AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-in
March 10, 2009 - March 28, 2009
Good Morning Larry,
I mentioned this yesterday, but if I may repeat, why would anyone want a
marker beacon receiver?
The only approach I can think of that uses a marker beacon to supply a lower
MDA is the LOC-D at KSEE, Gillespie Field, San Diego. The fan marker there
is called GRIGG and it has been out of service awaiting repair parts for
several years. Those who have an IFR legal GPS can use it to locate the GRIGG
intersection in lieu of the failed fan marker.
Even the KSEE LOC-D approach could be executed without the marker or a means
of determining it's position, but it would be to a higher MDA
If you have any GPS, even a VFR one, it can supply situational awareness
much better than a marker. An IFR approved GPS with a current database, can be
legally used in lieu of any still functioning marker beacon.
The FAA removed the marker beacon as a required portion of the ILS several
years ago. They are slowly being phased out.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/10/2009 9:22:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
N205EN(at)gmail.com writes:
Tim,
Why don't you put the marker beacon antenna in the wing tip, just use a
40" piece of wire, and then mount the ADS-B antenna in the current
marker beacon location.
Larry Rosen
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Your favorite cover? |
Here's some options based on pictures so kindly
submitted to date:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Covers/
I guess we can make this a popularity contest. Kindly
mail your votes directly to me at:
mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
so as to not clutter up the archives . . .
Any additional pictures are welcome too!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Your favorite cover? |
Here's some options based on pictures so kindly
submitted to date:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Covers/
I guess we can make this a popularity contest. Kindly
mail your votes directly to me at:
mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
so as to not clutter up the archives . . .
Any additional pictures are welcome too!
Bob . . .
Since there are so many excellent pictures, perhaps you
might consider a collage of them all.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Wingtip Nav question |
At the very least you will probably want to mark your PS Engineering MB lights
as INOP if you disconnect your MB antenna. This is the main reason I would
leave something. Another thing I have heard others do (mine is that 40" wire
in the tip) is to put a 40" wire in the bottom of the cowl.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wingtip Nav question
I hear ya Bob...didn't mean to ignore it. You make a good point.
The thing I can't answer is....if I have a MB receiver and
I don't put an antenna of some sort on it, could that cause
any potential problems. Probably not, but, I figure I've
already got the antenna, and the wire run, and so I may
as well terminate it somewhere. Also, even though you don't
need it to get lower minimums, it still IS an audible source
of knowing when you pass certain points, so although it has
little value, it isn't really worthless. If I were starting
over I'd probably still wire it in to a wingtip or something,
just to terminate it since I have the receiver. But, it
certainly is one of the things I'd miss the least in the panel.
Probably even less than an ADF. :)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Larry,
>
> I mentioned this yesterday, but if I may repeat, why would anyone want a
> marker beacon receiver?
>
> The only approach I can think of that uses a marker beacon to supply a
> lower MDA is the LOC-D at KSEE, Gillespie Field, San Diego. The fan
> marker there is called GRIGG and it has been out of service awaiting
> repair parts for several years. Those who have an IFR legal GPS can use
> it to locate the GRIGG intersection in lieu of the failed fan marker.
>
> Even the KSEE LOC-D approach could be executed without the marker or a
> means of determining it's position, but it would be to a higher MDA
>
> If you have any GPS, even a VFR one, it can supply situational awareness
> much better than a marker. An IFR approved GPS with a current database,
> can be legally used in lieu of any still functioning marker beacon.
>
> The FAA removed the marker beacon as a required portion of the ILS
> several years ago. They are slowly being phased out.
>
> Happy Skies
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> 628 West 86th Street
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>
> In a message dated 3/10/2009 9:22:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> N205EN(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> Tim,
> Why don't you put the marker beacon antenna in the wing tip, just use a
> 40" piece of wire, and then mount the ADS-B antenna in the current
> marker beacon location.
>
> Larry Rosen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Wingtip Nav question |
Or on the wing to fuselage lower fairing.
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of RV
>>>Builder (Michael Sausen)
>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 7:23 AM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wingtip Nav question
>>>
>>>
>>>(Michael Sausen)"
>>>
>>> At the very least you will probably want to mark your PS
>>>Engineering MB lights as INOP if you disconnect your MB
>>>antenna. This is the main reason I would leave something.
>>>Another thing I have heard others do (mine is that 40" wire
>>>in the tip) is to put a 40" wire in the bottom of the cowl.
>>>
>>>Michael
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
>>>Behalf Of Tim Olson
>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:10 PM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wingtip Nav question
>>>
>>>
>>>I hear ya Bob...didn't mean to ignore it. You make a good point.
>>>The thing I can't answer is....if I have a MB receiver and
>>>I don't put an antenna of some sort on it, could that cause
>>>any potential problems. Probably not, but, I figure I've
>>>already got the antenna, and the wire run, and so I may
>>>as well terminate it somewhere. Also, even though you don't
>>>need it to get lower minimums, it still IS an audible source
>>>of knowing when you pass certain points, so although it has
>>>little value, it isn't really worthless. If I were starting
>>>over I'd probably still wire it in to a wingtip or something,
>>>just to terminate it since I have the receiver. But, it
>>>certainly is one of the things I'd miss the least in the panel.
>>>Probably even less than an ADF. :)
>>>
>>>Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
>>>
>>>
>>>BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>> Good Morning Larry,
>>>>
>>>> I mentioned this yesterday, but if I may repeat, why would
>>>anyone want a
>>>> marker beacon receiver?
>>>>
>>>> The only approach I can think of that uses a marker beacon
>>>to supply a
>>>> lower MDA is the LOC-D at KSEE, Gillespie Field, San
>>>Diego. The fan
>>>> marker there is called GRIGG and it has been out of
>>>service awaiting
>>>> repair parts for several years. Those who have an IFR
>>>legal GPS can use
>>>> it to locate the GRIGG intersection in lieu of the failed
>>>fan marker.
>>>>
>>>> Even the KSEE LOC-D approach could be executed without the
>>>marker or a
>>>> means of determining it's position, but it would be to a higher MDA
>>>>
>>>> If you have any GPS, even a VFR one, it can supply
>>>situational awareness
>>>> much better than a marker. An IFR approved GPS with a
>>>current database,
>>>> can be legally used in lieu of any still functioning marker beacon.
>>>>
>>>> The FAA removed the marker beacon as a required portion of the ILS
>>>> several years ago. They are slowly being phased out.
>>>>
>>>> Happy Skies
>>>>
>>>> Old Bob
>>>> AKA
>>>> Bob Siegfried
>>>> Ancient Aviator
>>>> 628 West 86th Street
>>>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>>>> 630 985-8502
>>>> Stearman N3977A
>>>> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 3/10/2009 9:22:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>>>> N205EN(at)gmail.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> Tim,
>>>> Why don't you put the marker beacon antenna in the
>>>wing tip, just use a
>>>> 40" piece of wire, and then mount the ADS-B antenna in
>>>the current
>>>> marker beacon location.
>>>>
>>>> Larry Rosen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin weather antenna |
I have a Garmin Weather antenna for my GPSMAP 496 which I would like to
mount on top of my panel. There are two threaded holes in the back of the
antenna to be able to bolt this to the 'dash'. Does anyone know what size
screws are required to do this, I cannot seem to find any reference in my
materials about this.
Marty
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Robert Borger <rlborger(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Your favorite cover? |
Bob,
I'm afraid that I'm terribly prejudiced but I'd vote for that lovely
biplane cover. After all, there are scads of RV's out there but only
one original 1957 vintage prototype Little Toot Biplane, the winner of
so many individual awards at Oshkosh over the last 51 years.
But then Tommy Meyer, son of George Meyer who was the designer and
builder of N61G, is one of my best friends.
Bob Borger
Europa Kit #A221 N914XL, XS Mono, Intercooled 914, Airmaster C/S
http://www.europaowners.org/N914XL
Aircraft Flying!
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208
Home: 940-497-2123
Cel: 817-992-1117
On Mar 10, 2009, at 21:22, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
>
> Here's some options based on pictures so kindly
> submitted to date:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Covers/
>
> I guess we can make this a popularity contest. Kindly
> mail your votes directly to me at:
>
> mailto:nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com
>
> so as to not clutter up the archives . . .
>
> Any additional pictures are welcome too!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin weather antenna |
Marty,
Do you know if your weather antenna is the model that has the ring magnet on
the bottom...?
If so, you may not want to mount it to the panel top if you have a compass
near by.
Also, you may not want to permanently mount it in case you want to take the
antenna with you to hook up to another Garmin in a buddy's plane.
There is a procedure for removing the magnet if it is not desired. Some of
us have mounted the antenna high up and out of the way in the front window
frame area using an "L" shaped bracket. The 2 screws holding it can be
quickly removed in the case where you want to use the antenna in another
aircraft.
......2 cents of comment....
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
>
> I have a Garmin Weather antenna for my GPSMAP 496 which I would like to
> mount on top of my panel. There are two threaded holes in the back of the
> antenna to be able to bolt this to the 'dash'. Does anyone know what size
> screws are required to do this, I cannot seem to find any reference in my
> materials about this.
>
> Marty
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Little toot on your mag cover. |
At 06:36 PM 3/11/2009, you wrote:
>We appreciate your use of my fathers Little Toot on the cover
>of your magazine.
>
>As Bob Borger mentioned to you. We have larger Meg pictures if you
>care to have them.
>
>I would be honored to see N61G on your cover soon.
>Let me know what I could do to help. Sure would help the toot LSA Movement.
>
>Please consider my large library of Photo's of Little Toot.
>
>Your consideration is appreciated.
>
>If you would like to contact me.
>Here is my Phone Number 817-269-9292
>
>Tommy Meyer
Thank you so much for your offer. I wasn't planning
on a "fancy" cover for the next edition of the 'Connection
but Andy Gold at Aircraft Technical Books convinced me that
it was "necessary". That put me in a real spot. There
are so many stellar examples of the amateur built aircraft
art and science out there . . . how does one choose?
That's when I decided to let the readers pick it. I might
take the #2 and #3 votes for later editions. I'll be out
of town until next Sunday. I'll tally up all the votes
and we'll publish the results.
That sure is a cute airplane . . . looks like a blast
to fly!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Garmin weather antenna |
I have a 396 and if the antenna you're talking about is for the XM weather
I'm pretty sure that the screws are 4-40. What I did to make it easy to
remove the antenna was cut the head off the screw and then sharpen it up a
little. I then drilled holes in the top of the glareshield using the
mounted screws to mark the spot to drill and set the antenna with screws
attached into the holes. I've been using it this way for a couple of years
now and have never had a problem of the antenna coming off the glareshield
in turbulence. Oh yeah, I used as small a drill as possible so that the fit
was fairly snug.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 3:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
>
> I have a Garmin Weather antenna for my GPSMAP 496 which I would like to
> mount on top of my panel. There are two threaded holes in the back of the
> antenna to be able to bolt this to the 'dash'. Does anyone know what size
> screws are required to do this, I cannot seem to find any reference in my
> materials about this.
>
> Marty
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
08:28:00
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 10:30 PM 3/9/2009, you wrote:
>Sausen)"
>
> So here's a thought then for a potentially suitable application
> for these little monsters where there is some $value$. Ignoring
> the fact that these are surface mount creatures and a suitable and
> robust mounting mechanism would be needed, what about a scenario
> where you have a rear mounted battery and need to protect a wire in
> which a fuse would not be useable. Say if a device has a low power
> requirement but for some reason has a crowbar circuit in it like
> maybe a Lightspeed ignition. :P
>
> Like I said before, I'm not keen on using a relay as that is
> nothing more than a workaround in my mind and introduces a whole
> new failure mode plus a bunch of additional wiring. The self
> resetting nature of the Polyfuse wouldn't be a big deal as I would
> still want a master switch on each LSE. Checklist item would be
> the best solution to addressing when to reset a "blown"
> ignition. More importantly it would allow the crowbarred (is that
> a word) ignition to be reset without the need to access a
> inaccessible fuse/breaker or use a relay to shoe horn a breaker
> into an accessible location.
>
> So can someone tell me why this would not work to address the
> recent revelations around LSE's? I still would rather use a fuse
> or breaker but it seems to be as good or better than some of the
> other alternatives (big wire, relay).
I think I'm lost. How would the polyfuse facilitate
an alternative to big wires and/or relays? I don't
recall a conversation about relays except for heavy
duty alternate feed paths for the e-bus.
I'm not seeing your point about a polyfuse being
more attractive than a fuse or breaker in the
same slot. Can you enlighten me?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Let me see if I can refresh your memory. Because of the undocumented crowbar
"feature" in the LSE ignitions that came to light recently, you had suggested
using a relay to provide power to an unprotected wire in the case of a rear mounted
battery.
The concern was that the LSE could cause a trip/blow in an OV situation however
the ignition would be fine and require a reset. In a rear mounted battery
the only way to accommodate this need to reset was to put a breaker up on the
panel but this left an unprotected line from the battery to the CB. You suggested
a standard relay would be the best way to address this and I didn't like
the additional complexity in addition to replacing one potential failure mode
with another.
It seems to me that a Polyfuse would address the need to reset a nuisance trip
and allow the protection to stay back by the battery without needing to add
relays (more wires, additional failure points, and additional switches) or big
fuses/fat wires to get a CB up within arm's reach.
Michael
-----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: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:12 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses
At 10:30 PM 3/9/2009, you wrote:
>Sausen)"
>
> So here's a thought then for a potentially suitable application
> for these little monsters where there is some $value$. Ignoring
> the fact that these are surface mount creatures and a suitable and
> robust mounting mechanism would be needed, what about a scenario
> where you have a rear mounted battery and need to protect a wire in
> which a fuse would not be useable. Say if a device has a low power
> requirement but for some reason has a crowbar circuit in it like
> maybe a Lightspeed ignition. :P
>
> Like I said before, I'm not keen on using a relay as that is
> nothing more than a workaround in my mind and introduces a whole
> new failure mode plus a bunch of additional wiring. The self
> resetting nature of the Polyfuse wouldn't be a big deal as I would
> still want a master switch on each LSE. Checklist item would be
> the best solution to addressing when to reset a "blown"
> ignition. More importantly it would allow the crowbarred (is that
> a word) ignition to be reset without the need to access a
> inaccessible fuse/breaker or use a relay to shoe horn a breaker
> into an accessible location.
>
> So can someone tell me why this would not work to address the
> recent revelations around LSE's? I still would rather use a fuse
> or breaker but it seems to be as good or better than some of the
> other alternatives (big wire, relay).
I think I'm lost. How would the polyfuse facilitate
an alternative to big wires and/or relays? I don't
recall a conversation about relays except for heavy
duty alternate feed paths for the e-bus.
I'm not seeing your point about a polyfuse being
more attractive than a fuse or breaker in the
same slot. Can you enlighten me?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | FW: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/11/09 |
I appreciate the replies from David and Bill. Yes this is the XM antenna
and there is no magnet in my version of this antenna. There are two small
holes for mounting but a 4-40 cross threads in the hole after a turn to 1.5
turns. So what I need must be metric about the same size as a 4-40 in dia.
but with different TPI. I am not concerned with using this is a "buddy's"
plane at this time, but it would not be too hard to modify the mounting
later as I can get to my glare shield underside rather easy to unscrew these
little buggers.
Marty
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
I have a Garmin Weather antenna for my GPSMAP 496 which I would like to
mount on top of my panel. There are two threaded holes in the back of the
antenna to be able to bolt this to the 'dash'. Does anyone know what size
screws are required to do this, I cannot seem to find any reference in my
materials about this.
Marty
________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
Marty,
Do you know if your weather antenna is the model that has the ring magnet on
the bottom...?
If so, you may not want to mount it to the panel top if you have a compass
near by.
Also, you may not want to permanently mount it in case you want to take the
antenna with you to hook up to another Garmin in a buddy's plane. There is a
procedure for removing the magnet if it is not desired. Some of
us have mounted the antenna high up and out of the way in the front window
frame area using an "L" shaped bracket. The 2 screws holding it can be
quickly removed in the case where you want to use the antenna in another
aircraft.
......2 cents of comment....
David
________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
From: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
I have a 396 and if the antenna you're talking about is for the XM weather
I'm pretty sure that the screws are 4-40. What I did to make it easy to
remove the antenna was cut the head off the screw and then sharpen it up a
little. I then drilled holes in the top of the glareshield using the
mounted screws to mark the spot to drill and set the antenna with screws
attached into the holes. I've been using it this way for a couple of years
now and have never had a problem of the antenna coming off the glareshield
in turbulence. Oh yeah, I used as small a drill as possible so that the fit
was fairly snug.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ronburnett(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/11/09 |
Maybe you should use the famous aviation product-velcro for relative ease of operation.
Ron Burnett
RV-6A finishing H-4 Esubbie powered
---- Emrath wrote:
============
I appreciate the replies from David and Bill. Yes this is the XM antenna
and there is no magnet in my version of this antenna. There are two small
holes for mounting but a 4-40 cross threads in the hole after a turn to 1.5
turns. So what I need must be metric about the same size as a 4-40 in dia.
but with different TPI. I am not concerned with using this is a "buddy's"
plane at this time, but it would not be too hard to modify the mounting
later as I can get to my glare shield underside rather easy to unscrew these
little buggers.
Marty
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
I have a Garmin Weather antenna for my GPSMAP 496 which I would like to
mount on top of my panel. There are two threaded holes in the back of the
antenna to be able to bolt this to the 'dash'. Does anyone know what size
screws are required to do this, I cannot seem to find any reference in my
materials about this.
Marty
________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
Marty,
Do you know if your weather antenna is the model that has the ring magnet on
the bottom...?
If so, you may not want to mount it to the panel top if you have a compass
near by.
Also, you may not want to permanently mount it in case you want to take the
antenna with you to hook up to another Garmin in a buddy's plane. There is a
procedure for removing the magnet if it is not desired. Some of
us have mounted the antenna high up and out of the way in the front window
frame area using an "L" shaped bracket. The 2 screws holding it can be
quickly removed in the case where you want to use the antenna in another
aircraft.
......2 cents of comment....
David
________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
From: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
I have a 396 and if the antenna you're talking about is for the XM weather
I'm pretty sure that the screws are 4-40. What I did to make it easy to
remove the antenna was cut the head off the screw and then sharpen it up a
little. I then drilled holes in the top of the glareshield using the
mounted screws to mark the spot to drill and set the antenna with screws
attached into the holes. I've been using it this way for a couple of years
now and have never had a problem of the antenna coming off the glareshield
in turbulence. Oh yeah, I used as small a drill as possible so that the fit
was fairly snug.
Bill
Glasair SIIS-FT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FW: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/11/09 |
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
2009/3/12 Emrath
>
> There are two small
> holes for mounting but a 4-40 cross threads in the hole after a turn to 1.5
> turns.
I have a garmin GPS-12, which looks pretty similar to your XM antenna. That
uses an M3 bolt, so I'm pretty sure they'd try and keep to the same
standard.
M3 is almost the same as a UNC4-40 anyway.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder(at)yoderbuilt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FW: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/11/09 |
I just use a little hook and loop stuff. ( Velcro )
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 6:59 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: FW: AeroElectric-List Digest: 9 Msgs - 03/11/09
>
> I appreciate the replies from David and Bill. Yes this is the XM antenna
> and there is no magnet in my version of this antenna. There are two small
> holes for mounting but a 4-40 cross threads in the hole after a turn to
1.5
> turns. So what I need must be metric about the same size as a 4-40 in
dia.
> but with different TPI. I am not concerned with using this is a "buddy's"
> plane at this time, but it would not be too hard to modify the mounting
> later as I can get to my glare shield underside rather easy to unscrew
these
> little buggers.
>
> Marty
>
>
> From: "Emrath" <emrath(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
>
>
> I have a Garmin Weather antenna for my GPSMAP 496 which I would like to
> mount on top of my panel. There are two threaded holes in the back of the
> antenna to be able to bolt this to the 'dash'. Does anyone know what size
> screws are required to do this, I cannot seem to find any reference in my
> materials about this.
>
> Marty
> ________________________________ Message 6
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
>
>
> Marty,
> Do you know if your weather antenna is the model that has the ring magnet
on
>
> the bottom...?
> If so, you may not want to mount it to the panel top if you have a compass
> near by.
> Also, you may not want to permanently mount it in case you want to take
the
> antenna with you to hook up to another Garmin in a buddy's plane. There is
a
> procedure for removing the magnet if it is not desired. Some of
> us have mounted the antenna high up and out of the way in the front window
> frame area using an "L" shaped bracket. The 2 screws holding it can be
> quickly removed in the case where you want to use the antenna in another
> aircraft.
> ......2 cents of comment....
> David
> ________________________________ Message 8
> _____________________________________
>
>
> From: "Bill Hibbing" <n744bh(at)bellsouth.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin weather antenna
>
>
> I have a 396 and if the antenna you're talking about is for the XM weather
> I'm pretty sure that the screws are 4-40. What I did to make it easy to
> remove the antenna was cut the head off the screw and then sharpen it up a
> little. I then drilled holes in the top of the glareshield using the
> mounted screws to mark the spot to drill and set the antenna with screws
> attached into the holes. I've been using it this way for a couple of
years
> now and have never had a problem of the antenna coming off the glareshield
> in turbulence. Oh yeah, I used as small a drill as possible so that the
fit
>
> was fairly snug.
>
> Bill
> Glasair SIIS-FT
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 07:56 AM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
>Sausen)"
>
> Let me see if I can refresh your memory. Because of the
> undocumented crowbar "feature" in the LSE ignitions that came to
> light recently, you had suggested using a relay to provide power to
> an unprotected wire in the case of a rear mounted battery.
Is the crowbar feature for real? Somebody else mentioned that
they thought this was a mis-understanding of some variety.
You LSE customers should be curious/concerned about this . . .
which one is going to call/write LSE and find out?
> The concern was that the LSE could cause a trip/blow in an OV
> situation however the ignition would be fine and require a
> reset. In a rear mounted battery the only way to accommodate this
> need to reset was to put a breaker up on the panel but this left an
> unprotected line from the battery to the CB. You suggested a
> standard relay would be the best way to address this and I didn't
> like the additional complexity in addition to replacing one
> potential failure mode with another.
> It seems to me that a Polyfuse would address the need to reset a
> nuisance trip and allow the protection to stay back by the battery
> without needing to add relays (more wires, additional failure
> points, and additional switches) or big fuses/fat wires to get a CB
> up within arm's reach.
Okay, I remember. Yeah, the polyfuse looks attractive
for this. You might even consider a switch-breaker for
the panel mounted control . . . or even just a switch.
The wire-protection issue is covered with the polyfuse.
Now . . . about that robust mounting. Let me think about
this a bit. We could use the same technique for the
NTC inrush limiters too. They have the same mounting
challenge.
I've got to place an order with Digikey tomorrow for
some project parts. I'll get both NTC and PTC devices
coming and see if we can figure out a way to make these
things suitable for the aircraft installation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
The source of the information got it directly from Klaus so I think we can at
least assume it's correct for this exercise. I agree on the switch at the panel.
I probably won't have a key switch so my intention is to use a normal switch
for power control. Thanks for looking into this, let us know if you come
up with anything on the mounting.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses
At 07:56 AM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
>Sausen)"
>
> Let me see if I can refresh your memory. Because of the
> undocumented crowbar "feature" in the LSE ignitions that came to
> light recently, you had suggested using a relay to provide power to
> an unprotected wire in the case of a rear mounted battery.
Is the crowbar feature for real? Somebody else mentioned that
they thought this was a mis-understanding of some variety.
You LSE customers should be curious/concerned about this . . .
which one is going to call/write LSE and find out?
> The concern was that the LSE could cause a trip/blow in an OV
> situation however the ignition would be fine and require a
> reset. In a rear mounted battery the only way to accommodate this
> need to reset was to put a breaker up on the panel but this left an
> unprotected line from the battery to the CB. You suggested a
> standard relay would be the best way to address this and I didn't
> like the additional complexity in addition to replacing one
> potential failure mode with another.
> It seems to me that a Polyfuse would address the need to reset a
> nuisance trip and allow the protection to stay back by the battery
> without needing to add relays (more wires, additional failure
> points, and additional switches) or big fuses/fat wires to get a CB
> up within arm's reach.
Okay, I remember. Yeah, the polyfuse looks attractive
for this. You might even consider a switch-breaker for
the panel mounted control . . . or even just a switch.
The wire-protection issue is covered with the polyfuse.
Now . . . about that robust mounting. Let me think about
this a bit. We could use the same technique for the
NTC inrush limiters too. They have the same mounting
challenge.
I've got to place an order with Digikey tomorrow for
some project parts. I'll get both NTC and PTC devices
coming and see if we can figure out a way to make these
things suitable for the aircraft installation.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 07:56 PM 3/12/2009, you wrote:
>Sausen)"
>
> The source of the information got it directly from Klaus so I
> think we can at least assume it's correct for this exercise. I
> agree on the switch at the panel. I probably won't have a key
> switch so my intention is to use a normal switch for power
> control. Thanks for looking into this, let us know if you come up
> with anything on the mounting.
>
>Michael
Okay. Can't do better than that. Let's explore the polyfuse thing
closer. Maybe we can find a "real" use for these puppies
after all . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B Tomm" <fvalarm(at)rapidnet.net> |
When "trying to think of a good situation to use polyfuses" I don't know for
sure but seem to recall that once tripped they will not reset until the
TOTAL load is removed (switched off) presumably to let the polyfuse cool
down. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, it is important to
consider when designing an application. You don't want to automatically
lose another powered device because of a fault in another (same as with a
breaker supplying power to more than one device). Nor do you want another
non-switchable load, or another load which is not known, on the same
polyfuse. This would make it impossible to eliminate the complete load on
the polyfuse, preventing it from being reset. Am I wrong?
I have never used polyfuses but the above is based on what I have read here
and on other lists. I still prefer a single traditional breaker (requires
manual reset) or fuse (requires manual replacement) for EACH load on the
airplane. Considering also, that they are easy to integrate into an airframe
and maintain, what's wrong with traditional circuit protection?
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
| Subject: | Polyfuses and Lightspeed Ignition |
Nothing is wrong with traditional circuit protection and I would recommend it
normally. The current use case thread for Polyfuses that I started is to address
a unique situation that traditional wire protection cannot address without
some additional risks. Read through the recent threads and you will see what
I mean. I also changed the subject line to accurately reflect the thread going
forward.
As far as them resetting only when the total load is removed, I've heard conflicting
stories on that and I'm sure Bob can set that straight once he starts
looking more closely at them. For me I'll have a switch that will remove that
load so it's a moot point and I generally only do one wire per application.
Michael
-----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, March 13, 2009 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses
When "trying to think of a good situation to use polyfuses" I don't know for
sure but seem to recall that once tripped they will not reset until the
TOTAL load is removed (switched off) presumably to let the polyfuse cool
down. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, it is important to
consider when designing an application. You don't want to automatically
lose another powered device because of a fault in another (same as with a
breaker supplying power to more than one device). Nor do you want another
non-switchable load, or another load which is not known, on the same
polyfuse. This would make it impossible to eliminate the complete load on
the polyfuse, preventing it from being reset. Am I wrong?
I have never used polyfuses but the above is based on what I have read here
and on other lists. I still prefer a single traditional breaker (requires
manual reset) or fuse (requires manual replacement) for EACH load on the
airplane. Considering also, that they are easy to integrate into an airframe
and maintain, what's wrong with traditional circuit protection?
Bevan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
You are correct in your description. Nothing wrong with either fuses or
breakers, but the individual in question has a somewhat unique situation
for which a polyfuse would provide a possibly better solution. I
believe he plans to use a separate polyfuse for each load in question.
