding out how many angels can dance > on the head of a pin, than in giving kids a good grounding in science. > I've done presentations at elementary and high schools to kids who have > never heard much of anything about aviation except that it is used by > vacationers and terrorists. > And as for my wanting to save the stupid from themselves, I believe the > adage that aviation is like a self cleaning oven. When my oven is cleaned, > the nightly news doesn't find much interest, unlike the Cessna 150 hanging > upside down from the power lines. > > Your cynicism is well stroked by anecdotal observations > but I think the underlying cause for increases in the > price of airplanes AND the perceived reduction in > numbers of responsible and capable folks to use them > has roots that go right down to public perceptions > of the proper function of government. For every responsibility > we turn over to someone else, a bit of freedom > is lost. Further, a constant companion to loss of personal > freedom is loss of efficiency coupled with loss > of the consumer's choice to refuse to pay for an inferior > product and force a poor performing producer out of business. > > The short answer is: Everything we allow government > to touch becomes more expensive and offers less value > than products which compete with each other in the > marketplace. Every service supplied by government is > non-competitive and what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In > the few cases where we're allowed to refuse a service, > we are compelled to pay for it anyhow. Therefore, producers > of poor product are not at risk for going under due > to lack of customer acceptance. Aviation, medicine and > schools are great demonstrations of how this phenomenon > works when compared to computers, automobiles, and > most consumer products. > > Plotting present trends in aviation, medicine and > schools out into the future does not paint an attractive > picture in my mind. I'll leave it to you to paint your > own pictures. But if we're going to react to injustices > heaped upon us as a MINORITY of pilots, we'll have to > support those objections as a MAJORITY of honorable > citizens who expect better behavior from their government. > > In the final analysis, if government adhered to the > Constitution, then there would be no special interest > groups prowling the halls of Congress or pitching their > complaint du jour to the world . . . that's because > government would not be making legislation that puts > one citizen or group of citizens above or below another. > > I.e., if the only thing your legislators are chartered > to do is protect liberty, then it matters not who you > send. Further, there will be no troughs to fight over for > a great share of the public purse. Lobbyists would be > out of a job! > > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: John Coloccia <john(at)ballofshame.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Yes, of course you're right Dave. I was just thinking out loud, I guess. -John Dave N6030X wrote: > > > John, I don't think it's as simple as that. > > If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are > transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat > up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the > transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another > device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. > > If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver > input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's > input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not > sure any of them are. > > Dave Morris > > At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: >> >> >> If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you >> will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so >> far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. >> Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long >> coax, if that makes sense? >> >> So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >> antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >> effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >> use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to >> use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 >> ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you >> will loose range. >> >> Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that >> flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make >> every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice >> performance, so it's probably not viable. >> >> -John >> >> Doug Windhorn wrote: >>> >>> >>> John, >>> >>> Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in >>> "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. >>> Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >>> >>> Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When >>> one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), >>> impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line >>> is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about >>> measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. >>> >>> I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look >>> a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further >>> clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>> But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding >>> of the relevant terms >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Windhorn. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" >>> >>> To: >>> Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the >>> hand-held >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance >>>> of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near >>>> 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and >>>> a 50 ohm terminator. >>>> >>>> -John >>>> www.ballofshame.com >>>> >>>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>>>>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>>>>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>>>>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in >>>>>> the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>>>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>> sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>>> >>>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>>> >>>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>>> and see what they look like. >>>>> >>>>> Bob . . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
> > >WOW ! ! This exchange is something we could all consider for forwarding >to our congressmen, state representatives, and local school boards. I >for one do not know who Bob is responding to. Larry in Indiana To whomever it makes sense . . . and no, this should not be forwarded to any of YOUR representatives. If you have an understanding of what's been offered and that understanding is now a tool in your personal dealings with your representatives . . . then by all means use these ideas as appropriate. For my words to be forwarded to anyone but my representatives makes them no better than punditry of which there is plenty of that already being ignored by every bureaucrat. The ideas have power only when they're part of any communication between yourself and those who depend on your largess (or apathy) to stay in power . . . Your representative is not interested in the ideas expressed by anyone but YOU. So use these as your understanding allows and continue to build on them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
> >John, I don't think it's as simple as that. > >If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are >transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat up >to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the >transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another device >and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. > >If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver input >of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's input section >is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not sure any of them are. I'm unaware of any aviation equipment manufacturer that rates their products for ability to withstand large doses of energy fed directly into the receiver's input terminals. Unless you know that some radio you've installed is so featured, be VERY CAREFUL how you hook up any antenna changeover feature in your airplane. A simple swap of coax cables on the ICOM hand-held adapter would feed your hand-held's transmitter directly to the antenna input of your panel mounted receiver. All bets are off as to whether this would produce a happy outcome. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Thinking outside the box is a good thing. At least the FAA allows it in the experimental aviation world. Dave At 01:54 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: > >Yes, of course you're right Dave. I was just thinking out loud, I guess. > >-John > > >Dave N6030X wrote: >> >>John, I don't think it's as simple as that. >> >>If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are >>transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will >>heat up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the >>transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another >>device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. >> >>If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver >>input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's >>input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not >>sure any of them are. >> >>Dave Morris >> >>At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: >>> >>> >>>If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, >>>you will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the >>>circuit so far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. >>>Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long >>>coax, if that makes sense? >>> >>>So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >>>antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >>>effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >>>use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need >>>to use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace >>>the 50 ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is >>>that you will loose range. >>> >>>Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something >>>that flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how >>>to make every compatible. I think this would work but you'd >>>sacrifice performance, so it's probably not viable. >>> >>>-John >>> >>>Doug Windhorn wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>John, >>>> >>>>Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the >>>>in "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. >>>>Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >>>> >>>>Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on >>>>Wikipedia. When one talks about transmission cables (and >>>>matching connections), impedance is the "apparent resistance" to >>>>AC signals that the line is rated in, not simple resistance. I >>>>believe you are talking about measuring the impedance, not solely >>>>the resistance, of the input. >>>> >>>>I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself >>>>look a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave >>>>further clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>>>But a good starting place for discussion is to have an >>>>understanding of the relevant terms >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Doug Windhorn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john(at)ballofshame.com> >>>>To: >>>>Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with >>>>the hand-held >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the >>>>>resistance of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's >>>>>anywhere near 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T >>>>>coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. >>>>> >>>>>-John >>>>>www.ballofshame.com >>>>> >>>>>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>>>III" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer >>>>>>>box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad >>>>>>>to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper >>>>>>>fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, >>>>>>>and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>>>And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>>>sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I >>>>>>>needed some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>>>OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>>>sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>>>> >>>>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>>>> >>>>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>>>> and see what they look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Circuit needed
>I think the problem here is that I haven't communicated what I want this >circuit to do. > >When I power up the aux fuel pump switch {Off-On-(On)}, I want an LED to >flash, indicating power on and no fluid being pumped. When I switch to >(On) the pump should energize, pump fuel and pressurize the line and >P-switch upstream of the check valve. The P-switch should now take over >the power delivery to the pump, as long as it's closed/open under >pressure, and light a steady ON LED, indicating fluid being pumped. When >the pump exhausts the aux tank fuel, pressure should go to 0psi, P-switch >opens/closes, pump stops, LED flashes indicating no more fuel in line. > >Downstream, of the check valve, is the EFI return line flow, with some >marginal amount of pressure, that I think will add to and be sufficient to >actuate the P-switch. > >Sorry for the confusion. Okay, I think I got it. Here's a cartoon of the concept. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Fuel_Pump_Controller.pdf Moving switch from OFF to ON puts power on a 555 timer arranged to flash an LED but the pump remains un-powered. Holding the switch in the (ON) position applies power to pump and biases the flasher to "stick" in the steady-on state. If pressure comes up sufficiently to close the pressure switch, then the pump will continue to run, the light will stay steady after the switch is released. When pressure drops below set point on switch, power is removed from the pump and the flasher is allowed to resume its transitions between states. This begs for a microcontroller to allow use of either a normally open or normally closed switch. Further, while holding the switch in the (ON) position, the light should not be allowed to stop flashing UNLESS pressure comes up indicating that the system will stay in the fuel transfer mode after the switch is released. Keep in mind that this is a simplified diagram intended to speak to operating concept. It needs to be fleshed out for parts values and system interface details . . . Do I have it right? Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
>Good point. I thought your points on education were especially insightful >and would be important to all those holding office that affects the future >of our country. Please let me just say I agree with your writing and >could not have expressed my feeling any better than you already >have. Your wisdom spans far greater than aviation electronics. Thank you Bob. Everyone can do it. Whether you're cooking with salt, flour, eggs, sugar, etc. or building electro-whizzies with transistors, capacitors and microcontrollers, it all comes down to identifying and understanding simple-ideas, ingredients that go into recipes-for-success. The vision of our founding fathers was deeply rooted in simple-ideas crafted into a recipe having the greatest possible chance for success while holding the protection of a citizen's liberty above all else. And while they would not have predicted our hassles with the FAA over what we can attach to our airplanes, they knew full well the consequences for failure of citizens to exercise a duty to protect and nurture THE recipe for success. But as two of my favorite authors (Paine and Bastiat) have explained, every society is plagued with individuals who do not understand nor do they embrace those ideals. We (United States) are a real-time demonstration of what happens when a recipe that stood us well for the first 150 years begins to get a bit more salt here, some more water there, and oh yeah . . . "that liberty" stuff is not for everybody." Some of my favorite questions of a bureaucrat: Do you embrace the idea of liberty? Is any citizen not entitled to liberty? If not, then who? If some citizens are not, then who should have the power to decide who and by what magnitude their liberty is sacrificed? Then make passing suggestion that they tune into C-span's coverage of either chamber of Congress. THOSE are the folks who have taken it upon themselves to limit the size and scope of anyone and everyone's liberty on a whim. Ask them to cite words from anyone's speech that gives one a warm fuzzy feeling as to motive and outcomes (ESPECIALLY unintended consequences) for having made "adjustments" to anyone's liberty. THOSE are the folks who need to get excited about the FAA slapping our wrists for putting a portable radio on the panel of personal property. Where do you believe this issue falls in their grand scheme of things and how likely is it that we'll get anyone's attention? That sacrifice of liberty thing is a disease. Once it takes root, it spreads. The longer it's around and ignored, the more comfortable we are with its presence in our lives. It's not complicated. The results were predicted by Bastiat 156 years ago. Now we're watching it happen before our very eyes. Smart fellow that Bastiat. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Audio book links
Found free audio books for both Bastiat and Paine for those interested: http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html http://www.freeaudio.org/tpaine/commonsense.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in place with E6000? -- Larry Rosen RV-10 #356 http://lrosen.nerv10.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
> >I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >place with E6000? That works. Anything you do to line the hole with materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the
hand-held
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
One more comment... If you make a T in a transmission line and each leg is of the same characteristic impedance there will be reflections generated at the T. A device transmitting from one leg of the T will see a section of the characteristic impedance line and then at the T the impedance will appear to be half the characteristic impedance. The (any) change in impedance in the transmission line will cause at least some reflection. At a T each edge coming out of the transmitter will be reflected at half the negative amplitude of the outbound signal. Needless to say, this is likely to cause hi SWR and low transmitted power. Regards, Matt- > > > Yes, of course you're right Dave. I was just thinking out loud, I guess. > > -John > > > Dave N6030X wrote: >> >> >> John, I don't think it's as simple as that. >> >> If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are >> transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat >> up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the >> transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another >> device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. >> >> If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver >> input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's >> input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not >> sure any of them are. >> >> Dave Morris >> >> At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you >>> will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so >>> far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. >>> Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long >>> coax, if that makes sense? >>> >>> So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >>> antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >>> effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >>> use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to >>> use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 >>> ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you >>> will loose range. >>> >>> Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that >>> flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make >>> every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice >>> performance, so it's probably not viable. >>> >>> -John >>> >>> Doug Windhorn wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in >>>> "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. >>>> Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >>>> >>>> Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When >>>> one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), >>>> impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line >>>> is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about >>>> measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. >>>> >>>> I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look >>>> a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further >>>> clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>>> But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding >>>> of the relevant terms >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Doug Windhorn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" >>>> >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the >>>> hand-held >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance >>>>> of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near >>>>> 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and >>>>> a 50 ohm terminator. >>>>> >>>>> -John >>>>> www.ballofshame.com >>>>> >>>>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>>>>>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>>>>>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>>>>>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in >>>>>>> the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>>>>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>>> sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>>>> >>>>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>>>> >>>>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>>>> and see what they look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 04, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the
hand-held > > >One more comment... If you make a T in a transmission line and each leg >is of the same characteristic impedance there will be reflections >generated at the T. A device transmitting from one leg of the T will see >a section of the characteristic impedance line and then at the T the >impedance will appear to be half the characteristic impedance. The (any) >change in impedance in the transmission line will cause at least some >reflection. At a T each edge coming out of the transmitter will be >reflected at half the negative amplitude of the outbound signal. Needless >to say, this is likely to cause hi SWR and low transmitted power. T-connectors cannot be used for sharing a single antenna with two transceivers. Under certain conditions, T-connector are used to divide power between multiple antennas in an array but they're also used in conjunction with some form of impedance transformers (usually 1/4-wave chunks of special coax) to keep all the SWR and power transfer gremlins at bay. The biggest problem with T-connectors for two transceivers and one antenna is that transmitter energy from the speaking transmitter is directly coupled to the input of the listening receiver. Not only are there SWR problems but potential for damage to the listening transceiver's front end. There ARE techniques for having two transceivers share a single antenna with a device called a diplexer. These are generally very narrow bandwidth devices. I've built diplexers that allowed a receiver bring in a 0.5 microvolt signal from an antenna that is simultaneously radiating 100 watts of power from a transmitter in the same cabinet. This is how repeaters are built . . . but they're fixed frequency devices. For example, a repeater I built to go up on the 1200-foot platform of KTVH . . .see http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/KTVH.gif used a duplexer (duplexer/diplexer . . . these terms are used interchangeably to describe a variety of devices used to effect some form of sharing for single antennas) that was about as big as the repeater. Example can be seen at: http://www.utm.edu/staff/leeb/duplexer.pdf It's not that two transceivers cannot share a single antenna efficiently . . . but it's done only under special circumstances and in situations where the two transceivers don't get very close to each other in operating frequency. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
