AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ln
December 12, 2012 - January 04, 2013
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to:
>
> Matt Dralle / Matronics
> 581 Jeannie Way
> Livermore CA 94550
>
>
> I also want to thank Bob, Jon, and Andy for their generous support through
> the supply of great gifts this year!! These guys have some excellent
> products and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites:
>
> Bob Nucklolls - AeroElectric - http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
> Jon Croke - HomebuiltHELP - http://www.homebuilthelp.com
>
> Andy Gold - The Builder's Bookstore - http://www.buildersbooks.com
>
>
> And finally, I'm proud to present The 2012 Fund Raiser List of
> Contributors:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/loc/2012.html
>
>
> Thanks again to everyone that made a Contribution this year!!
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
>
>Bob, your solution isn't fully clear to me. Is the 3/16" rod silver
>soldered into the 10-32 screw? To disconnect, one would unscrew the
>10-32 screw? If the antenna is bent back, that may be a little tricky, no?
No, I'd leave the nut loose for a couple of reasons.
First, it would let you orient a bend and tighten the nut
later (this could be a finger nut made from a piece
of flat sheet with a drilled and tapped hole in the
middle but with enough O.D. to let you hand tighten.
Yeah, it would have a slight 'lengthening' effect
on the antenna which would be shortened accordingly
using SWR meter
(2) heating the rod to silver solder temps in
the thread area places the heat treat of the
material in doubt right at the threads (manufactured
stress riser).
>I've seen BNC connectors used as antenna bases on ultralights but
>wasn't sure about the speed limits. Mine has a 100kts cruise. The
>BNC connectors that looked beefy enough also looked pretty draggy.
>Same for antennas that have a BNC mount. Bob, you think your
>crimp-on BNC connector would support a whip antenna, vs. a rubber
>duck one? In this case I'd like to order it from you. I guess I
>could machine a stainless steel support sleeve to beef up the antenna side BNC.
The worst that happens is you break it and need to
replace. If you want a laid back antenna, consider
making the element out of piano wire and leave it
un-bent. A smaller wire will produce less drag,
less stress on connector, and would lay back all
by itself in the breeze.
If you'd like to order a connector, go to the website
catalog, fill out top form data, go to bottom and put
BNC Bulkhead Connector in the comments box. I'll
send you a PayPal invoice.
Over what distances do you expect this antenna/comm
configuration to work? I used to fly my J-3 with a
hand-held fitted with a head-set using a coax taped
half way up the strut and grounded to a sheet copper
'wrapper' and a 1/4 wave trailing wire dangling from
the center conductor.
Worked over the distances (airport traffic area)
and approach to the home field (7-10 miles out).
A trailing wire would be less drag yet.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Open source wig-wag project; now light color |
At 12:55 PM 12/12/2012, you wrote:
>Sacha,
>
> I have the same basic parameters you describe, and to add to your
> questions, I have noticed in the automotive sphere, the halogens
> appear in light blue and yellow lensed versions as well. What say
> the experts is the highest visibility of the lot in a wig-wag setup?
When we installed one of Roy Lopresti's first HID
offerings in the experimental Bonanza at Beech, the
tower complained that the color temperature of the
HID was so much closer to blue-sky background that
one couldn't see it as well as the stock incandescent
landing/taxi light. I'm told that contemporary HIDs
are not so badly afflicted.
I recall reading of an experiment by the allies during
WWII to mount a series of high color temperature lamps
along leading edge of wings and adjusting intensity
such that the airplane viewed from the front was
more difficult to see against blue sky. Not sure
how well it worked but the idea seems plausible
if not heavy and something of a kluge.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2012 List of Contributors |
Hear, hear. I too would like to see an update to Kitlog Pro. I'd certainly
consider paying for a major upgrade. If Matt will consider this I hope he
solicits input from users to decide on features.
Ralph Finch
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, DeWitt (Dee) Whittington <
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> I've donated to you for years. I and my three partners continue to build
> our Sportsman and hopefully will fly in the Spring. However, this year I
> held off donating because I'm waiting for an update to the Kitlog Pro
> computer program you own. When you purchased Kitlog Pro, you said you would
> clean it up and make it easier to use. As of now the interface is really
> clunky and it cannot handle multiple builders of a single project,
> something that in my experience is not uncommon.
>
> Have you decided such improvement of Kitlog Pro is not something you are
> willing to spend time on? If you did I would enthusiastically endorse it to
> other builders and start donating again.
>
> Dee Whittington
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitlog Pro Development |
Well, there's a sad story about the history of the Kitlog Development cycle. After
I acquired the Kitlog Pro company, I enlisted the programmer that had been
doing some of the minor development on the product prior. I'd never met him
and we mostly only exchanged emails. I did speak to him on the phone on one
occasion. I gave him a huge, long, list of new features and enhancements that
many customers were wanting to see in Kitlog. It was tagged the 3.0 Version.
Keeping him working was always a challenge, but time passed and he worked through
nearly the whole list (I was paying him by the hour). At one point, he
subcontracted some of the tasks to an overseas code house (I suspect China, as
the spelling and grammar on some of the dialogs was atrocious). I finally got
a pre-release version to try and sure enough, every one of the features I'd
asked for was included. The bad news, most of them didn't work or didn't work
as expected. But worst, the whole program was completely unstable and crashed
constantly. Obviously, he had done little if any testing along the way. At
this point, I had to make a decision. I had already spent a substantial amount
for the development such as it was. It would easily take that much or more
to "fix" everything and I'd still be fairly suspect of the quality. I decided
to take a step back at that point and come up with a new game plan. I had to
sell quite a few more copies of Kitlog to recoup the cost of all that wasted
development.
Well, the good news is that I've found an awesome new developer that has lots of
experience in this coding environment. In fact, I work with him face to face
on another job. So, we decided to just take the 2.0 code base and start working
from there. The biggest issue right now is the installer and compatibility
with Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8. These have been addressed and I'm testing
a new installer currently that is working very well and has a super smooth
installation across all of the versions of Windows. There are also a number
of user interface enhancements including the ability to just drag and drop pictures
on a given construction log. Printing reliability is also vastly improved.
There are also lots of little tweaks that make things work better. This
version will likely be dubbed "2.1". Once that's out the door and working,
we have some great plans to add some of the other often-asked-for features like
spell checking, rich text, larger text fields, more pictures per log entry,
etc. It will likely be dubbed "3.0".
Version 2.1 will be a free update. Version 3.0 will likely be a paid upgrade.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics / Kitlog Pro
At 08:15 PM 12/12/2012 Wednesday, you wrote:
>Hear, hear. I too would like to see an update to Kitlog Pro. I'd certainly consider
paying for a major upgrade. If Matt will consider this I hope he solicits
input from users to decide on features.
>
>Ralph Finch
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, DeWitt (Dee) Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>Matt,
>
>I've donated to you for years. I and my three partners continue to build our Sportsman
and hopefully will fly in the Spring. However, this year I held off donating
because I'm waiting for an update to the Kitlog Pro computer program you
own. When you purchased Kitlog Pro, you said you would clean it up and make
it easier to use. As of now the interface is really clunky and it cannot handle
multiple builders of a single project, something that in my experience is not
uncommon.
>
>Have you decided such improvement of Kitlog Pro is not something you are willing
to spend time on? If you did I would enthusiastically endorse it to other builders
and start donating again.