Dick
B Tomm wrote:
>
>
> When "trying to think of a good situation to use polyfuses" I don't know for
> sure but seem to recall that once tripped they will not reset until the
> TOTAL load is removed (switched off) presumably to let the polyfuse cool
> down. Can anyone confirm this? If this is true, it is important to
> consider when designing an application. You don't want to automatically
> lose another powered device because of a fault in another (same as with a
> breaker supplying power to more than one device). Nor do you want another
> non-switchable load, or another load which is not known, on the same
> polyfuse. This would make it impossible to eliminate the complete load on
> the polyfuse, preventing it from being reset. Am I wrong?
>
> I have never used polyfuses but the above is based on what I have read here
> and on other lists. I still prefer a single traditional breaker (requires
> manual reset) or fuse (requires manual replacement) for EACH load on the
> airplane. Considering also, that they are easy to integrate into an airframe
> and maintain, what's wrong with traditional circuit protection?
>
> Bevan
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polyfuses and Lightspeed Ignition |
At 12:52 PM 3/13/2009, you wrote:
>Sausen)"
>
> Nothing is wrong with traditional circuit protection and I would
> recommend it normally. The current use case thread for Polyfuses
> that I started is to address a unique situation that traditional
> wire protection cannot address without some additional risks. Read
> through the recent threads and you will see what I mean. I also
> changed the subject line to accurately reflect the thread going forward.
>
> As far as them resetting only when the total load is removed,
> I've heard conflicting stories on that and I'm sure Bob can set
> that straight once he starts looking more closely at them. For me
> I'll have a switch that will remove that load so it's a moot point
> and I generally only do one wire per application.
I believe we're thinking along the same lines.
Here's a first pass at a always hot bus feeder
protection module.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9033/AEC9033-700-1A_Feeder_Protection_(PRELIM).pdf
Design goals:
Accommodate the unique demands driven by polyfuse packaging
(ECB mount).
No latent failures that are not pre-flight detectable.
Minimum parts count, assembly labor, bill of materials costs.
Demonstrably acceptable performance over -40 to +70C
temperature range.
I've ordered a set of polyfuses that appear correct for
this task. I'll brass-board the circuit and get some
bench tests to look at reaction times and particularly,
variability over range of operating temperatures (haven't
played with the test chamber in months!).
Given that a stock, prefabricated enclosure exists then
the only unique fabrication item is an etched circuit
board . . . and that's not a big deal. Except for the
polyfuses (which ARE inexpensive) there are no components
that are not already purchased in volume for other activities.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Polyfuses and Lightspeed Ignition |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Parens "(" in a file name (url, link) can be problematic...
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9033AEC9033-700-1A_Feeder_Protection_(PRELIM).pdf
Matt-
>
>
> At 12:52 PM 3/13/2009, you wrote:
>>Sausen)"
>>
>> Nothing is wrong with traditional circuit protection and I would
>> recommend it normally. The current use case thread for Polyfuses
>> that I started is to address a unique situation that traditional
>> wire protection cannot address without some additional risks. Read
>> through the recent threads and you will see what I mean. I also
>> changed the subject line to accurately reflect the thread going forward.
>>
>> As far as them resetting only when the total load is removed,
>> I've heard conflicting stories on that and I'm sure Bob can set
>> that straight once he starts looking more closely at them. For me
>> I'll have a switch that will remove that load so it's a moot point
>> and I generally only do one wire per application.
>
> I believe we're thinking along the same lines.
> Here's a first pass at a always hot bus feeder
> protection module.
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9033/AEC9033-700-1A_Feeder_Protection_(PRELIM).pdf
>
> Design goals:
>
> Accommodate the unique demands driven by polyfuse packaging
> (ECB mount).
>
> No latent failures that are not pre-flight detectable.
>
> Minimum parts count, assembly labor, bill of materials costs.
>
> Demonstrably acceptable performance over -40 to +70C
> temperature range.
>
> I've ordered a set of polyfuses that appear correct for
> this task. I'll brass-board the circuit and get some
> bench tests to look at reaction times and particularly,
> variability over range of operating temperatures (haven't
> played with the test chamber in months!).
>
> Given that a stock, prefabricated enclosure exists then
> the only unique fabrication item is an etched circuit
> board . . . and that's not a big deal. Except for the
> polyfuses (which ARE inexpensive) there are no components
> that are not already purchased in volume for other activities.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | AEC9033 PITS project. New URL |
At 02:41 PM 3/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>Parens "(" in a file name (url, link) can be problematic...
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9033AEC9033-700-1A_Feeder_Protection_(PRELIM).pdf
Thanks Matt, I knew that . . . once.
Better URL is
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9033/AEC9033-700-1A_Feeder_Protection_PRELIM.pdf
For all interested parties, right now this is a "PITS" project.
Pie In The Sky. Parts are on order and we'll throw some
proof of concept mud balls against the shop wall and see
what sticks.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 12:13 PM 3/13/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>When "trying to think of a good situation to use polyfuses" I don't know for
>sure but seem to recall that once tripped they will not reset until the
>TOTAL load is removed (switched off) presumably to let the polyfuse cool
>down. Can anyone confirm this?
Correct. The devices I've ordered for a first pass look will
go into a "tripped" state at about 150 mA of continuous current
or about 2 watts of internal heat being dissipated.
>If this is true, it is important to
>consider when designing an application. You don't want to automatically
>lose another powered device because of a fault in another (same as with a
>breaker supplying power to more than one device). Nor do you want another
>non-switchable load, or another load which is not known, on the same
>polyfuse. This would make it impossible to eliminate the complete load on
>the polyfuse, preventing it from being reset. Am I wrong?
You are correct. As shown in the proposed system integration drawings, one
and only one system tied to the protection module and it needs
some means by which the circuit can be broken (switch). Of course,
you would want a switch on any ignition system anyhow.
>I have never used polyfuses but the above is based on what I have read here
>and on other lists. I still prefer a single traditional breaker (requires
>manual reset) or fuse (requires manual replacement) for EACH load on the
>airplane. Considering also, that they are easy to integrate into an airframe
>and maintain, what's wrong with traditional circuit protection?
Nothing. In this case, we're interested in feeding from an
always-hot source (battery bus) to favor an electrically
dependent engine. Always-hot feeders like to be protected
as close the source as practical. Hence some manner of
remotely mounted circuit breaker is attractive - ESPECIALLY
if your battery is back in the tail. Here we discover a
unique set of design goals that look with more favor
upon the much misunderstood and oft misapplied polyfuse.
It's even more attractive given that I have some standard
product enclosures . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Products/A09_Package.jpg
. . . that reduce the cost of getting these little critters
boxed up and bolted to the airplane.
I'm getting private email from folks wanting to order
this thing which is gratifying but premature. Let's
make sure we have done a good thing first. After sifting
the sands of design for polyfuses for over 20 years,
it WOULD be pretty cool to find a place where they
smoothly fit into a cost effective and well considered
design aboard an aircraft.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | A unique "tug" for airplanes on skis . . . |
See video at:
http://tinyurl.com/cg4nut
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Looking for a KA-25 Install manual |
Good Evening All,
I find myself in need of an install manual for a very ancient piece of King
Radio equipment. It is the KA-25 Audio Amplifier.
If anyone knows where I could get a download of the manual, I would sure
appreciate having that knowledge.
I do see that Essco has it available for sale. If I can't get it for free, I
could break down and pay for it, but if anyone knows where I could download
it, I would not only save money, but could have it right now when I want
it!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/13/2009 4:28:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
See video at:
_http://tinyurl.com/cg4nut_ (http://tinyurl.com/cg4nut)
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . .. )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For Sell Apple iPhone 3G 16Gb $190usd,HTC Touch HD |
$250usd.
| From: | "mvilla121" <mobilevilla(at)rediff.com> |
We Are Arrow Electronics,we sell brand new mobile phone, unlocked, laptops,Plasma
T.V, with full accessories,and 1year international warranty from the Manufacturer.
*SPECIFICATIONS:
(europeans/usa-specifications) general network gsm 900/gsm 1800/gsm 1900 platform
- tri band (gsm900 + 1800 + 1900 MHz: countries where manufactured: Finland.
Contact Name: Mr : Prince Sacasto
E-Mail: princodestate(at)gmail.com
Do have a look at the rated and other mobile phones we stock below.
princodestate(at)gmail.com
princodestate(at)gmail.com
Apple iPhone 3G 16Gb Unlocked @190usd
Apple iPhone 3G 8GB Unlocked @155usd
Apple iPhone 8GB Unlocked @110usd
Apple iPhone 16GB Unlocked @120usd
Nokia 6700 classic @290usd
Nokia 6303 classic @280usd
Nokia 6208c @280usd
Nokia 8800 Gold Arte @265USD
Nokia N97 @250usd
Nokia N85 @200usd
Nokia N96 16GB @190usd
Nokia N95 8GB @170usd
Nokia N95 @150usd
Nokia N93i@ 150usd
Nokia n93 @ 140usd
Nokia N92 @ 130usd
Nokia N91 8GB @ 145usd
Nokia N80 @160usd
Nokia N76 @160usd
Nokia N75 @120usd
Nokia N73 @110usd
Nokia N70 @95usd
Nokia E75 @230usd
Nokia E71 @145usd
Nokia E66 @150usd
Nokia E90 Communicator @185usd
Nokia E65 @ 100usd
Nokia E55 @200usd
Nokia 8800 Sirocco @ 195usd
Nokia 770 Internet @160usd
Nokia 5630 XpressMusic @ 300usd
Nokia 5800 xpressMusic. @ 290usd
Nokia 5320 XpressMusic @ 250usd
Nokia 5220 XpressMusic @ 205usd
HTC Magic------------------$330
HTC Touch Pro2-----------$300
HTC Touch Diamond2----$290
HTC Dream---------------$300
HTC Touch Cruise 09----$290
HTC Max 4G---------------$280
HTC Touch HD-------------$250
HTC Touch 3G--------------$250
HTC Touch Viva------------$215
HTC Touch Pro - - - - - - - $200
HTC Touch Diamond - - $190
HTC Shift Pocket PC---$220
HTC Advantage X7510 - - $290
HTC P3470 - - $200
HTC Touch Cruise - - $250
HTC Touch Dual - - $225
HTC P6500 - - $210
HTC S730 - - $200
HTC TyTN II - - $195
HTC S630 - - $150
HTC Touch - - $101
HTC P6300 - - $120
HTC Shift - - $230
HTC Advantage X7500 - - $215
Blackberry Curve 8900 @230usd
Blackberry Storm 9530@210usd
Blackberry Storm 9500 @200usd
Blackberry Pearl Flip 8220 @210usd
Blackberry Bold 9000 @200usd
Blackberry Curve 8320 @190usd
Blackberry Curve 8310 @205usd
Blackberry Curve 8300 @ 200usd
Blackberry 8820 @195usd
Blackberry 8830 World Edition @200usd
Blackberry 8800 "indigo" unlocked @ 200usd
Blackberry 8700g @ 160usd
Blackberry 8100 Pearl Cingular unlocked @140usd
LG Phones
LD GM730 @300
LG KM900 Arena @300
LG GD910 @290
LG KS500 @280
LG KF900 Prada @290
LG KC780 @250
LG KP500 Cookie @255
LG KC910 Renoir @260
LG KB770 @200
LG CB630 Invision @200
LG KS360 @190
ETEN glofiish X610 @210
ETEN glofiish V900 @220
ETEN glofiish X900 @205
ETEN glofiish DX900 @210
ETEN glofiish M750@200
ETEN glofiish M810 @170usd
ETEN 500 Glofiish @ 160usd
ETEN M700 Glofiish 2 @195usd
ETEN M600 @ 135usd
ETEN G500 @ 110usd
ETEN 800 Glofiish @ 200usd
Samsung i8910 Omnia HD $310
Samsung S8300 UltraTOUCH $290
Samsung T929 Memoir $290
Samsung S9402 Ego ......$270
Samsung T919 Behold.....$260
Samsung M3200. $260
Samsung i907 Epix @270
Samsung A767 Propel@260
Samsung A867 EternityN @255
Samsung M8800 Pixon @245
Samsung D980 @230
Samsung i8510 INNOV8 16GB @210
Samsung Instinct @200
Samsung i900 Omnia @ 200usd
Sony Ericsson W902 Volcanic @240
Samsung SGHB600 @ 230usd
Samsung i760 @ 210uad
Samsung F500 @ 180uad
Samsung D900 @ 110uad
Sony Ericsson Idou @350usd
Sony Ericsson W395 @295usd
Sony Ericsson C901 @285usd
Sony Ericsson C903 @290usd
Sony Ericsson C510 @280usd
Sony Ericsson W508 @270usd
Sony Ericsson W705 @300usd
Sony Ericsson W715 @295usd
Sony Ericsson G705 @280usd
Sony Ericsson W705 @260usd
Sony Ericsson C905 @250usd
Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 @ 195usd
Sony Ericsson W950i @ 205uad
Sony Ericsson W880i Walkman Phone @ 200usd
Sony Ericsson W850i @ 200usd
Sony Ericsson W810i Walkman Phone @ 110usd
Sony Ericsson W660i @ 120usd
Sony Ericsson M600i @ 210usd
APPLE IPODS:
Apple IPod 32GB Newest! ---------$180
Apple iPod 30GB (Video) New! - - $100
Apple iPod 60GB (Video) New! - - $110
Apple iPod Nano 2GB New! - - $70
Apple iPod Nano 4GB New! - - $80
Apple iPod Shuffle 512 MB - - $65
Apple iPod Shuffle 1 GB - - $75
Apple iPod Mini 4 GB - - $70
Apple iPod Mini 6 GB - - $90
Apple iPod Photo 30 GB - - $100
Apple iPod U2 SE 20 GB - - $111
Apple iPod Photo 60 GB - - $121
Apple iPod 20 GB - - $95
Apple ipod 80 GB - - $115
VIDEOGAMES PRICELIST
Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) Console:$180usd
Sony PlayStation 2 Console:$120usd
Sony PlayStation 2 Slimline Console:$140usd.
Sony PlayStation 3 (60 GB) Console:$375usd.
Sony PlayStation 3 (20 GB) Console:$275usd
Sony PlayStation 3 (80GB) Console:$475usd
Nintendo Wii T Console:$200usd
Nintendo DS Lite Console:$220usd
Nintendo Game Boy Advance SP Console:$110usd
Nintendo GameCube Console:$100usd
Nintendo DS Console:$160usd
Nintendo Super NES Console:$140usd.
Nintendo Game Boy Advance Console:$120usd
Nintendo 64 Console:$85usd.
Microsoft Xbox 360T Premium Console:$230usd
Microsoft Xbox 360T Elite Console:$200usd
Microsoft Xbox Console:$195usd
Microsoft Xbox 360 Core System Console:$220usd
Microsoft Xbox 360 Platinum Console:$150usd
PANASONIC PLASMA TV
Panasonic TH-37PHD8UK Plasma $900
Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma $950
Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Plasma $945
Panasonic TH-42PX50U Plasma $850
Panasonic TH-50PX50U Plasma $800
panasonic TH-65PHD8UK Plasma $820
SONY PLASMA TV
SONY FWD-42PV1 Plasma Display $800
Sony PFM-42X1 Plasma Display $780
Sony FWD-50PX2 Plasma Display $950
PHILIPS PLASMA TV
Philips 42PF7320A/37 Plasma TV $590
Philips 42PF9630A/37 Plasma HDTV $650
Philips 50PF7320A/37 Plasma HDTV $600
Philips 50PF9630A/37 Plasma HDTV $495
Philips 50PF9830A/37 Plasma HDTV $750
SAMSUNG PLASMA TV
SAMSUNG HPP3761 Plasma TV $200
Samsung PPM42M5S Plasma Display $800
Samsung SPP4251 Plasma TV $800
Samsung PPM42M5H Plasma Display $950
Samsung HPR4252 Plasma $900
Samsung HPR4262 Plasma TV $800
Samsung HPR4272 Plasma $800
Samsung PPM50M5H Plasma Display $840
Samsung HPR5052 Plasma $700
Samsung HPR5072 Plasma $650
Samsung HPP5581 Plasma TV $550
Samsung PPM63H3Q Plasma Display $500
Samsung HPR6372 Plasma $500
HITACHI PLASMA TV
Hitachi CMP4211u Plasma $850
Hitachi CMP4212u Plasma $350
Hitachi 42HDF52 Plasma HDTV $400
Hitachi 42HDT52 Plasma TV $440
Hitachi 55HDS52 Plasma HDTV $480
Hitachi 55HDT52 Plasma TV $650
Hitachi CMP-55HDM71 Plasma $420
APPLE LAPTOPS
Apple Macbook Air............................$750
Apple MacBook (MA700LL/A) Mac Notebook...$500usd
Apple MacBook Pro (MA611LL/A) Notebook...$500usd
Apple MacBook (MA254LL/A) Mac Notebook...$450usd
Apple iBook G3 (M7698LL/A) Mac Notebook..$600usd
Apple MacBook Pro (MA609LL/A) Notebook...$550usd
Apple MacBook Pro (MA600LLA) Notebook...$500usd
Apple MacBook Pro (MA610LL/A) Notebook...$450usd
Apple Macbook Pro (885909119400) Notebook..$445usd
DELL LAPTOP:
Dell XPS M1710 PC Notebook...$500usd
Dell XPS M2010 PC Notebook....$550usd
Dell Laptop 1100-BX7ZT21...$350
Dell Latitude C640 - 2.0GHz, 512MB, 40GB...$400
Dell Inspiron Model 8500 Laptop..$400
Dell Latitude D810...$500
Dell Inspiron 6000 Notebook Computer..$400
Dell Laptop,Wireless,Intel M,60GB HD,CD/DVD, XP,Pro...$360
ACER FERRARI P4 LAPTOP:
Acer Ferrari 3200 - Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ ...$450
Acer Ferrari 3400LMi Notebook ...$500
Acer Ferrari 3000LMi - Athlon XP-M...$480
Acer Ferrari 3200LMi - Mobile Athlon..$650
Apple Powerbook G4 1.67ghz Drive Bluetooth
SONY LAPTOP
Sony VAIO VGN-T1..$1100
Sony VAIO VGN-FS315...$1000
Sony VAIO VGN-S3...$850
Sony VAIO VGN-TX1...$780
Sony VAIO VGN-FS215...$710
Sony VAIO VGN-S4...$870
Sony VAIO PCG-K35...$750
Sony VAIO A170 Laptop ....$900
Sony VAIO GRT250 Laptop ....$850
Sony VAIO V505DC1 Laptop ....800
RETURN POLICY
****************************
You may return the item within twenty {60} days of delivery. Products with Manufacturer
Warranty which exceed 70 days, could be returned directly to the manufacturer
according to their instructions.
OUR TERM
*******************
We ship to any destinations less than 2 days after confirming your part payment
for the order or phones demanded for . We supply through FedEx shipping company
for distribution of our goods worldwide.
Your enquiry will be greatly appreciated.
Contact Name: Mr : Prince Sacasto
E-Mail: princodestate(at)gmail.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234556#234556
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For Sell Apple iPhone 3G 16Gb $190usd,HTC Touch |
HD $250usd.
| From: | Walter Fellows <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> |
I hope we can keep the forum to a forum and not an email sales site.
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:38 AM, mvilla121 wrote:
> mobilevilla(at)rediff.com>
>
> We Are Arrow Electronics,we sell brand new mobile phone, unlocked,
> laptops,Plasma T.V, with full accessories,and 1year international warranty
> from the Manufacturer.
>
> *SPECIFICATIONS:
> (europeans/usa-specifications) general network gsm 900/gsm 1800/gsm 1900
> platform - tri band (gsm900 + 1800 + 1900 MHz: countries where manufactured:
> Finland.
>
>
> Contact Name: Mr : Prince Sacasto
> E-Mail: princodestate(at)gmail.com
>
> Do have a look at the rated and other mobile phones we stock below.
>
>
> princodestate(at)gmail.com
> princodestate(at)gmail.com
>
> Apple iPhone 3G 16Gb Unlocked @190usd
> Apple iPhone 3G 8GB Unlocked @155usd
> Apple iPhone 8GB Unlocked @110usd
> Apple iPhone 16GB Unlocked @120usd
>
>
> Nokia 6700 classic @290usd
> Nokia 6303 classic @280usd
> Nokia 6208c @280usd
> Nokia 8800 Gold Arte @265USD
> Nokia N97 @250usd
> Nokia N85 @200usd
> Nokia N96 16GB @190usd
> Nokia N95 8GB @170usd
> Nokia N95 @150usd
> Nokia N93i@ 150usd
> Nokia n93 @ 140usd
> Nokia N92 @ 130usd
> Nokia N91 8GB @ 145usd
> Nokia N80 @160usd
> Nokia N76 @160usd
> Nokia N75 @120usd
> Nokia N73 @110usd
> Nokia N70 @95usd
> Nokia E75 @230usd
> Nokia E71 @145usd
> Nokia E66 @150usd
> Nokia E90 Communicator @185usd
> Nokia E65 @ 100usd
> Nokia E55 @200usd
> Nokia 8800 Sirocco @ 195usd
> Nokia 770 Internet @160usd
> Nokia 5630 XpressMusic @ 300usd
> Nokia 5800 xpressMusic. @ 290usd
> Nokia 5320 XpressMusic @ 250usd
> Nokia 5220 XpressMusic @ 205usd
>
> HTC Magic------------------$330
> HTC Touch Pro2-----------$300
> HTC Touch Diamond2----$290
> HTC Dream---------------$300
> HTC Touch Cruise 09----$290
> HTC Max 4G---------------$280
> HTC Touch HD-------------$250
> HTC Touch 3G--------------$250
> HTC Touch Viva------------$215
> HTC Touch Pro - - - - - - - $200
> HTC Touch Diamond - - $190
> HTC Shift Pocket PC---$220
> HTC Advantage X7510 - - $290
> HTC P3470 - - $200
> HTC Touch Cruise - - $250
> HTC Touch Dual - - $225
> HTC P6500 - - $210
> HTC S730 - - $200
> HTC TyTN II - - $195
> HTC S630 - - $150
> HTC Touch - - $101
> HTC P6300 - - $120
> HTC Shift - - $230
> HTC Advantage X7500 - - $215
>
>
> Blackberry Curve 8900 @230usd
> Blackberry Storm 9530@210usd
> Blackberry Storm 9500 @200usd
> Blackberry Pearl Flip 8220 @210usd
> Blackberry Bold 9000 @200usd
> Blackberry Curve 8320 @190usd
> Blackberry Curve 8310 @205usd
> Blackberry Curve 8300 @ 200usd
> Blackberry 8820 @195usd
> Blackberry 8830 World Edition @200usd
> Blackberry 8800 "indigo" unlocked @ 200usd
> Blackberry 8700g @ 160usd
> Blackberry 8100 Pearl Cingular unlocked @140usd
>
>
> LG Phones
> LD GM730 @300
> LG KM900 Arena @300
> LG GD910 @290
> LG KS500 @280
> LG KF900 Prada @290
> LG KC780 @250
> LG KP500 Cookie @255
> LG KC910 Renoir @260
> LG KB770 @200
> LG CB630 Invision @200
> LG KS360 @190
>
>
> ETEN glofiish X610 @210
> ETEN glofiish V900 @220
> ETEN glofiish X900 @205
> ETEN glofiish DX900 @210
> ETEN glofiish M750@200
> ETEN glofiish M810 @170usd
> ETEN 500 Glofiish @ 160usd
> ETEN M700 Glofiish 2 @195usd
> ETEN M600 @ 135usd
> ETEN G500 @ 110usd
> ETEN 800 Glofiish @ 200usd
>
> Samsung i8910 Omnia HD $310
> Samsung S8300 UltraTOUCH $290
> Samsung T929 Memoir $290
> Samsung S9402 Ego ......$270
> Samsung T919 Behold.....$260
> Samsung M3200. $260
> Samsung i907 Epix @270
> Samsung A767 Propel@260
> Samsung A867 EternityN @255
> Samsung M8800 Pixon @245
> Samsung D980 @230
> Samsung i8510 INNOV8 16GB @210
> Samsung Instinct @200
> Samsung i900 Omnia @ 200usd
> Sony Ericsson W902 Volcanic @240
> Samsung SGHB600 @ 230usd
> Samsung i760 @ 210uad
> Samsung F500 @ 180uad
> Samsung D900 @ 110uad
>
> Sony Ericsson Idou @350usd
> Sony Ericsson W395 @295usd
> Sony Ericsson C901 @285usd
> Sony Ericsson C903 @290usd
> Sony Ericsson C510 @280usd
> Sony Ericsson W508 @270usd
> Sony Ericsson W705 @300usd
> Sony Ericsson W715 @295usd
> Sony Ericsson G705 @280usd
> Sony Ericsson W705 @260usd
> Sony Ericsson C905 @250usd
> Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 @ 195usd
> Sony Ericsson W950i @ 205uad
> Sony Ericsson W880i Walkman Phone @ 200usd
> Sony Ericsson W850i @ 200usd
> Sony Ericsson W810i Walkman Phone @ 110usd
> Sony Ericsson W660i @ 120usd
> Sony Ericsson M600i @ 210usd
>
>
> APPLE IPODS:
> Apple IPod 32GB Newest! ---------$180
> Apple iPod 30GB (Video) New! - - $100
> Apple iPod 60GB (Video) New! - - $110
> Apple iPod Nano 2GB New! - - $70
> Apple iPod Nano 4GB New! - - $80
> Apple iPod Shuffle 512 MB - - $65
> Apple iPod Shuffle 1 GB - - $75
> Apple iPod Mini 4 GB - - $70
> Apple iPod Mini 6 GB - - $90
> Apple iPod Photo 30 GB - - $100
> Apple iPod U2 SE 20 GB - - $111
> Apple iPod Photo 60 GB - - $121
> Apple iPod 20 GB - - $95
> Apple ipod 80 GB - - $115
>
> VIDEOGAMES PRICELIST
> Sony PlayStation Portable (PSP) Console:$180usd
> Sony PlayStation 2 Console:$120usd
> Sony PlayStation 2 Slimline Console:$140usd.
> Sony PlayStation 3 (60 GB) Console:$375usd.
> Sony PlayStation 3 (20 GB) Console:$275usd
> Sony PlayStation 3 (80GB) Console:$475usd
> Nintendo Wii T Console:$200usd
> Nintendo DS Lite Console:$220usd
> Nintendo Game Boy Advance SP Console:$110usd
> Nintendo GameCube Console:$100usd
> Nintendo DS Console:$160usd
> Nintendo Super NES Console:$140usd.
> Nintendo Game Boy Advance Console:$120usd
> Nintendo 64 Console:$85usd.