From: "eedetail" <eedetail(at)qwest.net>
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Folks, Thanks for the good info. I was looking for a way to test my headset without getting to the airport, but I had not really mentioned that important fact. Best way to test them is in the air anyway. Not sure what went wrong, but the one mike is definately dead. Definatly gonna get David Clark this time. TimE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92958#92958 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Nathan Ulrich" <nulrich(at)technq.com>
Subject: Speaking of duplexers
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Interesting discussion on antenna splitters, etc. I have one of the older King versions of the ANT-SB mounted in my panel. I haven't inspected the internals of it, not sure if it's superior to the Icom product. I don't think it's available any longer. I looked into splitters/duplexers for transceivers a few months ago and ran across this: http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf Unfortunately it's many hundreds of dollars. I have a Bendix/King KFM-985 VHF-FM transceiver in my plane (used to communicate with the Coast Guard) and it has two transceivers. I mounted one VHF-FM antenna on the belly of my plane, but couldn't justify mounting two, one for each transceiver. It would be nice to use the full capabilities of the radio. There's a company that will modify the internals of the radio to use one antenna--doesn't seem too hard, you can only broadcast on one transceiver at once, so it's just a matter of protecting the other one--but they want over $1,000 to do it. Anyone have an easier (read: cheaper) solution? Not a high priority for me, but every time I look at the radio I feel like I'm wasting half of it . Nathan ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
-----Original Message----- From: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed Speaking of headsets, Have you tried any of the "in ear" models. We in the RV community (manely LOUD airplanes) just love the Halo tube model. I was sceptical but you couldn't pry it from my cold dead fingers now! It weighs nothing and has the best noise attenuation of any headset by far..And that includes the Bose high end models. Not for everyone but if you think you can stand earplugs well worth a try and you can return them for a full refund in 30 days. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of eedetail Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:39 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset - bad mike test proc needed Folks, Thanks for the good info. I was looking for a way to test my headset without getting to the airport, but I had not really mentioned that important fact. Best way to test them is in the air anyway. Not sure what went wrong, but the one mike is definately dead. Definatly gonna get David Clark this time. TimE Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92958#92958 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich(at)hst.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: intercom
I asked Jim Wier a question on a newslist. His answer was essentially what an ignorant loser question. Others helped me with a good explanation.He made a presentation of a really good new product award at Oskosh and I lost the name of the product. I asked him about it on the newslist, SAME response. Once again others stepped in and helped. I am glad others had a more positive experience. I would not do business with him period. Matthew M. Jurotich e-mail mail to: phone : 301-286-5919 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)bresnan.net>
Subject: Re: headset
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Frank, Not familiar with this headset. How about more details, ie; make, model and cost, etc Mauri > just love the Halo tube model. I was sceptical but you couldn't pry it from my cold dead fingers now!< ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Where can I purchase some E6000 ? Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:13 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > > >> >> >>I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >>metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >>place with E6000? > > That works. Anything you do to line the hole with > materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum > is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mauri Morin" <maurv8(at)bresnan.net>
Subject: Re: Speaking of duplexers
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Nathan, check out: Bob Archer's SA-010 - T/R Switch- Allows reception on two transceivers simultaneously and on transmit the signal goes directly through the switch to a single good antenna. Mauri ----- Original Message ----- From: Nathan Ulrich To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:45 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Speaking of duplexers Interesting discussion on antenna splitters, etc. I have one of the older King versions of the ANT-SB mounted in my panel. I haven't inspected the internals of it, not sure if it's superior to the Icom product. I don't think it's available any longer. I looked into splitters/duplexers for transceivers a few months ago and ran across this: http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf Unfortunately it's many hundreds of dollars. I have a Bendix/King KFM-985 VHF-FM transceiver in my plane (used to communicate with the Coast Guard) and it has two transceivers. I mounted one VHF-FM antenna on the belly of my plane, but couldn't justify mounting two, one for each transceiver. It would be nice to use the full capabilities of the radio. There's a company that will modify the internals of the radio to use one antenna--doesn't seem too hard, you can only broadcast on one transceiver at once, so it's just a matter of protecting the other one--but they want over $1,000 to do it. Anyone have an easier (read: cheaper) solution? Not a high priority for me, but every time I look at the radio I feel like I'm wasting half of it . Nathan -- 2/2/2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: intercom
Matt, hmmm, I wonder what list? I didn't see it on rec.aviation.homebuilt that he monitors. I look forward to seeing Jim each Oshkosh [he didn't make it last year..] and find it really difficult to believe you were treated like an 'ignorant loser'. Not the Jim I know. I've built nearly all his kits, visited his place in Grass Valley and known him for more years than I'd admit in public... Earl Matt Jurotich wrote: > > > I asked Jim Wier a question on a newslist. His answer was essentially > what an ignorant loser question. Others helped me with a good > explanation.He made a presentation of a really good new product award > at Oskosh and I lost the name of the product. I asked him about it on > the newslist, SAME response. Once again others stepped in and > helped. I am glad others had a more positive experience. I would not > do business with him period. > > Matthew M. Jurotich > > e-mail mail to: > phone : 301-286-5919 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net>
Subject: RE: Circuit needed
Date: Feb 05, 2007
EXACTLY!John Okay, I think I got it. Here's a cartoon of the concept. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Fuel_Pump_Controller.pdf Moving switch from OFF to ON puts power on a 555 timer arranged to flash an LED but the pump remains un-powered. Holding the switch in the (ON) position applies power to pump and biases the flasher to "stick" in the steady-on state. If pressure comes up sufficiently to close the pressure switch, then the pump will continue to run, the light will stay steady after the switch is released. When pressure drops below set point on switch, power is removed from the pump and the flasher is allowed to resume its transitions between states. This begs for a microcontroller to allow use of either a normally open or normally closed switch. Further, while holding the switch in the (ON) position, the light should not be allowed to stop flashing UNLESS pressure comes up indicating that the system will stay in the fuel transfer mode after the switch is released. Keep in mind that this is a simplified diagram intended to speak to operating concept. It needs to be fleshed out for parts values and system interface details . . . Do I have it right? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: headset
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde(at)hp.com>
Check this out http://www.quiettechnologies.com/ Us RV drivers bouth the "Halo" model, about $400 I think. Just awesome, radio comms are clear and sharp. Hard to describe what a night and day difference it was compared to may old headset which thought was pretty good. Most of us the supplied ear buds, my preference is the silicone ear plugs. The trick is to get a perfect seal between the earplug and your ear canal. The only slightly gross problem is plugging the hole in the earplug with wax!...Do not share your earplugs!...:) Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mauri Morin Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:59 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: headset Frank, Not familiar with this headset. How about more details, ie; make, model and cost, etc Mauri > just love the Halo tube model. I was sceptical but you couldn't pry it from my cold dead fingers now!< ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
AKA "Shoe Goo" Ebay item number: 190024050461 Matt- > > > Where can I purchase some E6000 ? > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:13 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >>>metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >>>place with E6000? >> >> That works. Anything you do to line the hole with >> materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum >> is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) >> ( what ever you do must be exercised ) >> ( EVERY day . . . ) >> ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Subject: Re: RE: Circuit needed
From: john(at)ballofshame.com
re: computer control. Interesting you should mention that. I've been fiddling around with the BASIC Stamp processors lately. http://www.hobbyengineering.com/SectionBS.html#IX1024 These things ROCK and are very simple to program. They're perfectly suited to doing things like simple logic, monitoring, flashing LED's, etc etc. They run on 9V so you need a regulator or transformer of some sort. You will also have to build in some simple protection from spikes and maybe low voltage. I've been collecting a list of tons of different applications for these things. Everything from solid state interlocks to annunciators. Neat stuff and not too expensive. -John www.ballofshame.com > EXACTLY!John Okay, I think I got it. Here's a cartoon of the concept. > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Fuel_Pump_Controller.pdf > > Moving switch from OFF to ON puts power on a 555 timer > arranged to flash an LED but the pump remains un-powered. > Holding the switch in the (ON) position applies power to > pump and biases the flasher to "stick" in the steady-on > state. If pressure comes up sufficiently to close the > pressure switch, then the pump will continue to run, the > light will stay steady after the switch is released. When > pressure drops below set point on switch, power is removed > from the pump and the flasher is allowed to resume its > transitions between states. > > This begs for a microcontroller to allow use of either > a normally open or normally closed switch. Further, while > holding the switch in the (ON) position, the light should > not be allowed to stop flashing UNLESS pressure comes up > indicating that the system will stay in the fuel transfer > mode after the switch is released. > > Keep in mind that this is a simplified diagram intended > to speak to operating concept. It needs to be fleshed out > for parts values and system interface details . . . > > Do I have it right? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Hi Randy, I've used E6000 and Goop from Home Depot, they seem to be the same thing. Goop comes in many different tubes, I've used plunbers, and RV both again seem the same. As a glue, fantastic, and for potting ala Bob's cartoons...super. give it a try Harold, RV9A fuselage ----- Original Message ----- From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:01 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > > Where can I purchase some E6000 ? > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:13 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >>>metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >>>place with E6000? >> >> That works. Anything you do to line the hole with >> materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum >> is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> ---------------------------------------- >> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) >> ( what ever you do must be exercised ) >> ( EVERY day . . . ) >> ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) >> ---------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Thanks I was hoping I could get it or something as good locally. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:01 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > Hi Randy, > I've used E6000 and Goop from Home Depot, they seem to be the same thing. > Goop comes in many different tubes, I've used plunbers, and RV both again > seem the same. As a glue, fantastic, and for potting ala Bob's > cartoons...super. give it a try > Harold, RV9A fuselage > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 1:01 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > >> >> >> Where can I purchase some E6000 ? >> >> Randy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:13 PM >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >>>>metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >>>>place with E6000? >>> >>> That works. Anything you do to line the hole with >>> materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum >>> is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) >>> ( what ever you do must be exercised ) >>> ( EVERY day . . . ) >>> ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) >>> ---------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: Mitchell Faatz <mitch(at)skybound.com>
Subject: Re: intercom (Jim Wier, RST)
Matt Jurotich wrote: > > > I asked Jim Wier a question on a newslist. His answer was essentially > what an ignorant loser question. Others helped me with a good > explanation.He made a presentation of a really good new product award > at Oskosh and I lost the name of the product. I asked him about it on > the newslist, SAME response. Once again others stepped in and > helped. I am glad others had a more positive experience. I would not > do business with him period. > > Matthew M. Jurotich I had pretty much the same experience as a Marker Beacon Kit customer. Any question I asked was answered in an extremely abrasive and condescending manner. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: intercom (Jim Wier, RST)
C Smith a crit : > > Who the heck is Jim Weir (Wier)???? > What does he do besides p*****g people off? > Jim Weir owns RST Engineering, and writes articles in Kitplane and other homebuilt magazines. Interesting stuff, but he is not a teacher like Bob. He also posts on forums, and yes he sometimes ruffles some feathers ;-) Regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Protection For Auxillary Power Jacks
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Assume that one wanted to install four "cigarette lighter" auxillary power jacks in an airplane, with two on the panel and two in the rear passenger area. Anywhere from none to all four might be used at any given time. Would it be acceptable practice to put all of these on a single breaker? Would it be acceptable to have more than one on a single breaker? Or, should each jack have a separate breaker? Thanks! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93067#93067 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: intercom (Jim Wier, RST)
Date: Feb 05, 2007
I can echo that experience and warning as well. My recommendation - Avoid if possible, but if you do business with RST, be careful. Expect zero user and technical support on his products. If you make a mistake, there will be no help troubleshooting, repairing, testing, or tuning the devices. Jim wishes to only pump product, not deal with the hassles of dealing with customers. If all you want is raw materials and some good books on antennas, great. Anything other than that...well...you have been warned. I wish I had been. Anyone want to buy a next to worthless RST marker beacon unit...slightly used (only to look pretty)? ;-) James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mitchell Faatz" <mitch(at)skybound.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 2:38 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: intercom (Jim Wier, RST) > > > Matt Jurotich wrote: >> >> >> I asked Jim Wier a question on a newslist. His answer was essentially >> what an ignorant loser question. Others helped me with a good >> explanation.He made a presentation of a really good new product award at >> Oskosh and I lost the name of the product. I asked him about it on the >> newslist, SAME response. Once again others stepped in and helped. I am >> glad others had a more positive experience. I would not do business with >> him period. >> >> Matthew M. Jurotich > I had pretty much the same experience as a Marker Beacon Kit customer. > Any question I asked was answered in an extremely abrasive and > condescending manner. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Receive-only COM?
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Does anyone know of anybody who produces a receive-only aircraft COM unit? Preferably something that could be panel mounted... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93070#93070 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Ground blocks for RV's
From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? Thanks Ron Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93074#93074 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Subject: Re: Protection For Auxillary Power Jacks
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
My preference (bias)? No breakers - just fuses.. Either way, (as has been said) the cigarette lighter connection isn't all that spiffy except that lots of portable electronics are designed to use them. I've seen up to about 5A run through one with good success. Maybe it's safe to run more than that through them. Need to research that some more. Whatever, as is the case when choosing wire and circuit protection for any other application, the breaker/fuse must be small enough to protect the skinniest wire/component being used in the circuit. So, I don't see a way to provide protection for the plug and the wire if you gang them, assuming you want to support the max capability of the plug. If you assume the plug will support 5A, you put a 5A breaker/fuse on the circuit. If you gang multiple plugs onto the same breaker then 5A is still the largest circuit protection you can select. However, if you don't mind imposing a total power budget on your users - not letting them use more than 5A total, then by all means put them all on one breaker. If it were mine, depending on where my breaker/fuse panel is and how accessible it is in flight, I'd split the load into at least two chunks. If one of the devices craps out (shorts its power supply), or your kid tries to drive two laptops into one plug (adapter on top of adapter), only half the cig buss will be dead. I would probably build it with one per adapter. Or maybe two fuses for the front and one to cover the pair in the rear - 3 total. I think one big thing to consider is whether the adapters will be used for mission-convenient/comfortable appliances. I don't say mission-critical because I kind of think cigarette adapters aren't appropriate for mission-critical power sources. My handheld GPS probably isn't mission critical, but I'd like it's power source to be very stable none the less. Regards, Matt- > > > Assume that one wanted to install four "cigarette lighter" auxillary power > jacks in an airplane, with two on the panel and two in the rear passenger > area. Anywhere from none to all four might be used at any given time. > > Would it be acceptable practice to put all of these on a single breaker? > > Would it be acceptable to have more than one on a single breaker? > > Or, should each jack have a separate breaker? > > Thanks! > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93067#93067 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Protection For Auxillary Power Jacks
Date: Feb 05, 2007
On 5 Feb 2007, at 18:50, Bill Denton wrote: > > > Assume that one wanted to install four "cigarette lighter" > auxillary power jacks in an airplane, with two on the panel and two > in the rear passenger area. Anywhere from none to all four might be > used at any given time. > > Would it be acceptable practice to put all of these on a single > breaker? > > Would it be acceptable to have more than one on a single breaker? > > Or, should each jack have a separate breaker? > > Thanks! > No problem with all on one breaker. But, that breaker must be large enough to handle the total possible load. And, all wiring must be sized so that it wouldn't overheat if current up to the breaker size was going through it. E.g., let's say you except no more than 2.5 amps per circuit. The breaker must be able to handle 10 amps, without opening. You need some margin, so you decide to use a 15 amp breaker. Now you need to make sure all wiring is large enough to handle up to 15 amps, because a short would put that much current in the wire before the breaker popped. If you use 4 separate breakers, then the breaker size can be smaller, and that will allow the use of smaller wires. Total weight, complication, and cost are probably lowest by putting all four through one breaker, unless the wire runs would be quite long. If the wire runs are long enough, it might be lighter to go with four breakers. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: 3.7 pound 600 amp starting battery
Well, I said I was going to do it and we finally got the prototype built. We just built a 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr, battery that weighs just 3.7 pounds. I've been testing it in my GMC van for the past week here in the Denver Winter. It snaps the van right over every morning without a problem. The van cranks faster than it did with the standard lead-acid battery. It is smaller than the Odyssey 680 so it fit in the the same battery box with a couple of foam blocks for spacers. The battery has four status LEDs that tell you the cell balancing electronics are working OK. We are using A123 Systems M1 cells with our own custom battery management electronics. The A123 Systems cells are proven to be the safest Li-Ion cells on the market. No problems with fires (like laptop cells) because the chemistry they use is completely different. The battery can be damaged by running it completely flat (like leaving the master on) and holding the battery below 8 volts for a long time. It can also be damaged by charging it over 15.0 volts. It will likely still function after such abuse, but it won't be nearly as good as it was originally. If you don't abuse it, it should last you for many years. I think we will be in production in about a month, maybe two. Specs: 3.7 lbs 600 cranking amps 11.5 amp-hr Approximate dimensions: 3" wide, 5" long, 7" tall (including terminals) Charging voltage = 13.8 to 15.0 volts (anywhere in this range is OK) Nominal voltage = 13.2 volts (Just a touch higher than your typical lead-acid, so it spins the starter a touch faster.) Cell cycle life rated at 2000 cycles (80% DOD, 90% capacity remaining) 10,000 cycles (80% DOD with 50% capacity remaining) @25 C Cell specs: http://www.a123systems.com/html/products/ANR26650M1specs.pdf Maintenance free No heavy metals (iron-phosphate type cells) At this time, we estimate the retail price will be $595. We have been racing these cells in the KillaCycle for about a year, so we know _all_ about them. http://www.KillaCycle.com (Be sure to watch the movie clip.) I'll put up some pictures of the prototype battery in a day or two on the photos page. Bill Dube' bike(at)KillaCycle.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Receive-only COM?