>
>Dee Whittington
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kitlog Pro Development |
| From: | Bob Leffler <rv(at)thelefflers.com> |
So is there an ETA for 2.1?
Bob
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 13, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
> Well, there's a sad story about the history of the Kitlog Development cycle.
After I acquired the Kitlog Pro company, I enlisted the programmer that had been
doing some of the minor development on the product prior. I'd never met him
and we mostly only exchanged emails. I did speak to him on the phone on one
occasion. I gave him a huge, long, list of new features and enhancements that
many customers were wanting to see in Kitlog. It was tagged the 3.0 Version.
Keeping him working was always a challenge, but time passed and he worked
through nearly the whole list (I was paying him by the hour). At one point, he
subcontracted some of the tasks to an overseas code house (I suspect China,
as the spelling and grammar on some of the dialogs was atrocious). I finally
got a pre-release version to try and sure enough, every one of the features I'd
asked for was included. The bad news, most of them didn't work or didn't work
as expected. But worst, the whole program was comp!
> letely unstable and crashed constantly. Obviously, he had done little if any
testing along the way. At this point, I had to make a decision. I had already
spent a substantial amount for the development such as it was. It would easily
take that much or more to "fix" everything and I'd still be fairly suspect
of the quality. I decided to take a step back at that point and come up with
a new game plan. I had to sell quite a few more copies of Kitlog to recoup
the cost of all that wasted development.
>
> Well, the good news is that I've found an awesome new developer that has lots
of experience in this coding environment. In fact, I work with him face to face
on another job. So, we decided to just take the 2.0 code base and start working
from there. The biggest issue right now is the installer and compatibility
with Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8. These have been addressed and I'm
testing a new installer currently that is working very well and has a super smooth
installation across all of the versions of Windows. There are also a number
of user interface enhancements including the ability to just drag and drop
pictures on a given construction log. Printing reliability is also vastly improved.
There are also lots of little tweaks that make things work better. This
version will likely be dubbed "2.1". Once that's out the door and working,
we have some great plans to add some of the other often-asked-for features like
spell checking, rich text, larger text fields, mor!
> e pictures per log entry, etc. It will likely be dubbed "3.0".
>
> Version 2.1 will be a free update. Version 3.0 will likely be a paid upgrade.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Matt Dralle
> Matronics / Kitlog Pro
>
>
>
> At 08:15 PM 12/12/2012 Wednesday, you wrote:
>> Hear, hear. I too would like to see an update to Kitlog Pro. I'd certainly consider
paying for a major upgrade. If Matt will consider this I hope he solicits
input from users to decide on features.
>>
>> Ralph Finch
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, DeWitt (Dee) Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>> I've donated to you for years. I and my three partners continue to build our
Sportsman and hopefully will fly in the Spring. However, this year I held off
donating because I'm waiting for an update to the Kitlog Pro computer program
you own. When you purchased Kitlog Pro, you said you would clean it up and make
it easier to use. As of now the interface is really clunky and it cannot handle
multiple builders of a single project, something that in my experience is
not uncommon.
>>
>> Have you decided such improvement of Kitlog Pro is not something you are willing
to spend time on? If you did I would enthusiastically endorse it to other
builders and start donating again.
>>
>> Dee Whittington
>
>
>
> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
> 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Kitlog Pro Development |
This is good news. However, is there any chance of the database being
accessible from server-land ("the cloud")? It would be great to add and
edit entries from an iPad, for instance. I realize that would be a lot of
extra work but it would be nice.
More realistically, I'd really like more powerful online search
capabilities. It would be fantastic to find descriptions and photos easily
of the task you're working on. Anyway thanks for letting us know of this
and we look forward to the changes.
Ralph Finch
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kitlog Pro Development |
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
I'm hoping within a couple of months if things continue to progress as well as
they have been.
Matt Dralle
Matronics / Kitlog Pro
-
Matt Dralle RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN
Bob Leffler wrote:
>
>
>So is there an ETA for 2.1?
>
>Bob
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Dec 13, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Matt Dralle wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> Well, there's a sad story about the history of the Kitlog Development
>cycle. After I acquired the Kitlog Pro company, I enlisted the
>programmer that had been doing some of the minor development on the
>product prior. I'd never met him and we mostly only exchanged emails.
>I did speak to him on the phone on one occasion. I gave him a huge,
>long, list of new features and enhancements that many customers were
>wanting to see in Kitlog. It was tagged the 3.0 Version. Keeping him
>working was always a challenge, but time passed and he worked through
>nearly the whole list (I was paying him by the hour). At one point, he
>subcontracted some of the tasks to an overseas code house (I suspect
>China, as the spelling and grammar on some of the dialogs was
>atrocious). I finally got a pre-release version to try and sure
>enough, every one of the features I'd asked for was included. The bad
>news, most of them didn't work or didn't work as expected. But worst,
>the whole program was comp!
>> letely unstable and crashed constantly. Obviously, he had done
>little if any testing along the way. At this point, I had to make a
>decision. I had already spent a substantial amount for the development
>such as it was. It would easily take that much or more to "fix"
>everything and I'd still be fairly suspect of the quality. I decided
>to take a step back at that point and come up with a new game plan. I
>had to sell quite a few more copies of Kitlog to recoup the cost of all
>that wasted development.
>>
>> Well, the good news is that I've found an awesome new developer that
>has lots of experience in this coding environment. In fact, I work
>with him face to face on another job. So, we decided to just take the
>2.0 code base and start working from there. The biggest issue right
>now is the installer and compatibility with Vista, Windows 7, and
>Windows 8. These have been addressed and I'm testing a new installer
>currently that is working very well and has a super smooth installation
>across all of the versions of Windows. There are also a number of user
>interface enhancements including the ability to just drag and drop
>pictures on a given construction log. Printing reliability is also
>vastly improved. There are also lots of little tweaks that make things
>work better. This version will likely be dubbed "2.1". Once that's
>out the door and working, we have some great plans to add some of the
>other often-asked-for features like spell checking, rich text, larger
>text fields, mor!
>> e pictures per log entry, etc. It will likely be dubbed "3.0".
>>
>> Version 2.1 will be a free update. Version 3.0 will likely be a paid
>upgrade.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Matt Dralle
>> Matronics / Kitlog Pro
>>
>>
>>
>> At 08:15 PM 12/12/2012 Wednesday, you wrote:
>>> Hear, hear. I too would like to see an update to Kitlog Pro. I'd
>certainly consider paying for a major upgrade. If Matt will consider
>this I hope he solicits input from users to decide on features.
>>>
>>> Ralph Finch
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM, DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
><dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Matt,
>>>
>>> I've donated to you for years. I and my three partners continue to
>build our Sportsman and hopefully will fly in the Spring. However, this
>year I held off donating because I'm waiting for an update to the
>Kitlog Pro computer program you own. When you purchased Kitlog Pro, you
>said you would clean it up and make it easier to use. As of now the
>interface is really clunky and it cannot handle multiple builders of a
>single project, something that in my experience is not uncommon.
>>>
>>> Have you decided such improvement of Kitlog Pro is not something you
>are willing to spend time on? If you did I would enthusiastically
>endorse it to other builders and start donating again.
>>>
>>> Dee Whittington
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt G Dralle | Matronics | 581 Jeannie Way | Livermore | CA | 94550
>> 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
>> http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 2012 List of Contributors |
| From: | "schmoboy" <schmoboy(at)cox.net> |
Not sure I wanted to send this, but what the he..