> Microsoft Xbox 360T Premium Console:$230usd
> Microsoft Xbox 360T Elite Console:$200usd
> Microsoft Xbox Console:$195usd
> Microsoft Xbox 360 Core System Console:$220usd
> Microsoft Xbox 360 Platinum Console:$150usd
>
>
> PANASONIC PLASMA TV
> Panasonic TH-37PHD8UK Plasma $900
> Panasonic TH-42PWD8UK Plasma $950
> Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Plasma $945
> Panasonic TH-42PX50U Plasma $850
> Panasonic TH-50PX50U Plasma $800
> panasonic TH-65PHD8UK Plasma $820
>
> SONY PLASMA TV
> SONY FWD-42PV1 Plasma Display $800
> Sony PFM-42X1 Plasma Display $780
> Sony FWD-50PX2 Plasma Display $950
>
> PHILIPS PLASMA TV
> Philips 42PF7320A/37 Plasma TV $590
> Philips 42PF9630A/37 Plasma HDTV $650
> Philips 50PF7320A/37 Plasma HDTV $600
> Philips 50PF9630A/37 Plasma HDTV $495
> Philips 50PF9830A/37 Plasma HDTV $750
>
> SAMSUNG PLASMA TV
> SAMSUNG HPP3761 Plasma TV $200
> Samsung PPM42M5S Plasma Display $800
> Samsung SPP4251 Plasma TV $800
> Samsung PPM42M5H Plasma Display $950
> Samsung HPR4252 Plasma $900
> Samsung HPR4262 Plasma TV $800
> Samsung HPR4272 Plasma $800
> Samsung PPM50M5H Plasma Display $840
> Samsung HPR5052 Plasma $700
> Samsung HPR5072 Plasma $650
> Samsung HPP5581 Plasma TV $550
> Samsung PPM63H3Q Plasma Display $500
> Samsung HPR6372 Plasma $500
>
> HITACHI PLASMA TV
> Hitachi CMP4211u Plasma $850
> Hitachi CMP4212u Plasma $350
> Hitachi 42HDF52 Plasma HDTV $400
> Hitachi 42HDT52 Plasma TV $440
> Hitachi 55HDS52 Plasma HDTV $480
> Hitachi 55HDT52 Plasma TV $650
> Hitachi CMP-55HDM71 Plasma $420
>
>
> APPLE LAPTOPS
> Apple Macbook Air............................$750
> Apple MacBook (MA700LL/A) Mac Notebook...$500usd
> Apple MacBook Pro (MA611LL/A) Notebook...$500usd
> Apple MacBook (MA254LL/A) Mac Notebook...$450usd
> Apple iBook G3 (M7698LL/A) Mac Notebook..$600usd
> Apple MacBook Pro (MA609LL/A) Notebook...$550usd
> Apple MacBook Pro (MA600LLA) Notebook...$500usd
> Apple MacBook Pro (MA610LL/A) Notebook...$450usd
> Apple Macbook Pro (885909119400) Notebook..$445usd
>
> DELL LAPTOP:
> Dell XPS M1710 PC Notebook...$500usd
> Dell XPS M2010 PC Notebook....$550usd
> Dell Laptop 1100-BX7ZT21...$350
> Dell Latitude C640 - 2.0GHz, 512MB, 40GB...$400
> Dell Inspiron Model 8500 Laptop..$400
> Dell Latitude D810...$500
> Dell Inspiron 6000 Notebook Computer..$400
> Dell Laptop,Wireless,Intel M,60GB HD,CD/DVD, XP,Pro...$360
>
> ACER FERRARI P4 LAPTOP:
> Acer Ferrari 3200 - Mobile Athlon 64 2800+ ...$450
> Acer Ferrari 3400LMi Notebook ...$500
> Acer Ferrari 3000LMi - Athlon XP-M...$480
> Acer Ferrari 3200LMi - Mobile Athlon..$650
> Apple Powerbook G4 1.67ghz Drive Bluetooth
>
> SONY LAPTOP
> Sony VAIO VGN-T1..$1100
> Sony VAIO VGN-FS315...$1000
> Sony VAIO VGN-S3...$850
> Sony VAIO VGN-TX1...$780
> Sony VAIO VGN-FS215...$710
> Sony VAIO VGN-S4...$870
> Sony VAIO PCG-K35...$750
> Sony VAIO A170 Laptop ....$900
> Sony VAIO GRT250 Laptop ....$850
> Sony VAIO V505DC1 Laptop ....800
>
>
> RETURN POLICY
> ****************************
> You may return the item within twenty {60} days of delivery. Products with
> Manufacturer Warranty which exceed 70 days, could be returned directly to
> the manufacturer according to their instructions.
>
> OUR TERM
> *******************
> We ship to any destinations less than 2 days after confirming your part
> payment for the order or phones demanded for . We supply through FedEx
> shipping company for distribution of our goods worldwide.
>
> Your enquiry will be greatly appreciated.
>
>
> Contact Name: Mr : Prince Sacasto
> E-Mail: princodestate(at)gmail.com
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234556#234556
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sell Apple . . . |
At 07:27 PM 3/14/2009, you wrote:
>I hope we can keep the forum to a forum and not an email sales site.
>
>On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:38 AM, mvilla121
><mobilevilla(at)rediff.com> wrote:
><mobilevilla(at)rediff.com>
Remain calm my friend. Matt's subscription system is
highly automated so that labor needed to add
or remove a user's email address is minimized. Obviously,
this leaves an opening for persons of dishonorable intent
to display their character for thousands of people to
witness. I've never quite understood that human trait.
Nevertheless, we've just witnessed a prime example.
Know that these things are spotted and dealt with in
a timely manner. To "increase" security for the purpose
of controlling future intrusions will only adversely
affect us all. Sorta like hiring tens of thousands of
folks to frisk babies and little ol' ladies at the airport
gates. So understand that the occasional ringer will
surface and be dealt with appropriately. It unnecessary
and unproductive to get tense or respond to these events
in any manner.
Sleep well tonight, your list administrators are awake.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Little toot on your mag cover. |
At 06:36 PM 3/11/2009, you wrote:
>We appreciate your use of my fathers Little Toot on the cover
>of your magazine.
>
>As Bob Borger mentioned to you. We have larger Meg pictures if you
>care to have them.
>
>I would be honored to see N61G on your cover soon.
>Let me know what I could do to help. Sure would help the toot LSA Movement.
>
>Please consider my large library of Photo's of Little Toot.
>
>Your consideration is appreciated.
>
>If you would like to contact me.
>Here is my Phone Number 817-269-9292
>
>Tommy Meyer
Tommy,
The voting on covers for the next edition of my
book clearly showed a preference for Little Toot.
The shot that Bob sent me did require some "photo
shopping" to get the "long side" vertical for
an 8.5 x 11" cover.
You mentioned a library of other shots. While
I can use what I have, you may well have something
that's better suited. Thank you for your interest
and support!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Revision 12 cover photo contest results |
I've closed the voting and tallied the responses:
Cover #1 7
Cover #2 9
Cover #3 10
Cover #4 12
There was no overwhelming favorite which is a testament
to the diversity of interests in this group. Since my
vote added to any one of these would not change the
outcome, I'll forego the ballot.
Tom Meyer has offered access to a library of views
for this aircraft. He may have something that doesn't
require "photoshopping" to the extent that I had to
work on the photo I have. But even this mildly
hacked view (as many of you've noted) is well
suited to the task.
The paper copy of R12 will go to press soon. Thanks
to all who participated!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For Sell Apple . . . |
| From: | Walter Fellows <walter.fellows(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks, this is the first time I have seen anything this blatant on this
site. As for my vote, the plugs for the sites of active forum members and
the occasional odd equipment sale of a builder seem reasonable.
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:27 PM 3/14/2009, you wrote:
>
> I hope we can keep the forum to a forum and not an email sales site.
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:38 AM, mvilla121
> wrote:
> mobilevilla(at)rediff.com >
>
>
> Remain calm my friend. Matt's subscription system is
> highly automated so that labor needed to add
> or remove a user's email address is minimized. Obviously,
> this leaves an opening for persons of dishonorable intent
> to display their character for thousands of people to
> witness. I've never quite understood that human trait.
> Nevertheless, we've just witnessed a prime example.
>
> Know that these things are spotted and dealt with in
> a timely manner. To "increase" security for the purpose
> of controlling future intrusions will only adversely
> affect us all. Sorta like hiring tens of thousands of
> folks to frisk babies and little ol' ladies at the airport
> gates. So understand that the occasional ringer will
> surface and be dealt with appropriately. It unnecessary
> and unproductive to get tense or respond to these events
> in any manner.
>
> Sleep well tonight, your list administrators are awake.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sell Apple . . . |
At 11:04 AM 3/15/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks, this is the first time I have seen anything this blatant on
>this site. As for my vote, the plugs for the sites of active forum
>members and the occasional odd equipment sale of a builder seem reasonable.
Yes. Folks offering items of unique interest to the
OBAM aviation enthusiast are encouraged to make the
fact known here on the List. But massive, blind
fishing exercises for other products and services
is prohibited. There are mechanisms in place to
control these irritating but rare occurrences.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 04:03 PM 3/13/2009, you wrote:
> It's even more attractive given that I have some standard
> product enclosures . . .
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Products/A09_Package.jpg
>
> . . . that reduce the cost of getting these little critters
> boxed up and bolted to the airplane.
After pondering this project for a few days, I've
distilled the magnitude of the effort down considerably.
The "magic" parts we're adapting to our design goals
are really inexpensive. It just doesn't make sense
to wrap a lot of materials and labor costs around
their utilization. I've got some ideas for a do-it-
yerself packaging scheme. I still need to do some
temperature testing in the chamber to make sure we
don't have thermal performance issues with either
operation of the polyfuse or failure of the packaging
technique.
Bottom line is that if the present idea works, these
will be really easy to use for the purposes identified
in earlier postings to this thread.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For Sell Apple . . . |
| From: | "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com> |
Don't assume that the name you see on the list as the sender actually
sent that. It is no different than if you wrote someone else's address
on the return address of an envelope. Spammers make millions of dollars
faking out systems, and that almost always has nothing to do with the
name you see as the sender on almost all of the messages.
-----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: Sunday, March 15, 2009 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: For Sell Apple . . .
At 11:04 AM 3/15/2009, you wrote:
>Thanks, this is the first time I have seen anything this blatant on
>this site. As for my vote, the plugs for the sites of active forum
>members and the occasional odd equipment sale of a builder seem
reasonable.
Yes. Folks offering items of unique interest to the
OBAM aviation enthusiast are encouraged to make the
fact known here on the List. But massive, blind
fishing exercises for other products and services
is prohibited. There are mechanisms in place to
control these irritating but rare occurrences.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
I reported this "feature" on this forum although there might also have been others.
I got the information directly from Klaus at LSE via a telephone call.
Another individual that I personally know called Klaus to advise him of this thread
and behavior was confirmed to him.
I think the polyfuse approach is a great solution and look forward to Bob N's testing.
Assuming that all turns out well I'll be ordering also.
Bob
RV-10 N442PM (flying)
>Is the crowbar feature for real? Somebody else mentioned that
> they thought this was a mis-understanding of some variety.
> You LSE customers should be curious/concerned about this . . .
> which one is going to call/write LSE and find out?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234708#234708
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Alexander" <dalexan48(at)dslextreme.com> |
| Subject: | Proper use of "Delete" function |
Well, because you folks don't bother to delete the bulk of the message, in
this case his models offered for sale, he got to advertise 3X. Proper E-mail
etiquette would provide to only reply with the relevant material and delete
what is not necessary.
Dale Alexander
> ________________________________ Message 1
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: For Sell Apple iPhone 3G 16Gb $190usd,HTC
> Touch HD
> $250usd.
> From: "mvilla121" <mobilevilla(at)rediff.com>
>
>
> We Are Arrow Electronics,we sell brand new mobile phone, unlocked,
> laptops,Plasma
> T.V, with full accessories,and 1year international warranty from the
> Manufacturer.
>
> *SPECIFICATIONS:
> (europeans/usa-specifications) general network gsm 900/gsm 1800/gsm 1900
> platform
> - tri band (gsm900 + 1800 + 1900 MHz: countries where manufactured:
> Finland.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Rotax w/ Perihelion OVM |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotax w/ Perihelion OVM |
>I purchased this to provide over voltage protection for the
>electrics powered by the built-in alternator on the Rotax. I am not
>entirely clear on the operation of the Rotax alternator nor is the
>Rotax manual. It contains only a schematic, no theory of
>operation. It has what appear to be two B leads. Per Bob's
>schematic breaking one B lead shuts down the alternator. Per Rotax
>the output is 20A@5,000 RPM. Thus a 20A relay would be suitable if
>each B lead produces 10A max. Since Rotax calls the voltage
>regulator a rectifier/regulator I am assuming each B lead is single
>phase AC but I am not clear as to how breaking one B lead would shut
>down the alternator.
You have two wires coming out of a wall socket to
power some device, but the ON-OFF switch needs to
open or close only one leg of the wall-power to
control the device. Those are not "B" (battery)
leads coming off the engine. They are as you've
guessed, two leads with single phase, AC power on them.
The B-leads are the "R" and "B+" wires that
come off the rectifier/regulator.
Breaking one of the green ac power input leads
is the same as the single switch on your desk
lamp. The PM alternator continues to develop
voltage but it has no place to go.
>A couple of questions: Why both a fusable link and 5A CB in series
>on the master sw/OV disconnect relay?
This is to accommodate some legacy design rules adopted
from certified aircraft . . . since the power to operate
the relay is so small, and since you've elimnated the
need for a pilot accessible circuit breaker, I'll suggest
you eliminate both the fusible link and the 5A breaker.
Power your alternator control circuit directly from a
3A fuse on your main bus.
> How does breaking one line from the 'dynamo' shut it down, or
> does it? Per this schematic power is required from the battery to
> close the OV disconnect relay and bring the 'dynamo' on-line. Thus
> with a dead battery there is no way to bring the 'dynamo' on-line?
Right. But given what we know about the internals
of the rectifier regulator, it doesn't matter. It's
not self-exciting. I suspect we could do a "band-aid"
not unlike that which was developed for the SD-8 and
shown in the latest z-figures . . . but the proof-of-
concept study has not been accomplished for that
product. If you have a dead battery, the prudent
action is to recharge it from some ground based source
before you start the engine to go flying.
Except for elimination of the fusible link and CB,
what you've proposed should work as advertised.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Gilles,
Some time back some fellows of your acquaintance were
exploring the thermal deficiencies in the stock Rotax/Ducati
rectifier regulator.
Has that work evolved further than what's currently
described on your website?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph Finch" <rgf(at)dcn.davis.ca.us> |
| Subject: | Proper use of "Delete" function |
I would go further...because of all the replies and responses about this
spam--which the OP will never see nor care about--the spam has thrust in my
face much more than the occasional spam which appears in my mailbox. Why
comment about spam at all? Delete the entire message and forget it. Matt
is a capable list admin and deals with problems on this list. Proper
etiquette with respect to spam is to quietly ignore it, not repost it time
after time.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Alexander
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 11:16 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Proper use of "Delete" function
Well, because you folks don't bother to delete the bulk of the message, in
this case his models offered for sale, he got to advertise 3X. Proper E-mail
etiquette would provide to only reply with the relevant material and delete
what is not necessary.
Dale Alexander
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
I'm late into this discussion, but have been wondering how to implement the polyfuses
since I first read about them in Jim Weir's article and Blue Mountain's
wiring guide. They are very attractive to me due to their compact size, inexpensiveness,
and solid state reliability. Everyone agrees they perform as advertised.
But, as others have stated, the packaging issue makes their use somewhat
problematic, especially if you're interested in taking them offline, bypassing
their auto-reset feature.
What I would like to see is a polyfuse mounted into an ATC fuse shell, preferably
one of those ATC types that have the LED already built in to indicate a fault.
By so doing, you could use the readily available ATC fuse blocks, thereby
retaining the option to simply pull the Polyfuse out when you need to. For my
first attempt, I was going to try a little surgery on an ATC fuse package and
epoxy a Polyfuse to it..., but I have not yet taken the chance to play with this.
My guess is that it may be only a matter of time before some Taiwanese manufacturer
starts putting polyfuses in the ATC fuse format.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234820#234820
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Can anyone point me to some KR-22 marker beacon receiver pinout info? I think I
can figure out the antenna, power and audio out pins, but I would appreciate
some confirmation before proceeding, just to make sure I get the grounds correct.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234821#234821
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ectric-List: |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
> Some time back some fellows of your acquaintance were
> exploring the thermal deficiencies in the stock Rotax/Ducati
> rectifier regulator.
>
> Has that work evolved further than what's currently
> described on your website?
Hi Bob,
That was some years ago, so part of the info may no longer be available
: the researcher who helped me has changed assignment.
I'll try to retrieve as much data as I can. Just give me a few days.
Also, the parts we used may be lost. I'll see if someone has heard of them.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "galaxyone(at)juno.com" <galaxyone(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | S-Tec 30 problem |
I have a Lancair with an S-Tec 30 auto pilot. It can be follow either a
GNS 530 (with GPSS), or a SL 30. Initially it worked OK but has now deve
loped a problem in the altitude hold mode.
Most times it will drop out of altitude after 1-15 minutes and occasiona
lly it will drop out as soon as it is engaged. It will not do this on th
e ground, which makes it hard to diagnose what is wrong. I do not have a
schematic for this unit, only the install manual.
Two questions.
Can some one point me to a site for the manual?
Has anyone seen this kind of response from an S-Tec?
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmQRLqGa6vHPLwyjHuJ3
82KmgG1ZiXKbI9qS8MJJFlHiX1YB9za/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: |
Bob,
Your question to Gilles regarding Rotax/Ducati regulator reminded me of
something I mentioned on the Europa list last year.
Maybe of use here, maybe not.
-----
I think I found an interesting bit of forum:
http://www.pilots24.com/pilots24/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7756&sid=542ce097cbdde3a5ceba2e5bd0d71c38
Scroll down to 40% of the page.
Writer Arrow is convinced that he has found the problem with the
912/Ducati regulators, as follows.
The regulating bridge has 4 elements:
2 power diodes MR2510 and 2 thyristors TP154E (obsolete) or 2N6504.
One diode and one thyristor in series conduct part of one half sinus of
the alternator output, the other diode and other thyristor in series
conduct part of the other half sinus of the alternator output.
The thyristors have TO220AB packaging and are mounted directly to the
housing.
The diodes have MICRODE BUTTON CASE 193 leadless packaging and Ducati
designed a mounting technique: both diodes with their cathodes soldered
to a small copper sheet, copper sheet mounted to the housing using
silicone foil heat conducting isolation; wires to the PCB soldered to
both anodes and the copper sheet.
Everything potted with a potting compound.
The problem is that heating/cooling cycles work the electrical
connections to the diodes loose. The symptoms are as follows: charging
ok after startup (13.8V), losing it after half an hour, but the warning
light stays off.
The writer has a diagnostic test using a battery and two 12V lamps to
check continuity under heating.
The writer has a solution: parallelling the diodes with an external pair.
The writer has notified Rotax and asked them what they had done / were
doing about the problem (January 2008). The correspondence can be
followed at:
http://www.pilots24.com/pilots24/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48297&highlight=#48297
Scroll 30% down.
The upshot seems to be that Rotax knows there is a problem but it must
be because units are operated above 80C. No redesign yet.
-----
More translation from German if required...
Regards,
Jan de Jong
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David LLoyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | S-Tec 30 problem |
A couple of thoughts on your S-Tec A/P......
On your aircraft, I do not know where the pitch sensing static pressure
ports are installed, however check them carefully for any kind of spider
web, tiny wasp nest, etc. in the port hole. On Cessna's the pitch
static ports (2) are aft on the fuselage sides. Check inside to make
sure the plastic tubing to the ports are routed ok and not pinched or
kinked. Cargo stuffed in the rear can shift and kink these lines or
break them. You probably have 2 static sensing ports, one on each side
for the pitch control computer.
If your aircraft did a mild porpoise routine in pitch, I would mention
to check control cable tensions, but, your model may not use cables.
The pitch controller also uses clutches in the system, and maybe those
have developed a problem.
S-Tec at one time had a web link to their library of very good field
notes mostly written by their own staff. I assume these are still
linked to their web even though they were bought out by other firms.
Their support staff was also quite good and would answer email. I am
not familiar with the -30, however, I have heard it is a very nice A/P.
I have used their -55 with GPSS for years and it is a winner. Holds
altitude to better than 20 ft.
If you have to have service performed, be sure to get references for a
shop that "really" knows S-Tec products.....
Let us know what you discover....
David
----- Original Message -----
From: galaxyone(at)juno.com
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 7:57 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 problem
I have a Lancair with an S-Tec 30 auto pilot. It can be follow either
a GNS 530 (with GPSS), or a SL 30. Initially it worked OK but has now
developed a problem in the altitude hold mode.
Most times it will drop out of altitude after 1-15 minutes and
occasionally it will drop out as soon as it is engaged. It will not do
this on the ground, which makes it hard to diagnose what is wrong. I do
not have a schematic for this unit, only the install manual.
Two questions.
Can some one point me to a site for the manual?
Has anyone seen this kind of response from an S-Tec?
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Morrisey <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Question on Z-11, Main Buss Feed |
Howdy Listers=2C
I am using Z-11 as the basis for my wiring architecture. My question is on
the 6 AWG wire between the battery contactor and the main buss. In my ins
tallation this wire will be running back through the firewall. Z-11 shows
no protection for this wire but does show an ANL 60 current limiter between
the starter contactor and the alternator.
A similar VFR elec drawing on the B&C website shows the 6 AWG wire between
the battery contactor and the main buss being protected with a ANL 60 curre
nt limiter and also shows another ANL 60 current limiter between the starte
r contactor and the alternator.
So for this type of setup are two ANL 60's required or one???
Thanks. Don...
www.donsbushcaddy.com
_________________________________________________________________
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail=AE
.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/LearnMore/personalize.aspx?ocid=TXT_MS
GTX_WL_HM_express_032009#colortheme
________________________________________________________________________________
Jose,
Would you bet your life on a floppy adaptation on your Lightspeed
ignition? Perhaps yours is just cursory interest. I'm sure you can jam
pennies in there if you like. There's no reason that would not work.
Right now I am using Bob's proposed schematic which adds two in-line 30
amp fuses in front of two 5 amp breakers. He also considered two relays
in place of the 30 amp ATC's.
I guess my deal is how am I going to get at those 30 amp in-line fuses
and still keep my eye on flying the airplane. I suppose if you blow two
30 amp fuses behind the two five amp breakers suggested by LSA, you're
already in deep doo-doo.
I wanted to ask Bob why the 30 amp fuse? Couldn't we get-a-way with
something lighter, say 20 amp?
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Radioflyer
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:37 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses
I'm late into this discussion, but have been wondering how to implement
the polyfuses since I first read about them in Jim Weir's article and
Blue Mountain's wiring guide. They are very attractive to me due to
their compact size, inexpensiveness, and solid state reliability.
Everyone agrees they perform as advertised. But, as others have stated,
the packaging issue makes their use somewhat problematic, especially if
you're interested in taking them offline, bypassing their auto-reset
feature.
What I would like to see is a polyfuse mounted into an ATC fuse shell,
preferably one of those ATC types that have the LED already built in to
indicate a fault. By so doing, you could use the readily available ATC
fuse blocks, thereby retaining the option to simply pull the Polyfuse
out when you need to. For my first attempt, I was going to try a little
surgery on an ATC fuse package and epoxy a Polyfuse to it..., but I have
not yet taken the chance to play with this. My guess is that it may be
only a matter of time before some Taiwanese manufacturer starts putting
polyfuses in the ATC fuse format.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=234820#234820
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: S-Tec 30 problem |
I have a 'sorta-kinda' similar setup in my RV6A. The S-Tec 30 is connected to
my GX60 through the S-Tec GPSS box which switches between the GX60 and my Century
HSI.
During my ground troubleshooting (I haven't tried it at altitude yet), I found
a wire that had broken off right behind the solder connection - in the altitude
control box. I'm not getting a clean signal from my HSI yet - that's the reasoning
behind not trying it so far.
How is your SL30 controlling the S-Tec 30?
Is the autopilot dropping off-line or just the altitude hold part (blue-light)?
If I recall correctly, the system holds altitude by sensing barometric pressure
- this implies that if you go through a pressure change area, your altitude should
be controlled to the original pressure altitude.
I have the install manuals (scanned) and the charts (some scanned) that came with
my system (two mergers ago). I don't know what part might help - but I'm willing
to try.
Ralph
RV6A N822AR @ N06 5.9 hrs
-----Original Message-----
>From: "galaxyone(at)juno.com" <galaxyone(at)juno.com>
>Sent: Mar 16, 2009 10:57 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: S-Tec 30 problem
>
>I have a Lancair with an S-Tec 30 auto pilot. It can be follow either a GNS 530
(with GPSS), or a SL 30. Initially it worked OK but has now developed a problem
in the altitude hold mode.
>Most times it will drop out of altitude after 1-15 minutes and occasionally it
will drop out as soon as it is engaged. It will not do this on the ground, which
makes it hard to diagnose what is wrong. I do not have a schematic for this
unit, only the install manual.
>Two questions.
>Can some one point me to a site for the manual?
>Has anyone seen this kind of response from an S-Tec?
>____________________________________________________________
>Digital Photography - Click Now.
>http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmQRLqGa6vHPLwyjHuJ382KmgG1ZiXKbI9qS8MJJFlHiX1YB9za/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Z-11, Main Buss Feed |
In many applications, this connection is short (<6") or even a copper
busbar between contactors. In this case, no additional protection is
required.
In other applications this connection is much longer and should have
primary protection. Depends on your configuration
Vern Little
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Morrisey
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 8:43 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Question on Z-11, Main Buss Feed
Howdy Listers,
I am using Z-11 as the basis for my wiring architecture. My question
is on the 6 AWG wire between the battery contactor and the main buss.
In my installation this wire will be running back through the firewall.
Z-11 shows no protection for this wire but does show an ANL 60 current
limiter between the starter contactor and the alternator.
A similar VFR elec drawing on the B&C website shows the 6 AWG wire
between the battery contactor and the main buss being protected with a
ANL 60 current limiter and also shows another ANL 60 current limiter
between the starter contactor and the alternator.
So for this type of setup are two ANL 60's required or one???
Thanks. Don...
www.donsbushcaddy.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for
Hotmail=AE. See how.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 11:01 AM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>Jose,
>
>Would you bet your life on a floppy adaptation on your Lightspeed
>ignition? Perhaps yours is just cursory interest. I'm sure you can jam
>pennies in there if you like. There's no reason that would not work.
>
>Right now I am using Bob's proposed schematic which adds two in-line 30
>amp fuses in front of two 5 amp breakers. He also considered two relays
>in place of the 30 amp ATC's.
>
>I guess my deal is how am I going to get at those 30 amp in-line fuses
>and still keep my eye on flying the airplane. I suppose if you blow two
>30 amp fuses behind the two five amp breakers suggested by LSA, you're
>already in deep doo-doo.
>
>I wanted to ask Bob why the 30 amp fuse? Couldn't we get-a-way with
>something lighter, say 20 amp?
No . . . well . . . depends. When you compare the various
time-to-trip curves for over-current protection, there's
a often overlooked consideration - response time.
Magnetic breakers and electronic breakers can be exceedingly
fast. Most thermal devices are tailored to a design goal.
For example, you can get 5A fast blow fuses and 5A slow blow
fuses. Thermal breakers as a class of circuit protector
are generally VERY slow compared to a fuse of the same ratings.
So, hook a 5A breaker in series with a 5A fuse and hit
the feeder with a short. The fuse opens every time. Keep
increasing the fuse size and you'll find that it probably
takes a 20A fuse to out-muscle a 5A breaker. So for good
headroom in the design, we make the upstream protection MUCH
more robust than the downstream protection.
This is why ANL limiters are exceedingly robust. They are
intended to be part of a distribution system wherein
no single downstream feeder protection can trip an
upstream feeder protection . . . even if the upstream
feeder is running say 100% of system average. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
Note that the "rating" for a current limiter
includes enough headroom that it can be loaded to
100% of rating and still stand off a downstream
breaker or fuse trip.
I'm working and accident right now wherein redundant
feeders to a common bus were protected with fuses
and not current limiters with an unfortunate outcome.
This is IMPORTANT. This is why my 5A crowbar breaker
feed is protected upstream with a fusible link.
The breaker will always open before the fusible link.
Bob . . .