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com>
I am curious why you would want a receive only unit? Not a panel mount, but Radio Shack and Sportys have units that are air band scanners. The later can even use aircraft power. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Denton Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 6:11 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Receive-only COM? Does anyone know of anybody who produces a receive-only aircraft COM unit? Preferably something that could be panel mounted... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93070#93070 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
> >AKA "Shoe Goo" > >Ebay item number: 190024050461 This is a pretty amazing product for it's shear and peel strengths. I tested it for functionality as an adhesive to attach the 'bond studs' we used to sell . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Materials/Bond_Stud_B.jpg At the time, I was buying it as "Shoe Goo" but later identified it as a re-branding of E-6000 http://www.eclecticproducts.com/e6000Industrial.htm Here are some more details for usage of E-6000 and close cousins . . . http://www.eclecticproducts.com/E6000IndusDirections.htm The product is now widely distributed. I find it in hardware and craft stores. The best prices lately have been at Hobby Lobby and Walmart's crafts section. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Speaking of duplexers
> >Interesting discussion on antenna splitters, etc. I have one of the older >King versions of the ANT-SB mounted in my panel. I haven't inspected the >internals of it, not sure if it's superior to the Icom product. I don't >think it's available any longer. > >I looked into splitters/duplexers for transceivers a few months ago and ran >across this: > >http://www.comant.com/pdfs/[ci%20601]5-05.pdf > >Unfortunately it's many hundreds of dollars. I have a Bendix/King KFM-985 >VHF-FM transceiver in my plane (used to communicate with the Coast Guard) >and it has two transceivers. I mounted one VHF-FM antenna on the belly of my >plane, but couldn't justify mounting two, one for each transceiver. It would >be nice to use the full capabilities of the radio. There's a company that >will modify the internals of the radio to use one antenna--doesn't seem too >hard, you can only broadcast on one transceiver at once, so it's just a >matter of protecting the other one--but they want over $1,000 to do it. > >Anyone have an easier (read: cheaper) solution? Not a high priority for me, >but every time I look at the radio I feel like I'm wasting half of it . Actually, there IS a way to have two radios share one antenna where in the non-transmitting mode, the two receivers get antenna signals through a low gain but highly overload-resistant pre-amp that offsets the loss of signal when power from the receive antenna is routed simultaneously to separate receivers. PTT for each transmitter is routed through the antenna adapter such that the non-transmitting transceiver is isolated from the antenna BEFORE the desired transmitter is brought up to talk. At the same time, input to the non-talking transceiver is grounded and the audio output muted. This takes a couple of transistors, a handful of components and some high quality miniature relays. Now, I've rejected this for having a hand-held share the antenna because the whole idea for the hand-held is to be able to communicate even when the ship's electrical system is down. The adapter I've described needs power to do the hat-dance. I suppose one could assume that battery bus is always going to be available with enough power to operated an itty-bitty relay. Hmmmm . . . maybe this is a product we should consider. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Circuit needed
> >re: computer control. Interesting you should mention that. I've been >fiddling around with the BASIC Stamp processors lately. > >http://www.hobbyengineering.com/SectionBS.html#IX1024 > >These things ROCK and are very simple to program. They're perfectly >suited to doing things like simple logic, monitoring, flashing LED's, etc >etc. > >They run on 9V so you need a regulator or transformer of some sort. You >will also have to build in some simple protection from spikes and maybe >low voltage. I've been collecting a list of tons of different >applications for these things. Everything from solid state interlocks to >annunciators. > >Neat stuff and not too expensive. That works. Right now we're working with one of the Stamp's little brothers, he PIC12F683. My software guy is getting really talented with this chip (costs just over $1 in hundreds) and has a lot of features for the cost. Programmers are dirt-cheap too. Of the ones we've tried so far, the PICkit-II is our favorite http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=272536&Row=688347&Site=US It comes with an editor-assembler-debugger package for under $40. This chip is the core of our AEC9011 and about a dozen other products in the development pipe. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Protection For Auxillary Power Jacks
> >Assume that one wanted to install four "cigarette lighter" auxillary power >jacks in an airplane, with two on the panel and two in the rear passenger >area. Anywhere from none to all four might be used at any given time. > >Would it be acceptable practice to put all of these on a single breaker? Problem with one breaker/fuse does all is that a fault in one system takes down all systems. If you don't use fuse blocks with the necessary spares, then suggest in-line fuse holders with one fuse for each accessory. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/ifh-2.jpg Cigarette lighter jacks are about the poorest excuse for a connector without being completely worthless. For use in aircaft, consider these devices from Radio Shack. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/274-010.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/274-013.jpg These are REAL connectors. They're more compact than the cigar lighter and have a positive locking feature that prevents the plug from being inadvertently dislodged. Bob . . . Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Ground blocks for RV's
> >Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment >point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? >Thanks >Ron > > Brass was chosen for its solderability in attaching the rows of fast-on tabs. Copper works too, just harder to drill really round holes. Use a step-drill. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 05, 2007
From: Robert Feldtman <bobf(at)feldtman.com>
Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
I gotta respond finally - resistance has nothing to do with impedance. To try to measure the "resistance" of the output circuit might give you anything from a dead short to infinity! Depends on the output circuit.... Invest in a copy of the ARRL antenna handbook (www.arrl.org) and learn about antennas the right way - the way we hams do.... Like OBAM guys built and fly airplanes, amateurs build and test radios and antennas. You'll learn all about duplexers, dipoles, etc. bobf (Glastar) and W5RF amateur extra class. John Coloccia wrote: > > > Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance of > the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 > ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 > ohm terminator. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the >>> belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >>> protruding from the bird ... >> >> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >> vulnerable are they to failure? >> >> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >> losses or longevity in the a/c. >> >> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >> and see what they look like. >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "raymondj" <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Just bought a small tube tonight at Menards. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of 6440 Auto Parts Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 12:02 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material Where can I purchase some E6000 ? Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:13 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > > >> >> >>I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >>metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >>place with E6000? > > That works. Anything you do to line the hole with > materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum > is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. > > > Bob . . . > > ---------------------------------------- > ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) > ( what ever you do must be exercised ) > ( EVERY day . . . ) > ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Receive-only COM?
Date: Feb 05, 2007
Ha! Yeah...it's called a MicroAir 760. Wanna buy mine so I can order a Becker? James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com > > > Does anyone know of anybody who produces a receive-only aircraft COM > unit? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Aviation Activism
I'm sorry you feel that way Walter. While you desire to ignore the important issues of our time, the politicians are hard at work trying to take away what's left our precious freedoms and liberties that the founding fathers (Bob is referring to) worked so hard to establish and preserve (and there aint many left). Two shining examples of that in the last two days have been presidential hopeful John Edwards saying he's going to raise taxes to pay for a huge new socialized medicine program that he'll enact if he's president (this from an ambulance chaser lawyer who just moved into a 26000, yes twenty six thousand, square foot mansion built from money that he obtained through private enterprise). The other example happened just a few hours ago on an interview with New York Senator Charles Schumer. This little power hungry career politician lawyer was bragging about how he would be taking away all property rights from those evil folks that would pollute the land, air and water (great you may say but in the end it will be your and my property rights that he'll be taking, because his party does not believe that the average person is responsible enough or capable enough to tend to his own affairs or take care of his own personal possessions). Everyone, whether you are 19 years old or 90 needs to check up on what the people in Washington (and the politicians in your home state) are doing EVERY WEEK. And, not be afraid to confront them by calling, emailing or writing their offices and making your views known in their town hall meetings. Remember these people are supposed to be elected representatives of the we the people, they are NOT gods or deities of any sort. Alas I'm afraid that a good many of them are power hungry career politician lawyers who go there for decades and never retire because they are having too much fun spending tax money they don't have and writing ever more laws to control the populace. Remember the old adage, "the only way evil can prevail is for good people to do nothing". For those of you who think we are out of the woods now that the Democrat party controls congress think again. The reason Democrats don't like User Fees is because it takes the power hungry lawyer politicians out of control of the ATC system. Virginia Democrat congressman Jay Rockefeller only last week was grilling the TSA chief about why we still have this "big security loop hole" in general aviation!!! No matter who is in control in government, they will find excuses to take away our rights (you notice I said rights not privileges). Bob is right, we aviators are just a teensy weensy minority in the mass of special interests groups. We ALL need to be very diligent and very active in politics or the airplane building and flying that we so dearly love will be regulated and/or taxed out of existence! Dean RV-6A N197DM Coming up on first flight >From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION >FOR PORTABLE GPS >I would request anyone who writes a message here about politics >(Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) to include the word SPAM in >the message header so that my spam filter has a chance of catching it and >if not, I know to delete it without reading it. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I used copper - no real problems. It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. Jeff Dalton ----- Original Message ----- From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment > point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? > Thanks > Ron > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93074#93074 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
Date: Feb 06, 2007
In addition to your message, which plainly points out all the mean and evil Democrats by name, we still have way too many Republicans trying to spend all your money (while claiming they're fiscal conservatives), create more laws to restrict our flying (while claiming to preserve freedoms), and engaging in all kinds illicit behaviors (while claiming to be for ethics and the common man). Maybe Walter is right . . . we shouldn't talk politics on this board. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:14 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > I'm sorry you feel that way Walter. While you desire to ignore the > important issues of our time, the politicians are hard at work trying to > take away what's left our precious freedoms and liberties that the > founding > fathers (Bob is referring to) worked so hard to establish and preserve > (and > there aint many left). Two shining examples of that in the last two days > have been presidential hopeful John Edwards saying he's going to raise > taxes > to pay for a huge new socialized medicine program that he'll enact if he's > president (this from an ambulance chaser lawyer who just moved into a > 26000, > yes twenty six thousand, square foot mansion built from money that he > obtained through private enterprise). The other example happened just a > few > hours ago on an interview with New York Senator Charles Schumer. This > little power hungry career politician lawyer was bragging about how he > would > be taking away all property rights from those evil folks that would > pollute > the land, air and water (great you may say but in the end it will be your > and my property rights that he'll be taking, because his party does not > believe that the average person is responsible enough or capable enough to > tend to his own affairs or take care of his own personal possessions). > > Everyone, whether you are 19 years old or 90 needs to check up on what the > people in Washington (and the politicians in your home state) are doing > EVERY WEEK. And, not be afraid to confront them by calling, emailing or > writing their offices and making your views known in their town hall > meetings. Remember these people are supposed to be elected > representatives > of the we the people, they are NOT gods or deities of any sort. Alas I'm > afraid that a good many of them are power hungry career politician lawyers > who go there for decades and never retire because they are having too much > fun spending tax money they don't have and writing ever more laws to > control > the populace. Remember the old adage, "the only way evil can prevail is > for > good people to do nothing". For those of you who think we are out of the > woods now that the Democrat party controls congress think again. The > reason > Democrats don't like User Fees is because it takes the power hungry lawyer > politicians out of control of the ATC system. Virginia Democrat > congressman > Jay Rockefeller only last week was grilling the TSA chief about why we > still > have this "big security loop hole" in general aviation!!! No matter who > is > in control in government, they will find excuses to take away our rights > (you notice I said rights not privileges). Bob is right, we aviators are > just a teensy weensy minority in the mass of special interests groups. We > ALL need to be very diligent and very active in politics or the airplane > building and flying that we so dearly love will be regulated and/or taxed > out of existence! > > Dean > RV-6A N197DM > Coming up on first flight > > >>From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION >>FOR PORTABLE GPS > >>I would request anyone who writes a message here about politics >>(Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) to include the word SPAM >>in >>the message header so that my spam filter has a chance of catching it and >>if not, I know to delete it without reading it. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu>
Subject: Protection For Auxillary Power Jacks
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Regardless of the protection scheme, take a look at these plugs and sockets. www.powerletproducts.com These come highly recommended by one of my motorcyle riding friends, and are what I'm planning to use. William Slaughter RV-8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com>
Subject: Antenna Polarity??