I'm hoping that folks aren't using what is or what isn't in Kitlog Pro as a determination
if they are going to send a donation for these lists. Kitlog Pro is
a paid application. If you buy the product you are funding the further development.
These lists are free and continue to thrive because of donations. If
you donate you are helping them continue.
I don't use KLP, but if I did it would have no bearing on if I donate to these
lists. It would have a bearing on if I upgraded or not.
Like these lists? Use them all the time? Donate. It's not too late.
.0001 cent worth...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390450#390450
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2012 List of Contributors |
Neither do I. I intend to make a donation as I have every year for 8
years. My purpose was to use this forum as a means to get a statement
from Matt about his upgrading Kitlog Pro. I had not heard from him
for 8 years. I'm certainly very happy that his intention is to
greatly improve the software. I can't wait to see the improved product.
Dee
At 01:04 PM 12/14/2012, you wrote:
>
>Not sure I wanted to send this, but what the he..
>
>I'm hoping that folks aren't using what is or what isn't in Kitlog
>Pro as a determination if they are going to send a donation for
>these lists. Kitlog Pro is a paid application. If you buy the
>product you are funding the further development. These lists are
>free and continue to thrive because of donations. If you donate you
>are helping them continue.
>
>I don't use KLP, but if I did it would have no bearing on if I
>donate to these lists. It would have a bearing on if I upgraded or not.
>
>Like these lists? Use them all the time? Donate. It's not too late.
>
>.0001 cent worth...
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390450#390450
>
>
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean Curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | SL30 intercom function |
The SL30 has a voice activated intercom function. Can this intercom be used
in conjunction with an audio isolation amplifier as the system intercom? I
don't see any way of putting the output of the isolation amp into the
intercom. Is this doable, or is it more of a pain in the lower posterior
than it is worth.
Thanks for your thoughts and observations.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL30 intercom function |
At 11:08 AM 12/15/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>The SL30 has a voice activated intercom function. Can this intercom be used
>in conjunction with an audio isolation amplifier as the system intercom? I
>don't see any way of putting the output of the isolation amp into the
>intercom. Is this doable, or is it more of a pain in the lower posterior
>than it is worth.
Don't know why not. Wire the ship's microphones as depicted
in figure 7 of the manual. Route Nav and Comm audio to the
isolation amplifier along with any other audio sources that
you want to add to the mix. The SL30 integral intercomm
with vox will continue to function as before except that
any other audio sources will be imposed on top of audio
normally heard only from the SL30
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean Curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | SL30 intercom function |
>
>The SL30 has a voice activated intercom function. Can this intercom be
used
>in conjunction with an audio isolation amplifier as the system intercom? I
>don't see any way of putting the output of the isolation amp into the
>intercom. Is this doable, or is it more of a pain in the lower posterior
>than it is worth.
Don't know why not. Wire the ship's microphones as depicted
in figure 7 of the manual. Route Nav and Comm audio to the
isolation amplifier along with any other audio sources that
you want to add to the mix. The SL30 integral intercomm
with vox will continue to function as before except that
any other audio sources will be imposed on top of audio
normally heard only from the SL30
Lets see if I have this sorted out correctly. The mics are connected per
Fig 7 and, the Pin 13 & 14 outputs go into the Isolation amp, and the
headphones are then connected to the isolation amp output.
I will have to weigh my options for a separate intercom.
Do you know if the intercom input can be on (grounded) continuously, even
during txm?
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SL30 intercom function |
You could use the AMX-2A mixer from MakerPlane:
http://makerplane.myshopify.com/collections/avionics/products/10-channel-audio-mixer-mono-amx-2a
This device has a special mode that connects directly to the SL-30 Comm,
thus providing a fail-safe interface. The mixer can fail and the Comm audio
will continue.
The mixer provides 10 inputs, four with variable level and is housed in a
DB-25 backshell.
Available as a pcb, kit or finished product.
Cheers, Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger & Jean Curtis
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:39 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: SL30 intercom function
>
>The SL30 has a voice activated intercom function. Can this intercom be
used
>in conjunction with an audio isolation amplifier as the system intercom? I
>don't see any way of putting the output of the isolation amp into the
>intercom. Is this doable, or is it more of a pain in the lower posterior
>than it is worth.
Don't know why not. Wire the ship's microphones as depicted
in figure 7 of the manual. Route Nav and Comm audio to the
isolation amplifier along with any other audio sources that
you want to add to the mix. The SL30 integral intercomm
with vox will continue to function as before except that
any other audio sources will be imposed on top of audio
normally heard only from the SL30
Lets see if I have this sorted out correctly. The mics are connected per
Fig 7 and, the Pin 13 & 14 outputs go into the Isolation amp, and the
headphones are then connected to the isolation amp output.
I will have to weigh my options for a separate intercom.
Do you know if the intercom input can be on (grounded) continuously, even
during txm?
Roger
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | SL30 intercom function |
>
>
>Do you know if the intercom input can be on (grounded) continuously, even
>during txm?
I think it can
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Selover-Stephan <holger-d(at)shadowbrush.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
On 12/12/12 4:51 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> No, I'd leave the nut loose for a couple of reasons.
> First, it would let you orient a bend and tighten the nut
> later (this could be a finger nut made from a piece
> of flat sheet with a drilled and tapped hole in the
> middle but with enough O.D. to let you hand tighten.
> Yeah, it would have a slight 'lengthening' effect
> on the antenna which would be shortened accordingly
> using SWR meter
Bob, many thanks for explaining it in detail. With your suggestions in
mind, I picked up some parts I had laying around and put this together:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rylqm9cect5ndut/XyaFh-jLE2
I'll have to find someone with an SWR meter and cut it to the proper
length. Then we'll see if it actually does what it's supposed to do. But
it's solid, and removed in seconds.
Thanks,
Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SL30 intercom function |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Looking at the schematic for the AMX-4A/4B referenced above.
http://107.22.231.30/redmine/attachments/download/58/Schematic-AMX-4A.pdf
I do not understand the resistor value 180R *100K.
The first thought that comes to mind is 180K ohm. But if you multiply 180 ohms
by 100,000, it comes to 18,000,000, which seems too big.
I understand other resistor values on the schematic. For instance, 1M6 is 1.6M
ohms. And 560R is 560 ohms. But 180R *100K and 1K0 *150R have me confused.
Joe Gores
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390524#390524
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SL30 intercom function |
On 12/16/2012 09:15 AM, user9253 wrote:
>
> Looking at the schematic for the AMX-4A/4B referenced above.
> http://107.22.231.30/redmine/attachments/download/58/Schematic-AMX-4A.pdf
> I do not understand the resistor value 180R *100K.
> The first thought that comes to mind is 180K ohm. But if you multiply 180 ohms
by 100,000, it comes to 18,000,000, which seems too big.
> I understand other resistor values on the schematic. For instance, 1M6 is 1.6M
ohms. And 560R is 560 ohms. But 180R *100K and 1K0 *150R have me confused.
> Joe Gores
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
Only a quick look at it, but I think that he's showing two optional
values for a set of resistors. One set of values is for 'normal' output
(AMX-4A) & the other, asterisk labeled, is for high output (AMX-4B).