>What I would like to see is a polyfuse mounted into an ATC fuse shell,
>preferably one of those ATC types that have the LED already built in to
>indicate a fault. By so doing, you could use the readily available ATC
>fuse blocks, thereby retaining the option to simply pull the Polyfuse
>out when you need to. For my first attempt, I was going to try a little
>surgery on an ATC fuse package and epoxy a Polyfuse to it..., but I have
>not yet taken the chance to play with this. My guess is that it may be
>only a matter of time before some Taiwanese manufacturer starts putting
>polyfuses in the ATC fuse format.
Read the discussions on my website about the downside for
having self resetting circuit protection. The Polyfuse is
not a drop-in replacement for fuses or breakers. The
design task I'm working right now goes to a very specific
application of the Polyfuse. Similarly, fusible links
are not to be used in place of breakers or fuses without
sifting all the simple ideas and making sure design
goals are being met.
Polyfuses ARE used in automobiles. Seat adjuster motors
and widow riser motors are commonly protected with Polyfuses.
But you can be sure that if there were good value in
using them everywhere, the car guys would have ditched
the fuse block a long time ago. They ARE NOT directly
interchangeable technologies.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? |
At 09:40 AM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>Can anyone point me to some KR-22 marker beacon receiver pinout
>info? I think I can figure out the antenna, power and audio out
>pins, but I would appreciate some confirmation before proceeding,
>just to make sure I get the grounds correct.
>
>--Jose
Sorry, that's not in my library of
radio wiring information
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: |
At 10:21 AM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Your question to Gilles regarding Rotax/Ducati
>regulator reminded me of something I mentioned on the Europa list last year.
>Maybe of use here, maybe not.
>-----
>I think I found an interesting bit of forum:
>http://www.pilots24.com/pilots24/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7756&sid=542ce097cbdde3a5ceba2e5bd0d71c38
>
>Scroll down to 40% of the page.
>The writer has notified Rotax and asked them
>what they had done / were doing about the
>problem (January 2008). The correspondence can be followed at:
>http://www.pilots24.com/pilots24/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48297&highlight=#48297
>Scroll 30% down.
>The upshot seems to be that Rotax knows there is
>a problem but it must be because units are
>operated above 80C. No redesign yet.
>-----
>More translation from German if required...
>Regards,
>Jan de Jong
Thank you for turning me onto this information. It
confirms what I've suspected about the original
regulator design. Electronically, its architecture
is not all that different than most of the rectifier-
regulators on the market. B&C's little SD-8 R-R
is nearly identical circuitry.
Choice of components and thermal management is VERY
important given that the SCR's are 4-layer devices
in high voltage drop during conduction. This heats
everything up. So it doesn't surprise me that there
are secondary issues with respect to packaging and
manufacturing processes that put other components
at risk.
I assisted B&C's engineer in crafting a robust
R-R some years ago. We built the thing on a hefty
heatsink and had all the hot-components well bonded.
I don't see that in the B&C catalog any more . . .
don't know what the story is.
In any case, the Rotax R-R offering could
use some attention to details!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question on Z-11, Main Buss Feed |
At 10:43 AM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>Howdy Listers,
>
>I am using Z-11 as the basis for my wiring architecture. My
>question is on the 6 AWG wire between the battery contactor and the
>main buss. In my installation this wire will be running back
>through the firewall. Z-11 shows no protection for this wire but
>does show an ANL 60 current limiter between the starter contactor
>and the alternator.
>
>A similar VFR elec drawing on the B&C website shows the 6 AWG wire
>between the battery contactor and the main buss being protected with
>a ANL 60 current limiter and also shows another ANL 60 current
>limiter between the starter contactor and the alternator.
>
>So for this type of setup are two ANL 60's required or one???
Just one.
The alternator b-lead protection is intended to isolate
an alternator with failed diodes from the rest of the system
That current limiter is advised.
The feeder to a bus has a very low probability
of being faulted to ground . . . as are other
wires in the cranking circuit. Traditionally,
these wires do not get added protection. This
philosophy is described in the FARS for light
aircraft . . . specifically paragraph 23.1357 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/FAA/Part23_electrical_A.pdf
I can't speak to anyone else's drawings but
know that Z-11 is in conformance with the legacy
design philosophies for light aircraft.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? |
Good Morning Bob and Jose,
For flight within the USA, unless Jose wants the marker beacon for reasons
of nostalgia, I would suggest not installing it in the aircraft.
Marker beacons are being phased out. I know of no approach in the US
National Airspace System that requires the use of a marker beacon.
I suppose it is possible that some of the other countries around the planet
Earth have different rules. Any idea where Jose is operating?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/18/2009 7:11:57 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
At 09:40 AM 3/16/2009, you wrote:
>
>Can anyone point me to some KR-22 marker beacon receiver pinout
>info? I think I can figure out the antenna, power and audio out
>pins, but I would appreciate some confirmation before proceeding,
>just to make sure I get the grounds correct.
>
>--Jose
Sorry, that's not in my library of
radio wiring information
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B212935224%3B34245239%3Bb)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: |
Wow...
Great info. I am currently wiring a Kitfox w/ Rotax 912 Ducati Rect/VR.
Chris Stone
Kitfox 7
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan de Jong <jan_de_jong(at)casema.nl>
>Sent: Mar 16, 2009 11:21 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Your question to Gilles regarding Rotax/Ducati regulator reminded me of
>something I mentioned on the Europa list last year.
>Maybe of use here, maybe not.
>-----
>I think I found an interesting bit of forum:
>http://www.pilots24.com/pilots24/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7756&sid=542ce097cbdde3a5ceba2e5bd0d71c38
>
>Scroll down to 40% of the page.
>
>Writer Arrow is convinced that he has found the problem with the
>912/Ducati regulators, as follows.
>The regulating bridge has 4 elements:
>2 power diodes MR2510 and 2 thyristors TP154E (obsolete) or 2N6504.
>One diode and one thyristor in series conduct part of one half sinus of
>the alternator output, the other diode and other thyristor in series
>conduct part of the other half sinus of the alternator output.
>The thyristors have TO220AB packaging and are mounted directly to the
>housing.
>The diodes have MICRODE BUTTON CASE 193 leadless packaging and Ducati
>designed a mounting technique: both diodes with their cathodes soldered
>to a small copper sheet, copper sheet mounted to the housing using
>silicone foil heat conducting isolation; wires to the PCB soldered to
>both anodes and the copper sheet.
>Everything potted with a potting compound.
>The problem is that heating/cooling cycles work the electrical
>connections to the diodes loose. The symptoms are as follows: charging
>ok after startup (13.8V), losing it after half an hour, but the warning
>light stays off.
>
>The writer has a diagnostic test using a battery and two 12V lamps to
>check continuity under heating.
>
>The writer has a solution: parallelling the diodes with an external pair.
>
>The writer has notified Rotax and asked them what they had done / were
>doing about the problem (January 2008). The correspondence can be
>followed at:
>http://www.pilots24.com/pilots24/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48297&highlight=#48297
>
>Scroll 30% down.
>The upshot seems to be that Rotax knows there is a problem but it must
>be because units are operated above 80C. No redesign yet.
>-----
>More translation from German if required...
>Regards,
>Jan de Jong
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | CG evaluation needed after wiring |
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
CG evaluation needed after wiring
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when
the headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it
wouldn't work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer -
His email response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a warning
message, he just said to read the FAQ's.
Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact
quote):
"Who did the installation?"
"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering custom
harness not purchased, the warranty is void."
When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike key
and audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each mike
jack (pilot, co-pilot, aux).
On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the center
band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet more than
one person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come THAT wasn't
in the FAQ's - eh?
Now I have to reinstall that harness!
Dave L.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
Amazing! They give harness construction instructions right on their
website, and in the same breath say that the warranty is void if you
follow them!
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David & Elaine Lamphere wrote:
> You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
> wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when
> the headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
> disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it
> wouldn't work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer -
> His email response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a
> warning message, he just said to read the FAQ's.
>
> Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
>
> /"Who did the installation?"/
> /"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering
> custom harness not purchased, the warranty is void."/
>
> When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
> Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
>
> Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike
> key and audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each
> mike jack (pilot, co-pilot, aux).
>
> On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the
> center band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet
> more than one person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come
> THAT wasn't in the FAQ's - eh?
>
>
> Now I have to reinstall that harness!
>
>
> Dave L.
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
That's a standard response from PS and I can't really blame them. They h
ave had lots of intercoms that were toasted by users installing their equip
ment and then trying to return them saying it's PS's fault. Solution to th
is is require a harness. Seems a level headed requirement rather than not
supporting guys like us.
Michael
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectr
ic-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David & Elaine Lamphere
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been wrestl
ing with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when the headse
t microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I disconnected it
from the radio and everything I could - still it wouldn't work. Definitely
didn't get any help from the manufacturer - His email response was anything
but friendly or helpful. After a warning message, he just said to read the
FAQ's.
Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
"Who did the installation?"
"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering custom har
ness not purchased, the warranty is void."
When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike key an
d audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each mike jack
(pilot, co-pilot, aux).
On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the center ba
nd like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet more than one p
erson has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come THAT wasn't in the FA
Q's - eh?
Now I have to reinstall that harness!
Dave L.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 03:48 PM 3/18/2009, you wrote:
>You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
>wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working
>when the headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked
>out, I disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still
>it wouldn't work. Definitely didn't get any help from the
>manufacturer - His email response was anything but friendly or
>helpful. After a warning message, he just said to read the FAQ's.
>
>Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
>
>"Who did the installation?"
>"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering
>custom harness not purchased, the warranty is void."
>
>When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
>Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
>
>Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike
>key and audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on
>each mike jack (pilot, co-pilot, aux).
>
>On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the
>center band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet
>more than one person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come
>THAT wasn't in the FAQ's - eh?
If you had queried the AeroElectric Connection
website search feature on "microphone" . . . one of the
hits you would have received . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html
. . . speaks to this issue.
You gotta cut the PS guys a bit of slack. The
majority of installations for their products are
carried out by folks who have done it before. I get dozens
of e-mails and phone calls per weeks with questions
that are equally simplistic. None of this stuff
is "hard" to do . . . but there's so much "easy"
stuff you need to know. Time that customer
service folks spend on the phone/email trying
to figure out which "easy" thing is being
overlooked doesn't help the bottom line.
I've listened to one sided conversations in the
customer service departments at Hakwker-Beech.
In most cases, the exchange of data is rapid,
concise, often folks at both ends of the line
are looking at the same computer screen. Occasionally,
you hear a conversation that is NOT moving
ahead smoothly. I've been told that sifting
the easy things with a new technician is
4 to 10 times more expensive to the company
than working with the more experienced tech.
Nonetheless they are courteous and as helpful
as they know how to be but its exceedingly
difficult to know what your listener doesn't
know. One of those calls can keep 4 to 10
more experienced folks waiting with commensurate
extensions of THEIR customer's down time on
a very expensive airplane!
I'm not suggesting that anyone is right or
wrong here. I'm only pointing out that
education is EXPENSIVE in terms of $time$
and patience. A lot of my time billed to customers
is to educate myself in the magnitude and
character of simple-ideas that require sifting.
Your frustration is understandable and perhaps
expected . . . but pitching mudballs at the PS
Engineering guys is perhaps unustified and
certainly not productive. I'm pleased that
root cause of your problem is solved and
that the project is again moving forward.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Hi there Dave,
I have had exactly the same problem when installing the PM1000 system from
PS Engineering; so far I have not been able to solve the problem- your mail
gives me a new place to look.. I'll check it out and report back!
I also encountered the same poor service response from them- extremely bad.
I would not at all recommend PS Eng products based on the extremely poor
after sales service. If I hadn't already cut the panel I'd go so far as to
toss the damned thing out..
The PS Eng guys response was similar to that that you encountered- speak to
the avionics agent who installed or sold you the product- I bought it from
their stand at Oshkosh last year. to which I got the equivalent of an 'oh
well' shrug.
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David &
Elaine Lamphere
Sent: 18 March 2009 10:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when the
headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it wouldn't
work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer - His email
response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a warning message, he
just said to read the FAQ's.
Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
"Who did the installation?"
"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering custom
harness not purchased, the warranty is void."
When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike key and
audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each mike jack
(pilot, co-pilot, aux).
On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the center
band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet more than one
person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come THAT wasn't in the
FAQ's - eh?
Now I have to reinstall that harness!
Dave L.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is
believed to be clean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jay Hyde" <jay(at)horriblehyde.com> |
Hmm, I disagree somewhat with you Bob; if this is such an obvious problem
and continuously encountered then the manufacturer ought to make it clearer
on the installation instructions- quite simple really. Or, in the FAQ list
on their website, provide pictures like you have- its obviously a frequent
source of frustration for customers, and hence support staff- so make it
clearer.
I have just checked my wiring, and I had also previously looked at the link
that you provide in your mail, and my wiring is exactly as you indicate. I
took my unit to a local PS Eng agent and avionics shop to check out and
provided the detailed wiring diagram as I wired it up. They checked the
unit out and found it to be fine- they also thought that my wiring was
correct, but still the Icom A210 won't talk to the PS unit..
Jay
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: 18 March 2009 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
At 03:48 PM 3/18/2009, you wrote:
You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when the
headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it wouldn't
work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer - His email
response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a warning message, he
just said to read the FAQ's.
Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
"Who did the installation?"
"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering custom
harness not purchased, the warranty is void."
When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike key and
audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each mike jack
(pilot, co-pilot, aux).
On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the center
band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet more than one
person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come THAT wasn't in the
FAQ's - eh?
If you had queried the AeroElectric Connection
website search feature on "microphone" . . . one of the
hits you would have received . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html
. . . speaks to this issue.
You gotta cut the PS guys a bit of slack. The
majority of installations for their products are
carried out by folks who have done it before. I get dozens
of e-mails and phone calls per weeks with questions
that are equally simplistic. None of this stuff
is "hard" to do . . . but there's so much "easy"
stuff you need to know. Time that customer
service folks spend on the phone/email trying
to figure out which "easy" thing is being
overlooked doesn't help the bottom line.
I've listened to one sided conversations in the
customer service departments at Hakwker-Beech.
In most cases, the exchange of data is rapid,
concise, often folks at both ends of the line
are looking at the same computer screen. Occasionally,
you hear a conversation that is NOT moving
ahead smoothly. I've been told that sifting
the easy things with a new technician is
4 to 10 times more expensive to the company
than working with the more experienced tech.
Nonetheless they are courteous and as helpful
as they know how to be but its exceedingly
difficult to know what your listener doesn't
know. One of those calls can keep 4 to 10
more experienced folks waiting with commensurate
extensions of THEIR customer's down time on
a very expensive airplane!
I'm not suggesting that anyone is right or
wrong here. I'm only pointing out that
education is EXPENSIVE in terms of $time$
and patience. A lot of my time billed to customers
is to educate myself in the magnitude and
character of simple-ideas that require sifting.
Your frustration is understandable and perhaps
expected . . . but pitching mudballs at the PS
Engineering guys is perhaps unustified and
certainly not productive. I'm pleased that
root cause of your problem is solved and
that the project is again moving forward.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Pinpoint, and is
believed to be clean.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Yep - that's the article! The light bulb went on at that moment!
Very clear essay on the subject :-) Thank You!
As to PS Engineering - they could have been just a little bit more
helpful :-)
Not the kind of treatment you would like I am sure.
If you had queried the AeroElectric Connection
website search feature on "microphone" . . . one of the
hits you would have received . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html
. . . speaks to this issue.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
Jay,
One other gotcha is keeping the jacks detached electrically from the
panel. Those parts that come with the jacks : phenolic rings and black
plastic rings that have a lip that fit in the mounting hole and insulate
the jack stud are to be used! The signal lows are NOT ground and need to
be kept isolated from the airframe/panel ground.
To their credit, they (PSE) DO give you the installation schematic.
Some of the other manufacturers of avionics do not! DIY's have to really
dig and scramble in those cases. Bob's postings and documents are
priceless in those cases.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Jay Hyde
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 5:55 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
Hi there Dave,
I have had exactly the same problem when installing the PM1000 system
from PS Engineering; so far I have not been able to solve the problem-
your mail gives me a new place to look.. I'll check it out and report
back!
I also encountered the same poor service response from them- extremely
bad. I would not at all recommend PS Eng products based on the
extremely poor after sales service. If I hadn't already cut the panel
I'd go so far as to toss the damned thing out..
The PS Eng guys response was similar to that that you encountered-
speak to the avionics agent who installed or sold you the product- I
bought it from their stand at Oshkosh last year. to which I got the
equivalent of an 'oh well' shrug.
Jay
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tony Babb" <tonybabb(at)alejandra.net> |
I have little to no sympathy for PS position I think the problems are
completely of their own making and the solution is in their own hands.
If
their products are difficult to install then they should only sell
through
resellers who do installation or they should insist on a harness being
purchased, or insist on customers taking a training course. Seems to me
they
want it both ways - additional revenue by selling direct to any retail
customer with a credit card and low service level costs assuming they're
selling through qualified installers.
Back in the early days of PCs there were numerous issues with customers
buying PCs direct from manufacturers and then not being able to assemble
them. Some manufacturers referred customers to the cheapest tech support
they could find ( usually off-shore with a heavy accent following a
script)
and others stepped up to the plate and provided very simple color
diagrams -
with only numbers and pictures with no text descriptions that matched
the
color coded connectors and cables. Guess which manufacturers are still
around today.....
If you know that your customers are going to be challenged to install
your
stuff then you have to look at the whole customer experience - a flashy
stand at Oshkosh doesn't cut it any more - well designed products with
documentation that matches the expected experience level of your
customers.
If you can't do that then get out of the business or you will be
overtaken
by those who will.
Tony
Velocty SEFG 62% done, 78% to go
www.alejandra.net/velocity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV
Builder (Michael Sausen)
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:39 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
That's a standard response from PS and I can't really blame them.
They
have had lots of intercoms that were toasted by users installing their
equipment and then trying to return them saying it's PS's fault.
Solution
to this is require a harness. Seems a level headed requirement rather
than
not supporting guys like us.
Michael
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
&
Elaine Lamphere
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when
the
headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it
wouldn't
work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer - His email
response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a warning message,
he
just said to read the FAQ's.
Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact
quote):
"Who did the installation?"
"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering custom
harness not purchased, the warranty is void."
When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike key
and
audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each mike jack
(pilot, co-pilot, aux).
On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the center
band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet more than
one
person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come THAT wasn't in
the
FAQ's - eh?
Now I have to reinstall that harness!
Dave L.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
At 15:19 3/18/2009, you wrote:
>Hmm, I disagree somewhat with you Bob; if this
>is such an obvious problem and continuously
>encountered then the manufacturer ought to make
>it clearer on the installation instructions-
>quite simple really. Or, in the FAQ list on
>their website, provide pictures like you have-
>its obviously a frequent source of frustration
>for customers, and hence support staff- so make it clearer=85
I'm with Bob on this.
I had a King KMA aka PS-7000 unit. Had sticky
buttons, and -under warranty- a King dealer
REFUSED to accept the unit for repair. I sent it
to PS, had it upgraded and it came back,
promptly, with a PS bezel and working
buttons. The IM for the 7000B unit has a drawing
of the jack with Hi, Lo and PTT clearly
indicated. Assuming you meant PM1000-II and not
PS1000II, an even better and very clearly labeled
diagram is right in the manual. If we can't
RTFM, and follow, we have no business wiring our
avionics, perhaps incorrectly, and then slamming the factory customer
support.
Apologies if I offend, just my opinion.
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | b e <bcrnfnp(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Something else that may be a gotcha on this system is that they want the ja
ck isolated from aircraft ground and that the shield grounds are back at th
e ps1000 box, not at the jacks. I have a pdf schematic of the wiring if an
y are interested, email off list. Thanks.=0A=0ABarry Chapman=0ARV-9A=0A=0A
=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Jay Hyde <jay@horriblehyd
e.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com=0ASent: Wednesday, March 18, 2
009 4:55:05 PM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious=0A=0A =0AHi th
ere Dave,=0A =0AI have had exactly the same problem when=0Ainstalling the P
M1000 system from PS Engineering; so far I have not been able=0Ato solve th
e problem- your mail gives me a new place to look.. I=99ll=0Acheck i
t out and report back!=0A =0AI also encountered the same poor service respo
nse=0Afrom them- extremely bad. I would not at all recommend PS Eng produc
ts based=0Aon the extremely poor after sales service. If I hadn=99t
already cut the panel=0AI=99d go so far as to toss the damned thing o
ut..=0A =0AThe PS Eng guys response was similar to=0Athat that you encounte
red- speak to the avionics agent who installed or sold=0Ayou the product- I
bought it from their stand at Oshkosh last year to=0Awhich I got
the equivalent of an =98oh well=99 shrug=0A =0AJay=0A
=0A =0A=0A________________________________=0A =0AFrom:owner-aeroelectric-li
st-server(at)matronics.com=0A[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.
com] On Behalf Of David & Elaine Lamphere=0ASent: 18 March 2009 10:49 PM=0A
us=0A =0AYou know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden....=0AI've
been wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop=0Aworking wh
en the headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked=0Aout, I d
isconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it=0Awouldn't
work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer - His email=0Are
sponse was anything but friendly or helpful. After a warning message, he ju
st=0Asaid to read the FAQ's. =0A =0AHomebuilders beware, PS Engineering's s
tand is (here is=0Athe exact quote):=0A =0A"Who did the installation?"=0A"I
f not installed by a PS Engineering dealer=0Aor a PS Engineering custom har
ness not purchased, the warranty is void."=0A =0AWhen all I wanted was some
information and suggestions how=0Ato proceed.=0AWould I buy anything more
from these guys - no way!=0A =0AAnyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the proble
m turns=0Aout that the mike key and audio hi wires were connected to the wr
ong jack=0Apins - on each mike jack (pilot, co-pilot, aux).=0A =0AOn a micr
ophone plug the tip is the mike key connection -=0ANOT the center band like
I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet=0Amore than one person
has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come THAT=0Awasn't in the FAQ's
- eh?=0A =0A =0ANow I have to reinstall that harness!=0A =0A =0ADave L.=0A
=0A =0A =0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahttp:/
/forums.matronics.com=0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/contribution=0A =0A-- =0A
This message has been scanned for viruses and =0Adangerous content by Pinpo
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? |
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Hi All,
I'm in the process of cleaning up the panel on my airplane. The panel is IFR equipped
and has a marker beacon receiver. I'm not yet IFR rated, but I didn't want
to diminish my IFR panel. I was not aware that the marker beacon receiver
was no longer part of the IFR procedures here in the US. The plane only flies
in the US. So what's the story...Should I just remove the unit?
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235193#235193
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? |
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just like
many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when they
are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a required
portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or are not
equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling approach
from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San Diego, CA.
The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting parts for a
repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a current datacard,
you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing the GPS and use the
minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker beacon
off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/18/2009 9:38:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net writes:
Hi All,
I'm in the process of cleaning up the panel on my airplane. The panel is IFR
equipped and has a marker beacon receiver. I'm not yet IFR rated, but I
didn't want to diminish my IFR panel. I was not aware that the marker beacon
receiver was no longer part of the IFR procedures here in the US. The plane only
flies in the US. So what's the story...Should I just remove the unit?
--Jose
**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B212935224%3B34245239%3Bb)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? |
Good Evening Once Again Jose,
On reading my last post to you, I think I did not state the case very well.
If you do not have an IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal
purposes, there may be a few more non precision approaches where a marker beacon
may allow a lower minima.
As I said before, the normal ILS no longer requires a marker beacon. There
may be such a requirement for some Category II and III approaches and there are
a few non precision approaches where a marker beacon will allow a step down
with lower minima.
The point I wish to make is that at those very few places where the marker
beacon does provide for a step down, the GPS can be used in lieu of the marker
beacon. Those spots are few and far between. The beacons are being removed
as other fixes are found for those step down fixes.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/18/2009 10:25:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just like
many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when they
are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a required
portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or are not
equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling approach
from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San Diego, CA.
The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting parts for a
repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a current datacard,
you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing the GPS and use the
minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker beacon
off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/18/2009 9:38:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net writes:
Hi All,
I'm in the process of cleaning up the panel on my airplane. The panel is IFR
equipped and has a marker beacon receiver. I'm not yet IFR rated, but I
didn't want to diminish my IFR panel. I was not aware that the marker beacon
receiver was no longer part of the IFR procedures here in the US. The plane only
flies in the US. So what's the story...Should I just remove the unit?
--Jose
____________________________________
Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B212935224%3B34245239%3Bb)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | PS 1000II Prologue |
Well it appears that PSE was willing to communicate back to me after
all. Late last night Mark Scheuer (PSE CEO)sent me a response to my
question concerning the color of the indicator LED on the unit. (It was
glowing yellow) He said this was indicating a "semi-key" state. I told
him what I found (with the help of Aerolectric's info) and I suggested
that he add the two situations (jack key wiring and jack isolation) as
things to check to his FAQ list and thanked him for his response.
First impressions are hard to overcome. I hope that PSE "talks" to other
builders in the future without having to send their qualifications first
- or - perhaps it was just a timing issue.
I still don't feel it is a complicated installation (in my case) - just
a few gotcha's you have to watch for :-)
That's the last of my posts on this matter (do I hear a cheer?) - just
thought you guys should know.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
At 07:33 PM 3/18/2009, you wrote:
>Something else that may be a gotcha on this system is that they want
>the jack isolated from aircraft ground and that the shield grounds
>are back at the ps1000 box, not at the jacks. I have a pdf
>schematic of the wiring if any are interested, email off list. Thanks.
Yeah, keeping the microphone and headset jacks ISOLATED
from the airframe is an important noise mitigation
technique. B&C has the washer sets.
I also peeked at the PS Engineering schematics I have
on the hard-drive. Their depiction of microphone wiring
is typical of the industry and echoed in all of my
drawings as well. If you check the locations of the
signal contacts on the mic jack symbol, PTT is furthest
away form the panel bushing, microphone audio is further
in. It's a subtle thing but imporant.
Emacs!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
pinout?
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA.
Have you come across some regulatory materials on this?
BTW speaking of regs something else non-related comes to mind: the ELT
(e.g. battery replacement) requirements for aircraft still equipped with
121.5 ELTs. I am not aware of any requirement changes, yet the frequency is
no longer monitored by sats. Is an aircraft considered airworthy, if the
121.5 ELT battery has not been replaced on time?
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
.......................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon ...
Good Morning Rumen,
You will note that the step down fix is only applicable to the localizer
approach and does not affect the ILS minima.
However, as I mentioned more thoroughly in my second message, you need
another method of checking the crossing of SMILE if you do not have a marker
beacon and wish to use the lower MDA. Without the marker beacon or a substitute,
the MDA is 1920. With SMILE it is 1340. An IFR GPS is an acceptable substitute
for the marker beacon.
Personally, I am not ready to remove my marker beacon, but if it fails, it
will not be repaired. I would NOT install one in a new installation. It is just
too rare that it provides any advantage at all. I do think having an IFR GPS
is a major advantage for any IFR flight.
An IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be legally
substituted for any DME and most ADF uses in the national airspace system as
well as for locating the position of any marker beacon that has the name
published on the approach and whose location is in the contained database.
Make any sense at all?
As to the ELT. we are still required to comply with the regulations
concerning the ELT. It must be tested as required and the batteries must be up
to
date.
The thought is that 121.5 is being monitored by most IFR aircraft and all
FAA facilities. It does have some use, but it never has been much good for
effecting a rescue.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/19/2009 6:52:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
rd2(at)evenlink.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2(at)evenlink.com
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA.
Have you come across some regulatory materials on this?