I have a wing-tip VOR antenna in my plane similar to the one illustrated in figure 13-12 on page 13-16 of "The Connection". I can not see up inside the wing well enough to determine which 4-40 screw is attached to the lower part and which screw is attached to the upper plate. I am using ring terminals to attach the coax as is shown in the illustration. My question: Does the antenna have polarity and does it matter which screw gets the center conductor and which gets the shield? If it matters, I will try and see up in there with a dental mirror. I would also welcome any ideas, techniques, etc., to make the determination. I have discovered that working through an access opening, with my arm over the top of nutplates, is not the best part of building an airplane..{:>) Thanks for all your assistance. Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
> >In addition to your message, which plainly points out all the mean and >evil Democrats by name, we still have way too many Republicans trying to >spend all your money (while claiming they're fiscal conservatives), create >more laws to restrict our flying (while claiming to preserve freedoms), >and engaging in all kinds illicit behaviors (while claiming to be for >ethics and the common man). > >Maybe Walter is right . . . we shouldn't talk politics on this board. Yup, politics gets some folks riled up, that's why I prefer to talk about responsible citizenship and honorable behavior. While there may be individuals who's dishonorable behavior is more obvious (due their celebrity status on popular media) I'll suggest there are a miniscule number of officials from the president down local dog- catcher who operates under the doctrine suggested by their oaths of office . . . An elected official's first act is participation in a swearing in ceremony. May I quote from Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "Oaths of office are usually a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text, as well as an oath to the state or religion the office holder will be serving. It is often considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office." I'll suggest that the first official act of the majority of our elected officials is to violate their oath by voting for new laws that attack the liberty of individual citizens. Yes, our friend Dean crossed the line by making his efforts to teach/inform personal . . . i.e. political. We should all encourage him to formulate his words such that they covey the meaning he seeks to share but without the appearance of tossing cabbages and tomatoes. How about this, "Just last night I witnessed individuals running for high public office who promised to raise our taxes to fund a public health care program." This is not a political statement but one of fact. A simple recitation of observed events. There is a fine . . . but exceedingly distinct line between teaching/informing and persuading/ propagandizing. The former is the way simple- ideas which support logical conclusions may be illuminated and examined. The latter is the mechanism by which popular mandates are extracted in support of the doctrine, "majority rule trumps principle every time". I'll encourage folks who acquire skills to dissect the components of their airplanes down to the level of simple-ideas use those same skills for every other important task in their life. I can think of few tasks more important than the process of selecting individuals who will exercise great power over us all. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
I forget whether the gamma match is DC grounded in that design, but if it isn't, a simple continuity check between coax center and ground, and coax shield and ground would tell you which way it's wired to the antenna. Does that make sense? -the other Bill B On 2/6/07, Bill Bradburry wrote: > > I have a wing-tip VOR antenna in my plane similar to the one illustrated > in figure 13-12 on page 13-16 of "The Connection". > I can not see up inside the wing well enough to determine which 4-40 > screw is attached to the lower part and which screw is attached to the > upper plate. > I am using ring terminals to attach the coax as is shown in the > illustration. > My question: Does the antenna have polarity and does it matter which > screw gets the center conductor and which gets the shield? > If it matters, I will try and see up in there with a dental mirror. I > would also welcome any ideas, techniques, etc., to make the determination. > I have discovered that working through an access opening, with my arm > over the top of nutplates, is not the best part of building an > airplane..{:>) > > Thanks for all your assistance. > > Bill B > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
> > >I have a wing-tip VOR antenna in my plane similar to the one illustrated >in figure 13-12 on page 13-16 of "The Connection". >I can not see up inside the wing well enough to determine which 4-40 screw >is attached to the lower part and which screw is attached to the upper plate. >I am using ring terminals to attach the coax as is shown in the illustration. >My question: Does the antenna have polarity and does it matter which >screw gets the center conductor and which gets the shield? Yes. >If it matters, I will try and see up in there with a dental mirror. I >would also welcome any ideas, techniques, etc., to make the determination. >I have discovered that working through an access opening, with my arm over >the top of nutplates, is not the best part of building an airplane..{:>) You can put an antenna analyzer on the end of the coax and see what it's characteristics look like. If the coax terminations are reversed, the antenna's swr will be exceedingly poor . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
> >I forget whether the gamma match is DC grounded in that design, but if >it isn't, a simple continuity check between coax center and ground, >and coax shield and ground would tell you which way it's wired to the >antenna. Does that make sense? Hmmmm . . . good point! I blew that one. Do a continuity check between the coax center conductor and the AIRFRAME. If properly connected, the coax will show NO continuity from center conductor and airframe and good continuity between the coax shield and airframe. Thanks Bill. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Circuit needed
>EXACTLY! > > >John Okay, I can pop a uC chip with the code to nicely implement the idealized control scenario. The weakest link in the chain is pressure switch selection. Have you pressure tested the switch you have in hand? We can make a NC switch work in the software but it would be much better if you had an NO device. It would be even better if the switch were adjustable. Check out pages 4-5 of http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/hss/hobbscorp/pdf/cat_pav.pdf Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Just curious, who pays for an ill considered war and squandered surplus without raising taxes...from an independent thinker. Kayce ----- Original Message ----- From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:14 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > I'm sorry you feel that way Walter. While you desire to ignore the > important issues of our time, the politicians are hard at work trying to > take away what's left our precious freedoms and liberties that the > founding > fathers (Bob is referring to) worked so hard to establish and preserve > (and > there aint many left). Two shining examples of that in the last two days > have been presidential hopeful John Edwards saying he's going to raise > taxes > to pay for a huge new socialized medicine program that he'll enact if he's > president (this from an ambulance chaser lawyer who just moved into a > 26000, > yes twenty six thousand, square foot mansion built from money that he > obtained through private enterprise). The other example happened just a > few > hours ago on an interview with New York Senator Charles Schumer. This > little power hungry career politician lawyer was bragging about how he > would > be taking away all property rights from those evil folks that would > pollute > the land, air and water (great you may say but in the end it will be your > and my property rights that he'll be taking, because his party does not > believe that the average person is responsible enough or capable enough to > tend to his own affairs or take care of his own personal possessions). > > Everyone, whether you are 19 years old or 90 needs to check up on what the > people in Washington (and the politicians in your home state) are doing > EVERY WEEK. And, not be afraid to confront them by calling, emailing or > writing their offices and making your views known in their town hall > meetings. Remember these people are supposed to be elected > representatives > of the we the people, they are NOT gods or deities of any sort. Alas I'm > afraid that a good many of them are power hungry career politician lawyers > who go there for decades and never retire because they are having too much > fun spending tax money they don't have and writing ever more laws to > control > the populace. Remember the old adage, "the only way evil can prevail is > for > good people to do nothing". For those of you who think we are out of the > woods now that the Democrat party controls congress think again. The > reason > Democrats don't like User Fees is because it takes the power hungry lawyer > politicians out of control of the ATC system. Virginia Democrat > congressman > Jay Rockefeller only last week was grilling the TSA chief about why we > still > have this "big security loop hole" in general aviation!!! No matter who > is > in control in government, they will find excuses to take away our rights > (you notice I said rights not privileges). Bob is right, we aviators are > just a teensy weensy minority in the mass of special interests groups. We > ALL need to be very diligent and very active in politics or the airplane > building and flying that we so dearly love will be regulated and/or taxed > out of existence! > > Dean > RV-6A N197DM > Coming up on first flight > > >>From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION >>FOR PORTABLE GPS > >>I would request anyone who writes a message here about politics >>(Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) to include the word SPAM >>in >>the message header so that my spam filter has a chance of catching it and >>if not, I know to delete it without reading it. > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
Hi Guys, "I am sure there is a good place for this discussion but I think we will lose a good electrical board if we allow topic drift here. Bob Sultzbach P.S. Maybe Bob could make a political discussion board Harold wrote: > > > Just curious, who pays for an ill considered war and > squandered surplus > without raising taxes...from an independent thinker. > Kayce > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:14 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > PSIROPOULOS" > > > > > > I'm sorry you feel that way Walter. While you > desire to ignore the > > important issues of our time, the politicians are > hard at work trying to > > take away what's left our precious freedoms and > liberties that the > > founding > > fathers (Bob is referring to) worked so hard to > establish and preserve > > (and > > there aint many left). Two shining examples of > that in the last two days > > have been presidential hopeful John Edwards saying > he's going to raise > > taxes > > to pay for a huge new socialized medicine program > that he'll enact if he's > > president (this from an ambulance chaser lawyer > who just moved into a > > 26000, > > yes twenty six thousand, square foot mansion built > from money that he > > obtained through private enterprise). The other > example happened just a > > few > > hours ago on an interview with New York Senator > Charles Schumer. This > > little power hungry career politician lawyer was > bragging about how he > > would > > be taking away all property rights from those evil > folks that would > > pollute > > the land, air and water (great you may say but in > the end it will be your > > and my property rights that he'll be taking, > because his party does not > > believe that the average person is responsible > enough or capable enough to > > tend to his own affairs or take care of his own > personal possessions). > > > > Everyone, whether you are 19 years old or 90 needs > to check up on what the > > people in Washington (and the politicians in your > home state) are doing > > EVERY WEEK. And, not be afraid to confront them > by calling, emailing or > > writing their offices and making your views known > in their town hall > > meetings. Remember these people are supposed to > be elected > > representatives > > of the we the people, they are NOT gods or deities > of any sort. Alas I'm > > afraid that a good many of them are power hungry > career politician lawyers > > who go there for decades and never retire because > they are having too much > > fun spending tax money they don't have and writing > ever more laws to > > control > > the populace. Remember the old adage, "the only > way evil can prevail is > > for > > good people to do nothing". For those of you who > think we are out of the > > woods now that the Democrat party controls > congress think again. The > > reason > > Democrats don't like User Fees is because it takes > the power hungry lawyer > > politicians out of control of the ATC system. > Virginia Democrat > > congressman > > Jay Rockefeller only last week was grilling the > TSA chief about why we > > still > > have this "big security loop hole" in general > aviation!!! No matter who > > is > > in control in government, they will find excuses > to take away our rights > > (you notice I said rights not privileges). Bob is > right, we aviators are > > just a teensy weensy minority in the mass of > special interests groups. We > > ALL need to be very diligent and very active in > politics or the airplane > > building and flying that we so dearly love will be > regulated and/or taxed > > out of existence! > > > > Dean > > RV-6A N197DM > > Coming up on first flight > > > > > >>From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> > >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE > AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION > >>FOR PORTABLE GPS > > > >>I would request anyone who writes a message here > about politics > >>(Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) to > include the word SPAM > >>in > >>the message header so that my spam filter has a > chance of catching it and > >>if not, I know to delete it without reading it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > Web Forums! > > > > > Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
> >Just curious, who pays for an ill considered war and squandered surplus >without raising taxes...from an independent thinker. Your question is surely rhetorical but let us consider it. First, let us strip out the words for which there are a wide range of understandings that will only serve to generate a lot of debate. To reduce it to a consideration of the simple-idea, we'll need to edit it thusly . . . Q: "Who pays for a war?" Now the question may be addressed in equally simple, irrefutable terms. A: "Government participates in no value-added, merchantable activities from which income is realized. Therefore all revenues needed to conduct any governmental endeavor must come from individuals who DO have activities that generate income." Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. I have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:28 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's I used copper - no real problems. It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. Jeff Dalton ----- Original Message ----- From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment > point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? > Thanks > Ron > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93074#93074 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Thanks for the links. It looks like it will repair and bond just about anything. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:13 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > > >> >> >>AKA "Shoe Goo" >> >>Ebay item number: 190024050461 > > This is a pretty amazing product for it's > shear and peel strengths. I tested it for functionality > as an adhesive to attach the 'bond studs' we used to > sell . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Materials/Bond_Stud_B.jpg > > At the time, I was buying it as "Shoe Goo" but > later identified it as a re-branding of E-6000 > > http://www.eclecticproducts.com/e6000Industrial.htm > > Here are some more details for usage of E-6000 > and close cousins . . . > > http://www.eclecticproducts.com/E6000IndusDirections.htm > > The product is now widely distributed. I find it > in hardware and craft stores. The best prices lately > have been at Hobby Lobby and Walmart's crafts > section. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: 3.7 lb, 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr battery
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com>
Interesting battery. Message is from the RV-List. Thought this group might like to ponder it. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Dube Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:20 AM Subject: RV-List: 3.7 lb, 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr battery --> RV-List message posted by: Bill Dube Well, I said I was going to do it and we finally got the prototype built. We just built a 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr, battery that weighs just 3.7 pounds. I've been testing it in my GMC van for the past week here in the Denver Winter. It snaps the van right over every morning without a problem. The van cranks faster than it did with the standard lead-acid battery. It is smaller than the Odyssey 680 so it fit in the same battery box with a couple of foam blocks for spacers. The battery has four status LEDs that tell you the cell balancing electronics are working OK. We are using A123 Systems M1 cells with our own custom battery management electronics. The A123 Systems cells are proven to be the safest Li-Ion cells on the market. No problems with fires (like laptop cells) because the chemistry they use is completely different. The battery can be damaged by running it completely flat (like leaving the master on) and holding the battery below 8 volts for a long time. It can also be damaged by charging it over 15.0 volts. It will likely still function after such abuse, but it won't be nearly as good as it was originally. If you don't abuse it, it should last you for many years. I think we will be in production in about a month, maybe two. Specs: 3.7 lbs 600 cranking amps 11.5 amp-hr Approximate maximum dimensions: 3" wide, 5" long, 7" tall (including terminals) Charging voltage = 13.8 to 15.0 volts (anywhere in this range is OK) Nominal voltage = 13.2 volts (Just a touch higher than your typical lead-acid, so it spins the starter a touch faster.) Cell cycle life rated at 2000 cycles (80% DOD, 90% capacity remaining) 10,000 cycles (80% DOD with 50% capacity remaining) @25 C Cell specs: <http://www.a123systems.com/html/products/ANR26650M1specs.pdf>http://www .a123systems.com/html/products/ANR26650M1specs.pdf Maintenance free No heavy metals (iron-phosphate type cells) At this time, we estimate the retail price will be $595. (Yeah, I know this is not cheap, but this is the state-of-the-art battery technology so the parts to make it are not cheap.) Here is a picture of the prototype. We have it in a clear Lexan case so we can keep an eye on it. The production battery will have a smaller opaque case with a clear top lid (terminal end.) http://www.killacycle.com/photos/aircraft-battery/Prototype1InVan.JPG We have been racing these cells in the KillaCycle for about a year, so we know _all_ about them. <http://www.KillaCycle.com>http://www.KillaCycle.com (Be sure to watch the movie clip.) Bill Dube' bike(at)KillaCycle.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Subject: How to connect to 2" aluminium tube?
From: <rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
I want to ground a 2" aluminium tube used below the fuel filler of a Europa (plastic). I suppose I could weld a tab on it, or was thinking could order a few Adel clamps (with aluminium straps), and discard the rubber and see if I could get proper size and connect the ground wire to mounting screw after I cleaned off any finish on areas I want to conduct. Any other ideas? There are hoses clamped on this elbow at both ends, I am looking for a way to dissipate static charge. Think by sneaking a flat thin piece of aluminium half under the clamp and attaching to this would be an OK resolution? Thx. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
Date: Feb 06, 2007
We're going to pay for a lot of it with these new fuel taxes that are, in-fact, user fees for General Aviation. It's coming . . . . and the government has spent all of you/our money, so they'll need a lot. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > >> >>Just curious, who pays for an ill considered war and squandered surplus >>without raising taxes...from an independent thinker. > > Your question is surely rhetorical but let us consider > it. First, let us strip out the words for which there > are a wide range of understandings that will only > serve to generate a lot of debate. To reduce it to > a consideration of the simple-idea, we'll need to > edit it thusly . . . > > Q: "Who pays for a war?" > > Now the question may be addressed in equally simple, > irrefutable terms. > > A: "Government participates in no value-added, > merchantable activities from which income is > realized. Therefore all revenues needed to conduct any > governmental endeavor must come from individuals who > DO have activities that generate income." > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I bought some great copper bars from McMaster-Carr. 2" high and 18" wide. I riveted and the sweated the tabs on. Looks like hell, but works great. Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry Miles" <terrence_miles(at)hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:43 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. > I > have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last > week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > jdalton77 > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I used copper - no real problems. > > It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. > > Jeff Dalton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > >> >> >> Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment >> point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? >> Thanks >> Ron >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93074#93074 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Ground blocks for RV's
> > >I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. I >have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last >week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. Go to any hobby shop or hardware store and look for this display . . . http://www.ksmetals.com/HobbyMerchandisers/default.asp One of the products commonly found in these displays is a hunk of brass about 4 x 6 inches. Anything .032" or thicker is fine. Any time you need heavier and larger pieces of brass, check out the kick plates for doors at lumber yards. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 3.7 lb, 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr battery
What's that work out to- about $50/pound for weight savings over a PC-625? I'd pay that to lighten an airframe, but for an item that was permanent, not one that needed periodic replacement... how long will this battery hold up in the aircraft environment? -Bill B On 2/6/07, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: > > Interesting battery. Message is from the RV-List. > Thought this group might like to ponder it. > Mike > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: LarryRosen(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I got my E-6000 at Wal-Mart Larry -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> > > > Thanks for the links. It looks like it will repair and bond just > about anything. > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 8:13 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material > > > > > > > > > >> > >> > >>AKA "Shoe Goo" > >> > >>Ebay item number: 190024050461 > > > > This is a pretty amazing product for it's > > shear and peel strengths. I tested it for functionality > > as an adhesive to attach the 'bond studs' we used to > > sell . . . > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Materials/Bond_Stud_B.jpg > > > > At the time, I was buying it as "Shoe Goo" but > > later identified it as a re-branding of E-6000 > > > > http://www.eclecticproducts.com/e6000Industrial.htm > > > > Here are some more details for usage of E-6000 > > and close cousins . . . > > > > http://www.eclecticproducts.com/E6000IndusDirections.htm > > > > The product is now widely distributed. I find it > > in hardware and craft stores. The best prices lately > > have been at Hobby Lobby and Walmart's crafts > > section. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Subject: Re: How to connect to 2" aluminium tube?