The 'normal' output resistor set is actually an attenuator.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D L Josephson <dlj04(at)josephson.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Removable comm antenna |
> Bob, many thanks for explaining it in detail. With your suggestions in
> mind, I picked up some parts I had laying around and put this together:
> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rylqm9cect5ndut/XyaFh-jLE2
>
> I'll have to find someone with an SWR meter and cut it to the proper
> length. Then we'll see if it actually does what it's supposed to do. But
> it's solid, and removed in seconds.
Holger, that looks fine. If everyone were as able to deal with a small
machining project like that as you are, there wouldn't be so many
lashed-up antennas out there. An SWR check will be useful but don't be
too worried about it. You should expect better than 2:1 over a range of
a few MHz. Trim the length so the center of this range is the center of
the range of frequencies you normally use.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
>
>Bob, many thanks for explaining it in detail. With your suggestions
>in mind, I picked up some parts I had laying around and put this
>together: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/rylqm9cect5ndut/XyaFh-jLE2
>
>I'll have to find someone with an SWR meter and cut it to the proper
>length. Then we'll see if it actually does what it's supposed to do.
>But it's solid, and removed in seconds.
Nice work! I'd like to add your photos to the archives on
aeroelectric.com.
Help me out a bit . . .
Emacs!
It appears that your coax center conductor
is attached to the 4-bolt flange (pop rivet?)]
which in turn is insulated from the mounting
bolts with a combination of insulating bushings
and washers. Where does the coax shield find
connection to the groundplane/skin?
It's not clear how the antenna element is retained
on the aircraft/
As D.L. suggested, SWR isn't a terribly critical concern.
If you cut it for an overall length from skin to tip
of 22", you're going to be close enough for government
work.
It would be interesting to see a plot of your measured
SWR over the range of interest at say 1 Mhz steps. If
you've got better things to do on your airplane, don't
let this academic exploration get too high on the list
of priorities.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Selover-Stephan <holger-d(at)shadowbrush.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
On 12/16/12 9:02 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> It appears that your coax center conductor
> is attached to the 4-bolt flange (pop rivet?)]
> which in turn is insulated from the mounting
> bolts with a combination of insulating bushings
> and washers. Where does the coax shield find
> connection to the groundplane/skin?
>
> It's not clear how the antenna element is retained
> on the aircraft/
D.L., Bob, thanks again! I'll go with 22 inches until I find someone
with a SWR meter. If this person and I can get the data for the plot, I
will send it to you, Bob.
That's correct, the coax center is attached to that rectangular flange
with a PIDG terminal. There is a threaded hole in the flange for it. The
flange is welded to a SS tube that receives the antenna rod. As you
said, the flange and tube is insulated against ground. I measured for
conductivity. There is a spring in the tube, just to make sure there's
good contact.
The coax shield is connected to ground a few inches away. I left that
unchanged from the previous whisker antenna installation.
That riveted skin doubler is the result of my damaging the original
antenna on the ground. Not going to happen anymore. But the main thing
is, I can now sew a full cover to keep it dry outside, and won't have to
put it on a trailer when a bit of wet weather is moving in. Means more
flying for me! :))
Thanks,
Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
Good Afternoon Holger,
Great workmanship! What I really love is that V-Tail. What kind of a
machine is it?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Downers Grove, Illinois
V-Tail Aficionado
In a message dated 12/16/2012 12:25:01 P.M. Central Standard Time,
holger-d(at)shadowbrush.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Holger Selover-Stephan
On 12/16/12 9:02 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> It appears that your coax center conductor
> is attached to the 4-bolt flange (pop rivet?)]
> which in turn is insulated from the mounting
> bolts with a combination of insulating bushings
> and washers. Where does the coax shield find
> connection to the groundplane/skin?
>
> It's not clear how the antenna element is retained
> on the aircraft/
D.L., Bob, thanks again! I'll go with 22 inches until I find someone
with a SWR meter. If this person and I can get the data for the plot, I
will send it to you, Bob.
That's correct, the coax center is attached to that rectangular flange
with a PIDG terminal. There is a threaded hole in the flange for it. The
flange is welded to a SS tube that receives the antenna rod. As you
said, the flange and tube is insulated against ground. I measured for
conductivity. There is a spring in the tube, just to make sure there's
good contact.
The coax shield is connected to ground a few inches away. I left that
unchanged from the previous whisker antenna installation.
That riveted skin doubler is the result of my damaging the original
antenna on the ground. Not going to happen anymore. But the main thing
is, I can now sew a full cover to keep it dry outside, and won't have to
put it on a trailer when a bit of wet weather is moving in. Means more
flying for me! :))
Thanks,
Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | AeroElectric Connection Seminar Brodhead, WI, April |
13-14, 2013
I'm pleased to announce that EAA Chapter 431 . . .
http://tinyurl.com/cth5woc
. . . of Brodhead, WI has offered their facility as a
gathering place for an AeroElectric Connection weekend
seminar next spring.
The chapter has also graciously offered to underwrite
the tuition for this presentation to the tune of $35 per
attendee. It's been awhile since Dr. Dee and I have had
an opportunity to travel to the hinterlands to meet with
our readers and share our time, talents and resources.
Students and second attendees of a partnership build may
attend for 1/2 price. Spouses may attend free.
Bring pictures of your projects, particularly in .jpg form.
Also, bring any specialty tools you may have acquired and
are wondering if they're applicable to your task. This seminar
is in driving radius of home so we'll be able to bring more
hands-on demonstration hardware than would normally be carried
aboard ATC aircraft.
The sign-up page has been posted to the AeroElectric Connection
website at:
http://tinyurl.com/9v9ffcq
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: SL30 intercom function |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Thanks Charlie,
If I would have looked closer, I would have realized that was an asterisk referring
to a note, not a multiplication sign. :-)
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390547#390547
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | LARAGO ELT info needed |
Anyone recognize this ELT, or the antenna connector used? The antenna is
missing, & the owner needs either an original 'fixed' antenna, or an
adapter to a regular BNC connector/cable for an external antenna. He has
the telescoping accessory antenna, but his IA won't sign off the plane
with only that antenna.
Thanks,
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Selover-Stephan <holger-d(at)shadowbrush.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
Thanks, Old Bob, and that's a little, humble Monnett Moni. Sometimes the
shadow of this V-tail makes it look like a fighter jet! Its day job,
though, is providing its owner with cheap (2gal/hr), but very enjoyable
flying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_FvBS6MncA . The V-tail works
splendidly, the pilot is trying his best. ;)
Holger
On 12/16/12 10:38 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Holger,
> Great workmanship! What I really love is that V-Tail. What kind of
> a machine is it?
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> Downers Grove, Illinois
> V-Tail Aficionado
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the Wichita
FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You cannot
use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied with
it. Not legally, anyway.
Rick Girard
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Charlie England wrote:
> Anyone recognize this ELT, or the antenna connector used? The antenna is
> missing, & the owner needs either an original 'fixed' antenna, or an
> adapter to a regular BNC connector/cable for an external antenna. He has
> the telescoping accessory antenna, but his IA won't sign off the plane
> with only that antenna.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
I have a question about this statment.
It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the Wichita FSDO
last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You cannot use any
other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not legally,
anyway.
>
> Rick Girard
>
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf4a9ec25d54a9d76d4st03vuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from
another ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval
to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the
mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
Rick
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>
>
> I have a question about this statment.
> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer
> supplied with it. Not legally, anyway.
> >
> > Rick Girard
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Woman is 53 But Looks 25
> Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf4a9ec25d54a9d76d4st03vuc
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Mac Donald <lm4(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Richard,
Thanks for the info.