BTW speaking of regs something else non-related comes to mind: the ELT
(e.g. battery replacement) requirements for aircraft still equipped with
121.5 ELTs. I am not aware of any requirement changes, yet the frequency is
no longer monitored by sats. Is an aircraft considered airworthy, if the
121.5 ELT battery has not been replaced on time?
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
........................
**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B212974460%3B34272906%3Bh)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
pinout?
Resending with explanation
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA. The lower OM minima applies if flown as
non-precision, supporting your point.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
.......................
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net> |
I'll take one Barry
Jim Streit
wooody04(at)bellsouth.net
b e wrote:
> Something else that may be a gotcha on this system is that they want
> the jack isolated from aircraft ground and that the shield grounds are
> back at the ps1000 box, not at the jacks. I have a pdf schematic of
> the wiring if any are interested, email off list. Thanks.
>
> Barry Chapman
> RV-9A
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jay Hyde
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:55:05 PM
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
>
> Hi there Dave,
>
>
>
> I have had exactly the same problem when installing the PM1000 system
> from PS Engineering; so far I have not been able to solve the problem-
> your mail gives me a new place to look.. I'll check it out and report
> back!
>
>
>
> I also encountered the same poor service response from them- extremely
> bad. I would not at all recommend PS Eng products based on the
> extremely poor after sales service. If I hadn't already cut the panel
> I'd go so far as to toss the damned thing out..
>
>
>
> The PS Eng guys response was similar to that that you encountered-
> speak to the avionics agent who installed or sold you the product- I
> bought it from their stand at Oshkosh last year... to which I got the
> equivalent of an 'oh well' shrug...
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *David & Elaine Lamphere
> *Sent:* 18 March 2009 10:49 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
>
>
>
> You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
> wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when
> the headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
> disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it
> wouldn't work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer -
> His email response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a
> warning message, he just said to read the FAQ's.
>
>
>
> Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
>
>
>
> //"Who did the installation?"//
>
> //"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering
> custom harness not purchased, the warranty is void."//
>
>
>
> When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
>
> Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
>
>
>
> Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike
> key and audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each
> mike jack (pilot, co-pilot, aux).
>
>
>
> On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the
> center band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet
> more than one person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come
> THAT wasn't in the FAQ's - eh?
>
>
>
>
>
> Now I have to reinstall that harness!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave L.
>
>
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *Pinpoint Securemail*,
> and is believed to be clean.
> *http://www.matronics.com/================
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James H Nelson <rv9jim(at)juno.com> |
Dave,
I also had the same problem. My wiring is usually very good as I
check everything twice and follow the schematics faithfully. I have just
finished my second build. I have had no problems on my side. Then I
needed to have a passenger (finished my phase 1) and I could not talk to
him. I checked my wiring and thought that the PS1000II was the problem.
It was out of warranty and they (PS Eng) said that it would cost a bit to
fix the unit if it was bad. They said that the PS1000II is bullet proof
and they did not think the problem was in their unit. I had them send a
new unit just in case that was the problem. I was trying to get my
bi-annual flight check out of the way. When I swapped the intercom out,
the problem remained. I went back and did a very close check on the
wiring at the female jack. I had reversed two of the wires. I reversed
them to make the wiring correct. Volia --- everything worked fine. I
returned the unit to them and asked if there was a charge for the use. I
have not received a bill. This is my second PS1000II I have purchased
from them and if I build another plane I will use them again. I also
recommend the unit as it will let you set the squelch and volume
independantly. A great company. JMHO
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmPiIfXkqfNqOqxTJ5qYnEwNAcycaE6tVIULDO9JI4yykXJhRMs/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
Richard Girard wrote:
> For many years I worked in QA for office products and the aircraft
> industry. It never ceased to amaze me how companies will become so
> entrenched in their way of doing things that they fail to take a step
> back and analyze the costs of problems like these in terms of service
> and ill will. Taken in that light I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd
> find it was actually cheaper to bundle the harness with the intercom
> even without a price increase over the cost of the intercom alone.
It wouldn't even take a full harness. Supply a little box and give
instructions to connect each of the mic/earphone combinations to the
little box. One wire from the box clips to airframe ground. There is a
connector for a 9V battery. On the front is some green LEDs and some
red LEDs. If you have the jack wiring correct, everything lights up
green. One of the wires hitting ground will give you a red light. A
single sheet of paper will tell you what is wrong with each jack.
The OBAM guys just runs through each of his jacks, and then connects
them to the intercom as each is confirmed. Bonus points if the little
box has a buzzer to confirm sound gets through to the headset. If they
don't want to give the things away, take a deposit, send one with each
unit, and refund the deposit when you get it back.
It's true that selling a highly technical device to the uninitiated is
difficult, but if you're not willing to confront the difficulty, don't
do it. Wiring the intercom is complicated, but it is not complex. You
have lots of wires, but each set basically does the same thing. It is
just a matter of confirming each piece individually, and then doing the
same operation several times. Smart companies take the time to look at
the problems their customers are having, and then takes steps to address
them.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
| Subject: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
...
Hello Bob,
Apparently my second message with the addition ("The lower OM minima
applies if flown as
non-precision, supporting your point.") did not go through; we are having
some internet problems here right now.
Anyway,
>
Make any sense at all?
>
Fully concur. IFR GPS is the way to go when older systems start failing and
need replacement.
Best
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 08:11 AM 03/19/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Morning Rumen,
You will note that the step down fix is only applicable to the localizer
approach and does not affect the ILS minima.
However, as I mentioned more thoroughly in my second message, you need
another method of checking the crossing of SMILE if you do not have a
marker beacon and wish to use the lower MDA. Without the marker beacon or a
substitute, the MDA is 1920. With SMILE it is 1340. An IFR GPS is an
acceptable substitute for the marker beacon.
Personally, I am not ready to remove my marker beacon, but if it fails, it
will not be repaired. I would NOT install one in a new installation. It is
just too rare that it provides any advantage at all. I do think having an
IFR GPS is a major advantage for any IFR flight.
An IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be legally
substituted for any DME and most ADF uses in the national airspace system
as well as for locating the position of any marker beacon that has the name
published on the approach and whose location is in the contained database.
Make any sense at all?
As to the ELT. we are still required to comply with the regulations
concerning the ELT. It must be tested as required and the batteries must be
up to date.
The thought is that 121.5 is being monitored by most IFR aircraft and all
FAA facilities. It does have some use, but it never has been much good for
effecting a rescue.
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> |
I hate to wade into the debate, especially when it's reached the "preachy"
stage (g), but I started tying this model into an Icom A210 radio last week,
then decided to chuck it and spend $200 on a harness from Stein.
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-fun-with-wiring-harnesses.html
Then a friend stepped in to connect the dots:
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-on-wiring-a210ps-1000.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding PTT on Stick |
Bob:
On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 - Autopilot
disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to ground
these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
suggestions.
1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the terminal
block back to the firewall ground block.
Thanks for your input...
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
>
> At 01:08 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >Bob:
> >
> >Sorry for the confusion:
> >
> >My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your Z-32
> >(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch
rule.
> >My mounting is :
> >
> >Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14 awg)----s704-1
> >relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus
> > ( this run is about 2 1/2 feet from
> >Battery Bus to Relay)
> >
> >I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just left
my
> >runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my
> >firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat ??
>
> It would probably cause a bureaucrat with a rulebook
> to fuss but the risks are low for doing as you've
> suggested. I presume you have other wires coming through
> the firewall along with the e-bus feeder that are
> receiving due diligence with respect to wire protection
> and firewall integrity?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding PTT on Stick |
I'll chime in as I have done this.....
My variation of #1 has the grounds on the frame right there - without the wire
all the way back to the forest of tabs. The contact is momentary and low current
- my reasons to keep it simple
-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 19, 2009 8:08 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>
>
>Bob:
>
>On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 - Autopilot
>disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to ground
>these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
>suggestions.
>
>1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
>floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
>connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
>
>2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
>ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the terminal
>block back to the firewall ground block.
>
>Thanks for your input...
>
>Henry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 12:15 PM
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
>
>
>
>>
>> At 01:08 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Bob:
>> >
>> >Sorry for the confusion:
>> >
>> >My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your Z-32
>> >(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch
>rule.
>> >My mounting is :
>> >
>> >Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14 awg)----s704-1
>> >relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus
>> > ( this run is about 2 1/2 feet from
>> >Battery Bus to Relay)
>> >
>> >I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just left
>my
>> >runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my
>> >firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat ??
>>
>> It would probably cause a bureaucrat with a rulebook
>> to fuss but the risks are low for doing as you've
>> suggested. I presume you have other wires coming through
>> the firewall along with the e-bus feeder that are
>> receiving due diligence with respect to wire protection
>> and firewall integrity?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> ----------------------------------------)
>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>> ( )
>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>> ----------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding PTT on Stick |
Ralph, Would you use a terminal block or just ground to the ctr spar or
floor stiffner?
Jim
Building RV9a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>
>
> I'll chime in as I have done this.....
>
> My variation of #1 has the grounds on the frame right there - without the
> wire all the way back to the forest of tabs. The contact is momentary and
> low current - my reasons to keep it simple
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>>Sent: Mar 19, 2009 8:08 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>>
>>
>>
>>Bob:
>>
>>On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 - Autopilot
>>disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to
>>ground
>>these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
>>suggestions.
>>
>>1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
>>floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
>>connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
>>
>>2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
>>ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the terminal
>>block back to the firewall ground block.
>>
>>Thanks for your input...
>>
>>Henry
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>To:
>>Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 12:15 PM
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> At 01:08 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Bob:
>>> >
>>> >Sorry for the confusion:
>>> >
>>> >My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your
>>> >Z-32
>>> >(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch
>>rule.
>>> >My mounting is :
>>> >
>>> >Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14
>>> >awg)----s704-1
>>> >relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus
>>> > ( this run is about 2 1/2 feet
>>> > from
>>> >Battery Bus to Relay)
>>> >
>>> >I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just
>>> >left
>>my
>>> >runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my
>>> >firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat
>>> >??
>>>
>>> It would probably cause a bureaucrat with a rulebook
>>> to fuss but the risks are low for doing as you've
>>> suggested. I presume you have other wires coming through
>>> the firewall along with the e-bus feeder that are
>>> receiving due diligence with respect to wire protection
>>> and firewall integrity?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------)
>>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>>> ( )
>>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Grounding PTT on Stick |
I used a terminal block - for the 'hot' side of the stick connections anyway
and had a few lugs left over. This allows me to remove the stick wiring
seperately. The grounds from the lugs went right to a floor stiffener.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty(at)tds.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
> Realty"
>
> Ralph, Would you use a terminal block or just ground to the ctr spar or
> floor stiffner?
>
> Jim
> Building RV9a
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:25 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>
>
>>
>>
>> I'll chime in as I have done this.....
>>
>> My variation of #1 has the grounds on the frame right there - without the
>> wire all the way back to the forest of tabs. The contact is momentary
>> and low current - my reasons to keep it simple
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408(at)comcast.net>
>>>Sent: Mar 19, 2009 8:08 PM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bob:
>>>
>>>On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 -
>>>Autopilot
>>>disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to
>>>ground
>>>these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
>>>suggestions.
>>>
>>>1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
>>>floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
>>>connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
>>>
>>>2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
>>>ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the
>>>terminal
>>>block back to the firewall ground block.
>>>
>>>Thanks for your input...
>>>
>>>Henry
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>>>To:
>>>Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 12:15 PM
>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 01:08 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Bob:
>>>> >
>>>> >Sorry for the confusion:
>>>> >
>>>> >My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your
>>>> >Z-32
>>>> >(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch
>>>rule.
>>>> >My mounting is :
>>>> >
>>>> >Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14
>>>> >awg)----s704-1
>>>> >relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus
>>>> > ( this run is about 2 1/2 feet
>>>> > from
>>>> >Battery Bus to Relay)
>>>> >
>>>> >I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just
>>>> >left
>>>my
>>>> >runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my
>>>> >firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat
>>>> >??
>>>>
>>>> It would probably cause a bureaucrat with a rulebook
>>>> to fuss but the risks are low for doing as you've
>>>> suggested. I presume you have other wires coming through
>>>> the firewall along with the e-bus feeder that are
>>>> receiving due diligence with respect to wire protection
>>>> and firewall integrity?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------)
>>>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>>>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>>>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>>>> ( )
>>>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Molex Connector Pin Installation video - EAA |
| From: | Sam Hoskins <sam.hoskins(at)gmail.com> |
>From the EAA.. Nothing earth shattering, but a good illustration.
http://www.eaa.org/video/homebuilders.html?videoId=14725747001
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "N395V" <Bearcat(at)bearcataviation.com> |
When wiring my PS audio panel their tech rep spent about 45 minutes on the phone
with me until my problem was resolved. Friendly as could be and ended by saying
call me back for any further problems.
Much more pleasant than Garmin who, by the way, will void the warranty after an
owner install.
Would I buy another PS engineering product? Absolutely.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235346#235346
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?storeId=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&pCategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
===========================================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
Good Morning OC,
You asked: "Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are
inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?"
They sure do, but I think that will be changing relatively soon.
I can find no official policy from the FAA concerning the future of the
marker beacon, but I prefer to NOT spend any money, weight, space, power or
effort on having a marker beacon.
Our desires have been made known to PS Engineering and I will bet a milk
shake that you will see more products on the market that do not include a marker
receiver. I imagine the cost to add the marker is not great and I doubt that
eliminating it will lower the cost of the unit, but it will lower the cost of
the installation. No marker beacon means no antenna and no cabling. It also
means fewer switches and less space utilized on the face plate.
I have found PS Engineering to be the best manufacturer to work with in the
entire industry. Good folks there.
We are currently installing a 430W, 327 TXPDR, and PS Engineering PM3000
Intercomm in our Piper Pacer. I will not want a marker beacon at all. It will
be flown IFR extensively. I have found no approaches other than category II
and III that will not be usable to the lowest published minima with that radio
package.
As soon as the Pacer is finished, our J35 will get a similar package, but
with a King KX-155A added to the mix. I have not decided which PS Engineering
unit will be used for the J35, but think it might be the PMA4000-TSO.
Definitely no ADF, DME, or marker beacon!
Any other thoughts or ideas?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/20/2009 10:13:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?store
Id=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&p
CategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
===========================================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
Good Morning All,
I sent a message to an FAA friend (who is pretty high up on the food chain)
concerning the future of the marker beacons. Here is his answer with the name
removed.
------------- "We are attempting to eliminate as many as possible to include
OMs and MMs.
In most cases, they are not needed and they cost quite a bit to maintain
when other methods are available to mark these spots. We're also looking at
eliminating as many NDBs as possible. Users have to provide a need, then
we'll keep the procedures available." -------------------
Any help at all?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/20/2009 11:12:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
BobsV35B(at)aol.com writes:
Good Morning OC,
You asked: "Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are
inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?"
They sure do, but I think that will be changing relatively soon.
I can find no official policy from the FAA concerning the future of the
marker beacon, but I prefer to NOT spend any money, weight, space, power or
effort on having a marker beacon.
Our desires have been made known to PS Engineering and I will bet a milk
shake that you will see more products on the market that do not include a marker
receiver. I imagine the cost to add the marker is not great and I doubt that
eliminating it will lower the cost of the unit, but it will lower the cost
of the installation. No marker beacon means no antenna and no cabling. It also
means fewer switches and less space utilized on the face plate.
I have found PS Engineering to be the best manufacturer to work with in the
entire industry. Good folks there.
We are currently installing a 430W, 327 TXPDR, and PS Engineering PM3000
Intercomm in our Piper Pacer. I will not want a marker beacon at all. It will
be flown IFR extensively. I have found no approaches other than category II
and III that will not be usable to the lowest published minima with that radio
package.
As soon as the Pacer is finished, our J35 will get a similar package, but
with a King KX-155A added to the mix. I have not decided which PS Engineering
unit will be used for the J35, but think it might be the PMA4000-TSO.
Definitely no ADF, DME, or marker beacon!
Any other thoughts or ideas?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/20/2009 10:13:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
3/20/2009
Hello All: Old Bob wrote: "That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver,....."
I agree with Old Bob, but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding the
magnitude of the decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver".
Don't most of the modern audio panels that homebuilders are inclined to use
already include the marker beacon receiver and associated light indicators?
See:
http://www.ps-engineering.com/audio.shtml
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/av/audiopanel_garmin.html
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?store
Id=10101&catalogId=10052&langId=-1&categoryId=10094&cursel=item7&sysId=item2&p
CategoryId=10086&pcursel=item7&psysId=null
So a decision to "eliminate the marker beacon receiver" boils down to just
not installing an antenna and the cableing between the antenna and the audio
panel -- seems like a rather easy choice to make.
It is true that there are separate marker beacon receivers available for
installation. See:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/mb10_markerBeacon.php
http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/detail/4196/Avionics/Bendix_King/KR-22/
If one were to use an audio panel that did not already include a marker
beacon receiver and light indicators then the decision to install a separate
marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and cabling becomes a bit
more significant - and expensive.
Then the decision bias for an airplane operating primarily in the USA,
particularly one with an IFR capable GPS, would definitely lean towards not
installing a separate marker beacon receiver and the associated antenna and
cabling -- also a rather easy decision.
As Old Bob wrote: "I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by
leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane."
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
==================
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B(at)aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator = Use lities y - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
=========================< - List Contribution Web Site ; ========================
____________________________________
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. _See yours in just 2 easy steps!_
freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=MarchfooterNO62)
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
| From: | "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp(at)airpost.net> |
Well, Old Bob, I guess the story is to keep the Marker Beacon receiver off the
panel. I asked one question and got a different answer. However, your input is
much appreciated. I guess I won't miss the receiver and it will simplify my panel.
(However, you are right that it was pleasant hearing the signal when you
overflew the airports.) Good Bye KR22.
--Jose
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235407#235407
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Baker" <jlbaker(at)msbit.net> |
| Subject: | Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
> I sent a message to an FAA friend (who is pretty high up on the food chain)
> concerning the future of the marker beacons. Here is his answer with the name
> removed.
>
> ------------- "We are attempting to eliminate as many as possible to include
> OMs and MMs.
> In most cases, they are not needed and they cost quite a bit to maintain
> when other methods are available to mark these spots. We're also looking at
> eliminating as many NDBs as possible. Users have to provide a need, then
> we'll keep the procedures available." -------------------
I'm a Lockheed Martin contractor to the FAA in Oklahoma City, right
now involved in instument procedure's biennial review program ( each
procedure must be reviewed, essentially re-built, to evaluate new
criteria application or obstacle encroachment).
What Bob said is absolutrely true. RNAV fix substitution for NDBs and
markers makes them redundant, trims the associated maintenance
expense, eliminates the real estate maintenace costs, drops the
navaid's frequency management to nil, and provides a better up-time
rate.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
405. 426.5377 cell
Elmore City, OK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | PS1000 II Prologue |
After I mucked up the upper connector wiring harness on my PS1000 (mfg by PS
Engineering for UPS Aviation Technologies as the SL-10MS) I contacted PS
engineering to see if they could make a harness up for me (since they said
right on their website that they could do that for a price). I supplied a
PDFed diagram with what I needed and the wire lengths. They promptly
replied that they would only make the lower wiring harness (the one with all
the headphone and microphone connections) and that the upper harness would
have to be made by someone else!! Not very helpful and I was not impressed
with those folks, not to mention the way they designed the upper connector
grounding scheme (wiring all the grounds to one pin created a real "rats
nest" and was the reason I messed up the original). I finally procured some
solder sleeves to use with my Tefzel coax and was able to put together a
clean harness but I'm still not impressed with the folks at PS.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
16 hours
_______________________Original Message___________________________
From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: PS 1000II Prologue
Well it appears that PSE was willing to communicate back to me after
all. ...........
First impressions are hard to overcome. I hope that PSE "talks" to other
builders in the future without having to send their qualifications first
- or - perhaps it was just a timing issue.
.........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "galaxyone(at)juno.com" <galaxyone(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: S-Tec 30 altitude hold problem |
Thanks to all but the obvious solutions do not help. From looking at the
installation diagram ( thanks to Ralph ) altitude hold is engaged/disen
gaged by a 10 v momentary signal from pin 6 to pin 4 both on the S-Tec p
itch computer cable. It would appear that this causes a change of state
internally. Unless I am missing something this has to be an internal pro
blem with the S-Tec and there is not much more I can do with it except t
o send it back to S-Tec.
Anymore thoughts?
Thanks
Henry
____________________________________________________________
Rock Solid Web Hosting. Click Here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTJQdPqLmH8t0sn1f8ilSCE
RZw7yfhafXuw5Vi5ip4hSfPBI9srTF2/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PS1000 II Prologue |
Dean,
Not to give you to hard of a time. PS Engineering is in the business
of manufacturing intercom technology. They are not in the business of
building YOUR homebuilt aircraft. Why don't you use the resources of
the internet and learn how to do it yourself. One of the main
purposes of a homebuilt aircraft is education. Somewhere along the
line you missed that. The audio ground concept that PS Eng. uses is
very common in the industry. Go to the Aeroelectric and get on their
site and use the knowledge from all the builders before you. By the
way much of the Garmin audio technology came from PS Eng (FYI).
Mike Larkin
To many to list...
On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:04 PM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> >
>
> After I mucked up the upper connector wiring harness on my PS1000
> (mfg by PS
> Engineering for UPS Aviation Technologies as the SL-10MS) I
> contacted PS
> engineering to see if they could make a harness up for me (since
> they said
> right on their website that they could do that for a price). I
> supplied a
> PDFed diagram with what I needed and the wire lengths. They promptly
> replied that they would only make the lower wiring harness (the one
> with all
> the headphone and microphone connections) and that the upper harness
> would
> have to be made by someone else!! Not very helpful and I was not
> impressed
> with those folks, not to mention the way they designed the upper
> connector
> grounding scheme (wiring all the grounds to one pin created a real
> "rats
> nest" and was the reason I messed up the original). I finally
> procured some
> solder sleeves to use with my Tefzel coax and was able to put
> together a
> clean harness but I'm still not impressed with the folks at PS.
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
> 16 hours
>
>
> _______________________Original Message___________________________
>
> From: "David & Elaine Lamphere" <dalamphere(at)comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PS 1000II Prologue
>
> Well it appears that PSE was willing to communicate back to me after
> all. ...........
>
> First impressions are hard to overcome. I hope that PSE "talks" to
> other
> builders in the future without having to send their qualifications
> first
> - or - perhaps it was just a timing issue.
> .........
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Quillin <rjquillin(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Gyro repair houses |
Not sure I've seen instrument repair houses discussed before, at
least not recently,
so I'll ask for any updates.
Any good/bad experiences with vacuum attitude gyros/flight director
repair/overhauls?
Spicifically, but not limited to, a CFS/AIM 52C77 internally lit,
single cue FD.
Not looking for speed, just quality at a reasonable price.
TIA
Ron Q.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alt/Batt switch question |
| From: | "westexflyboy" <airplanedriver(at)gmail.com> |
> You might want to include it in the pre-flight checklist by closing the cross
tie, turn aux battery and alternator OFF to see that the aux bus stays lit then
return the system to the flight configuration.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob, am I understanding correctly that it is acceptable close the crossfeed switch
with both alternators and batteries turned on and functioning normally? Perhaps
I am imagining a myth - that the two alternators are somehow phased differently
and cannot apply power to the same bus at the same time.
I, for one, would really appreciate both pre-flight and in-flight failure checklists
for Z-14 to dispell all misunderstandings.
--------
Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Texas
www.flybigbend.com
Simultaneous RV-10 twins under construction
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235595#235595
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dale Rogers <dale.r(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alt/Batt switch question |
westexflyboy wrote:
> ... Perhaps I am imagining a myth - that the two alternators are somehow phased
differently and cannot apply power to the same bus at the same time.
>
Yes - you are myth-informed. Phasing in the alternators
doesn't matter, because they each have their own rectifiers;
so only DC hits the system wiring. Nevertheless, only one
of the alternators will end up doing all the work - the other's
regulator, having detected that higher voltage level, will will
cut it's field current, providing minimal output.
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Alt/Batt switch question |
Good Morning Chase,
Different Bob here, but it is my understanding that a properly operating
alternator has diodes or other rectification devices in the circuit that allow
us to have direct current, not alternating current, at our disposal.
If we hook two alternators together at the point where they are still
producing alternating current, the current will need to be put in phase or
"paralleled" as the big boys say.
Once the output has been rectified or smoothed out enough to be considered
direct current, paralleling ceases to be a problem. The source that has the
highest voltage will hog the load. The lower voltage source will just wait until
the voltage gets down to its level before it adds anything to the mix. That
is how we balance the load between two power output devices, we mess with the
voltage and the resistance between the current producing entities.
Make any sense at all?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/22/2009 2:17:43 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
airplanedriver(at)gmail.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "westexflyboy"
> You might want to include it in the pre-flight checklist by closing the
cross tie, turn aux battery and alternator OFF to see that the aux bus stays
lit then return the system to the flight configuration.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob, am I understanding correctly that it is acceptable close the crossfeed
switch with both alternators and batteries turned on and functioning
normally? Perhaps I am imagining a myth - that the two alternators are somehow
phased differently and cannot apply power to the same bus at the same time.
I, for one, would really appreciate both pre-flight and in-flight failure
checklists for Z-14 to dispell all misunderstandings.
--------
Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Texas
www.flybigbend.com
Simultaneous RV-10 twins under construction
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235595#235595
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Stone <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | glideslope antenna was lower OM minima |
>
>
Now that we have settled the marker beacon issue...
>
What are the options for locating a glideslope antenna on an RV-8?
>
I am building my panel and suddenly had an OH ---- moment. I completely forgot
the GS antenna. My vert stab/rudder are complete so I am curious as to if anyone
has figured out another location for placing the dipole whisker antenna for
the GS receiver? I looked at the dipole strip antenna but it requires a flat
composite surface 40" deep perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft.
So that seem to rule out the wingtip.
I had a suggestion from my local avionics shop to mount a dipole whisker ant. under
the horz. stab. This appears to be difficult at best. What would be the effect
on the antenna reception being two inches below a large ground plane?
I am really trying to avoid tearing of the fiberglass tip on the vert. stab. to
mount a dipole whisker. It's also unsightly!
>
plan the build... build the plan. Except when the old brain misfires.
>
Chris Stone
RV-8 (eventually)
Newberg OR.
>
>
>Well, Old Bob, I guess the story is to keep the Marker Beacon receiver off the
panel. I asked one question and got a different answer. However, your input is
much appreciated. I guess I won't miss the receiver and it will simplify my
panel. (However, you are right that it was pleasant hearing the signal when you
overflew the airports.) Good Bye KR22.
>--Jose
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235407#235407
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Balum Construction |
Can RG-400 coax be used to build a balum for a whisker-type VOR antenna? Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: glideslope antenna was lower OM minima |
Hi Chris,
One of your options is to use a splitter (coupler) dividing the VOR/LOC and
the GS signals, avoiding the need for an additional antenna. Some of the
NAV/COMS (like the SL-30) do this internally. However, the Garmin 430 and
possibly others have separate antenna inputs for LOC and GS. Splitters are
available from many sources, like Spruce and Chief to do this.
Hope this helps.
Richard Dudley
-6A sold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Stone" <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: glideslope antenna was lower OM minima
>
>
>
>>
>>
> Now that we have settled the marker beacon issue...
>>
> What are the options for locating a glideslope antenna on an RV-8?
>>
> I am building my panel and suddenly had an OH ---- moment. I completely
> forgot the GS antenna. My vert stab/rudder are complete so I am curious as
> to if anyone has figured out another location for placing the dipole
> whisker antenna for the GS receiver? I looked at the dipole strip antenna
> but it requires a flat composite surface 40" deep perpendicular to the
> longitudinal axis of the aircraft. So that seem to rule out the wingtip.