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
I assume you want to connect a wire to the filler? Or a chain? Seems like just about anything you mentioned would work. The rate at which charge is transfered while in the fueling process is low, and the total amount of charge that can be stored prior to the start of the fueling operation is also low, so there's just not that much charge to dissipate. You could drill into the filler and rivet a PIDG or similar connecter. Or use a machine screw instead of a rivet. But... the topic of grounding the fuel system properly in a plastic airplane is one that has generated lots of debate in the past. Almost as much as political discussions on aviation fora.. So, to where do you intend to run the wire that is connected to the filler neck? If I were designing a grounding scheme for a plastic airplane, I'd be tempted to run a bare wire or chain such that fuel being dispensed into the tank would flow along its length until reaching the fuel already in the tank. That wire or chain might also be connected to whatever location I decided that I want the fuel dispenser's ground cable attached. That connection should be made somewhere that the concentration of fuel vapor is low - away from the filler neck. One other concern I have heard mentioned is how the system behaves if the airplane were struck by lightning... A small conductor from the filler neck connected to an airframe ground buss might act as an ignition source if it passes through the fuel tank. Lightning may strike the fuel cap/filler assembly directly on a plastic plane. Some people might say that if lightning strikes a plastic airplane all is lost anyway. I'd rather consider possible effects of the grounding scheme to give me the best odds.. Plastic airplanes have sustained lightning strikes and flown away with little damage. I want to be one of those guys. Maybe a reasonable approach would be to use a section of chain attached to the bung in the bottom of the tank (on the dry side of the bung, another wire connects to the ground buss). To the end of the piece of chain is a length of fuel proof non-conductive chord. Finally, the chord is tied to the fuel cap. The chain should be long enough that it can reach from the bung in the bottom of the tank to the filler neck. The chord is long enough so that when the filler cap is in place the chain can sink to the bottom of the tank. This system serves two purposes - it dissipates any charge buildup during the fueling process, and it retains the fuel cap should it be left ajar/unlatched. The remaing connection I would consider making is adding a ground wire tab (which was your question) to the filler neck. This would eliminate any chance that you would get a spark when the chain stretches from the bottom of the tank up to the filler. I think for best safety, whatever you connect to this tab shouldn't pass through the fuel in the tank (lightning), but along the outside of the tank, possibly in a fibrefrax or other non-flamable tube. Okay, shoot holes in this plan... I've been pondering it for a while and would like to hear some thoughts (if that's possible). Matt- > > I want to ground a 2" aluminium tube used below the fuel filler of a Europa (plastic). > > I suppose I could weld a tab on it, or was thinking could order a few Adel > clamps (with aluminium straps), and discard the rubber and see if I could > get proper size and connect the ground wire to mounting screw after I cleaned off any finish on areas I want to conduct. > > Any other ideas? There are hoses clamped on this elbow at both ends, I am > looking for a way to dissipate static charge. Think by sneaking a flat thin piece of aluminium half under the clamp and attaching to this would be an OK resolution? > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: 3.7 lb, 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr battery
The cells have a rated cycle life (to 50% capacity) of 10,000 cycles. If you just have 10% capacity loss to 90% capacity, the cycle life is 2000 cycles. If you start your airplane once per day (with a _really_ long cranking period) this would work out to something between 5 and 20 years. The 50% capacity would roughly be 50% loss in cranking amps, so this would be probably the longest you would likely keep the battery. Of course, if you leave the master on for a couple of days and flatten the battery, you would likely have to replace it, just like a typical lead-acid sealed battery. Bill Dube' Bill Boyd wrote: > > > What's that work out to- about $50/pound for weight savings over a > PC-625? I'd pay that to lighten an airframe, but for an item that was > permanent, not one that needed periodic replacement... how long will > this battery hold up in the aircraft environment? > > -Bill B > > On 2/6/07, Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) > wrote: > >> Atlanta)" >> >> Interesting battery. Message is from the RV-List. >> Thought this group might like to ponder it. >> Mike >> >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Europa (Alfred Buess)" <ykibuess(at)bluewin.ch>
Subject: Audio Iso Amp with Flightcom 403
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Bob, I have an Apollo SL30 Nav/Comm and a Flightcom 403 Intercom, that I want to combine with your audio isolation amplifier. The headphone output of the SL30 (pin 14) is directly connected with the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403. The audio iso amp unit is used to bring together several mono warning tones and to channel them into the 403 intercom. The 403 has a music input (pins 18 and 19) that is automatically muted when the SL30 is active. As I don't want the warning tones to be muted (and shut off when the isolate switch of the intercom is activated), I don't want to hook up the audio iso amp to the music input. My question: Can I connect the headphone output of the SL30 AND the output of the audio iso amp (pin 3) BOTH to the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403? Or is there another, better solution? Thanks for your advice! Alfred Buess CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: Audio Iso Amp with Flightcom 403
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Why not just run the SL30 through the isolation amp? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Europa (Alfred Buess) Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Audio Iso Amp with Flightcom 403 Bob, I have an Apollo SL30 Nav/Comm and a Flightcom 403 Intercom, that I want to combine with your audio isolation amplifier. The headphone output of the SL30 (pin 14) is directly connected with the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403. The audio iso amp unit is used to bring together several mono warning tones and to channel them into the 403 intercom. The 403 has a music input (pins 18 and 19) that is automatically muted when the SL30 is active. As I don't want the warning tones to be muted (and shut off when the isolate switch of the intercom is activated), I don't want to hook up the audio iso amp to the music input. My question: Can I connect the headphone output of the SL30 AND the output of the audio iso amp (pin 3) BOTH to the Recv Audio pin (21) of the 403? Or is there another, better solution? Thanks for your advice! Alfred Buess CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I have found sheet brass at the local Ace hardware. They may or may not have some at Lowes or Home depot over in the hardware dept. I have seen some hobbyist type material there. But generally it comes in narrower sizes as Terry pointed out. Micro-mart comes to mind as a mail order source as well. Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry Miles Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:44 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. I have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jdalton77 Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:28 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's I used copper - no real problems. It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. Jeff Dalton ----- Original Message ----- From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment > point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? > Thanks > Ron > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Aviation Activism
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I have to say that I'm just fed up with the whole mess. Neither party does what it says it is going to do, neither party lives up to the ideals they claim to support. And I'm afraid neither party actually gives a S**T what happens to "little people". Rest assured they will find a way into your pocket one way or another. Purported economic growth is benefiting only the uber-rich while middle class and below are seeing their adjusted incomes stagnate or go backwards. Job creation is nothing but the smoke and mirrors of replacing good paying manufacturing jobs with low-paying service jobs, further complicated with the ever present influx of L-1 visa holders undercutting the middle class income at the request of greedy uber-rich industrialists, and illegal unskilled immigrants kicking the feet out from under the unskilled working class. A situation being pushed from both parties. Alternative party politicians range from the fringe to the center, but generally unelectable for various reasons. The bottom line is try to hold on to whatever you have. Write the b******s in Washington and express your views, don't vote for the same clowns over and over. Don't expect much to change. Much like a poorly run company grown too large, the good ol boys preserve their fiefdoms, and guard the halls of power jealously. Hope you die before they come for your stuff. All is lost. Craig Smith -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave N6030X Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:34 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism Tsk tsk tsk. I really don't think any of you people on the extremes (Republicans or Democrats) want the vast majority of us "in the middle" to start slinging mud, because then everybody will get dirty. There's plenty of blame to go around. The main thing we've got to do is to make sure that, no matter who is in power, they don't step all over us any more than they have already done and are planning to do shortly. We've already lost so many of our industries. The internal combustion engine will be under attack shortly, the FAA doesn't know the difference between engineering for safety and legislating for safety, and the politicians think they've found another easy target. Time to suit up. Dave Morris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Bill Dube <William.P.Dube(at)noaa.gov>
Subject: Just built - 3.7 lb battery 600 cranking amps, 11.5
a-hrs Well, I said I was going to do it and we finally got the prototype built. We just built a 600 cranking amp, 11.5 A-hr, battery that weighs just 3.7 pounds. I've been testing it in my GMC van for the past week here in the Denver Winter. It snaps the van right over every morning without a problem. The van cranks faster than it did with the standard lead-acid battery. It is smaller than the Odyssey 680 so it fit in the same battery box with a couple of foam blocks for spacers. The battery has four status LEDs that tell you the cell balancing electronics are working OK. We are using A123 Systems M1 cells with our own custom battery management electronics. The A123 Systems cells are proven to be the safest Li-Ion cells on the market. No problems with fires (like laptop cells) because the chemistry they use is completely different. The battery can be damaged by running it completely flat (like leaving the master on) and holding the battery below 8 volts for a long time. It can also be damaged by charging it over 15.0 volts. It will likely still function after such abuse, but it won't be nearly as good as it was originally. If you don't abuse it, it should last you for many years. I think we will be in production in about a month, maybe two. Specs: 3.7 lbs 600 cranking amps 11.5 amp-hr Approximate maximum dimensions: 3" wide, 5" long, 7" tall (including terminals) Charging voltage = 13.8 to 15.0 volts (anywhere in this range is OK) Nominal voltage = 13.2 volts (Just a touch higher than your typical lead-acid, so it spins the starter a touch faster.) Cell cycle life rated at 2000 cycles (80% DOD, 90% capacity remaining) 10,000 cycles (80% DOD with 50% capacity remaining) @25 C Cell specs: http://www.a123systems.com/html/products/ANR26650M1specs.pdf Maintenance free No heavy metals (iron-phosphate type cells) At this time, we estimate the retail price will be $595. (Yeah, I know this is not cheap, but this is the state-of-the-art battery technology so the parts to make it are not cheap.) Here is a picture of the prototype. We have it in a clear Lexan case so we can keep an eye on it. The production battery will have a smaller opaque case with a clear top lid (terminal end.) http://www.killacycle.com/photos/aircraft-battery/Prototype1InVan.JPG We have been racing these cells in the KillaCycle for about a year, so we know _all_ about them. http://www.KillaCycle.com (Be sure to watch the movie clip.) Bill Dube' bike(at)KillaCycle.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: <michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com>
Subject: Aviation Activism
You sound like a crybaby that didn't get his way. I thought this was the AeroElectric List. It seems I've stumbled into "I hate America because its just a bunch of liberals (consrvatives)" list by mistake. ---- C Smith wrote: > > I have to say that I'm just fed up with the whole mess. Neither party does > what it says it is going to do, neither party lives up to the ideals they > claim to support. And I'm afraid neither party actually gives a S**T what > happens to "little people". Rest assured they will find a way into your > pocket one way or another. > Purported economic growth is benefiting only the uber-rich while middle > class and below are seeing their adjusted incomes stagnate or go backwards. > Job creation is nothing but the smoke and mirrors of replacing good paying > manufacturing jobs with low-paying service jobs, further complicated with > the ever present influx of L-1 visa holders undercutting the middle class > income at the request of greedy uber-rich industrialists, and illegal > unskilled immigrants kicking the feet out from under the unskilled working > class. A situation being pushed from both parties. > Alternative party politicians range from the fringe to the center, but > generally unelectable for various reasons. > The bottom line is try to hold on to whatever you have. Write the b******s > in Washington and express your views, don't vote for the same clowns over > and over. Don't expect much to change. Much like a poorly run company grown > too large, the good ol boys preserve their fiefdoms, and guard the halls of > power jealously. > Hope you die before they come for your stuff. > All is lost. > Craig Smith > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:34 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > Tsk tsk tsk. I really don't think any of you people on the extremes > (Republicans or Democrats) want the vast majority of us "in the > middle" to start slinging mud, because then everybody will get > dirty. There's plenty of blame to go around. The main thing we've > got to do is to make sure that, no matter who is in power, they don't > step all over us any more than they have already done and are > planning to do shortly. > > We've already lost so many of our industries. The internal > combustion engine will be under attack shortly, the FAA doesn't know > the difference between engineering for safety and legislating for > safety, and the politicians think they've found another easy > target. Time to suit up. > > Dave Morris > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com>
Subject: Antenna Polarity??
Hmmm...I don't think that I made myself clear. This antenna is glassed in the end of the fiberglas wing. It is not connected to anything. From the antenna's perspective, it is floating in space. I am attempting to attach the coax to the antenna. All I have available are the two screws sticking up to attach the coax. Is there any way that I can determine which of the two screws should have the center conductor and which should have the shield? I can barely get my hand up in there to attach the coax and can not see what I am touching. Is there any way to test the antenna short of an SWR meter? Boll B Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity?? From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III (nuckollsr(at)cox.net) Date: Tue Feb 06 - 6:47 AM > >I forget whether the gamma match is DC grounded in that design, but if >it isn't, a simple continuity check between coax center and ground, >and coax shield and ground would tell you which way it's wired to the >antenna. Does that make sense? Hmmmm . . . good point! I blew that one. Do a continuity check between the coax center conductor and the AIRFRAME. If properly connected, the coax will show NO continuity from center conductor and airframe and good continuity between the coax shield and airframe. Thanks Bill. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
Is this a dipole antenna, or what? Does it have a balun? Copper tape buried in epoxy? Dave Morris At 05:33 PM 2/6/2007, you wrote: > > >Hmmm...I don't think that I made myself clear. This antenna is >glassed in the end of the fiberglas wing. It is not connected to >anything. From the antenna's perspective, it is floating in >space. I am attempting to attach the coax to the antenna. All I >have available are the two screws sticking up to attach the >coax. Is there any way that I can determine which of the two screws >should have the center conductor and which should have the shield? > >I can barely get my hand up in there to attach the coax and can not >see what I am touching. Is there any way to test the antenna short >of an SWR meter? > >Boll B > >Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity?? >From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III (nuckollsr(at)cox.net) >Date: Tue Feb 06 - 6:47 AM > > > > > >I forget whether the gamma match is DC grounded in that design, but if > >it isn't, a simple continuity check between coax center and ground, > >and coax shield and ground would tell you which way it's wired to the > >antenna. Does that make sense? > > Hmmmm . . . good point! I blew that one. Do a continuity > check between the coax center conductor and the AIRFRAME. > If properly connected, the coax will show NO continuity > from center conductor and airframe and good continuity > between the coax shield and airframe. > > Thanks Bill. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming(at)sigecom.net>
Subject: Re: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I used the 48 tab ground block by B and C specialtyproducts. It is easy to work with and I recommend it. I found I actually needed to double up on a few due to needing more than 48 grounds on my VFR RV7 plane. It seems a bit pricey, but it is rock solid and quick and easy to use. Indiana Larry http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?26X358218 ----- Original Message ----- From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:05 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > I have found sheet brass at the local Ace hardware. They may or may not > have > some at Lowes or Home depot over in the hardware dept. I have seen some > hobbyist type material there. But generally it comes in narrower sizes as > Terry pointed out. Micro-mart comes to mind as a mail order source as > well. > Craig Smith > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Miles > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:44 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. > I > have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last > week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > jdalton77 > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I used copper - no real problems. > > It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. > > Jeff Dalton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > >> >> >> Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment >> point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? >> Thanks >> Ron >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
From: "pilot4pay" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Date: Feb 06, 2007
[quote="michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com"]You sound like a crybaby that didn't get his way. I thought this was the AeroElectric List. It seems I've stumbled into "I hate America because its just a bunch of liberals (consrvatives)" list by mistake. > > Now there's a real gem of intellectual discourse! Name calling and personal attack. > Where did I say I "hate" America? I spent 4 yrs of my life serving my country. What planet did you come from? Some one started a thread open for comment on political activism. What's your problem? > Don't want to read opinions on political activism? Don't read post relating to activism. > Grow up. "GEORGE" > Craig Smith > Do not Archinve -------- Craig Smith Future CH640 builder Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93333#93333 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
Date: Feb 06, 2007
AMEN ----- Original Message ----- From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:35 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > I have to say that I'm just fed up with the whole mess. Neither party does > what it says it is going to do, neither party lives up to the ideals they > claim to support. And I'm afraid neither party actually gives a S**T what > happens to "little people". Rest assured they will find a way into your > pocket one way or another. > Purported economic growth is benefiting only the uber-rich while middle > class and below are seeing their adjusted incomes stagnate or go > backwards. > Job creation is nothing but the smoke and mirrors of replacing good paying > manufacturing jobs with low-paying service jobs, further complicated with > the ever present influx of L-1 visa holders undercutting the middle class > income at the request of greedy uber-rich industrialists, and illegal > unskilled immigrants kicking the feet out from under the unskilled working > class. A situation being pushed from both parties. > Alternative party politicians range from the fringe to the center, but > generally unelectable for various reasons. > The bottom line is try to hold on to whatever you have. Write the b******s > in Washington and express your views, don't vote for the same clowns over > and over. Don't expect much to change. Much like a poorly run company > grown > too large, the good ol boys preserve their fiefdoms, and guard the halls > of > power jealously. > Hope you die before they come for your stuff. > All is lost. > Craig Smith > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:34 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism > > > > Tsk tsk tsk. I really don't think any of you people on the extremes > (Republicans or Democrats) want the vast majority of us "in the > middle" to start slinging mud, because then everybody will get > dirty. There's plenty of blame to go around. The main thing we've > got to do is to make sure that, no matter who is in power, they don't > step all over us any more than they have already done and are > planning to do shortly. > > We've already lost so many of our industries. The internal > combustion engine will be under attack shortly, the FAA doesn't know > the difference between engineering for safety and legislating for > safety, and the politicians think they've found another easy > target. Time to suit up. > > Dave Morris > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism
Date: Feb 06, 2007
I too spent 4 years in the military...korean era...that's what Amedrica's about ....FREE Speech ----- Original Message ----- From: "pilot4pay" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:06 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aviation Activism > > > [quote="michael.phil(at)ca.rr.com"]You sound like a crybaby that didn't > get his way. > I thought this was the AeroElectric List. It seems I've stumbled into "I > hate America because its just a bunch of liberals (consrvatives)" list by > mistake. > >> >> Now there's a real gem of intellectual discourse! Name calling and >> personal attack. >> Where did I say I "hate" America? I spent 4 yrs of my life serving my >> country. What planet did you come from? Some one started a thread open >> for comment on political activism. What's your problem? >> Don't want to read opinions on political activism? Don't read post >> relating to activism. >> Grow up. "GEORGE" >> Craig Smith >> Do not Archinve > > > -------- > Craig Smith > Future CH640 builder > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93333#93333 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
> > >Hmmm...I don't think that I made myself clear. This antenna is glassed in >the end of the fiberglas wing. It is not connected to anything. From the >antenna's perspective, it is floating in space. I am attempting to attach >the coax to the antenna. All I have available are the two screws sticking >up to attach the coax. Is there any way that I can determine which of the >two screws should have the center conductor and which should have the shield? Hmmmm . . . that antenna was designed to work against metalic structure of a metal wing for "ground". Is there even a metal sheet over the tip closeout rib? If there's no metal used to provide the other "half" of the antenna, then you're going to realize only a small fraction of the antenna's already compromised performance by tucking it under a tip fairing? How did this particular antenna find its way onto the airplane? It was originally designed for RVs and could probably be adapted to other metal wing aircraft with plastic tip fairings. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Aviation Activism
> >You sound like a crybaby that didn't get his way. >I thought this was the AeroElectric List. It seems I've stumbled into "I >hate America because its just a bunch of liberals (consrvatives)" list by >mistake. . . . and your hyperbole is and more restrained? It's a sure bet that everyone in Washington wants us to use our political investment of $time$ in such no-value- added discussions. It distracts us from the real issues. This thread has strayed from Aviation Activism. Let's bring it back to that topic or let it go. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Tail mounted digital video camera...