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see i
f I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the a
ircraft had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I
asked if I could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an ante
nna from another ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted appro
val to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even t
he mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
>
> Rick
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald wrot
e:
m>
>
>
> I have a question about this statment.
> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the W
ichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. Yo
u cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer su
pplied with it. Not legally, anyway.
> >
> > Rick Girard
> >
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Woman is 53 But Looks 25
> Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
> http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf4a9ec25d54a9d76d4st03vuc
>
>
> ==========
> ="_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
> ooks.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
> et="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> le, List Admin.
> ==========
> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectr
ic-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Zulu Delta
> Mk IIIC
> Thanks, Homer GBYM
>
> It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unh
appy.
> - Groucho Marx
>
>
>
>
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
========================
============
>
> Our Three Best Premium Packages for One Low Price
> Click here to see offers - http://store.JUNO.com/
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/50cf591b4b459171d66st04vuc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Kuffels" <kuffel(at)cyberport.net> |
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
<< My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted
approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not
even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr. >>
There is a very small loophole. If the manufacturer's manual gives you
an option or specification, you can legally use it. For example, the
ACK E-04 manual talks about a ground plane in composite aircraft. They
specify 6 pieces of copper tape at least 12" long spaced equidistant
around the base. These tapes could be 1/32" wide or 1" wide or wider
and still meet the letter of the regulation. Five or seven pieces would
not, however. But if I used a solid sheet of metal doubt if anyone
would complain.
Tom Kuffel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Good Morning All,
This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
participants are aware.
It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
inspectors at the same FSDO!
Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't
want your mother to know about!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
lm4(at)juno.com writes:
Richard,
Thanks for the info.
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if
I could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from
another ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval
to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the
mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
Rick
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald <_lm4(at)juno.com_
(mailto:lm4(at)juno.com) > wrote:
(mailto:lm4(at)juno.com) >
I have a question about this statment.
It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
Larry
On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
with it. Not legally, anyway.
>
> Rick Girard
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
>
>It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you
>don't want your mother to know about!
You beat me to it sir . . . practical advice in
a very impractical world.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie England <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LARAGO ELT info needed |
Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to
surrender the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his
a/w cert? And at a later date, when he used the same engine on another
build, was told that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being
on the engine.....
I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
meets TSO for installation.
No one can ID the connector??
Thanks,
Charlie
On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning All,
> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
> participants are aware.
> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each
> FSDO is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers
> at different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from
> different inspectors at the same FSDO!
> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we
> determine a consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you
> don't want your mother to know about!
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>
> Richard,
> Thanks for the info.
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to
>> see if I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous
>> owner of the aircraft had modified and return it to service. The
>> answer was no. Then I asked if I could make an antenna for it.
>> Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another ELT of the same
>> frequency? Nope.
>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted
>> approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change
>> anything, not even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald > > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> I have a question about this statment.
>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's
>> with the Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the
>> TSO for the unit. You cannot use any other antenna other than
>> that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not legally,
>> anyway.
>> >
>> > Rick Girard
>> >
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | FSDO horror shows |
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV
as the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration
and I was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating
them as to how to do their job and showing them the current issue
boilerplate oplims (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I
couldn't operate my homebuilt out of my home airport or three others
within their jurisdiction because of a memo that the former head of the
local FSDO had written several years earlier forbidding operations of
experimental aircraft in Phase 1 (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal
operations). I told them that they didn't have the authority to
arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and sicced the national
office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and issued my new
oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the FAA,
Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell
for a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer
you do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible
problem that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to
avoid if you can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in
life is to slide papers from one side of the desk to the other without
getting burned by them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward
the non-certificated world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at
length about how dangerous experimental aircraft are. He made it clear
that he took it personally that these scofflaws are allowed to skate
around the rules, as he sees it. If you do have business with them that
you can't do any other way, have your ducks in a neat little row before
you go in there and say absolutely nothing more than you have to in
order to get your business transacted.
Ed Holyoke
On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>
> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to
> surrender the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue
> his a/w cert? And at a later date, when he used the same engine on
> another build, was told that he couldn't get an a/w without the data
> plate being on the engine.....
>
> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that
> has quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps
> freqs) that meets TSO for installation.
>
> No one can ID the connector??
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning All,
>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of
>> our participants are aware.
>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each
>> FSDO is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different
>> answers at different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different
>> answers from different inspectors at the same FSDO!
>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we
>> determine a consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you
>> don't want your mother to know about!
>> Happy Skies,
>> Old Bob
>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>>
>> Richard,
>> Thanks for the info.
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to
>>> see if I could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous
>>> owner of the aircraft had modified and return it to service. The
>>> answer was no. Then I asked if I could make an antenna for it.
>>> Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another ELT of the same
>>> frequency? Nope.
>>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted
>>> approval to the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change
>>> anything, not even the mounting screws supplied by the mfr.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's
>>> with the Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of
>>> the TSO for the unit. You cannot use any other antenna other
>>> than that which the manufacturer supplied with it. Not
>>> legally, anyway.
>>> >
>>> > Rick Girard
>>> >
>>>
>>
>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Henry Hallam <henry(at)pericynthion.org> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
Henry
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>
> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>
> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>
> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>
> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
> meets TSO for installation.
>
> No one can ID the connector??
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Charlie
>
>
> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Good Morning All,
>
> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
> participants are aware.
>
> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>
> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>
> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>
> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>
> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>
> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
> your mother to know about!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>
> Richard,
> Thanks for the info.
> Larry
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>
> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
> screws supplied by the mfr.
>
> Rick
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question about this statment.
>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> > Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>> > Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>> > cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>> > with it. Not legally, anyway.
>> >
>> > Rick Girard
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Henry Hallam
>
> Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
>
> Henry
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
>> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
>> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
>> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
>> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
>> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
>> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
>> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
>> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
>> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
>> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
>> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
>> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>>
>> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
>> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
>> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
>> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
>> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
>> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
>> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
>> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
>> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
>> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
>> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
>> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
>> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>
>> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>>
>> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
>> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
>> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
>> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>>
>> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
>> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
>> meets TSO for installation.
>>
>> No one can ID the connector??
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Good Morning All,
>>
>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
>> participants are aware.
>>
>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
>> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
>> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
>> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>>
>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
>> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>>
>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>>
>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>>
>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>>
>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
>> your mother to know about!
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>>
>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>>
>> Richard,
>> Thanks for the info.
>> Larry
>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>
>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
>> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
>> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
>> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
>> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
>> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
>> screws supplied by the mfr.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Rick Girard
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Good Evening All,
I really do not mean to bash the FEDs. The vast majority are good guys who
like aviation and want to do a good job, but such is the nature of
bureaucracy. They tend to say no because you rarely have to explain a no decision
after an accident. If they say no to any operation they possibly can, they
reduce their own exposure to censure.
Best to avoid asking the question!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/17/2012 7:21:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed Holyoke
Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for
experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
want to prohibit that also.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Sometimes it helps to be on the inside. A couple years ago I was invited
to join the local FAAST volunteers group.
Being associated with them, helping out on what they want, they seem to
be more responsive to my requests.
Actually, also got assigned to a relatively new PMI who previously
worked on GA planes and has actually been helpful.
Small miracles do happen and while I expect that I will run into
uncooperative folks there, at the moment I'll
continue doing a few presentations a year for them and hope the
cooperation continues.