> I had a suggestion from my local avionics shop to mount a dipole whisker
> ant. under the horz. stab. This appears to be difficult at best. What
> would be the effect on the antenna reception being two inches below a
> large ground plane?
> I am really trying to avoid tearing of the fiberglass tip on the vert.
> stab. to mount a dipole whisker. It's also unsightly!
>>
> plan the build... build the plan. Except when the old brain misfires.
>>
> Chris Stone
> RV-8 (eventually)
> Newberg OR.
>>
>>
>>Well, Old Bob, I guess the story is to keep the Marker Beacon receiver off
>>the panel. I asked one question and got a different answer. However, your
>>input is much appreciated. I guess I won't miss the receiver and it will
>>simplify my panel. (However, you are right that it was pleasant hearing
>>the signal when you overflew the airports.) Good Bye KR22.
>>--Jose
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235407#235407
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Balum Construction |
| From: | "jetboy" <sanson.r(at)xtra.co.nz> |
yes but it wont perform any different to a balun made from RG58 or RG316, providing
you cut the length proportional to the particular vf of the cable used.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235706#235706
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Curry" <currydon(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Balum Construction |
> providing you cut the length proportional to the particular vf of the
cable used.
So just copying the dimensions of the old balum (which was made of RG58)
won't work? How do you figure the vf of RG400 and how do you convert that
information into info useful in determining the lengths of the various
segments of the new RG400 balum? Or is there a standard template with
lengths for making a balum from RG400?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jetboy
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 5:20 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Balum Construction
>
>
> yes but it wont perform any different to a balun made from RG58 or RG316,
> providing you cut the length proportional to the particular vf of the
cable used.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235706#235706
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
Hello All-
I have a system based on the Z-19 drawing for an EFI based airplane.
Getting ready to fly for the first time, but I am now almost convinced my
setup is killing the batteries for some reason. I have gone through 3
already over the last 16 months just testing out the airplane & running the
engine in test spurts.
Here's the symptoms, hopefully someone can shed some light:
- Recommended Ford regulator
- 2x UB 12220 22AH batteries (3" w x 7" l x 6.5" h)
- 80 Amp alternator
My engine monitor keeps complaining that the alternator is putting out too
high a voltage (typically 15.0 - 15.5 after start with the engine running).
Don't know if this is just because the batteries were just discharged
starting the engine -- haven't had long enough engine runs to see if the
load drops.
All the batteries fail the same way -- suddenly they won't hold a charge &
output only 3v or so. Just had another one fail today.
After doing some additional reading, I am starting to wonder whether these
seal mat batteries are such a good idea. The literature suggests they are
quite finicky on how to recharge.
I must confess that I may have killed the batteries myself. I have an
external battery cart & I have simply been hooking the batteries up &
setting the charger to 40amp when the batteries were running down. The
batteries seem to want an initial charge of 3 amps or less before upping the
amperage.
Help!
Thanks,
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: glideslope antenna was lower OM minima |
Good Afternoon Chris,
My vote would be to use a splitter on the nav antenna. For about the last
thirty years, we have been splitting the signal four ways to feed two VORs and
two glide path receivers.
Modern radios are so good that all systems get plenty of signal.
As far as redundancy is concerned, if the antenna does fail, you still have
GPS to figure out where you are. If you have one that can process WAAS
signals, you can shoot the LPV approaches and there are now more of them than
there
are ILS approaches.
For a VHF nav antenna, I vote for a set of blades. Potential of a failure
with modern blades is practically nil!
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 3/22/2009 1:29:35 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
rv8iator(at)earthlink.net writes:
What are the options for locating a glideslope antenna on an RV-8?
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
%3D62%26bcd%3DMarchfooterNO62)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | PS1000 II Mike Larkin |
Mike:
I understand PSE in that business (manufacturing intercom technology) and
yes, I did buy and use the aeroelectric book and CD and am very pleased with
the result of my wiring job. What bothers me is that after my first attempt
on the SL-10MS top connector, I contacted PSE about doing that harness for
me. The reason I did that was because they told me in the install manual
and the website that they could make up a wire harness if I gave them my
specs and a couple hundred bucks. So I gave them my specs/wire lengths and
was willing to pay a reasonable price for them to do the job. The response
I received was that PSE only makes up the mic and phones harness and not the
harness that is incorporated into the top connector (the harness I was
struggling to make). Since I had been working on the airplane for many
years and the wiring for many months I didn't feel like doing the upper
harness (again) at the time and was not happy that PSE would say they would
build me a harness (but not the one I needed). You say PSE is not in the
business of building MY homebuilt, fair enough but why does PSE bother to
offer to build one of the two harnesses (the EASY one to make) and not the
other? Why would PSE NOT build a harness for the upper connector if a
builder provided the diagrams and wire lengths? The reason I wasn't
impressed was because I didn't (and still don't) see the logic in offering
one thing but not the other! As a credit to PSE, I really like the functions
and features and flexibility of the unit, hopefully it will give me many
years of trouble free service. I've run into other folks in the homebuilt
world who do this same kind of thing and I don't see the logic in their
arguments either so PSE is not alone here. But, if PSE is ONLY in the
business of manufacturing intercom technology then why do they offer to
build ANY wiring harnesses at all?
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
16 hours
______________________________ Original Message ____________________________
From: MICHAEL LARKIN <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PS1000 II Prologue
Dean,
Not to give you to hard of a time. PS Engineering is in the business
of manufacturing intercom technology. They are not in the business of
building YOUR homebuilt aircraft. Why don't you use the resources of
the internet and learn how to do it yourself. One of the main
purposes of a homebuilt aircraft is education. Somewhere along the
line you missed that. The audio ground concept that PS Eng. uses is
very common in the industry. Go to the Aeroelectric and get on their
site and use the knowledge from all the builders before you. By the
way much of the Garmin audio technology came from PS Eng (FYI).
Mike Larkin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alt/Batt switch question |
At 02:14 AM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > You might want to include it in the pre-flight checklist by
> closing the cross tie, turn aux battery and alternator OFF to see
> that the aux bus stays lit then return the system to the flight configuration.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>Bob, am I understanding correctly that it is acceptable close the
>crossfeed switch with both alternators and batteries turned on and
>functioning normally? Perhaps I am imagining a myth - that the two
>alternators are somehow phased differently and cannot apply power to
>the same bus at the same time.
>
>I, for one, would really appreciate both pre-flight and in-flight
>failure checklists for Z-14 to dispell all misunderstandings.
Z-14 is two INDEPENDENT electrical systems intended
to operate in complete isolation from each other
except for (1) perhaps closing the crossfeed contactor
to use both batteries for starting or (2) being able
to power SOME loads from the opposite system in case
of alternator failure of one side.
It does take some special regulators to get two
alternators or generators to peacefully co-exist
on the same bus. I've got a set of z-figures check
lists in progress somewhere. I'll see if I can
find them.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Balum Construction |
At 01:37 PM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>
>Can RG-400 coax be used to build a balum for a whisker-type VOR antenna? Don
400 is the preferred material. This modern coax easily
withstands soldering temperatures. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Antenna/BALUN_Analysis.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Antenna/VOR-LOC_ANT_w_BALUN.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Antennas/Popular_Antenna_Lore.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
At 04:52 PM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>Hello All-
>
>I have a system based on the Z-19 drawing for an EFI based
>airplane. Getting ready to fly for the first time, but I am now
>almost convinced my setup is killing the batteries for some
>reason. I have gone through 3 already over the last 16 months just
>testing out the airplane & running the engine in test spurts.
>
>Here's the symptoms, hopefully someone can shed some light:
> * Recommended Ford regulator
> * 2x UB 12220 22AH batteries (3" w x 7" l x 6.5" h)
> * 80 Amp alternator
>My engine monitor keeps complaining that the alternator is putting
>out too high a voltage (typically 15.0 - 15.5 after start with the
>engine running). Don't know if this is just because the batteries
>were just discharged starting the engine -- haven't had long enough
>engine runs to see if the load drops.
No . . . the regulator has one responsibility only. HOLD the
bus at 14.2 to 14.6 volts under ALL conditions where the
alternator is turning fast enough to shoulder system load
AND recharge the battery.
>All the batteries fail the same way -- suddenly they won't hold a
>charge & output only 3v or so. Just had another one fail today.
>After doing some additional reading, I am starting to wonder whether
>these seal mat batteries are such a good idea. The literature
>suggests they are quite finicky on how to recharge.
EVERY battery hates to be charged at 15+ volts. The
difference is that you can pour water into some
batteries . . . others simply become re-cycle
fodder.
>I must confess that I may have killed the batteries myself. I have
>an external battery cart & I have simply been hooking the batteries
>up & setting the charger to 40amp when the batteries were running
>down. The batteries seem to want an initial charge of 3 amps or
>less before upping the amperage.
An external power supply should ALSO be set
for 14.2 volts. You say it's a "battery cart"
with a current setting? Sounds like an AC mains
power supply of some kind. 14.2 volts is the
rule. Recharge rates are a problem only if
you deeply discharge the batteries. If you have
ground power available, then there's no good
reason to deeply discharge the battries.
It sounds like lack of attention to voltage control
is the root cause of your difficulties.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Balum Construction |
At 04:39 PM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>
> > providing you cut the length proportional to the particular vf of the
>cable used.
>
>So just copying the dimensions of the old balum (which was made of RG58)
>won't work? How do you figure the vf of RG400 and how do you convert that
>information into info useful in determining the lengths of the various
>segments of the new RG400 balum? Or is there a standard template with
>lengths for making a balum from RG400?
The BALUN shown on my website is cut for 1/4-wave
in free space. The coax velocity factor is not
a driver for fabricating this version, hence any
coax can be used. However, attempting to solder to
RG58 with those WWII plastics can be a challenge.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | currydon(at)bellsouth.net |
| Subject: | Re: Balum Construction |
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
| From: | "Mark R. Supinski" <mark.supinski(at)gmail.com> |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 04:52 PM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>
> Hello All-
>
> I have a system based on the Z-19 drawing for an EFI based airplane.
> Getting ready to fly for the first time, but I am now almost convinced my
> setup is killing the batteries for some reason. I have gone through 3
> already over the last 16 months just testing out the airplane & running the
> engine in test spurts.
>
> Here's the symptoms, hopefully someone can shed some light:
>
> - Recommended Ford regulator
> - 2x UB 12220 22AH batteries (3" w x 7" l x 6.5" h)
> - 80 Amp alternator
>
> My engine monitor keeps complaining that the alternator is putting out too
> high a voltage (typically 15.0 - 15.5 after start with the engine running).
> Don't know if this is just because the batteries were just discharged
> starting the engine -- haven't had long enough engine runs to see if the
> load drops.
>
>
> No . . . the regulator has one responsibility only. HOLD the
> bus at 14.2 to 14.6 volts under ALL conditions where the
> alternator is turning fast enough to shoulder system load
> AND recharge the battery.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
So this suggests that the regulator has a problem. It is certainly
generating bus voltages in excess of 15.0v -- I have 2 devices which display
voltage & both agree within 1v of each other that voltages are above 15. I
can't imagine the regulator is adjustable, so it must be a dud, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------
> All the batteries fail the same way -- suddenly they won't hold a charge &
> output only 3v or so. Just had another one fail today.
>
> After doing some additional reading, I am starting to wonder whether these
> seal mat batteries are such a good idea. The literature suggests they are
> quite finicky on how to recharge.
>
>
> EVERY battery hates to be charged at 15+ volts. The
> difference is that you can pour water into some
> batteries . . . others simply become re-cycle
> fodder.
>
> I must confess that I may have killed the batteries myself. I have an
> external battery cart & I have simply been hooking the batteries up &
> setting the charger to 40amp when the batteries were running down. The
> batteries seem to want an initial charge of 3 amps or less before upping the
> amperage.
>
>
> An external power supply should ALSO be set
> for 14.2 volts. You say it's a "battery cart"
> with a current setting? Sounds like an AC mains
> power supply of some kind. 14.2 volts is the
> rule. Recharge rates are a problem only if
> you deeply discharge the batteries. If you have
> ground power available, then there's no good
> reason to deeply discharge the battries.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
The 110v charger allows one to set how many amps to charge with & for how
long -- it puts out 14.5V while charging. However -- *EVERY* AGM battery I
have seen claims a maximum charging amps of 7A or less. This confuses me
since I don't know how to control this when they are being recharged via the
alternator. Some I have seen say "Initial" charging amps, others say Max.
Here is what I see in the manufacturer's literature for my batteries:
Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Cycle Use - Initial Current - 7.7A or
smaller
Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Cycle Use - Control voltage - 14.5 - 14.9
V
Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Float Use - Control Voltage - 13.6 - 13.8
V
There is no good reason to discharge the batteries... except when one
forgets to turn off the master switch & the ECU quietly continues running
all week as the acft sits in the hangar.
--------------------------------------------------------
>
> It sounds like lack of attention to voltage control
> is the root cause of your difficulties.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
If certainly has my attention now! If step one is to replace that
regulator, I'll do it forthwith. If another step is to follow a different
procedure when ground charging (or get a smaller charger) I'll certainly do
that too.
Thanks, Bob -- appreciate the help.
Mark
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Alt/Batt switch question |
| From: | "westexflyboy" <airplanedriver(at)gmail.com> |
[quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 02:14 AM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
> I've got a set of z-figures checklists in progress somewhere. I'll see if I can
find them.
> Bob . . .
Thank you, Bob. You've pretty much provided the the engine start checklist above
and in previous posts. Assuming the two alternators are 60A and 20A respectively,
let me propose an in-flight failure checklist to get the ball rolling.
The will assume the pilot has been trained regarding load analysis of the systems
and devices installed in the aircraft, and two electronic ignition systems
connected directly to the positive and negative terminals of the two batteries
separately:
Scenario #1
AUX Low Volts Lamp Illuminates (20A)
Check AUX ammeter. Discharge indicates probable AUX alternator failure. Recycle
AUX Master switch to BATT then back to ALT. If discharge and low volts continues,
move AUX Master to BATT.
Close Crossfeed Switch.
Check MAIN ammeter. Discharge indicates system overload. Reduce electrical load.
Turn off all devices not required for flight safety. If positive charge indicated,
non-essential devices may be re-introduced one device at a time while
monitoring ammeter.
Check AUX Low Volts Lamp - DARK
If Low Volts lamp remains illuminated and ammeter continues to show discharge after
turning off all devices, AUX system SHORT is indicated. OPEN Crossfeed switch,
and move AUX Master to OFF.
Continue flight to nearest safe landing area.
Scenario #2
MAIN Low Volts Lamp Illuminates (60A)
Check MAIN ammeter. Discharge indicates probable MAIN alternator failure. Recycle
MAIN Master switch to BATT then back to ALT. If still no charge, move MAIN
Master to BATT.
Close Crossfeed Switch.
Turn off ALL devices not required for safe continuation of the flight.
Check AUX ammeter. Discharge indicates system overload. Reduce electrical load
by intermittent and temporary use of essential devices (i.e. communications
and navigation). Disconnect handheld GPS from aircraft bus and use self-contained
batteries. Reduce electrical load until positive charge indicated.
Check MAIN Low Volts Lamp - DARK
If Low Volts lamp remains illuminated and ammeter continues to show discharge after
turning off ALL devices, MAIN system SHORT is indicated. OPEN Crossfeed
switch, and move MAIN Master switch to OFF.
In case of MAIN alternator failure at night or in Instrument Meteorologic Conditions,
continue to nearest safe landing destination.
--------
Chase Snodgrass
Presidio, Texas
www.flybigbend.com
Simultaneous RV-10 twins under construction
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235910#235910
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
In my opinion your regulator is working fine, but the wiring to the
inputs of your regulator is suspect. Poor connections, too small a
gauge of wiring or faulty (resistive) switches will cause overvoltage
when the alternator is heavily loaded.
Bob has an article that discusses this, you'll have to search his
website.
Here's the fix that I did on my RV-9A to eliminate this problem:
http://www.vx-aviation.com/rv-9a/photos/Electrical/Regulator_relay_app.jp
g
The K3 relay is wired firewall-forward directly from the battery (using
a fuselink) and the regulator. D17 is not strictly necessary, but
guards against a dual failure (stuck relay and overvoltage at the same
time). I went from varying charging voltage (up to 15.5V) to rock-solid
14.2V.
Vern Little
Vx Aviation
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark R. Supinski
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing
batteries?
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 04:52 PM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
Hello All-
I have a system based on the Z-19 drawing for an EFI based
airplane. Getting ready to fly for the first time, but I am now almost
convinced my setup is killing the batteries for some reason. I have
gone through 3 already over the last 16 months just testing out the
airplane & running the engine in test spurts.
Here's the symptoms, hopefully someone can shed some light:
a.. Recommended Ford regulator
b.. 2x UB 12220 22AH batteries (3" w x 7" l x 6.5" h)
c.. 80 Amp alternator
My engine monitor keeps complaining that the alternator is putting
out too high a voltage (typically 15.0 - 15.5 after start with the
engine running). Don't know if this is just because the batteries were
just discharged starting the engine -- haven't had long enough engine
runs to see if the load drops.
No . . . the regulator has one responsibility only. HOLD the
bus at 14.2 to 14.6 volts under ALL conditions where the
alternator is turning fast enough to shoulder system load
AND recharge the battery.
--------------------------------------------------------
So this suggests that the regulator has a problem. It is certainly
generating bus voltages in excess of 15.0v -- I have 2 devices which
display voltage & both agree within 1v of each other that voltages are
above 15. I can't imagine the regulator is adjustable, so it must be a
dud, correct?
--------------------------------------------------------
All the batteries fail the same way -- suddenly they won't hold a
charge & output only 3v or so. Just had another one fail today.
After doing some additional reading, I am starting to wonder
whether these seal mat batteries are such a good idea. The literature
suggests they are quite finicky on how to recharge.
EVERY battery hates to be charged at 15+ volts. The
difference is that you can pour water into some
batteries . . . others simply become re-cycle
fodder.
I must confess that I may have killed the batteries myself. I
have an external battery cart & I have simply been hooking the batteries
up & setting the charger to 40amp when the batteries were running down.
The batteries seem to want an initial charge of 3 amps or less before
upping the amperage.
An external power supply should ALSO be set
for 14.2 volts. You say it's a "battery cart"
with a current setting? Sounds like an AC mains
power supply of some kind. 14.2 volts is the
rule. Recharge rates are a problem only if
you deeply discharge the batteries. If you have
ground power available, then there's no good
reason to deeply discharge the battries.
--------------------------------------------------------
The 110v charger allows one to set how many amps to charge with & for
how long -- it puts out 14.5V while charging. However -- *EVERY* AGM
battery I have seen claims a maximum charging amps of 7A or less. This
confuses me since I don't know how to control this when they are being
recharged via the alternator. Some I have seen say "Initial" charging
amps, others say Max.
Here is what I see in the manufacturer's literature for my batteries:
Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Cycle Use - Initial Current - 7.7A
or smaller
Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Cycle Use - Control voltage - 14.5
- 14.9 V
Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Float Use - Control Voltage - 13.6
- 13.8 V
There is no good reason to discharge the batteries... except when one
forgets to turn off the master switch & the ECU quietly continues
running all week as the acft sits in the hangar.
--------------------------------------------------------
It sounds like lack of attention to voltage control
is the root cause of your difficulties.
--------------------------------------------------------
If certainly has my attention now! If step one is to replace that
regulator, I'll do it forthwith. If another step is to follow a
different procedure when ground charging (or get a smaller charger) I'll
certainly do that too.
Thanks, Bob -- appreciate the help.
Mark
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel operations of generators/alternators |
At 08:36 AM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>Good Morning Chase,
>
>Different Bob here, but it is my understanding that a properly
>operating alternator has diodes or other rectification devices in
>the circuit that allow us to have direct current, not alternating
>current, at our disposal.
>
>If we hook two alternators together at the point where they are
>still producing alternating current, the current will need to be put
>in phase or "paralleled" as the big boys say.
>
>Once the output has been rectified or smoothed out enough to be
>considered direct current, paralleling ceases to be a problem. The
>source that has the highest voltage will hog the load. The lower
>voltage source will just wait until the voltage gets down to its
>level before it adds anything to the mix. That is how we balance the
>load between two power output devices, we mess with the voltage and
>the resistance between the current producing entities.
>
>Make any sense at all?
Absolutely! With AC machines (like those that power
the national grid), the task of paralleling multiple
alternators is two-fold. (1) they need to be adjusted
for output voltage so as to limit their output below
rated value and not upset system voltage such that
other alternators shut down and (2) their phase angle
of alternating current must be in lock step with the
system. In DC machines there is no phase angle of
output power to consider, only output voltage
levels with respect to system requirements and
PARALLELING multiple machines such that they SHARE
appropriate proportions of total load.
Back in the good ol' days of carbon pile regulators
on DC generators, this was a relatively easy task.
Each generator already had a really handy feature for
measuring the generator's output current. Large
generators were fitted with "compensation" or
"interpole" windings that kept the axis of field
flux from "twisting" due to reaction flux in the
armature. Without these compensation windings.
Armature reaction flux moved the ideal commutation
point out from under the brushes as output load
increased. This caused an increase in arcing at the
brushes with commensurate increases in wear. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutator_(electric)
This compensation winding had a rather large
voltage drop when the generator was producing
full load . . . something on the order of 5%
of system voltage. This offered a great opportunity
to make two regulators negotiate with each other
for the purpose of sharing loads between two
generators. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Parallel_Aircraft_Generators.jpg
Alternators came along and our handy-dandy
paralleling signal went away.
The first two-alternator system integration
task I was aware of happened on the Cessna 337
while I was a tech-writer there. We struggled
with the task of getting two alternators to
balance their outputs. It seems that the smallest
change in voltage setpoint of one alternator would
cause the higher setting machine to pick up most
if not all of the total load. Regulators then
(and even today) are generally incapable of
precise balancing of two machines based solely
on the sensing of voltage. The "fix" was to
run BOTH alternators from the same regulator.
The pilot could switch between a main regulators
and a spare. Beech did the same thing on the
Baron.
I've designed two alternator-specific balancing
systems. One was offered to Cessna many moons
ago to balance alternators in the T303 Crusader.
In this approach we regulated voltage at the
alternator's b-lead and case ground. We depended
on the resistance of ship's wiring between b-lead
and the bus to "ballast" tiny variations in setpoint.
Another approach done later was an add-on box
that would take control of one regulator as
a "slave" forced to track variations in the
"master". Both approaches worked well but they've
never taken deep roots because alternators are
generally limited to piston engine aircraft.
Every manufacturer would be really pleased to get
out of the piston business if the market would
let them . . . so let's not spend a lot of $time$
upgrading alternator systems to the best-we-know-how-
to-do.
Years later we're presented with an opportunity
to install two alternators of significant capability
on one engine. Okay, what's a mother to do? One
of the most practical approaches is illustrated in
Z-12. One main alternator with a smaller stand-b7
machine held in reserve. The other was Z-14 where
both alternators are assigned normal operations
tasks commensurate with their size in totally
independent systems. Then provide cross-feed
capability for cranking and mitigation of
alternator failure events. This eliminates
the need for anything special in the way of
alternator paralleling regulators.
Bottom line is that figuring out a way to avoid
paralleling alternators is a good thing to do.
None of the Z-figures features feature paralleled
alternator operations.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel operations of generators/alternators (Corrected |
Link)
At 11:44 AM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>At 08:36 AM 3/22/2009, you wrote:
>>Good Morning Chase,
>>
>>Different Bob here, but it is my understanding that a properly
>>operating alternator has diodes or other rectification devices in
>>the circuit that allow us to have direct current, not alternating
>>current, at our disposal.
>>
>>If we hook two alternators together at the point where they are
>>still producing alternating current, the current will need to be
>>put in phase or "paralleled" as the big boys say.
>>
>>Once the output has been rectified or smoothed out enough to be
>>considered direct current, paralleling ceases to be a problem. The
>>source that has the highest voltage will hog the load. The lower
>>voltage source will just wait until the voltage gets down to its
>>level before it adds anything to the mix. That is how we balance
>>the load between two power output devices, we mess with the voltage
>>and the resistance between the current producing entities.
>>
>>Make any sense at all?
>
> Absolutely! With AC machines (like those that power
> the national grid), the task of paralleling multiple
> alternators is two-fold. (1) they need to be adjusted
> for output voltage so as to limit their output below
> rated value and not upset system voltage such that
> other alternators shut down and (2) their phase angle
> of alternating current must be in lock step with the
> system. In DC machines there is no phase angle of
> output power to consider, only output voltage
> levels with respect to system requirements and
> PARALLELING multiple machines such that they SHARE
> appropriate proportions of total load.
>
> Back in the good ol' days of carbon pile regulators
> on DC generators, this was a relatively easy task.
> Each generator already had a really handy feature for
> measuring the generator's output current. Large
> generators were fitted with "compensation" or
> "interpole" windings that kept the axis of field
> flux from "twisting" due to reaction flux in the
> armature. Without these compensation windings.
> Armature reaction flux moved the ideal commutation
> point out from under the brushes as output load
> increased. This caused an increase in arcing at the
> brushes with commensurate increases in wear. See:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bkhzb5
>
> This compensation winding had a rather large
> voltage drop when the generator was producing
> full load . . . something on the order of 5%
> of system voltage. This offered a great opportunity
> to make two regulators negotiate with each other
> for the purpose of sharing loads between two
> generators. See:
>
>http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Parallel_Aircraft_Generators.jpg
>
> Alternators came along and our handy-dandy
> paralleling signal went away.
>
> The first two-alternator system integration
> task I was aware of happened on the Cessna 337
> while I was a tech-writer there. We struggled
> with the task of getting two alternators to
> balance their outputs. It seems that the smallest
> change in voltage setpoint of one alternator would
> cause the higher setting machine to pick up most
> if not all of the total load. Regulators then
> (and even today) are generally incapable of
> precise balancing of two machines based solely
> on the sensing of voltage. The "fix" was to
> run BOTH alternators from the same regulator.
> The pilot could switch between a main regulators
> and a spare. Beech did the same thing on the
> Baron.
>
> I've designed two alternator-specific balancing
> systems. One was offered to Cessna many moons
> ago to balance alternators in the T303 Crusader.
> In this approach we regulated voltage at the
> alternator's b-lead and case ground. We depended
> on the resistance of ship's wiring between b-lead
> and the bus to "ballast" tiny variations in setpoint.
>
> Another approach done later was an add-on box
> that would take control of one regulator as
> a "slave" forced to track variations in the
> "master". Both approaches worked well but they've
> never taken deep roots because alternators are
> generally limited to piston engine aircraft.
> Every manufacturer would be really pleased to get
> out of the piston business if the market would
> let them . . . so let's not spend a lot of $time$
> upgrading alternator systems to the best-we-know-how-
> to-do.
>
> Years later we're presented with an opportunity
> to install two alternators of significant capability
> on one engine. Okay, what's a mother to do? One
> of the most practical approaches is illustrated in
> Z-12. One main alternator with a smaller stand-b7
> machine held in reserve. The other was Z-14 where
> both alternators are assigned normal operations
> tasks commensurate with their size in totally
> independent systems. Then provide cross-feed
> capability for cranking and mitigation of
> alternator failure events. This eliminates
> the need for anything special in the way of
> alternator paralleling regulators.
>
> Bottom line is that figuring out a way to avoid
> paralleling alternators is a good thing to do.