Can anybody recommend a digital video camera to mount at the top of my vertical stabilizer facing forward? I've got a composite Lancair ES and I built in a phenolic hardpoint at the top of the vertical stabilizer and routed a 1/2" conduit into the fuselage. I'd like to find a digital video camera that could provide a real time video feed into the cockpit, plus save the video directly to a computer's hard drive. Ideally the frame rate would be 30fps or faster. Most of the little USB & Firewire "computer camers" seem to be: - not robust enough - not sharp enough - slow frame rates - not weatherproof I'd like to find a "better" quality video camera that could be mounted out there and be easily disconnected & removed when not needed, or one that is robust enough to sit out in the rain & breeze at 200 Knots. Being fairly small and streamlined would be a plus. Any recommendations? Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Tail mounted digital video camera...
Have you tried the Helmet Cams that skaters and skydivers are wearing? Dave Morris At 08:33 PM 2/6/2007, you wrote: >Can anybody recommend a digital video camera to mount at the top >of my vertical stabilizer facing forward? > >I've got a composite Lancair ES and I built in a phenolic hardpoint >at the top of the vertical stabilizer and routed a 1/2" conduit into >the fuselage. > >I'd like to find a digital video camera that could provide a real >time video feed >into the cockpit, plus save the video directly to a computer's hard drive. >Ideally the frame rate would be 30fps or faster. > >Most of the little USB & Firewire "computer camers" seem to be: >- not robust enough >- not sharp enough >- slow frame rates >- not weatherproof > >I'd like to find a "better" quality video camera that could be >mounted out there >and be easily disconnected & removed when not needed, or one that is >robust enough to sit out in the rain & breeze at 200 Knots. > >Being fairly small and streamlined would be a plus. > >Any recommendations? > >Greg > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tail mounted digital video camera...
Greg, Oregon Scientific has a camera that might fill the bill. It's weatherproof, carries up to 2GB of SD memory (or whatever amount you want to buy for it). At 640 X 480 and 30 fps it'll give you 61 minutes of video. It can also do 15 fps and smaller window size for more time. Comes with a variety of straps and mounting hardware. They're $105 from Guy Graphics. Rick On 2/6/07, Dave N6030X wrote: > > N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> > > Have you tried the Helmet Cams that skaters and skydivers are wearing? > > Dave Morris > > At 08:33 PM 2/6/2007, you wrote: > >Can anybody recommend a digital video camera to mount at the top > >of my vertical stabilizer facing forward? > > > >I've got a composite Lancair ES and I built in a phenolic hardpoint > >at the top of the vertical stabilizer and routed a 1/2" conduit into > >the fuselage. > > > >I'd like to find a digital video camera that could provide a real > >time video feed > >into the cockpit, plus save the video directly to a computer's hard > drive. > >Ideally the frame rate would be 30fps or faster. > > > >Most of the little USB & Firewire "computer camers" seem to be: > >- not robust enough > >- not sharp enough > >- slow frame rates > >- not weatherproof > > > >I'd like to find a "better" quality video camera that could be > >mounted out there > >and be easily disconnected & removed when not needed, or one that is > >robust enough to sit out in the rain & breeze at 200 Knots. > > > >Being fairly small and streamlined would be a plus. > > > >Any recommendations? > > > >Greg > > > > > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com>
Subject: Dimmer for Transponder Display
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Folks, I'm installing a Garmin GTX-320 transponder. The installation instructions call for a dimmer circuit to control display brightness. I'm also installing a B&C Specialty DIM15-14 dimmer to control an incandescent overhead light. I'd like to hook up the dimmer wire from the transponder to a vacant pin on the DIM15-14. Will this present any problems (especially any that damage the transponder)? I don't know how well balanced the dimming functions will be but I'd like to try it and see rather than add a fourth dimmer circuit to the panel. (The first two dimming circuits are for the Westach engine instruments (incandescent) and flight instruments (UMA electroluminescent rings)). Best regards, Bob GlaStar ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "J&C Piavis" <piavis(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Using D-Sub extract tool
Date: Feb 06, 2007
Maybe a dumb question, but how do you use the d-sub extract tool to extract a pin from the shell? Since I've pulled one wire out of the crimped pin already, I'm assuming I'm not doing something right. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 06, 2007
From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
Hi Jim, The extractor tool goes around the wire and slips around the pin. The pin has little tabs that lock it in the housing. The extractor pushes the tabs back so that the pin will slip out. It seems to take a little time to get the "feel" for using the tool. Also there are several tools that look similar but aren't the correct size. I used to use a cheap extractor that I bough at the local electronics supply house. It worked pretty good most of the time. The last time I ordered pins from Mouser, I got the "recommended" tool and it seems to work better. I think the metal was a little thinner making it easier to slip into the proper place. The best thing to do is push the tool in and gently pull on the wire. If it doesn't come out pretty easily, pull the tool out part way and try again. Try rotating it a little before pushing it back in. On occasion I've done that a dozen times before the pin finally came out easily. Then for some reason the next pin works right away! It's just a matter of getting the "feel" I guess. Bob W. (Not a dumb question - although there are such things.) "J&C Piavis" wrote: > Maybe a dumb question, but how do you use the d-sub extract tool to extract > a pin from the shell? Since I've pulled one wire out of the crimped pin > already, I'm assuming I'm not doing something right. > > > > Jim > > -- N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com First Flight: 11/23/2006 7:50AM - 1.7 Hours Total Time Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Doucette" <drdavevk30(at)cs.com>
Subject: Flap circuit
Date: Feb 07, 2007
Hi: I am looking for a schematic for a 24 volt flap control. My desire is to utilize 5 positions on a rotary switch mounted sideways with a flap shaped handle. The five positions would correspond to 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 degrees of flaps. I would like to have an indicator to confirm flap position. The flaps are electric motor actuated. Can you provide schematic and part numbers for components to do it myself? Dave ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Dimmer for Transponder Display
Bob, that is exactly what I had on my Glastar until I've changed to S-Transponder, did work flawless. br Werner r falstad wrote: > Folks, > > I'm installing a Garmin GTX-320 transponder. The installation > instructions call for a dimmer circuit to control display brightness. > I'm also installing a B&C Specialty DIM15-14 dimmer to control an > incandescent overhead light. > > I'd like to hook up the dimmer wire from the transponder to a vacant > pin on the DIM15-14. Will this present any problems (especially any > that damage the transponder)? > > I don't know how well balanced the dimming functions will be but I'd > like to try it and see rather than add a fourth dimmer circuit to the > panel. (The first two dimming circuits are for the Westach engine > instruments (incandescent) and flight instruments (UMA > electroluminescent rings)). > > Best regards, > > Bob > GlaStar > * > > > * ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Tail mounted digital video camera...
Date: Feb 07, 2007
Greg, I don't know anything about cameras, but check out Larry Bowen's site. He also has video you can see. http://bowenaero.com/mt3/2004/10/tail_cam.html Bill Settle RV-8 Wings. > > From: "Greg Campbell" <gregcampbellusa(at)gmail.com> > Date: 2007/02/06 Tue PM 09:33:18 EST > To: AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tail mounted digital video camera... > > Can anybody recommend a digital video camera to mount at the top > of my vertical stabilizer facing forward? > > I've got a composite Lancair ES and I built in a phenolic hardpoint > at the top of the vertical stabilizer and routed a 1/2" conduit into the > fuselage. > > I'd like to find a digital video camera that could provide a real time video > feed > into the cockpit, plus save the video directly to a computer's hard drive. > Ideally the frame rate would be 30fps or faster. > > Most of the little USB & Firewire "computer camers" seem to be: > - not robust enough > - not sharp enough > - slow frame rates > - not weatherproof > > I'd like to find a "better" quality video camera that could be mounted out > there > and be easily disconnected & removed when not needed, or one that is > robust enough to sit out in the rain & breeze at 200 Knots. > > Being fairly small and streamlined would be a plus. > > Any recommendations? > > Greg > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Bill Settle <billsettle(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
Date: Feb 07, 2007
Snip- > Bob W. (Not a dumb question - although there are such things.) I probably shouldn't say this, but... Back when I was in A&P school, we had a great electrical instructor who ran a tight ship. One day I wasn't sure I was getting what he was trying to explain, so I said, "Let me ask you a stupid question..." His response was, "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people. What's your question?" This drew huge laughter from the whole class and from then on it had a much lighter atmosphere... Great instructor. I'll never forget him. Bill Settle, RV-8 Wings. ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: tail mounted camera
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: "Frazier, Vincent A" <VFrazier(at)usi.edu>
My FLIR (forward looking information resource) camera is what you need. It's been in my left cowl inlet for over 100hours and hasn't missed a beat. You can get it online from various places. I got mine from www.circuitspecialists.com for $69. It's a Sony Super HAD ccd color camera, p/n vc-806b-audio. Here's the URL that shows the installation, purpose (duh, remember the TBM/RV-6 accident), and LCD screen. FWIW, you have to find your own LCD screen... I have no leads on those. http://vincesrocket.com/Additions%20after%2010-27-04.htm about 1/3 down the page. Vince Frazier Screaming Eagle Graphics and Accessories, LLC http://vincesrocket.com/products.htm ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Tail mounted digital video camera...
Date: Feb 07, 2007
I've had great luck with this camera setup. http://www.berkut13.com/berkut56.htm Scroll down to the lower part of the page for camera specifics. It's the highest res cam of it's type, it's weather proof, and internally heated to combat moisture. James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Greg Campbell To: AeroElectric-List(at)matronics.com Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 8:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tail mounted digital video camera... Can anybody recommend a digital video camera to mount at the top of my vertical stabilizer facing forward? I've got a composite Lancair ES and I built in a phenolic hardpoint at the top of the vertical stabilizer and routed a 1/2" conduit into the fuselage. I'd like to find a digital video camera that could provide a real time video feed into the cockpit, plus save the video directly to a computer's hard drive. Ideally the frame rate would be 30fps or faster. Most of the little USB & Firewire "computer camers" seem to be: - not robust enough - not sharp enough - slow frame rates - not weatherproof I'd like to find a "better" quality video camera that could be mounted out there and be easily disconnected & removed when not needed, or one that is robust enough to sit out in the rain & breeze at 200 Knots. Being fairly small and streamlined would be a plus. Any recommendations? Greg ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tail mounted digital video camera...
You may want to check aerodynamic effects, including flutter, for your tail mounted camera. I believe Art Scholl died as a result of a similarly mounted camera. On 2/6/07, Dave N6030X wrote: > > N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com> > > Have you tried the Helmet Cams that skaters and skydivers are wearing? > > Dave Morris > > At 08:33 PM 2/6/2007, you wrote: > >Can anybody recommend a digital video camera to mount at the top > >of my vertical stabilizer facing forward? > > > >I've got a composite Lancair ES and I built in a phenolic hardpoint > >at the top of the vertical stabilizer and routed a 1/2" conduit into > >the fuselage. > > > >I'd like to find a digital video camera that could provide a real > >time video feed > >into the cockpit, plus save the video directly to a computer's hard > drive. > >Ideally the frame rate would be 30fps or faster. > > > >Most of the little USB & Firewire "computer camers" seem to be: > >- not robust enough > >- not sharp enough > >- slow frame rates > >- not weatherproof > > > >I'd like to find a "better" quality video camera that could be > >mounted out there > >and be easily disconnected & removed when not needed, or one that is > >robust enough to sit out in the rain & breeze at 200 Knots. > > > >Being fairly small and streamlined would be a plus. > > > >Any recommendations? > > > >Greg > > > > > > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net>
Subject: Re: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 07, 2007
Why wouldn't a brass door kick plate work...Like this http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=60593-81227-C6634SR-PL-R&lpage=none Bret Smith RV-9A "Wings" Blue Ridge, GA www.FlightInnovations.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:05 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > I have found sheet brass at the local Ace hardware. They may or may not > have > some at Lowes or Home depot over in the hardware dept. I have seen some > hobbyist type material there. But generally it comes in narrower sizes as > Terry pointed out. Micro-mart comes to mind as a mail order source as > well. > Craig Smith > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Miles > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:44 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. > I > have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last > week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > jdalton77 > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I used copper - no real problems. > > It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. > > Jeff Dalton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > >> >> >> Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment >> point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? >> Thanks >> Ron >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: Ground blocks for RV's
Date: Feb 07, 2007
Don't know for sure, but I think those types of things are coated with something to help prevent tarnish. You might want to hit it a lick with a wire brush to assure good conductivity... -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bret Smith Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:30 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's Why wouldn't a brass door kick plate work...Like this http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=60593-81227-C6 634SR-PL-R&lpage=none Bret Smith RV-9A "Wings" Blue Ridge, GA www.FlightInnovations.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:05 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > I have found sheet brass at the local Ace hardware. They may or may not > have > some at Lowes or Home depot over in the hardware dept. I have seen some > hobbyist type material there. But generally it comes in narrower sizes as > Terry pointed out. Micro-mart comes to mind as a mail order source as > well. > Craig Smith > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry > Miles > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:44 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I couldn't find any brass either. I am at this point in the install too. > I > have some .06 copper bar 2" wide from a hobby store. I ordered it last > week. I plan on riveting and then sweating the tabs to the plate. > Terry > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of > jdalton77 > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > > > I used copper - no real problems. > > It was hard to solder the tabs - had to use a small torch. > > Jeff Dalton > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "brownrj" <brown_rj(at)bellsouth.net> > To: > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 7:36 PM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ground blocks for RV's > > >> >> >> Is there any reason not to use copper as a ground plane or attachment >> point as opposed to the brass plate sold by B&C Specialties? >> Thanks >> Ron >> > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: tail mounted camera
Date: Feb 07, 2007
There are a lot of cameras suitable, depending on the amount of control/resolution/color/light sensitivity. What field of view do you want, or zoom? How about adjustable iris? I could send you a Bookmark file of all of the camera suppliers I have looked into. It's quite a shopping task to sort through something to fit your specifics. Watch bargain electronic websites, and surplus electronics places to get a sale on a cheap personal DVR. The USB web cams will be all pretty poor in quality, and the ones that have better resolution will cost as much as a do it yourself camera/PDVR. I have a Mustek Pdvr that uses SD cards, so your capacity is whatever you slip in. the screen is pretty small, but the whole thing is little larger than a pack of smokes. The newer model is bigger and probably better in technology. The lip-stick style cameras generally need an external 12v PS. Let me know if you want the bookmarks. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism 2
Gaye and Vaughn wrote: > > > Dean is entirely correct in what he says. As a long time shooter and > motorcyclist, I can attest to the fact that your elected > representatives have to be contacted often, or they will walk all over > your rights. We, as aviators, are a small minority. By the use of > letters, phone and email, we can appear to be a much larger group. > Why? Because few of the larger majorities lack the passsion to expend > the energy required to be heard effectively. > > Moral of story, step on them or they will step on you. > I think that is the saddest statement I've read. That moral, I believe, is the very heart of the problem. Everyone is running around trying to step on each other. No one cares about individual liberties. No one cares about personal responsibilities. And reasonable rules that enable us all to live peacefully together as informed citizens are ignored. Meanwhile, the politicos are busy trying to show that they're doing "the people's business" and protecting us all from the latest trumped up scare mainly so they can solidify their own power base. It's much easier to pander to base greed with "they're going to take your social security" or "they're going to raise your taxes" while . There are so many issues that should be ignored by the government, or simply require the publication of relevant information. Smoking -- Why must it be banned in restaurants (ie, the government decides if it will be allowed)? Personally, I can't stand to be near someone smoking while at try to eat or drink. But isn't it enough to require that it be posted on the restaurants exterior sign whether they allow smoking or no? Then *I* can decide if I want be a patron of that restaurant/bar or drive to the next one. Give the information and let the people decide. Steroids in sports -- Why is this a federal issue any more than actresses getting their chests pumped full of silicone? Wouldn't it be enough to have federal researchers print any studies they've done and be through with it? If a gazillion dollar a year baseball player wants to beef up in order to get two gazillion and it willing to accept shrunken private parts, a grouchy attitude, and "bitch tits" then what business it of mine. Panel mounted GPSs -- WE HAVE NTSB REPORTS!! If planes are falling out of the sky because someone had more information than they would have otherwise, then it would be reflected in accident reports. I have yet to find, or even hear of, one single pilot or student who is excited about spending $6000 and many hours of stress and trepidation to learn to fly so that they can go kill themselves. Most that I know of spend more time studying to be safer than they do flying. How does government 'cause-I-said-so-intervention improve anything? Wouldn't safety increase much faster by facilitating communication betwee the 500,000 pilots who are trying their best to improve safety. If the panel mounted GPSs pose a problem, they will VERY quickly disappear from the scene. If they increase safety, then what's the FAA's problem? Publish the information and shut-up. Moral of the story is that the politicos response to everything is that they need more control. The argument is always that someone will break the rules and cause damage unless they take draconian measures against everyone. They, after all, are smarter than the rest of us, aren't they? It is very seldom necessary to step on another group to maintain the liberty of all. I think the moral is that we need to take the governments boots away so that they can't step on any of us. Protecting the larger majorities rights to liberties is the shortest path to protecting our own. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: tail mounted camera