Kelly
On 12/17/2012 6:31 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Evening All,
> I really do not mean to bash the FEDs. The vast majority are good guys
> who like aviation and want to do a good job, but such is the nature of
> bureaucracy. They tend to say no because you rarely have to explain a
> no decision after an accident. If they say no to any operation they
> possibly can, they reduce their own exposure to censure.
> Best to avoid asking the question!
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/17/2012 7:21:09 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
>
>
>
> Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and
> Santa Barbara. Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable
> for
> experimental aircraft. This despite the fact that every set of oplims
> for exp. aircraft specify that the aircraft can only be operated over
> densely populated areas for the purpose of takeoff and landing. They
> want to prohibit that also.
>
> Ed
>
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
Bob and all:
We're working on a plane with a self-powered oil/CHT temp gauge. The oil
side is inop, the CHT side seems to work fine. The customer asked us to
fix the oil temp side. It gives no indication or needle movement at all
when installed.
We removed the entire gauge, wire, and probe. The first problem seemed to
be really poor connections so I fixed that--no help. Then I replaced the K
type lead (as found) with J wire of about the same length. Still nothing.
I know now that the length of the wire is critical, but I don't know how to
find what it should be. I see a note on the back of the gauge that says it
needs to be an 8 ohm lead, but I don't know how to measure that--through
the entire system, just the wire, or some combination.
Here are some pictures of the probe and the gauge. Can you tell me what to
measure to verify that the probe is working? I've heated it up with a heat
gun and a hot water bath but I don't get any comprehensible results.
Measuring mV, the multi-meter just seems to kind of wander. About all I
can say for sure is that it changes from positive to negative voltage
depending on temperature, as if zero output is somewhere around room
temperature. I have seen up to about 50 mV in hot water that was about
120F but that doesn't seem consistent and it changes rapidly.
The gauge responds as I'd expect with the jumpers shorting each meter, that
is, the meters lose their "bounce" with the jumpers installed.
I quickly brushed each meter's leads with an ohm meter to see if they'd
respond, and they do. Everything points to the probe.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
At 08:59 PM 12/17/2012, you wrote:
>Bob and all:
>
>We're working on a plane with a self-powered
>oil/CHT temp gauge. The oil side is inop, the
>CHT side seems to work fine. The customer
>asked us to fix the oil temp side. It gives no
>indication or needle movement at all when installed.
>
>We removed the entire gauge, wire, and probe.
>The first problem seemed to be really poor
>connections so I fixed that--no help. Then I
>replaced the K type lead (as found) with J wire
>of about the same length. Still nothing.
>
>I know now that the length of the wire is
>critical, but I don't know how to find what it
>should be. I see a note on the back of the
>gauge that says it needs to be an 8 ohm lead,
>but I don't know how to measure that--through
>the entire system, just the wire, or some combination.
This would be total loop resistance of the thermocouple
and it's leads as measured at the instrument terminals
(with the instrument disconnected).
>Here are some pictures of the probe and the
>gauge. Can you tell me what to measure to
>verify that the probe is working? I've heated
>it up with a heat gun and a hot water bath but I
>don't get any comprehensible results.
>Measuring mV, the multi-meter just seems to
>kind of wander. About all I can say for sure
>is that it changes from positive to negative
>voltage depending on temperature, as if zero
>output is somewhere around room temperature. I
>have seen up to about 50 mV in hot water that
>was about 120F but that doesn't seem consistent and it changes rapidly.
What resistance do you measure on the two thermocouples?
The meter scales seem to suggest that both sides have
identical movements in them. You should be able to swap
the CHT over to the OIL temp side and see an appropriate
reading. This should confirm that the thermocouple is bad.
>The gauge responds as I'd expect with the
>jumpers shorting each meter, that is, the meters
>lose their "bounce" with the jumpers installed.
> I quickly brushed each meter's leads with an
>ohm meter to see if they'd respond, and they do.
> Everything points to the probe.
Yup. Get an ohmmeter reading on the questionable
probe and compare it with the CHT side. They should
both be on the order of 8 ohms.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
Ed,
When did this happen? I had my own issues with that memorandum restricting experimental
aircraft from those 4 airports 2 years ago. I built my Glasair in Santa
Barbara. When I tried to get it certified, the FSDO guy refused to allow
any take-offs from the Santa Barbara Airport due to that memo. I engaged the
support of national EAA, who then contacted the D.C. office, who then contacted
the Van Nuys office. That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded
6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office
would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed
it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo
to complete my 40 hours.
The interesting thing is that the Santa Barbara airport runways 15 L & R depart
over the ocean. There is nothing to crash into but the water. The original
ban on experimentals at Santa Barbara was due to political issues, not safety.
There are several approaches to the airport that do not involve populated areas.
For a while, during phase 2 operations, I was based in Santa Barbara. No one ever
hassled me again. When I applied for my Repairman Certificate, the Van Nuys
office was extremely helpful and cooperative.
But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been rescinded.
You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your
phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
> Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and Santa Barbara.
Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for experimental aircraft.
This despite the fact that every set of oplims for exp. aircraft specify
that the aircraft can only be operated over densely populated areas for the
purpose of takeoff and landing. They want to prohibit that also.
>
> Ed
>
> On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Henry Hallam
>>
>> Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
>>
>> Henry
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
>>> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
>>> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
>>> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
>>> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
>>> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
>>> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
>>> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
>>> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
>>> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
>>> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it on
>>> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
>>> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>>>
>>> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
>>> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
>>> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
>>> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
>>> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
>>> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
>>> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
>>> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
>>> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
>>> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
>>> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
>>> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
>>> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>>>
>>> Ed Holyoke
>>>
>>> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>>
>>> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>>>
>>> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
>>> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
>>> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
>>> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>>>
>>> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
>>> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
>>> meets TSO for installation.
>>>
>>> No one can ID the connector??
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Good Morning All,
>>>
>>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
>>> participants are aware.
>>>
>>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
>>> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
>>> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
>>> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>>>
>>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
>>> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>>>
>>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>>>
>>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>>>
>>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>>>
>>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
>>> your mother to know about!
>>>
>>> Happy Skies,
>>>
>>> Old Bob
>>>
>>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>>>
>>> Richard,
>>> Thanks for the info.
>>> Larry
>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>
>>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
>>> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
>>> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if I
>>> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
>>> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
>>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval to
>>> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
>>> screws supplied by the mfr.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>>> Larry
>>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rick Girard
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 08:59 PM 12/17/2012, you wrote:
>
>> Bob and all:
>>
>> We're working on a plane with a self-powered oil/CHT temp gauge. =C3=82
The
>> oil side is inop, the CHT side seems to work fine. =C3=82 The customer a
sked us
>> to fix the oil temp side. =C3=82 It gives no indication or needle moveme
nt at
>> all when installed.
>>
>> We removed the entire gauge, wire, and probe. =C3=82 The first problem s
eemed
>> to be really poor connections so I fixed that--no help. =C3=82 Then I re
placed
>> the K type lead (as found) with J wire of about the same length. =C3=82
Still
>> nothing.
>>
>> I know now that the length of the wire is critical, but I don't know how
>> to find what it should be. =C3=82 I see a note on the back of the gauge
that
>> says it needs to be an 8 ohm lead, but I don't know how to measure
>> that--through the entire system, just the wire, or some combination.