> None of the Z-figures features feature paralleled
> alternator operations.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Morgensen <john(at)morgensen.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
Vern Little wrote:
>
> http://www.vx-aviation.com/rv-9a/photos/Electrical/Regulator_relay_app.jpg
>
Slightly off topic, but I notice a Hall Effect sensor (S5) that appears
to be on the forward side of the firewall. I am installing an AFS 3500
with a Hall Effect sensor and two alternators ala Z-13/8. I would like
to keep all of the alternator and regulator stuff firewall forward but
the EMS wants the Hall sensor on the cabin side. Is there any problem
with the Hall sensor living on the firewall?
John Morgensen
RV9A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
> No . . . the regulator has one responsibility only. HOLD the
> bus at 14.2 to 14.6 volts under ALL conditions where the
> alternator is turning fast enough to shoulder system load
> AND recharge the battery.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>So this suggests that the regulator has a problem. It is certainly
>generating bus voltages in excess of 15.0v -- I have 2 devices which
>display voltage & both agree within 1v of each other that voltages
>are above 15. I can't imagine the regulator is adjustable, so it
>must be a dud, correct?
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
Vern brings up another possibility . . . excessive
drop in the regulator's field supply wiring. Take
a look at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_Test_Reg.jpg
Wire up your regulator like this and install it
directly to the back of the alternator. See what
happens to the bus voltage when all aircraft wiring
is out of the circuit.
I am skeptical that this is the problem. THAT large
an upward shift would almost always cause severe
instability too . . . but give it a try and report
back.
---------------
> An external power supply should ALSO be set
> for 14.2 volts. You say it's a "battery cart"
> with a current setting? Sounds like an AC mains
> power supply of some kind. 14.2 volts is the
> rule. Recharge rates are a problem only if
> you deeply discharge the batteries. If you have
> ground power available, then there's no good
> reason to deeply discharge the battries.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>The 110v charger allows one to set how many amps to charge with &
>for how long -- it puts out 14.5V while charging. However --
>*EVERY* AGM battery I have seen claims a maximum charging amps of 7A
>or less. This confuses me since I don't know how to control this
>when they are being recharged via the alternator. Some I have seen
>say "Initial" charging amps, others say Max.
>
>Here is what I see in the manufacturer's literature for my batteries:
>
>Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Cycle Use - Initial Current -
>7.7A or smaller
>Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Cycle Use - Control voltage - 14.5 - 14.9 V
>Charge Method (Constant Voltage) - Float Use - Control Voltage - 13.6 - 13.8 V
>
>There is no good reason to discharge the batteries... except when
>one forgets to turn off the master switch & the ECU quietly
>continues running all week as the acft sits in the hangar.
Okay. Assuming the manufacturer's literature is the
"bible" for battery recharge protocols. How are you
going to comply with them after the airplane is
finished?
If you've every driven a car with a battery ammeter
(discharge-zero-plus display) you'll recall that after
starting the engine, the ammeter lays over to the charge
side with some gusto. After a few minutes, it tapers back
to some point just above zero. The same thing will happen
in your airplane. After cranking the engine (and perhaps
running some electro-whizzies during pre-flight) how do
you plan to limit the recharge rates to values requested
by the manufacturer of your battery?
The point is there is no practical way to limit the
recharge rate . . . nor is it necessary.
>If certainly has my attention now! If step one is to replace that
>regulator, I'll do it forthwith. If another step is to follow a
>different procedure when ground charging (or get a smaller charger)
>I'll certainly do that too.
The charger you have is just fine. It sounds like
some form of programmable 'smart charger'. When
used to recharge a stand alone battery, it will
have a recharge profile something like this:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Battery_Tender_Recharge.pdf
Here's what another charger does when it was
being used like a "ground power" support supply.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_4.jpg
Another concern is the 22 a.h. rating of the batteries.
This battery package size started out as a 17 a.h.
device. In later years 20 and now 22 a.h.
ratings were offered. I'm thinking they may have
achieved a larger 20 hour discharge capability at
the expense of robustness.
If you replace these critters, I'd have more
confidence in their robustness as beat-n-bash
airplane batteries if they were rated more like
their ancestors. A validation of this idea can
be found in ratings for the Odyssey PC680 which
is rated at 17 a.h. The vast majority of
product in that package size are 17 or 18 a.h.
batteries. I think I'd steer clear of "stretched"
versions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect sensors under the cowl? |
>Slightly off topic, but I notice a Hall Effect sensor (S5) that
>appears to be on the forward side of the firewall. I am installing
>an AFS 3500 with a Hall Effect sensor and two alternators ala
>Z-13/8. I would like to keep all of the alternator and regulator
>stuff firewall forward but the EMS wants the Hall sensor on the
>cabin side. Is there any problem with the Hall sensor living on the firewall?
The hall-sensor is an electronic device with
some temperature effects for both calibration
and upper limits for operating temperatures.
The automotive industry has been running
these critters under the hood for years.
I can't speak to the science for EMS
recommendations. I suspect the real risks
to satisfactory performance are insignificant.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | isolation circuit |
| From: | "jamesneely" <neelyjame(at)gmail.com> |
I have a flightline fl-760 and the manual says that both mikes go hot on transmit.
That doesn't seem a like a great idea, particularly in a noisy cockpit.
They mention an optional isolation relay board, but apparently they never did
produce it, so I have to make up my own.
The problem is that while I can solder just fine, I suck at designing circuits.
Has anyone made one of these boards, or has a schematic that I can work from?
or any source for buying such beast?
thanx,
James
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236003#236003
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chris" <toaster73(at)embarqmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: glideslope antenna was lower OM minima |
Might look at a Comant CE193, It can mount on the windscreen center post (if
you have one). I am going to try it on my RV-10. It was a salvage item for
$38.
-Chris Lucas
RV-10, #40072
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Stone" <rv8iator(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: glideslope antenna was lower OM minima
>
>
>
>>
>>
> Now that we have settled the marker beacon issue...
>>
> What are the options for locating a glideslope antenna on an RV-8?
>>
> I am building my panel and suddenly had an OH ---- moment. I completely
> forgot the GS antenna. My vert stab/rudder are complete so I am curious as
> to if anyone has figured out another location for placing the dipole
> whisker antenna for the GS receiver? I looked at the dipole strip antenna
> but it requires a flat composite surface 40" deep perpendicular to the
> longitudinal axis of the aircraft. So that seem to rule out the wingtip.
> I had a suggestion from my local avionics shop to mount a dipole whisker
> ant. under the horz. stab. This appears to be difficult at best. What
> would be the effect on the antenna reception being two inches below a
> large ground plane?
> I am really trying to avoid tearing of the fiberglass tip on the vert.
> stab. to mount a dipole whisker. It's also unsightly!
>>
> plan the build... build the plan. Except when the old brain misfires.
>>
> Chris Stone
> RV-8 (eventually)
> Newberg OR.
>>
>>
>>Well, Old Bob, I guess the story is to keep the Marker Beacon receiver off
>>the panel. I asked one question and got a different answer. However, your
>>input is much appreciated. I guess I won't miss the receiver and it will
>>simplify my panel. (However, you are right that it was pleasant hearing
>>the signal when you overflew the airports.) Good Bye KR22.
>>--Jose
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Read this topic online here:
>>
>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=235407#235407
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Balum Construction |
To expand what Bob said:
<< http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
The BALUN shown on my website is cut for 1/4-wave in free space >>
The velocity factor for RG-400 is 0.70 (for RG-58 it's 0.66). This means a
signal travels at 70% the speed of light in free space. Thus Bob's 1/4 wave
length of 26" is correct for the horizontal antenna lines (velocity factor
of about 0.98) but the coax balun length should be reduced by a factor of
0.70, that is a length of 18 1/4".
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hall effect sensors under the cowl? |
I have a dual LSE ignition with two hall effect sensors mounted right on
the engine. They even have LED lights on them. Can't get more forward
than that. I'm installing the AF 3500 too, so guess where theirs will be
going? I also have 13/8 with a second battery added to help make things
more confusing.
Just so we don't damage anything perhaps we can find out the upper limit
for operating temperatures on that sensor. If you are really worried but
really need to mount it on the firewall because of space or whatever you
could find a shroud for it and run a cold air scat tube to it.
Glenn
-----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: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 3:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Hall effect sensors under the cowl?
>Slightly off topic, but I notice a Hall Effect sensor (S5) that
>appears to be on the forward side of the firewall. I am installing
>an AFS 3500 with a Hall Effect sensor and two alternators ala
>Z-13/8. I would like to keep all of the alternator and regulator
>stuff firewall forward but the EMS wants the Hall sensor on the
>cabin side. Is there any problem with the Hall sensor living on the
firewall?
The hall-sensor is an electronic device with
some temperature effects for both calibration
and upper limits for operating temperatures.
The automotive industry has been running
these critters under the hood for years.
I can't speak to the science for EMS
recommendations. I suspect the real risks
to satisfactory performance are insignificant.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: System Objectives |
At 01:38 PM 2/17/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>We're planning to use dual LSE Plasma III's and all glass panels,
>which is why we're leaning toward Z-14. Best I can tell P-mags are
>not available for the six cylinder Lycoming. (?)
>
>I see my options as follows: install a small battery behind the
>panel strictly for pre-start ops, or install the IPS device
>suggested by Bob Newman.
>
>Bob, I am eager to see those checklists.
I've found them. It's a collective document that
speaks to all the Z-figures and needs some work yet.
Z-14 though is pretty simple. Except for alternator
out conditions (rare) and perhaps engine cranking,
the cross feed contactor is OPEN. Under all other
conditions, each system is a stand-alone power
source that either is working (lv warning light
out) or not.
Assuming that there are electro-whizzies on the
aux bus that you really, Really, REALLY need
for comfortable completion of flight, then you
cross feed from the main bus to the aux bus.
If it's the fat alternator that quit, then you
close cross feed contactor and load-shed both
busses down to some value at or just below
100% load on the aux alternator.
This is an activity that you can practice
in flight.
It's pretty straight forward and not terribly
worthy of a special procedure in the emergency
check lists. Recall that our design goals include
maximizing failure tolerance and plan-A/plan-B
procedures that prevent any failure from becoming
an emergency.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
I'm trying to find a low cost, low profile GPS receiver that speaks
RS-232 instead of USB. If anyone can point me toward one, I'd
appreciate it. Everything I find uses USB.
Background: I have a GRT Sport hooked up to a GNC300XL. Everything
works great, but the 300XL does not send the date/time to the Sport.
According to GRT, none of the panel mounted GPS's do (but all of the
hand-held ones will - go figure). This means that the time display on
the Sport is useless, and the Logbook function shows all my flights
taking place on 1/1/2003. So, I figured I'd just hook up a second GPS -
which the Sport supports.
I bought a GPS 'hockey puck' receiver and it works great on my computer.
When I hooked it up to the Sport, no go. When I asked GRT about that,
they said even though the GPS is sending serial data, it is speaking
USB, and the Sport only speaks RS-232. I got an 'RS-232 to USB
conversion cable" (has electronics to convert the protocols) but haven't
been able to make that work either. I did hook up a hand-held GPS
receiver I have (an old Magellan 315) to the Sport, and that worked just
fine, so I know what I want to do is possible, but I need a device that
uses the right protocol. Either that or help making the conversion unit
work.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
RV-7A Rochester Hills, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries? |
My Ford regulator is adjustable. Mine was set at 13.8 volts. No
problems so far.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
--------------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 + Ford regulator killing batteries?
> No . . . the regulator has one responsibility only. HOLD the
> bus at 14.2 to 14.6 volts under ALL conditions where the
> alternator is turning fast enough to shoulder system load
> AND recharge the battery.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> So this suggests that the regulator has a problem. It is certainly
> generating bus voltages in excess of 15.0v -- I have 2 devices which
> display voltage & both agree within 1v of each other that voltages
> are above 15. I can't imagine the regulator is adjustable, so it
> must be a dud, correct?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------snip--------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
| From: | Michael W Stewart <mike.stewart(at)us.ibm.com> |
http://www.byonics.com/tinytrak/gps.php
from their website.
===============
The GPS2 has a female DB-9 connector to connect directly to the
TinyTrak3Plus, is very sensitive, and is built with the SiRFstar III
chipset. It has the same DB-9 connector as the GPS1. It features Wide A
rea
Augmentation System (WAAS) to provide unmatched accuracy and performanc
e.
It has an on-board rechargeable battery for fast satellite acquisition
during power-up, and requires 5V to operate. Tracking up to 20 satellit
es,
the Byonics GPS2 can be used with almost every major mapping software (
NMEA
0183 v2.2 data protocol).
The GPS2 unit comes with a 6 foot cable, an internal magnet for versati
le
mounting options, and is water resistant.
It draws 65mA typically, and will work to an altitude of 18 km and spee
d of
515 m/s. Weight is 3.6oz. See below for more stats.
This is a 5 volt GPS. Do not connect this GPS to 12 volts or it will be
destroyed. If using with a TinyTrak3Plus, configure J7 for 5 volts (the
bottom two of three square pads soldered together). Do not use directly
with a TinyTrak3 (non-Plus). If you have a TinyTrak3, you need a GPAC o
r
GPAP power adapter below.
Byonics GPS2 - $69. The Byonics GPS2 employs the SiRF III chipset, sen
ds
NMEA data at 4800 baud, and is directly compatible with the TinyTrak3Pl
us.
Requires 5 volts DC. Pinout: 2 - Serial Out, 3 - Serial In (not normall
y
used), 4 - 5V Power in, 5 - Ground. Sends NMEA sentences: $GPGSA, $GPRM
C,
$GPGGA, $GPGSV.
=================
Mike
From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
To:
Date: 03/25/2009 11:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses R
S-232
Sent by: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
I'm trying to find a low cost, low profile GPS receiver that speaks RS-
232
instead of USB. If anyone can point me toward one, I'd appreciate it.
Everything I find uses USB.
Background: I have a GRT Sport hooked up to a GNC300XL. Everything wor
ks
great, but the 300XL does not send the date/time to the Sport. Accordi
ng
to GRT, none of the panel mounted GPS's do (but all of the hand-held on
es
will - go figure). This means that the time display on the Sport is
useless, and the Logbook function shows all my flights taking place on
1/1/2003. So, I figured I'd just hook up a second GPS - which the Spor
t
supports.
I bought a GPS 'hockey puck' receiver and it works great on my computer
.
When I hooked it up to the Sport, no go. When I asked GRT about that,
they
said even though the GPS is sending serial data, it is speaking USB, an
d
the Sport only speaks RS-232. I got an 'RS-232 to USB conversion
cable" (has electronics to convert the protocols) but haven't been able
to
make that work either. I did hook up a hand-held GPS receiver I have (
an
old Magellan 315) to the Sport, and that worked just fine, so I know wh
at I
want to do is possible, but I need a device that uses the right protoco
l.
Either that or help making the conversion unit work.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
RV-7A Rochester Hills, MI
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
Look at the garmin gps-12 range... Low cost and pretty reliable.
There's a 5hz version that spits out 19200 baud, which probably won't
work with most systems, so be careful! There is definitely an RS-232 9600
version in the list though.
On 25 Mar 2009, at 4:57 PM, "Glaeser, Dennis A"
wrote:
> I'm trying to find a low cost, low profile GPS receiver that speaks
> RS-232 instead of USB. If anyone can point me toward one, I'd
> appreciate it. Everything I find uses USB.
>
> Background: I have a GRT Sport hooked up to a GNC300XL. Everything
> works great, but the 300XL does not send the date/time to the
> Sport. According to GRT, none of the panel mounted GPS's do (but
> all of the hand-held ones will - go figure). This means that the
> time display on the Sport is useless, and the Logbook function shows
> all my flights taking place on 1/1/2003. So, I figured I'd just
> hook up a second GPS - which the Sport supports.
>
> I bought a GPS 'hockey puck' receiver and it works great on my
> computer. When I hooked it up to the Sport, no go. When I asked
> GRT about that, they said even though the GPS is sending serial
> data, it is speaking USB, and the Sport only speaks RS-232. I got
> an 'RS-232 to USB conversion cable" (has electronics to convert the
> protocols) but haven't been able to make that work either. I did
> hook up a hand-held GPS receiver I have (an old Magellan 315) to the
> Sport, and that worked just fine, so I know what I want to do is
> possible, but I need a device that uses the right protocol. Either
> that or help making the conversion unit work.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dennis Glaeser
> RV-7A Rochester Hills, MI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
| From: | jaybannist(at)cs.com |
Dennis,
I bought a RS232 to USB converter cable from Radio Shack to communicate between
my Dynon EMS and a laptop.? It never worked.? My son had one that did work and
didn't even require the installation of special software.? I don't know offhand
what his cable was, but I can find out if you want to go that way.
Jay Bannister
-----Original Message-----
From: Glaeser, Dennis A <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com>
Sent: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 9:57 am
Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232
I'm trying to find a low cost, low profile GPS receiver that speaks RS-232 instead
of USB.? If anyone can point me toward one, I'd appreciate it.? Everything
I find uses USB.
Background: I have a GRT Sport hooked up to a GNC300XL.? Everything works great,
but the 300XL does not send the date/time to the Sport.? According to GRT, none
of the panel mounted GPS's do (but all of the hand-held ones will - go figure).?
This means that the time display on the Sport is useless, and the Logbook
function shows all my flights taking place on 1/1/2003.? So, I figured I'd
just hook up a second GPS - which the Sport supports.
I bought a GPS 'hockey puck' receiver and it works great on my computer.? When
I hooked it up to the Sport, no go.? When I asked GRT about that, they said even
though the GPS is sending serial data, it is speaking USB, and the Sport only
speaks RS-232.? I got an 'RS-232 to USB conversion cable" (has electronics
to convert the protocols) but haven't been able to make that work either.? I did
hook up a hand-held GPS receiver I have (an old Magellan 315) to the Sport,
and that worked just fine, so I know what I want to do is possible, but I need
a device that uses the right protocol.? Either that or help making the conversion
unit work.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
RV-7A? Rochester Hills, MI
________________________________________________________________________
Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: glideslope antenna was lower OM minima |
At 06:21 PM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>Might look at a Comant CE193, It can mount on the windscreen center
>post (if you have one). I am going to try it on my RV-10. It was a
>salvage item for $38.
>-Chris Lucas
>RV-10, #40072
Before you hang whiskers on your airplane for
the GS receiver, try a coupler. Keep in mind that
ILS signals are beamed off the approach end of
the runway, only have to be functional for
perhaps 10 miles max and are VERY strong.
A VOR/LOC antenna is an odd harmonic relationship
with GS frequencies which makes it fairly efficient
for both services.
I'm 99% sure you'll find a single-antenna,
coupler-feed pair of ILS receivers quite
satisfactory.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Ray Allen stick grip wired up to control 6 items with |
just 1 relay
| From: | rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US |
Managed wiring up Ray Allen stick gripusing 1 relay, 2 diodes, a
rotary switchand a 9 pin Radio Shack Molex connector to accomplish
the following:
****Pitch trim
****Roll trim
****Manual control of Airmaster prop
****Audio panel PTT
****Audio panel recorder playback
****Switch from pilot to Co-Pilot
control of pitch trim, roll trim and Airmaster manual prop control
Was going to use a 9 pin D-sub to fit inside the 1" OD
(7/8" ID) stick, but liked the 9 pin Molex from Radio Shack better
for a number of reasons:
****Easier to remove pins
****Fit of
plug when you mutilate corners a little is a perfect fit
****Snug fit
requires no holdemtogether
Details:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album284&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
Ron Parigoris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Thanks everyone for the quick responses. Better results in 10 minutes
than a few hours doing searches! Lesson learned :-)
Mike - thanks for the Byonics link. Their stuff never came up on any
search. Just ordered one.
Etienne - the gps-12 is more than I need. I want just the receiver.
Jay - I was hoping the cable I got was like your son's, but apparently
not. Hopefully the Byonics GPS will work and solve the problem. I'll
get back to you if I need to get the info on your son's cable.
Thanks again!
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
At 02:17 PM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>I have a flightline fl-760 and the manual says that both mikes go
>hot on transmit. That doesn't seem a like a great idea,
>particularly in a noisy cockpit. They mention an optional isolation
>relay board, but apparently they never did produce it, so I have to
>make up my own.
>The problem is that while I can solder just fine, I suck at
>designing circuits. Has anyone made one of these boards, or has a
>schematic that I can work from? or any source for buying such beast?
Are you using the hot-mic intercom feature . . . or
is it just a comm transceiver?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Etienne Phillips <etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
Once again, my fingers over-took my brain.
The GPS 12 is indeed not only way more than you're looking for, but
is actually discontinued!
I had the GPS 18-PC in mind (and in my aircraft). 12V, RS-232, puck
with magnetic mounting base:
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=158&pID=223
On 25 Mar 2009, at 7:44 PM, Glaeser, Dennis A wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the quick responses. Better results in 10
> minutes than a few hours doing searches! Lesson learned :-)
>
> Mike - thanks for the Byonics link. Their stuff never came up on
> any search. Just ordered one.
> Etienne - the gps-12 is more than I need. I want just the receiver.
> Jay - I was hoping the cable I got was like your son's, but
> apparently not. Hopefully the Byonics GPS will work and solve the
> problem. I'll get back to you if I need to get the info on your
> son's cable.
>
> Thanks again!
>
> Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Normand Biron" <normbiron(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
The Garmin GNC250XL is a panel mount unit that sends date/time
information.
Norm
Original Message -----
From: Etienne Phillips<mailto:etienne.phillips(at)gmail.com>
To:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses
RS-232
Look at the garmin gps-12 range... Low cost and pretty reliable.
There's a 5hz version that spits out 19200 baud, which probably won't
work with most systems, so be careful! There is definitely an RS-232
9600 version in the list though.
On 25 Mar 2009, at 4:57 PM, "Glaeser, Dennis A"
> wrote:
I'm trying to find a low cost, low profile GPS receiver that speaks
RS-232 instead of USB. If anyone can point me toward one, I'd
appreciate it. Everything I find uses USB.
Background: I have a GRT Sport hooked up to a GNC300XL. Everything
works great, but the 300XL does not send the date/time to the Sport.
According to GRT, none of the panel mounted GPS's do (but all of the
hand-held ones will - go figure). This means that the time display on
the Sport is useless, and the Logbook function shows all my flights
taking place on 1/1/2003. So, I figured I'd just hook up a second GPS -
which the Sport supports.
I bought a GPS 'hockey puck' receiver and it works great on my
computer. When I hooked it up to the Sport, no go. When I asked GRT
about that, they said even though the GPS is sending serial data, it is
speaking USB, and the Sport only speaks RS-232. I got an 'RS-232 to USB
conversion cable" (has electronics to convert the protocols) but haven't
been able to make that work either. I did hook up a hand-held GPS
receiver I have (an old Magellan 315) to the Sport, and that worked just
fine, so I know what I want to do is possible, but I need a device that
uses the right protocol. Either that or help making the conversion unit
work.
Thanks,
Dennis Glaeser
RV-7A Rochester Hills, MI
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
| From: | James Neely <neelyjame(at)gmail.com> |
I'm using the vox intercom feature. That part seems to work great, so I'd
like to use it.
James
2009/3/25 Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 02:17 PM 3/24/2009, you wrote:
>
>> neelyjame(at)gmail.com>
>>
>> I have a flightline fl-760 and the manual says that both mikes go hot on
>> transmit. That doesn't seem a like a great idea, particularly in a noisy
>> cockpit. They mention an optional isolation relay board, but apparently
>> they never did produce it, so I have to make up my own.
>> The problem is that while I can solder just fine, I suck at designing
>> circuits. Has anyone made one of these boards, or has a schematic that I
>> can work from? or any source for buying such beast?
>>
>
> Are you using the hot-mic intercom feature . . . or
> is it just a comm transceiver?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
| From: | "jamesneely" <neelyjame(at)gmail.com> |
I'm using the vox feature. works great on the bench. I'm not sure you can turn
that feature off in this radio.
Would it work if I just put a relay in to disconnect the copilot mike on transmit..breaks
the connection from the copilot mike to pin #3? And at the same time
grounds pin #7 (the transmit PTT)?
There will only be one PTT[/list]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236130#236130
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/fl_760_wiring_diagram_179.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
At 02:47 PM 3/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>I'm using the vox feature. works great on the bench. I'm not sure
>you can turn that feature off in this radio.
>Would it work if I just put a relay in to disconnect the copilot
>mike on transmit..breaks the connection from the copilot mike to pin
>#3? And at the same time grounds pin #7 (the transmit PTT)?
>
>There will only be one PTT[/list]
That would work. Check out
this relay:
http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId 62483
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
| From: | "jamesneely" <neelyjame(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Bob, but I'm not having any luck with that product ID. Which relay is it?
There's a dpdt miniature part #275-249
James
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236174#236174
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
At 09:57 PM 3/25/2009, you wrote:
>
>Thanks Bob, but I'm not having any luck with that product ID. Which
>relay is it? There's a dpdt miniature part #275-249
>James
>
Hmmmm . . . I guess I don't know where you are located.
That website link was to a Radio Shack part. The relay
is a sealed, low power 12v, dpdt device. Do you have
access to a Radio Shack store?
The part suggested is a Tyco part. Here's the data
sheet:
http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/datasheets/OMI-2P.pdf
If you don't have access to Radio Shack then any
other small signal relay will do (2A or
less contacts).
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: isolation circuit |
| From: | "jamesneely" <neelyjame(at)gmail.com> |
When I tried the link it didn't get me to that part, but it looks like that's the
one I found one their site. Given the info on the data sheet, I think my problem
is solved. Thanks to you, and all the others that chimed in.
We have "the Source" here in the frozen north, a subsidiary of Radio Shack. I'll
have no trouble getting what I need.
Thanx again,
James
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236193#236193
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
| From: | "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser(at)eds.com> |
Needless to say, I was surprised at GRT's comment about panel mounted
GPSs not sending the time, and based on your info maybe it's only IFR
units (?). They all have it of course, but obviously some don't pass
that info along in the serial data stream. I don't know why, and
haven't taken the time to investigate further.
Thanks,
Dennis
-------------------
From: Normand Biron
Date: Wed Mar 25 - 12:56 PM
The Garmin GNC250XL is a panel mount unit that sends date/time
information.
Norm
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses RS-232 |
For 3k you only get so much...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Glaeser, Dennis A
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: "Hockey Puck" GPS receiver that uses
RS-232
Needless to say, I was surprised at GRT's comment about panel mounted
GPSs not sending the time, and based on your info maybe it's only IFR
units (?). They all have it of course, but obviously some don't pass
that info along in the serial data stream. I don't know why, and
haven't taken the time to investigate further.
Thanks,
Dennis
-------------------
From: Normand Biron
Date: Wed Mar 25 - 12:56 PM
The Garmin GNC250XL is a panel mount unit that sends date/time
information.
Norm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Polyfuses for aircraft? |
I've been working with a variety of polyfuses
on the bench and have completed some tests in the
chamber. I've killed a few of the critters that
suffered heat-sinking effects of vibration
resistant mounting. These guys first fail shorted.
Depending on source impedance, they either pull
the supply voltage down . . . or blow up and go open.
I'll continue to evaluate mounting techniques
but I gotta tell you that I'm not enthusiastic about
these parts. It's a poor design that pivots about
assembly processes.
Decades of aviation experience have demonstrated
numerous recipes for success that have performed well.
It's unfortunate that LSE saw fit to install
the crowbar ov protection. Were it not for this
feature, there would be no good reason why these
systems couldn't be powered through 5A fuses at
the battery bus. But as soon as you add a requirement
for the 5A, crowbar-friendly breaker, robustness of
always-hot feeders from the bus must be greater than
the legacy design philosophies dictate.
If the LSE products had been designed in compliance
with Mil-STD-704/DO-160 guidelines, there would be no need
to incorporate a second layer of OV protection
and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm not finished with the tinkering. However, I am 90%
sure that the parts being tested are not going to
exhibit equal-to-or-better performance than ingredients
and processes which go into demonstrable recipes for success.