Date: Feb 07, 2007
tail mounted cameraCraig Please send me the Bookmark file. TIA Carlos ----- Original Message ----- From: C Smith To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:54 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: tail mounted camera There are a lot of cameras suitable, depending on the amount of control/resolution/color/light sensitivity. What field of view do you want, or zoom? How about adjustable iris? I could send you a Bookmark file of all of the camera suppliers I have looked into. It's quite a shopping task to sort through something to fit your specifics. Watch bargain electronic websites, and surplus electronics places to get a sale on a cheap personal DVR. The USB web cams will be all pretty poor in quality, and the ones that have better resolution will cost as much as a do it yourself camera/PDVR. I have a Mustek Pdvr that uses SD cards, so your capacity is whatever you slip in. the screen is pretty small, but the whole thing is little larger than a pack of smokes. The newer model is bigger and probably better in technology. The lip-stick style cameras generally need an external 12v PS. Let me know if you want the bookmarks. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism 2
Date: Feb 07, 2007
The only group that I'm suggesting needs stepping on is the politicians. Vaughn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:44 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aviation Activism 2 > > > Gaye and Vaughn wrote: > >> >> >> Dean is entirely correct in what he says. As a long time shooter and >> motorcyclist, I can attest to the fact that your elected representatives >> have to be contacted often, or they will walk all over your rights. We, >> as aviators, are a small minority. By the use of letters, phone and >> email, we can appear to be a much larger group. Why? Because few of the >> larger majorities lack the passsion to expend the energy required to be >> heard effectively. >> >> Moral of story, step on them or they will step on you. >> > > I think that is the saddest statement I've read. That moral, I believe, > is the very heart of the problem. Everyone is running around trying to > step on each other. No one cares about individual liberties. No one > cares about personal responsibilities. And reasonable rules that enable > us all to live peacefully together as informed citizens are ignored. > Meanwhile, the politicos are busy trying to show that they're doing "the > people's business" and protecting us all from the latest trumped up scare > mainly so they can solidify their own power base. It's much easier to > pander to base greed with "they're going to take your social security" or > "they're going to raise your taxes" while . There are so many issues that > should be ignored by the government, or simply require the publication of > relevant information. > > Smoking -- Why must it be banned in restaurants (ie, the government > decides if it will be allowed)? Personally, I can't stand to be near > someone smoking while at try to eat or drink. But isn't it enough to > require that it be posted on the restaurants exterior sign whether they > allow smoking or no? Then *I* can decide if I want be a patron of that > restaurant/bar or drive to the next one. Give the information and let the > people decide. > > Steroids in sports -- Why is this a federal issue any more than actresses > getting their chests pumped full of silicone? Wouldn't it be enough to > have federal researchers print any studies they've done and be through > with it? If a gazillion dollar a year baseball player wants to beef up in > order to get two gazillion and it willing to accept shrunken private > parts, a grouchy attitude, and "bitch tits" then what business it of mine. > > Panel mounted GPSs -- WE HAVE NTSB REPORTS!! If planes are falling out of > the sky because someone had more information than they would have > otherwise, then it would be reflected in accident reports. I have yet to > find, or even hear of, one single pilot or student who is excited about > spending $6000 and many hours of stress and trepidation to learn to fly so > that they can go kill themselves. Most that I know of spend more time > studying to be safer than they do flying. How does government > 'cause-I-said-so-intervention improve anything? Wouldn't safety increase > much faster by facilitating communication betwee the 500,000 pilots who > are trying their best to improve safety. If the panel mounted GPSs pose a > problem, they will VERY quickly disappear from the scene. If they > increase safety, then what's the FAA's problem? Publish the information > and shut-up. > > Moral of the story is that the politicos response to everything is that > they need more control. The argument is always that someone will break > the rules and cause damage unless they take draconian measures against > everyone. They, after all, are smarter than the rest of us, aren't they? > It is very seldom necessary to step on another group to maintain the > liberty of all. I think the moral is that we need to take the governments > boots away so that they can't step on any of us. Protecting the larger > majorities rights to liberties is the shortest path to protecting our own. > > -- > ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | > ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | > o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Aviation Activism 2
Gaye and Vaughn wrote: > > > The only group that I'm suggesting needs stepping on is the politicians. > > Vaughn > Aah! Thank you for the clarification. That one is very, VERY true. Please also note that it's not just the President and Congress that needs to be reigned in. The homeowner association in my neighborhood has been running for 20yrs with no problems as a collective of mostly cooperative neighbors. The new busybody board decides to raise some dust by raising the issue that the association (ie, the board) should have the power to levy liens against whomsoever they will. The measure is pretty much defeated until a new neighbor moves in several months later and is convinced to vote for the measure. I thought the thing was over with, and didn't have a clue until it was over. There's a section in one of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" books where it is explained that normal people can never win these fights. The problem is that we don't care. We're so busy living our lives and pursuing happiness that we don't have time to order the affairs of other people. The only way for us to win is to become the people we're trying to defeat. The only way to break the horns of the dilema is to toss the ring back into the volcano that created it (Read "Lord of the Rings". Hobbits are common people. The Ring is political power.) Our Constitution was supposed to reign in the power mongering, but that hasn't worked very well. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: tail mounted camera
ditto on the bookmarks. -Bill B On 2/7/07, C Smith wrote: > > > There are a lot of cameras suitable, depending on the amount of > control/resolution/color/light sensitivity. What field of view do you want, > or zoom? How about adjustable iris? I could send you a Bookmark file of all > of the camera suppliers I have looked into. It's quite a shopping task to > sort through something to fit your specifics. Watch bargain electronic > websites, and surplus electronics places to get a sale on a cheap personal > DVR. The USB web cams will be all pretty poor in quality, and the ones that > have better resolution will cost as much as a do it yourself camera/PDVR. I > have a Mustek Pdvr that uses SD cards, so your capacity is whatever you slip > in. the screen is pretty small, but the whole thing is little larger than a > pack of smokes. The newer model is bigger and probably better in technology. > The lip-stick style cameras generally need an external 12v PS. > > Let me know if you want the bookmarks. > > Craig Smith > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: tail mounted camera
I'd like a copy also Craig. Thanks, Jim Streit C Smith wrote: > > There are a lot of cameras suitable, depending on the amount of > control/resolution/color/light sensitivity. What field of view do you > want, or zoom? How about adjustable iris? I could send you a Bookmark > file of all of the camera suppliers I have looked into. It's quite a > shopping task to sort through something to fit your specifics. Watch > bargain electronic websites, and surplus electronics places to get a > sale on a cheap personal DVR. The USB web cams will be all pretty poor > in quality, and the ones that have better resolution will cost as much > as a do it yourself camera/PDVR. I have a Mustek Pdvr that uses SD > cards, so your capacity is whatever you slip in. the s > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd(at)volcano.net>
Subject: Antenna in Wingtip
Date: Feb 07, 2007
Greetings, I have what sounds like a similar antenna embedded in my fiberglass wingtip in an otherwise carbon fiber airplane (Lancair Legacy). The kit came with the antenna already installed. I have the same two threaded studs sticking up inside the wingtip. I believe the antenna is a "Bob Archer" style antenna that does not require a ground plane, sort of like these: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas.php I didn't think polarity mattered when I connected the coax to the studs, but I get a really loud "white noise" sound when I try to listen to a VOR identifier. I've just hooked up the audio panel and haven't had the time to troubleshoot it yet. Maybe I'll snake my hand back in there and swap the two connections and see if that helps. Best, Dennis Johnson First engine start yesterday! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna in Wingtip
If it is a Bob Archer wingtip antenna, the center conductor and braid definitely have specific places to go. The center conductor feeds the longer piece, and the braid the shorter one. Check the installation diagram. Dave Morris At 06:56 PM 2/7/2007, you wrote: >Greetings, > >I have what sounds like a similar antenna embedded in my fiberglass >wingtip in an otherwise carbon fiber airplane (Lancair Legacy). The >kit came with the antenna already installed. I have the same two >threaded studs sticking up inside the wingtip. I believe the >antenna is a "Bob Archer" style antenna that does not require a >ground plane, sort of like these: > ><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas.php>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas.php > >I didn't think polarity mattered when I connected the coax to the >studs, but I get a really loud "white noise" sound when I try to >listen to a VOR identifier. I've just hooked up the audio panel and >haven't had the time to troubleshoot it yet. Maybe I'll snake my >hand back in there and swap the two connections and see if that helps. > >Best, >Dennis Johnson >First engine start yesterday! > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna in Wingtip
Date: Feb 07, 2007
On 7 Feb 2007, at 19:56, Dennis Johnson wrote: > Greetings, > > I have what sounds like a similar antenna embedded in my fiberglass > wingtip in an otherwise carbon fiber airplane (Lancair Legacy). > The kit came with the antenna already installed. I have the same > two threaded studs sticking up inside the wingtip. I believe the > antenna is a "Bob Archer" style antenna that does not require a > ground plane, sort of like these: > > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas.php > The ACS page says that the antennae are designed to be installed in "metal or other conductive material aircraft". I wonder if there is a copper strip ground plane embedded in the layups where the inboard end of the antenna is attached. Or, maybe, it is a different antenna. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Greely, ON http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 07, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna in Wingtip
It doesn't use a ground plane. It's more like a modified J-pole I think. Dave Morris At 08:29 PM 2/7/2007, you wrote: > >On 7 Feb 2007, at 19:56, Dennis Johnson wrote: > >>Greetings, >> >>I have what sounds like a similar antenna embedded in my fiberglass >>wingtip in an otherwise carbon fiber airplane (Lancair Legacy). >>The kit came with the antenna already installed. I have the same >>two threaded studs sticking up inside the wingtip. I believe the >>antenna is a "Bob Archer" style antenna that does not require a >>ground plane, sort of like these: >> >>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/archer_antennas.php > >The ACS page says that the antennae are designed to be installed in >"metal or other conductive material aircraft". I wonder if there is >a copper strip ground plane embedded in the layups where the inboard >end of the antenna is attached. Or, maybe, it is a different antenna. > >Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) >Greely, ON >http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2007
From: Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com>
Subject: Antenna Polarity??
OK, here is an update... This plane is a Lancair Legacy, so I got in touch with the Lancair avionics department. They were able to help me to the point where I was able to determine which on the two screws should be attached to the center conductor and which to the shield. So, initial polarization question/problem solved. However,... I noticed in their parts catalog that this antenna is designed (as Bob remarked) for install in a metal aircraft (Vans RV ??) However,... This antenna was glassed in by the Lancair factory when the wing parts were built, so it was provided by Lancair???? DUH! WHY?? The avionics guy I talked with assured me that the antenna works fine in the Legacy.... I assume that if I can figure out some way to get the SWR checked on the antenna and if the SWR is below 2.0, it will work ok?? Thanks for the assistance. Bill B From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Polarity?? > > > > > >Hmmm...I don't think that I made myself clear. This antenna is glassed in > >the end of the fiberglas wing. It is not connected to anything. From the > >antenna's perspective, it is floating in space. I am attempting to attach > >the coax to the antenna. All I have available are the two screws sticking > >up to attach the coax. Is there any way that I can determine which of the > >two screws should have the center conductor and which should have the shield? Hmmmm . . . that antenna was designed to work against metalic structure of a metal wing for "ground". Is there even a metal sheet over the tip closeout rib? If there's no metal used to provide the other "half" of the antenna, then you're going to realize only a small fraction of the antenna's already compromised performance by tucking it under a tip fairing? How did this particular antenna find its way onto the airplane? It was originally designed for RVs and could probably be adapted to other metal wing aircraft with plastic tip fairings. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Antenna Polarity??
I just read something by Bob Archer that said he sold more of his wingtip antennas to Lancair owners than to any other airplane. The document is undated (a horrible problem with most Internet documents) and is here: http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/tvrvbg/Tip6a.doc Dave Morris At 07:43 AM 2/8/2007, you wrote: > > >OK, here is an update... >This plane is a Lancair Legacy, so I got in touch with the Lancair >avionics department. They were able to help me to the point where I >was able to determine which on the two screws should be attached to >the center conductor and which to the shield. So, initial >polarization question/problem solved. >However,... >I noticed in their parts catalog that this antenna is designed (as >Bob remarked) for install in a metal aircraft (Vans RV ??) >However,... >This antenna was glassed in by the Lancair factory when the wing >parts were built, so it was provided by Lancair???? DUH! WHY?? >The avionics guy I talked with assured me that the antenna works >fine in the Legacy.... >I assume that if I can figure out some way to get the SWR checked on >the antenna and if the SWR is below 2.0, it will work ok?? > >Thanks for the assistance. > >Bill B > > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Polarity?? > > > > > > > > > > > >Hmmm...I don't think that I made myself clear. This antenna is glassed in > > >the end of the fiberglas wing. It is not connected to anything. From the > > >antenna's perspective, it is floating in space. I am attempting to attach > > >the coax to the antenna. All I have available are the two screws sticking > > >up to attach the coax. Is there any way that I can determine which of the > > >two screws should have the center conductor and which should > have the shield? > > Hmmmm . . . that antenna was designed to work against > metalic structure of a metal wing for "ground". Is there > even a metal sheet over the tip closeout rib? If there's > no metal used to provide the other "half" of the antenna, > then you're going to realize only a small fraction of > the antenna's already compromised performance by tucking > it under a tip fairing? > > How did this particular antenna find its way onto the > airplane? It was originally designed for RVs and could > probably be adapted to other metal wing aircraft with > plastic tip fairings. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry L. Tompkins, P.E." <tompkinsl(at)integra.net>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
Date: Feb 08, 2007
"Ignorance can be fixed, stupid is forever." I don't remember the author. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Sorry!!
From: lee.logan(at)gulfstream.com
Date: Feb 08, 2007
Sorry, I keep forgetting about no pix on the Matronics list. I'm on too many lists!! Email me offline and I'll send them to anyone who wants a look... Lee... Lee Logan Government Programs and Sales Support Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Savannah, Georgia This e-mail message, including all attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain legally privileged and confidential information. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have either received this message in error or through interception, and that any review, use, distribution, copying or disclosure of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and is subject to criminal and civil penalties. All personal messages express solely the sender's views and not those of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott(at)cox.net>
Subject: Substituting fastons for connectors?