>>
>
> This would be total loop resistance of the thermocouple
> and it's leads as measured at the instrument terminals
> (with the instrument disconnected).
>
>
> Here are some pictures of the probe and the gauge. =C3=82 Can you tell m
e what
>> to measure to verify that the probe is working? =C3=82 I've heated it up
with a
>> heat gun and a hot water bath but I don't get any=C3=82 comprehensible
=C3=82 results.
>> =C3=82 Measuring=C3=82 mV, the multi-meter just seems to kind of wander.
=C3=82 About all
>> I can say for sure is that it changes from positive to negative voltage
>> depending on temperature, as if zero output is somewhere around room
>> temperature. =C3=82 I have seen up to about 50 mV in hot water that was
about
>> 120F but that doesn't seem consistent and it changes rapidly.
>>
>
> What resistance do you measure on the two thermocouples?
>
The meter scales seem to suggest that both sides have
> identical movements in them. You should be able to swap
> the CHT over to the OIL temp side and see an appropriate
> reading. This should confirm that the thermocouple is bad.
>
>
> The gauge responds as I'd expect with the jumpers shorting each meter,
>> that is, the meters lose their "bounce" with the jumpers installed. =C3
=82 I=C3=82
>> quickly=C3=82 brushed each meter's leads with an ohm meter to see if the
y'd
>> respond, and they do. =C3=82 Everything points to the probe.
>>
>
> Yup. Get an ohmmeter reading on the questionable
> probe and compare it with the CHT side. They should
> both be on the order of 8 ohms.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
The functioning thermocouple is the type that goes under a spark plug. It
measures 6 ohms one way, 4 ohms the other way, including the lead.
The other thermocouple is "nearly open"... very high resistance, 500K one
way, 300K the other way.
That was the part of the puzzle I needed. Now I know what to replace.
Something I'm still trying to understand is how the meter can measure a
voltage when the junction itself seems to be perfectly grounded to the
airframe. For example, the surface of the metallic CHT ring under the
spark plug ohms out to the end of the lead at the instrument, telling me
it's essentially a dead short from the contact with the spark plug, or oil
temp sender, or any other junction, to ground. Is it just the potential at
the junction that matters, and the mechanical connection is required to
move the heat to the junction? That's all I can figure.
Many thanks,
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
| From: | Verso Electronics <versoelectric(at)gmail.com> |
Steve,
I'm a bit confused. If the memo restricting E-AB ops at these airports was rescinded,
why were you still restricted to a single takeoff from SBA (and forced
to make a cross-country flight over some hostile terrain or water on your first
flight!), and who issued that restriction?
Granted, the topography around CMA is a little better suited to Phase 1 and you
were probably safer there, but if the E-AB restriction isn't legal, it isn't
legal.
Eric
On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:
> That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so
after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit the
rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed
one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been
rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your
phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
>
> Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
I just didn't want to fight any more. The FSDO set that requirement. I had won
one battle. I chose to not push my luck. I figured that I was persona non
grata at that point and the FSDO can cause a lot of difficulty, even if it is
not legal. I was allowed to set my own flight test area out of Camarillo, which
was very large, so I was counting my blessings at that point. The process
took 4 months to resolve to that point. I sure couldn't see another 4 to 6 month
fight.
I was talking to another builder at the Camarillo airport who told me that one
FAA inspector had told him that he was not allowed to use nylock nuts anywhere
on his airplane. He was required to use castle nuts with cotter pins. The only
way he was able to get around that was to call a DAR to finish the certification.
There is nothing anywhere that says that you cannot use nylock nuts.
FSDO can be a real pain if they choose.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Dec 18, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Verso Electronics wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> I'm a bit confused. If the memo restricting E-AB ops at these airports was rescinded,
why were you still restricted to a single takeoff from SBA (and forced
to make a cross-country flight over some hostile terrain or water on your first
flight!), and who issued that restriction?
>
> Granted, the topography around CMA is a little better suited to Phase 1 and you
were probably safer there, but if the E-AB restriction isn't legal, it isn't
legal.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:
>> That memo restricting experimental flights had been rescinded 6 months or so
after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office would initially admit
the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C. fixed it, and I was allowed
one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo to complete my 40 hours.
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
>> But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been
rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your
phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
>>
>> Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Steve,
I'd have to go to the airport to look at my AW certificate issue date.
The modifications to the aircraft were accomplished over the winter of
05 - 06. It seems likely that my confrontation at the FSDO was in late
05. The infamous memo is dated April 27, 2004 and the signature line
reads Robyn L. Miller. If the memo had been rescinded at the time of my
dealings with the FSDO, there was certainly no indication of that. The
existence of the memo only came to light on day four of the process
which should have taken about 40 minutes total to complete if the duty
inspector had known his job. When I called to confirm my appointment to
pick up the completed airworthiness certificate and operating
limitations, the inspector informed me that all experimental flights
were prohibited from the four airports previously listed. I was not amused.
It took about another week or ten days to get the AW and oplims out of
them and as soon as I had them in hand, I called the national EAA to
thank them for their help and to turn them loose on the FAA. They had
been waiting to really raise a ruckus until my paperwork was no longer
held hostage. There was to be some sort of conference between the FAA DC
office and various aviation groups at the Catskills or someplace and the
whole sordid affair was to be brought up at that time. As the result of
this, the FSDO was (and I'm only reporting what I heard from the EAA at
the time) directed to rescind the offending memo and cease bothering us
poor homebuilders. The agreement was that first flights and initial fly
off wouldn't be allowed but re-entering Phase 1 as it applies to already
flying aircraft and Phase 2 would. According to what I have heard, a new
memo was issued that pretty much said the same as the first one, but
there has been no effort to enforce it except for the first flight thing
and the aforementioned persecution of the P51 owner, as far as I know. I
don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up another
s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited?
I have had other dealings with the FSDO since and, Old Bob you're right
that by and large they do their job. If they are required by regulation
to issue paperwork, they will do so. Steve you must have talked to the
right guy. A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue
his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane
himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C. That enmity against
the homebuilding community exists within the VNY FSDO is very much still
true. They are waiting for an accident to occur so that they can claim
that they've been right about us all along. Be very careful in your
dealings with them and we should all be even more careful with our
maintenance and flying so that we don't all get screwed.
Ed Holyoke
On 12/18/2012 7:13 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas
>
> Ed,
>
> When did this happen? I had my own issues with that memorandum restricting experimental
aircraft from those 4 airports 2 years ago. I built my Glasair in
Santa Barbara. When I tried to get it certified, the FSDO guy refused to allow
any take-offs from the Santa Barbara Airport due to that memo. I engaged the
support of national EAA, who then contacted the D.C. office, who then contacted
the Van Nuys office. That memo restricting experimental flights had been
rescinded 6 months or so after it was issued, but no one at the Van Nuys office
would initially admit the rescinded memo even existed. The call from D.C.
fixed it, and I was allowed one take off from Santa Barbara and flew to Camarillo
to complete my 40 hours.
>
> The interesting thing is that the Santa Barbara airport runways 15 L& R depart
over the ocean. There is nothing to crash into but the water. The original
ban on experimentals at Santa Barbara was due to political issues, not safety.
There are several approaches to the airport that do not involve populated
areas.
>
> For a while, during phase 2 operations, I was based in Santa Barbara. No one
ever hassled me again. When I applied for my Repairman Certificate, the Van
Nuys office was extremely helpful and cooperative.