LSE's recommended installation philosophies
will FUNCTION as advertised but are contrary
to contemporary aviation design philosophies for
protection of feeders in the power distribution
system. It's unlikely that the 'Connection will
recommend any alternatives for incorporating LSE
products into OBAM aircraft. Installers should
comply with LSE recommendations.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Polyfuses for aircraft? |
| From: | "bcondrey" <bob.condrey(at)baesystems.com> |
Bob,
Earlier you had mentioned that it would take a 30 amp fuse to guarantee that the
5 amp breaker would trip first from a crowbar event. I'm not enthusiastic about
that much current being allowed through - what CB size would be required
to guarantee that the 5 amp up front would trip first? Would a 7.5 in back be
OK or would it have to be significantly larger? Would this be of benefit over
a large (30 amp) fuse?
These wouldn't be in flight resettable devices but would reduce the amount of current
allowed in the always hot wires. In theory the only thing that they're
protecting against is a dead short in the airframe wiring since anything past
the 5 amp panel critters (wiring, maybe a switch and the actual ignition box)
would trip them first.
Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236266#236266
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fusible Links and Bus Interconnects |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
I was looking at an old Z drawing (Z-13/20 but that doesn't really matter for the
purpose of my question), and it raises some questions that I I am struggling
to recall the rationale.
1) What is the theory behind those connections (typically between busses and contactors)
they specify minimum length (6" or less). Examples I am thinking of
are between battery contactor and battery bus, battery bus and e-bus contactor,
e-bus contactor and standby alt shunt, etc.? Is it voltage drop along the
wire or something else?
2) There is a fusible link shown between the battery bus and e-bus contactor (which
ultimately connects to the e-bus when switched on). Since all of the loads
on the busses are separately fused, what exactly is the fusible link protecting
against?
3) I've noticed all of the designs show a fusible link in-line with the alt field
breaker. Why are two circuit protection devices in-line with no loads between
them? Seems redundant.
4) I've seen some people put fusible links in-line between the main and e-bus diode
feed. Not sure I appreciate why that is needed?
5) Are there any limits as to how short or how long the fusible links should be?
Thanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236267#236267
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible Links and Bus Interconnects |
At 03:31 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>I was looking at an old Z drawing (Z-13/20 but that doesn't really
>matter for the purpose of my question), and it raises some questions
>that I I am struggling to recall the rationale.
>
>1) What is the theory behind those connections (typically between
>busses and contactors) they specify minimum length (6" or
>less). Examples I am thinking of are between battery contactor and
>battery bus, battery bus and e-bus contactor, e-bus contactor and
>standby alt shunt, etc.? Is it voltage drop along the wire or something else?
These notations suggest that connected devices should
be adjacent to each other. If you gotta go 10" for the
conductor, then so be it. But close proximity in
the airplane is a design goal.
>2) There is a fusible link shown between the battery bus and e-bus
>contactor (which ultimately connects to the e-bus when switched
>on). Since all of the loads on the busses are separately fused,
>what exactly is the fusible link protecting against?
Z-13/20 was eliminated from the z-figures. After
some considerable, afer-the-fact consideration I
decided I could claim to have been hung over when
I did it. It's just too clumsy. Z-12 or Z-14 are
better integrations of an SD-20 with a larger main
alternator.
>3) I've noticed all of the designs show a fusible link in-line with
>the alt field breaker. Why are two circuit protection devices
>in-line with no loads between them? Seems redundant.
Long lengths of wire (greater than 6" in the FAA
world) need some form of fault protection. Unless
your main bus is located within 6" of the breaker,
then protection is generally advised. Further, it
must be MUCH more robust than the 5A breaker which
is expected to operate FIRST during a crowbar ov event.
>4) I've seen some people put fusible links in-line between the main
>and e-bus diode feed. Not sure I appreciate why that is needed?
If it's not on my drawings, it's not advised by
me. Fuses, breakers, fusible links, polyfuses, etc
are NOT interchangeable technologies. I've shown
fusible links in a very few locations and only
after consideration for their operating characteristics.
>5) Are there any limits as to how short or how long the fusible
>links should be?
Fusible links smoke insulation. They don't want
to be too short for thermal characteristics. 6"
is a good number used on many cars. But certainly
no longer.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polyfuses for aircraft? |
At 03:28 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Earlier you had mentioned that it would take a 30 amp fuse to
>guarantee that the 5 amp breaker would trip first from a crowbar
>event. I'm not enthusiastic about that much current being allowed
>through - what CB size would be required to guarantee that the 5 amp
>up front would trip first? Would a 7.5 in back be OK or would it
>have to be significantly larger? Would this be of benefit over a
>large (30 amp) fuse?
Do your own tests. Put in any size fuse you like
and deliberately crowbar the downstream breaker.
Once you find a fuse that stays put after a half
dozen trips, go up one more size. Since this
is hard-fault protection only, you don't need to
upsize the wire. 20AWG is still good.
>These wouldn't be in flight resettable devices but would reduce the
>amount of current allowed in the always hot wires. In theory the
>only thing that they're protecting against is a dead short in the
>airframe wiring since anything past the 5 amp panel critters
>(wiring, maybe a switch and the actual ignition box) would trip them first.
Now you understand the struggle for
reconciling LSE recommendations with
contemporary design goals. I haven't figured
out a way to do it yet. There is probably some
form of polyfuse that would meet reliability
goals . . . but not the ones I have on hand
now. Assuming the magic device could be identified,
now we need to insure that folks can get them
and that other folks don't substitute them.
I don't like "fine tuning" a design like this.
I'm working a serious accident right now that
involved total loss of dual electronic ignition
where rudimentary design goals were not established,
understood and met.
Risk of engine failure due poor hacks is greater
than risk of fire if you roll it up into a ball.
Until some better idea emerges, wire it per
LSE recommendations . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Polyfuses for aircraft? |
I have also thought of testing a slow-blo (20) style ATC for this
mission. We'll give it a go. LSE likes to tie the 5 amp breaker right to
the battery post, so a bit more testing each way.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses for aircraft?
At 03:28 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Earlier you had mentioned that it would take a 30 amp fuse to
>guarantee that the 5 amp breaker would trip first from a crowbar
>event. I'm not enthusiastic about that much current being allowed
>through - what CB size would be required to guarantee that the 5 amp
>up front would trip first? Would a 7.5 in back be OK or would it
>have to be significantly larger? Would this be of benefit over a
>large (30 amp) fuse?
Do your own tests. Put in any size fuse you like
and deliberately crowbar the downstream breaker.
Once you find a fuse that stays put after a half
dozen trips, go up one more size. Since this
is hard-fault protection only, you don't need to
upsize the wire. 20AWG is still good.
>These wouldn't be in flight resettable devices but would reduce the
>amount of current allowed in the always hot wires. In theory the
>only thing that they're protecting against is a dead short in the
>airframe wiring since anything past the 5 amp panel critters
>(wiring, maybe a switch and the actual ignition box) would trip them
first.
Now you understand the struggle for
reconciling LSE recommendations with
contemporary design goals. I haven't figured
out a way to do it yet. There is probably some
form of polyfuse that would meet reliability
goals . . . but not the ones I have on hand
now. Assuming the magic device could be identified,
now we need to insure that folks can get them
and that other folks don't substitute them.
I don't like "fine tuning" a design like this.
I'm working a serious accident right now that
involved total loss of dual electronic ignition
where rudimentary design goals were not established,
understood and met.
Risk of engine failure due poor hacks is greater
than risk of fire if you roll it up into a ball.
Until some better idea emerges, wire it per
LSE recommendations . . .
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jetech" <av8tor(at)hughes.net> |
After looking at the Z-13/8 schematic and trying to figure out the best layout
for the old tripacer I think I am close to having a initial plan.
For those not familiar with the PA-22, there is an electrical box mounted under
the pilots seat on the front side of the seat structure. This box houses the
original starter contactor, start button, regulator, and some fuses. The battery
is located under the co-pilots seat.
I would like to fit the batt bus (FH-6 block), Batt contactor, Starter contactor,
push to start, alternator current limiter, two shunts main/aux, and the relay
for the HD E-buss circuit under the seat. The push to start circuit will be
hooked from the main bus side of the batt contactor to a CB then to the starter
contactor. The CB will also be with the under seat components.
We removed the original brake cylinder from under the pilots seat so I am trying
to figure out the best method to get these components under the seat. I would
like to find some avionics tray slides and fit everything on a slide out tray,
width would be limited but there would be some depth.
The starter and alternator cables will run forward 70" and 80" to their units (Sky-tec
and L-40). The
The behind the panel components will be the main buss, E-bus, and F1 test receptacle.
On the cabin side of the firewall will be the main controller/regulator (LR3C-14),
Aux regulator (PMR1C and OV kit), and ground system (GB24).
The battery will have its original local ground.
I have a question:
Can the circuit that runs from the SD-8 shunt to the batt side of the batt contactor
instead be fused at the batt bus using an ATC fuse?
I welcome any suggestions to what I have planned so far.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236301#236301
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS brown out protection |
| From: | Paul Eckenroth <N509RV(at)eckenroth.com> |
Would an aux battery feed to the E Buss through a solid state contactor keep
the voltage from sagging if the contactor is energized by the starter
switch. The E Buss feed from the Main Buss is through a diode.
I will appreciate any facts and/ or opinions,
Paul Eckenroth
N509RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
At 08:33 PM 3/26/2009, you wrote:
>Would an aux battery feed to the E Buss through a solid state
>contactor keep the voltage from sagging if the contactor is
>energized by the starter switch. The E Buss feed from the Main
>Buss is through a diode.
>
>I will appreciate any facts and/ or opinions,
I'm aware of no solid state relays that behave
like a metallic switch. They work well to effect
on/off control to a load that is never a power
source . . . like landing lights, pitot heat,
blowers, etc.
However, solid state relays with the lowest
ON resistance use power MOS-FET transistors.
These critters come with a built in power diode
across the transistor's control structure.
This means that when the relay is OFF, power
can back-feed from the "load" back toward the
"source".
What you've proposed may work as long as this
potential for reverse current flow is an
acceptable feature in your overall design
goal. Figure Z-10/8 shows one way that a
relay can be used to isolate an aux battery
during engine cranking such that brownout
transient does not propagate from main battery
to the brown-out protection battery.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z10-8A1.pdf
Another scheme could simply treat the Aux
Battery as a non-cranking device wired like
Z-30 and supplying e-bus alternate power from
the aux battery bus.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z29K_30K.pdf
In this case one simply closes the E-bus alternate
feed switch and leaves the aux battery contactor open
while cranking the engine.
There are variations on the theme you can consider
and it's not necessarily given that a solid state
relay is unsuitable to the task. Just be aware
of and account for its reverse power flow feature.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag
protection is a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent
Power Stabilizer, IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics
with battery voltages ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was
specifically developed to keep EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and
running during engine starting. It weighs less than 1 lb and requires
no maintenance. All the details are avialable at www.tcwtech.com
Thanks,
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies, LLC.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Eckenroth
To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:33 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: EFIS brown out protection
Would an aux battery feed to the E Buss through a solid state
contactor keep the voltage from sagging if the contactor is energized by
the starter switch. The E Buss feed from the Main Buss is through a
diode.
I will appreciate any facts and/ or opinions,
Paul Eckenroth
N509RV
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
| From: | "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com> |
I have a question about this device. With the Dynon 180 and other EFIS/EMS systems
the aircraft voltage is measured from the same wire that powers the unit.
Doesn't this device defeat that ability to measure voltage?
rnewman(at)tcwtech.com wrote:
> Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag protection is a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent Power Stabilizer, IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics with battery voltages ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was specifically developed to keep EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and running during engine starting. It weighs less than 1 lb and requires no maintenance. All the details are avialable at www.tcwtech.com (http://www.tcwtech.com)
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Newman
> TCW Technologies, LLC.
>
>
>
> ---
--------
W.R. "Gig" Giacona
601XL Under Construction
See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236363#236363
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
At 11:34 AM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>
>I have a question about this device. With the Dynon 180 and other
>EFIS/EMS systems the aircraft voltage is measured from the same wire
>that powers the unit. Doesn't this device defeat that ability to
>measure voltage?
How so? ALL instruments display what they measure
at the point of interest determined by design goals
of the manufacturer.
Bottom line is that watching the voltage or current
at any point in the aircraft has some diagnostic but
even less operational value. When it comes to a
resurrection of some system in your airplane,
probability of having EASY access to the most
useful measurement points is close to zero.
We've discussed the value of having alternator loadmeters
versus battery ammeters. We've studied the value of
knowing voltage on a host of "interesting" system nodes.
Some years ago I proposed a non-digital implementation of
the automotive diagnostics connector. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Electrical_System_Diagnostics.pdf
That proposal brought 26 data points of interest to some
handy location for the purposes of doing system failure
diagnosis from the cockpit . . . with room to expand to
37 total.
The odds of really NEEDING to look at any one of those
points is tiny. But the FIRST time that access to a
data point buried in the guts of your airplane saves
you hours of trouble shooting time . . . the value
of installing such features takes a quantum leap
upward.
I've been privileged to mitigate dozens of problems
that had an airplane out of service for weeks if not
months. My success had more to do with getting access
to data than it was the deduction of what the data meant!
The value of any single measurement is predicated on
understanding its significance. The probability of any one
measurement being significant in the constellation of potential
troubleshooting tasks is small.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
With equipment like the Dynon that only have a single power input, then the
ability to measure voltages below 12 volts is lost. (voltages above 12 volts
will read correctly) However, we have included a low voltage warning light
with the IPS system. Below 12.0 volts the light will illuminate.
Thanks,
Bob Newman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gig Giacona" <wrgiacona(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 12:34 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EFIS brown out protection
>
>
> I have a question about this device. With the Dynon 180 and other EFIS/EMS
> systems the aircraft voltage is measured from the same wire that powers
> the unit. Doesn't this device defeat that ability to measure voltage?
>
>
> rnewman(at)tcwtech.com wrote:
>> Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag
>> protection is a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent
>> Power Stabilizer, IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics
>> with battery voltages ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was
>> specifically developed to keep EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and
>> running during engine starting. It weighs less than 1 lb and requires
>> no maintenance. All the details are avialable at www.tcwtech.com
>> (http://www.tcwtech.com)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bob Newman
>> TCW Technologies, LLC.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>
>
> --------
> W.R. "Gig" Giacona
> 601XL Under Construction
> See my progress at www.peoamerica.net/N601WR
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236363#236363
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
At 12:16 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>
>With equipment like the Dynon that only have a single power input,
>then the ability to measure voltages below 12 volts is lost.
>(voltages above 12 volts will read correctly) However, we have
>included a low voltage warning light with the IPS system. Below
>12.0 volts the light will illuminate.
Does the Dynon shut down its ability to display
voltages below 12.0? What is the significance of
knowing a transition across a 12.0 volt threshold?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fusible Links and Bus Interconnects |
| From: | "tx_jayhawk" <tx_jayhawk(at)excite.com> |
Hi Bob,
Thanks for the feedback...I re-reviewed 43.13 to try and better answer my own questions,
but there was still a few things from your reply I was not clear on.
> These notations suggest that connected devices should
> be adjacent to each other. If you gotta go 10" for the
> conductor, then so be it. But close proximity in
> the airplane is a design goal.
Is this just from a circuit protection standpoint (want it to be like "one" device)?
10" is ok...what about 2'?
> Z-13/20 was eliminated from the z-figures. After
> some considerable, afer-the-fact consideration I
> decided I could claim to have been hung over when
> I did it. It's just too clumsy. Z-12 or Z-14 are
> better integrations of an SD-20 with a larger main
> alternator.
I'm now sure I understand why this is? My problem with Z12 is that both alternators
are feeding the same point. If the connection from the main to ess bus
fails, you've lost both alternators. It seems preferable to have the standby
alt feed the e-bus more directly. Z14 has another battery, contactors, and other
complexity I chose not to pursue.
> Long lengths of wire (greater than 6" in the FAA
> world) need some form of fault protection. Unless
> your main bus is located within 6" of the breaker,
> then protection is generally advised. Further, it
> must be MUCH more robust than the 5A breaker which
> is expected to operate FIRST during a crowbar ov event.
>
I would be interested in learning the origin of the 6" rule (I could not find in
AC 43.13), but it still seems the wire already has circuit protection via the
circuit breaker. I'm not sure I understand why two circuit protection devices
are needed. There are obviously lots of power wires (for other loads) longer
than 6" with only one source of circuit protection, so I am not sure why this
is different?
> They don't want
> to be too short for thermal characteristics. 6"
> is a good number used on many cars. But certainly
> no longer.
6" is a max...2" is min? 3"?
THanks,
Scott
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=236393#236393
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fusible Links and Bus Interconnects |
At 12:54 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thanks for the feedback...I re-reviewed 43.13 to try and better
>answer my own questions, but there was still a few things from your
>reply I was not clear on.
>
>
> > These notations suggest that connected devices should
> > be adjacent to each other. If you gotta go 10" for the
> > conductor, then so be it. But close proximity in
> > the airplane is a design goal.
>
>Is this just from a circuit protection standpoint (want it to be
>like "one" device)? 10" is ok...what about 2'?
You have to make the go/no-go decision as to how
far you're willing to stretch contemporary
conventions. The goal is to minimize risks
to small gage feeders (by "small" we mean
much smaller than the battery and cranking
circuit wires). Occasionally we've needed to
attach some device directly to the bus or
other fat-wire feed power point in a TC
aircraft where the amount of wire exposed to
fault risk could be limited to 6" or so.
Folks traditionally up-tight with the burning
of ANY wire deduced that the hazards generated
were small. Same philosophy was applied to
fusible links in cars. Now, if you want to
go for 12" or 10-feet, that's your decision
and your responsibility for risk mitigation.
Are you going to double insulate the wire?
Extra special care to insure no damage that
might create a fault? The choice is yours.
I've recommended a fusible link as an upstream
protection for the 5A crowbar OV shut down
system. It's not a "rule" and would not perhaps
even be mentioned in 43.13.
My approach is to offer recipes for success
based on my personal observations of history
and experiences in analysis of failure mode
effects. But the ultimate magnitude and
nature of risk you're willing to assume is
your choice.
> > Z-13/20 was eliminated from the z-figures. After
> > some considerable, afer-the-fact consideration I
> > decided I could claim to have been hung over when
> > I did it. It's just too clumsy. Z-12 or Z-14 are
> > better integrations of an SD-20 with a larger main
> > alternator.
>
>I'm now sure I understand why this is? My problem with Z12 is that
>both alternators are feeding the same point. If the connection from
>the main to ess bus fails, you've lost both alternators. It seems
>preferable to have the standby alt feed the e-bus more
>directly. Z14 has another battery, contactors, and other complexity
>I chose not to pursue.
How do you loose connection between the main
bus and e-bus? Your presumption of risk is
no different than loss of connection between
the main bus and avionics bus in contemporary
TC aircraft. The weakest link in the legacy
main/avionics bus architectures is the avionics
master switch. As described in detail on the
website, the whole premise for installing such
a switch has evaporated based on new design goals
and product improvements over the past 40 years.
Further, even thought I've eliminated the AV master
from the Z-Figures, I've provided a second,
reduced power consumption pathway in the form of
an alternate feed directly from the battery.
Z-12 offers two power paths to the e-bus re-enforced
by two alternators driving a main bus with a reliability
history approaching that of prop bolts.
> > Long lengths of wire (greater than 6" in the FAA
> > world) need some form of fault protection. Unless
> > your main bus is located within 6" of the breaker,
> > then protection is generally advised. Further, it
> > must be MUCH more robust than the 5A breaker which
> > is expected to operate FIRST during a crowbar ov event.
> >
>
>
>I would be interested in learning the origin of the 6" rule (I could
>not find in AC 43.13), but it still seems the wire already has
>circuit protection via the circuit breaker.
One might accurately say it was pulled from a place
were the sun don't shine. Consider the wire protected
by the fusible link runs from bus to breaker, the breaker
protects wire(s) downstream AND complies with design
goals established by the crowbar ov protection
philosophy were a BREAKER is used in an airplane
otherwise protected by FUSES. If you have some OTHER
ov protection scheme, perhaps the 5A breaker, extended
bus wire AND fusible link is eliminated. In this case,
field power comes directly from the fuse block on a 5 or
7A fuse.
> I'm not sure I understand why two circuit protection devices are
> needed. There are obviously lots of power wires (for other loads)
> longer than 6" with only one source of circuit protection, so I am
> not sure why this is different?
A single protective device suffices when a circuit
branch from the bus (or fat wires) is located where
that power leaves the bus as in rows of breakers or
fuses. Once I tie onto the fat wires for extening power
from a fuse block to a panel mounted breaker, THAT
small wire becomes vulnerable. In observance of
the "rule of dark origins", the fusible link seems
easy and reasonable. Likelihood that the fusible link
will EVER be required to operate . . . exceedingly
low. But then, 99.99% of all breakers and fuses installed
in cars, airplanes, other vehicles and indeed your
house run the lifetime of the system never being
required to operate in defense of a fault condition.
So, knowing that . . . how far are you willing to
depart from legacy design goals? I cannot advise
you there. My design goals go to the simplest,
lowest cost, most robust implementation of
proven recipes for success.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
The Dynon does not do anything strange with respect to reading bus voltage.
Some devices, such as the Dynon Efis, have a single power input which is
used to power the device as well as display the bus voltage. When they are
powered through a TCW IPS product then they receive regulated 12 volt power
regardless of the battery voltage. For bus voltages between 5-12 volts the
output of the IPS product will regulate the voltage supplied to the load
(EFIS), therefore, the EFIS will display a bus voltage of 12 volts. If
the bus voltage rises above 12 volts the IPS will pass that voltage on to
the load and therefore the bus voltage display on the EFIS will read
correctly. To provide a pilot warning for low bus voltage the IPS system
is supplied with a low voltage warning indicator to help annuciate a low
voltage condition.
Bob Newman
TCW Technologies
www.tcwtech.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: EFIS brown out protection
>
>
> At 12:16 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>With equipment like the Dynon that only have a single power input, then
>>the ability to measure voltages below 12 volts is lost. (voltages above 12
>>volts will read correctly) However, we have included a low voltage
>>warning light with the IPS system. Below 12.0 volts the light will
>>illuminate.
>
> Does the Dynon shut down its ability to display
> voltages below 12.0? What is the significance of
> knowing a transition across a 12.0 volt threshold?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 12:16 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> With equipment like the Dynon that only have a single power input,
>> then the ability to measure voltages below 12 volts is lost.
>> (voltages above 12 volts will read correctly) However, we have
>> included a low voltage warning light with the IPS system. Below
>> 12.0 volts the light will illuminate.
>
> Does the Dynon shut down its ability to display
> voltages below 12.0? What is the significance of
> knowing a transition across a 12.0 volt threshold?
>
>
> Bob . . .
I *think* that the original point was that with a 'switcher' feeding a
regulated 13.8v to power the Dynon (being used as an engine/general
electrical system health monitor), the Dynon wouldn't be able to tell
the pilot that the bus voltage had begun to fall due to alternator or
other failures in the electrical system, since there's no separate
voltage monitor input on the Dynon. The 1st notice would be when the
switcher drops off-line & everything goes dark.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob-tcw" <rnewman(at)tcwtech.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
One other thing we did in the design of the IPS product was to set the
regulated output voltage to just below 12 volts so that under normal
conditions, i.e. alternator working properly, instruments like the Dynon
will show a proper bus voltage of around 14 volts. When there is an
alternator failure and the bus voltage starts to fall, there will be some
indication on the instrument volt meter. (movement from 14 to 12.6). When
you have an alternator failure the battery voltage rapidly falls from 14
volts down to about 12 to 12.6 where it sits whilst loads discharge the
battery. Also, if you miss that clue and you miss the low voltage
warning light illuminating at 12.0 volts, then somewhere around 8-9 volts of
bus voltage a lot of other electronic devices in the plane will start to let
you know that things have gone wrong. The good news is your EFIS will
still be up :)
-Bob Newman
TCW Technologies
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: EFIS brown out protection
>
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>>
>>
>> At 12:16 PM 3/27/2009, you wrote:
>>>
>>> With equipment like the Dynon that only have a single power input, then
>>> the ability to measure voltages below 12 volts is lost. (voltages above
>>> 12 volts will read correctly) However, we have included a low voltage
>>> warning light with the IPS system. Below 12.0 volts the light will
>>> illuminate.
>>
>> Does the Dynon shut down its ability to display
>> voltages below 12.0? What is the significance of
>> knowing a transition across a 12.0 volt threshold?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
> I *think* that the original point was that with a 'switcher' feeding a
> regulated 13.8v to power the Dynon (being used as an engine/general
> electrical system health monitor), the Dynon wouldn't be able to tell the
> pilot that the bus voltage had begun to fall due to alternator or other
> failures in the electrical system, since there's no separate voltage
> monitor input on the Dynon. The 1st notice would be when the switcher
> drops off-line & everything goes dark.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | ICom headset adapter |
| From: | eschlanser(at)yahoo.com |
I have a hope that the list can help me find or fabricate a replacement for the
headset adapter for my ICom A-5 handheld radio. The problems include an overpriced
replacement available from ICom and the lack of a push to talk switch plug
in the aftermarket headset adapters for electronics.
Thanks, Eric
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
>> Does the Dynon shut down its ability to display
>> voltages below 12.0? What is the significance of
>> knowing a transition across a 12.0 volt threshold?
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>I *think* that the original point was that with a 'switcher' feeding
>a regulated 13.8v to power the Dynon (being used as an
>engine/general electrical system health monitor), the Dynon wouldn't
>be able to tell the pilot that the bus voltage had begun to fall due
>to alternator or other failures in the electrical system, since
>there's no separate voltage monitor input on the Dynon. The 1st
>notice would be when the switcher drops off-line & everything goes dark.
Duhhh . . . I knew that!
Hmmm . . . putting that much hardware between a perfectly
good battery (ies) to offset a one-time, 50 mS brownout
that occurs before you leave that ground seems like
killing ants with a sledge.
The obvious, stone simple work-around for equipment
not designed to live in the real world of aircraft
is to not fire it up until after the the engine starts.
The second best is to provide a non-cranking battery
to support weak sisters until after engine start.
If your design goals call for an architecture with
dual batteries anyhow, it seems a simple matter to
arrange things so only the main battery is used to
crank the engine.
Once the engine is running then all features of all
appliances can be expected to perform as advertised
without having to make "mental adjustments" as to
the new meaning of any particular display. If
weight, parts count and cost of ownership are
weighty features of your design goals, minimizing
the amount of stuff to be purchased, installed,
maintained and carried around as part of your
empty weight should be carefully considered
for magnitude of added value.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: EFIS brown out protection |
| From: | Paul Eckenroth <N509RV(at)eckenroth.com> |
Bob
Thanks for the heads up concerning the solid state contactor. It does
indeed reverse feed when not activated. Does a relay such as S 704-1 act
more like a mechanical switch. Would it be reasonable to activate this
relay using the start switch.
Paul
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:33 AM, Bob-tcw wrote:
> Paul, One alternative to an auxiliary battery for voltage sag protection
> is a product we developed at TCW Technologies. Intelligent Power
> Stabilizer, IPS, provides regulated power to critical electronics with
> battery voltages ranging from 5-15 volts. This product was specifically
> developed to keep EFIS, GPS and engine monitors up and running during engine
> starting. It weighs less than 1 lb and requires no maintenance. All the
> details are avialable at www.tcwtech.com
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Newman
> TCW Technologies, LLC.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
March 10, 2009 - March 28, 2009
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-in