Date: Feb 08, 2007
Folks: I have an ARC 459 transponder which uses a backplane connector which is no apparently longer made, and for which sockets are only available through a few sources at high cost. It appears to me that the .110 x .020 size faston receptacles would fit quite nicely on the existing pins. I would like to wire a DB-25 connector to the transponder using such fastons to make wiring it into rest of the plane a snap. Anyone ever tried this before? If acceptable, the faston approach should also work nicely for the 359 and thereby open up a good source of inexpensive used transponders. (I previously had a response suggesting that I wire the d-subconnector directly to the transponder circuit board. This seems less desirable to me.) Thanks, Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ N601GE (reserved) 601XL/TD/QB, Corvair, building... ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2007
From: Guy Buchanan <bnn(at)nethere.com>
Subject: Rotax 582 Start Current
The short question is: What is the approximate start current for a Rotax 582? Why do I ask? Because today I fried the shunt on my 30A ammeter. This shunt operates in line between the battery and starter. I've noticed lately that starting has been slower and I attributed it to lower battery capacity. Today I checked the voltage at 13.1V, then tried starting. I got three very slow turn-overs followed by a click, then nothing. It turns out the click was the shunt separating. I've got probably 100 starts on this system over the last year. I did a resistance check of the starter across the "big" wires and got only 0.3 ohms. Is it possible the starter is shorted? How can I tell if the starter is bad? Do I dare simply attach the battery to the starter directly to see if it works? I could also simply by-pass the shunt to see if it works, then I could use the start switch. I'm concerned, however, that if the starter is shorted I could blow the battery. Is that a possibility? Thanks, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: Rotax 582 Start Current
Date: Feb 08, 2007
>From what I have read, you shouldn't run starter current through the shunt. If you want to measure current going into and out of the battery, the shunt should be installed between the battery and the alternator. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Guy Buchanan Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2007 1:04 PM rotaxengines-list(at)matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rotax 582 Start Current The short question is: What is the approximate start current for a Rotax 582? Why do I ask? Because today I fried the shunt on my 30A ammeter. This shunt operates in line between the battery and starter. I've noticed lately that starting has been slower and I attributed it to lower battery capacity. Today I checked the voltage at 13.1V, then tried starting. I got three very slow turn-overs followed by a click, then nothing. It turns out the click was the shunt separating. I've got probably 100 starts on this system over the last year. I did a resistance check of the starter across the "big" wires and got only 0.3 ohms. Is it possible the starter is shorted? How can I tell if the starter is bad? Do I dare simply attach the battery to the starter directly to see if it works? I could also simply by-pass the shunt to see if it works, then I could use the start switch. I'm concerned, however, that if the starter is shorted I could blow the battery. Is that a possibility? Thanks, Guy Buchanan K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2007
From: Dave N6030X <N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com>
Subject: Re: Rotax 582 Start Current
1. The shunt shouldn't be between the battery and starter. That will fry the shunt for sure. You're talking hundreds of amps on the starter. I'm surprised the shunt lasted this long. Did your ammeter always get pegged when you cranked the starter? The shunt should be either between the battery and the bus if you want to monitor your loads in an alternator-out situation, or the alternator and bus if you want to monitor the loads during normal operation. 2. The 0.3 ohms in the starter is probably correct or even high, because the starter draws a LOT of current. Amps = Voltage / Resistance. Dave Morris At 01:04 PM 2/8/2007, you wrote: > >The short question is: What is the approximate start current for a Rotax 582? > >Why do I ask? Because today I fried the shunt on my 30A ammeter. >This shunt operates in line between the battery and starter. > >I've noticed lately that starting has been slower and I attributed >it to lower battery capacity. Today I checked the voltage at 13.1V, >then tried starting. I got three very slow turn-overs followed by a >click, then nothing. It turns out the click was the shunt >separating. I've got probably 100 starts on this system over the >last year. I did a resistance check of the starter across the "big" >wires and got only 0.3 ohms. Is it possible the starter is shorted? >How can I tell if the starter is bad? Do I dare simply attach the >battery to the starter directly to see if it works? I could also >simply by-pass the shunt to see if it works, then I could use the >start switch. I'm concerned, however, that if the starter is shorted >I could blow the battery. Is that a possibility? > >Thanks, > > >Guy Buchanan >K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TSaccio(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 2007
Subject: (no subject)
My names Tom Saccio and I have a question about antennas. When my panel was built the Avionics shop ran RG 400 cable from the instrument panel. All of the antennas that I installed are RG 58. The leads coming from the panel are only about 3' long. My question is do I run the RG 58 to the panel and connect to the short RG 400 or can I add on to the RG 400 and connect them to the RG 58 in the rear of the plane as I would like to do. The RG 58 that I hooked up is long enough to reach the panel without additional connectors. Any responses to this question would be greatly appreciated. The plane that this is going in is a Seawind. Thank you, Tom Saccio _tsaccio(at)aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio(at)aol.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: TSaccio(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 08, 2007
Subject: Antennas
My names Tom Saccio and I have a question about antennas. When my panel was built the Avionics shop ran RG 400 cable from the instrument panel. All of the antennas that I installed are RG 58. The leads coming from the panel are only about 3' long. My question is do I run the RG 58 to the panel and connect to the short RG 400 or can I add on to the RG 400 and connect them to the RG 58 in the rear of the plane as I would like to do. The RG 58 that I hooked up is long enough to reach the panel without additional connectors. Any responses to this question would be greatly appreciated. The plane that this is going in is a Seawind. Thank you, Tom Saccio _tsaccio(at)aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio(at)aol.com) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2007
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Rotax 582 Start Current
Dave N6030X a crit : > 2. The 0.3 ohms in the starter is probably correct or even high, > because the starter draws a LOT of current. Amps = Voltage / Resistance. > FWIW, a buddy measured a 110 amp starting current, with a peak at 130 amps on his Rotax 912S. Best regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 08, 2007
Subject: Re: (no subject)
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
RG58 and RG400 can be used interchangeably in this application. RG400 is slightly lower loss (more efficient) at higher frequency, and has better thermal characteristics (only important when running it through the engine compartment). If you already have enough RG58 to reach the panel, use that. You can either remove the existing RG400 pieces or add couplings to connect the RG58 to the RG400. The workmanship used in installing the connectors is more important than having RG400 vs. RG58. Regards, Matt- > My names Tom Saccio and I have a question about antennas. When my panel > was > built the Avionics shop ran RG 400 cable from the instrument panel. All of > the > antennas that I installed are RG 58. The leads coming from the panel are > only about 3' long. My question is do I run the RG 58 to the panel and > connect > to the short RG 400 or can I add on to the RG 400 and connect them to > the RG > 58 in the rear of the plane as I would like to do. The RG 58 that I > hooked up > is long enough to reach the panel without additional connectors. Any > responses to this question would be greatly appreciated. The plane that > this is > going in is a Seawind. > > Thank you, > Tom Saccio > _tsaccio(at)aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio(at)aol.com) > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler(at)alltel.net>
Subject: ELT Antenna
Date: Feb 08, 2007
What is your current opinion of where the ELT antenna should be installed on an RV-4? My ACK ELT is mounted on the upper shelf of the baggage compartment. I am leaning toward mounting the antenna on the topside of the turtle deck right behind the canopy. If you have a snappy location that is better concealed I would like to know. The airplane is finished and this is one of the small details I have left to complete. Also, what does the large molded rubber base do on the ELT antenna? Is it a strain relief to keep the antenna from snapping off in the breeze at 200+ MPH? Does it cover something up like a coil or what ever? I want to be able to trim this rubber off so I can possibly mount the antenna inside the cabin. However I do not want to destroy the antenna by sawing off something important. Jerry Isler Donalsonville, GA RV4 N455J Cessna C140A N9641A ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Rotax Rectifier Wiring
From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch>
Date: Feb 09, 2007
Hello The Rotax-Installation Manual, engine electric, 17-1, says: "Attention: Do not interupt circuit between Terminal C and +B of rectifier-regulator during engine run, as otherwise charging will stop." What does that mean? Can I switch of the rectifier/regulator i.e. charging process with interupt of C/+B (similar to switching of the alternator field switch)? Martin Zodiac XL -------- Martin Pohl Zodiac XL QBK 8645 Jona, Switzerland www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93916#93916 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Antenna Polarity??
Date: Feb 09, 2007
Bill, I have the same setup in my Lancair Legacy and it works perfectly. I put a ramp test set on it in the aircraft when I first certified and it past the db and sqitter test. I do remember that the antenna must be connected correctly. The connections are not interchangeable. Mike L Lancair Legacy Kitfox IV TS-11 Iskra A-320 -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:43 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Polarity?? OK, here is an update... This plane is a Lancair Legacy, so I got in touch with the Lancair avionics department. They were able to help me to the point where I was able to determine which on the two screws should be attached to the center conductor and which to the shield. So, initial polarization question/problem solved. However,... I noticed in their parts catalog that this antenna is designed (as Bob remarked) for install in a metal aircraft (Vans RV ??) However,... This antenna was glassed in by the Lancair factory when the wing parts were built, so it was provided by Lancair???? DUH! WHY?? The avionics guy I talked with assured me that the antenna works fine in the Legacy.... I assume that if I can figure out some way to get the SWR checked on the antenna and if the SWR is below 2.0, it will work ok?? Thanks for the assistance. Bill B From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Polarity?? > > > > > >Hmmm...I don't think that I made myself clear. This antenna is glassed in > >the end of the fiberglas wing. It is not connected to anything. From the > >antenna's perspective, it is floating in space. I am attempting to attach > >the coax to the antenna. All I have available are the two screws sticking > >up to attach the coax. Is there any way that I can determine which of the > >two screws should have the center conductor and which should have the shield? Hmmmm . . . that antenna was designed to work against metalic structure of a metal wing for "ground". Is there even a metal sheet over the tip closeout rib? If there's no metal used to provide the other "half" of the antenna, then you're going to realize only a small fraction of the antenna's already compromised performance by tucking it under a tip fairing? How did this particular antenna find its way onto the airplane? It was originally designed for RVs and could probably be adapted to other metal wing aircraft with plastic tip fairings. Bob . . . -- 2/8/2007 -- 2/8/2007 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gaye and Vaughn" <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax Rectifier Wiring
Date: Feb 09, 2007
Martin, Based on what I've heard from Europa builders before me, the regulater will destruct if you disconnect the "C" lead from the "B+" and "R" leads. It looks to me like drawing Z-16 would do that, although I am dangerously ignorant when it comes to electronics. I am waiting to speak to the Lockwood engineers before I proceed with my schematics. If I was you, I would not proceed until I fully understood the whats and whys of this issue. That is why I can sign off with..... Confused enough to consider selling the kit Vaughn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Pohl" <mpohl(at)pohltec.ch> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 9:53 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rotax Rectifier Wiring > > Hello > > The Rotax-Installation Manual, engine electric, 17-1, says: "Attention: Do > not interupt circuit between Terminal C and +B of rectifier-regulator > during engine run, as otherwise charging will stop." > > What does that mean? Can I switch of the rectifier/regulator i.e. charging > process with interupt of C/+B (similar to switching of the alternator > field switch)? > > Martin > Zodiac XL > > -------- > Martin Pohl > Zodiac XL QBK > 8645 Jona, Switzerland > www.pohltec.ch/ZodiacXL > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=93916#93916 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: tail mounted camera
Date: Feb 09, 2007
For those looking at cameras and in plane video recording etc, http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=pyrmv7sc <http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=pyrmv7sc&svbname=683> &svbname=683 has 9" pull down monitor for $115 and a 7.2" for $70. They also have a wide selection of various bullet/lipstick cams. I hope that now one considers this SPAM, I'm trying to help with a posters question. I'm not saying they have the lowest prices, You'll have to comparison shop on your own, but at first glance these 2 looked like a reasonable deal, and a good solution for those with special video airplane projects. It didn't look like they had a PDVR, but sometimes the categories things get placed under in retail vendors are a little tricky to figure, so do your own thorough search. Craig Smith ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Sierra Electrical Problem
Date: Feb 10, 2007
2/10/2007 Hello Bob Nuckolls, A tardy "thank you" for your great response to my request for help on this subject -- I wanted to wait until the FBO had finished fumbling around trying to solve the problem. I won't bore you with the sad, gory FBO effort details, but they involve no apparent trouble shooting, eventually ordering three different relays, making a $450 twelve volt relay non returnable by mistakenly installing it and applying 24 volts to it, and so on. You are correct in your assessment of relay type -- an Eaton (Cutler Hammer) 6041H200 was finally installed. Thanks to your circuit diagram the Sierra owner and I now understand how the circuit is supposed to work. It is still not clear to us how just replacing the starter relay could possibly solve the problem of intermittent cyclic starter activation when just the battery master switch is closed. It appears that the only source of electricity to close the starter relay must come from the ignition and start switch which was in the off position and not touched. We won't get our hands on the airplane until Monday to examine the FBO efforts. Thanks again for your help. OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge. PS: One benefit to come from this is the owner deciding that purchasing the manuals to go with his airplane is a good thing to do. ----------------- FROM BOB NUCKOLLS ------------------ > This may be your lucky day. The ONLY TC aircraft wring diagrams > book I possess is for the Sundowner/Sierra series aircraft. I've > scanned the DC power, Ignition and Starter pages and posted > at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/BE23-24_Bat_Ign_Strtr.pdf > > I'd put a voltmeter on the hot coil terminal of K102 contactor > and see if there's a stray voltage causing the contactor to > close intermittently. > > I'd have to go check the data on that contactor but I think > it's a cutler-hammer 6041H series device which you can probably > find off the shelf for a lot less. Send me a photo of the part > and I can tell you more. > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Using D-Sub extract tool
Just finished up a piece that had been languishing on my hard drive for more months than I'd like to admit. The following shop notes http://aeroelectric.com/articles/D-Sub_Pin/Pin-Extraction.html . . . has been added to the What's New and Articles index of the website. Critical review and proof-readers welcome. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sierra Electrical Problem
> >2/10/2007 > >Hello Bob Nuckolls, A tardy "thank you" for your great response to my >request for help on this subject -- I wanted to wait until the FBO had >finished fumbling around trying to solve the problem. > >I won't bore you with the sad, gory FBO effort details, but they involve >no apparent trouble shooting, eventually ordering three different relays, >making a $450 twelve volt relay non returnable by mistakenly installing it >and applying 24 volts to it, and so on. > >You are correct in your assessment of relay type -- an Eaton (Cutler >Hammer) 6041H200 was finally installed. > >Thanks to your circuit diagram the Sierra owner and I now understand how >the circuit is supposed to work. It is still not clear to us how just >replacing the starter relay could possibly solve the problem of >intermittent cyclic starter activation when just the battery master switch >is closed. It appears that the only source of electricity to close the >starter relay must come from the ignition and start switch which was in >the off position and not touched. > >We won't get our hands on the airplane until Monday to examine the FBO >efforts. Thanks again for your help. I'm pleased that the story has a pleasant if not thrifty ending. If you could retrieve the old contactor, I'd REALLY like to do a tear-down inspection. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 10, 2007
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: Rotax Rectifier Wiring
> > >Martin, > >Based on what I've heard from Europa builders before me, the regulater >will destruct if you disconnect the "C" lead from the "B+" and "R" leads. >It looks to me like drawing Z-16 would do that, although I am dangerously >ignorant when it comes to electronics. I am waiting to speak to the >Lockwood engineers before I proceed with my schematics. If I was you, I >would not proceed until I fully understood the whats and whys of this >issue. That is why I can sign off with..... > >Confused enough to consider selling the kit This is one of several reasons why I like to get a real schematic of the device being discussed. This is especially important when you have conflicting anecdotal data. One of my favorite minor philosophers once offered: "There are no contradictions. When you believe you've encountered a contradiction, examine your premises. You will discover that one of them is wrong." >>The Rotax-Installation Manual, engine electric, 17-1, says: "Attention: >>Do not interupt circuit between Terminal C and +B of rectifier-regulator >>during engine run, as otherwise charging will stop." I'll suggest it means exactly what it says. Unless C is connected, the regulator shuts down. >>What does that mean? Can I switch of the rectifier/regulator i.e. >>charging process with interupt of C/+B (similar to switching of the >>alternator field switch)? Some time ago, one of the readers on the List supplied me with the following schematic: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/regul_912.jpg An examination of the circuit reveals that terminal "C" is the voltage sense lead for the regulator. Further, it supplies power necessary to power up the regulator's control circuits. Removal of power from this lead will cause the system to simply shut down. Figure Z-16 utilized terminal C as a shutdown or control pin for about ten years with no reported difficulties. More recently (June of last year) we modified Z-16 to move the the control relay to the AC side of the regulator rectifier as shown in the latest revision to Appendiz Z at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf

February 02, 2007 - February 10, 2007

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gq