>
> But that memo restricting experimental flights from those 4 airports has been
rescinded. You may need to make a first flight somewhere else to fly off your
phase 1 time, but once that is done, you can go back any time you wish.
>
>
> Steve Thomas
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed Holyoke
>>
>> Van Nuys, SoCal. Affected airports: Whiteman, Burbank, Van Nuys, and Santa Barbara.
Reason given: densely populated areas, not suitable for experimental aircraft.
This despite the fact that every set of oplims for exp. aircraft specify
that the aircraft can only be operated over densely populated areas for the
purpose of takeoff and landing. They want to prohibit that also.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> On 12/17/2012 3:19 PM, Henry Hallam wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Henry Hallam
>>>
>>> Hi Ed, can you name and shame the FSDO?
>>>
>>> Henry
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler. After educating them as to
>>>> how to do their job and showing them the current issue boilerplate oplims
>>>> (from the FAA's own website), I was informed that I couldn't operate my
>>>> homebuilt out of my home airport or three others within their jurisdiction
>>>> because of a memo that the former head of the local FSDO had written several
>>>> years earlier forbidding operations of experimental aircraft in Phase 1
>>>> (flight test) or Phase 2 (normal operations). I told them that they didn't
>>>> have the authority to arbitrarily ban a whole category of aircraft and
>>>> sicced the national office of the EAA on them. They eventually relented and
>>>> issued my new oplims. They did not, however, rescind the memo even after the
>>>> FAA, Washington D.C. told them to. They haven't since tried to enforce it
on
>>>> experimental, amateur built aircraft, but apparently did make life hell for
>>>> a local P51 owner for several months before they let up on him.
>>>>
>>>> Old Bob is right. Asking if you can do something that is not expressly
>>>> permitted (read not expressly prohibited) will always get you an answer you
>>>> do not want to hear and bring you to their attention as a possible problem
>>>> that they might need to solve. The FSDO is a real good place to avoid if you
>>>> can. It is full of petty bureaucrats whose sole purpose in life is to slide
>>>> papers from one side of the desk to the other without getting burned by
>>>> them. Many, if not all of them, have an animus toward the non-certificated
>>>> world. I have heard a FSDO inspector go on at length about how dangerous
>>>> experimental aircraft are. He made it clear that he took it personally that
>>>> these scofflaws are allowed to skate around the rules, as he sees it. If you
>>>> do have business with them that you can't do any other way, have your ducks
>>>> in a neat little row before you go in there and say absolutely nothing more
>>>> than you have to in order to get your business transacted.
>>>>
>>>> Ed Holyoke
>>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2012 11:28 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well said, by both Bobs! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Want to hear the story of the FSDO that forced a homebuilder to surrender
>>>> the data plate off his Lycoming engine before they'd issue his a/w cert? And
>>>> at a later date, when he used the same engine on another build, was told
>>>> that he couldn't get an a/w without the data plate being on the engine.....
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet that you can't find a factory built single engine a/c that has
>>>> quarterwave antenna installations (other than xponder or gps freqs) that
>>>> meets TSO for installation.
>>>>
>>>> No one can ID the connector??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2012 12:01 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Good Morning All,
>>>>
>>>> This discussion brings up a point with which I do not think all of our
>>>> participants are aware.
>>>>
>>>> It is very rarely advisable to go to any FSDO to ask a question. Each FSDO
>>>> is a kingdom unto itself. You will commonly get different answers at
>>>> different FSDOs .It is not unusual to get different answers from different
>>>> inspectors at the same FSDO!
>>>>
>>>> Best that we thoroughly research the regulations and, once we determine a
>>>> consensus in our own mind, press on with the project.
>>>>
>>>> What I generally do is decide what I will say at the hearing.
>>>>
>>>> If I think I have a good case, I will press on.
>>>>
>>>> If I feel my arguments are a bit weak, I back off.
>>>>
>>>> It is kinda like when we tell our children not to do anything you don't want
>>>> your mother to know about!
>>>>
>>>> Happy Skies,
>>>>
>>>> Old Bob
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated 12/17/2012 11:43:09 A.M. Central Standard Time,
>>>> lm4(at)juno.com writes:
>>>>
>>>> Richard,
>>>> Thanks for the info.
>>>> Larry
>>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Larry, Sorry, I'm not an expert on such. I contacted the FSDO to see if I
>>>> could legally repair an ELT antenna that the previous owner of the aircraft
>>>> had modified and return it to service. The answer was no. Then I asked if
I
>>>> could make an antenna for it. Again, no. Could I use an antenna from another
>>>> ELT of the same frequency? Nope.
>>>> My understanding is that the ELT and its accessories are granted approval
to
>>>> the TSO as a unit. You cannot legally change anything, not even the mounting
>>>> screws supplied by the mfr.
>>>>
>>>> Rick
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Larry Mac Donald wrote:
>>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a question about this statment.
>>>>> It's my understanding that a part that must meet TSO
>>>>> is a part that must be built to meet a Tech spec order.
>>>>> The manufacturer might build it or an individual might
>>>>> build it but it must be built to meet the specs of the order.
>>>>> I take that to mean that I could take a homebuilt ant. to
>>>>> an avionics shop and have them certify that it meets
>>>>> the TSO. Where am I going wrong ?
>>>>> Larry
>>>>> On Dec 17, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Richard Girard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charlie, I had this conversation about antennae for ELT's with the
>>>>>> Wichita FSDO last summer. The antenna is part of the TSO for the unit. You
>>>>>> cannot use any other antenna other than that which the manufacturer supplied
>>>>>> with it. Not legally, anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick Girard
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Sorry, but my memory is not all that good any more. The memo rescinding
the restriction was issued in 2006. Maybe it was issued over your case?
Here is the copy I received. Even though it refers to Experimental
Exhibition aircraft, they clearly think it applies to E-AB as well. I
hope that the Matronics list doesn't strip attachments.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
____________________________________________________________________
On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
> I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up
another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let sleeping
dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited?
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Thanks, Steve.
This memo is probably the result of the fight that the P51 owner I
mentioned had with the FSDO which resulted from the swarm of hornets I
had stirred up. This memo does not apply to EAB (experimental. amateur
built). I believe that there was a similar memo prior to this covering
experimental, amateur built, though I haven't seen it. Notice that this
memo is from the manager of the flight standards division or the FSDOs'
boss. This is not, repeat not from the VNY FSDO. They have a mind of
their own and, to the best of my knowledge, never did rescind their
4/27/04 memo, but only gave up on trying to enforce it.
As I understand it, the infamous 4/27/04 memo from VNY was in response
to another memo from the home office, probably dated about June of 03
and covering EAB. This memo seems to have applied to the issuance of
authorization for ex aircraft, or in other words the issuance of
Airworthiness Certificates. The VNY FSDO took it upon themselves to
issue new restrictions based upon their reading of the home office's
memo(s) but going much further in that they called for no flight
operations of experimental aircraft at all over densely populated areas,
not even for the purpose of take offs and landings. It's a good guess
that the reason that they never tried to enforce it until I walked in
their door was that I was the first to try and get a new AW cert while
based at one of the four airports covered by their prohibition. As long
as I operated under my old AW and oplims, they didn't feel that they had
the ammo to come after me and all the others like me. Once I exposed
myself to their mercies and the fight was joined, they attempted to
enforce it on others until the division manager was forced to rein them in.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/18/2012 1:48 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
> Sorry, but my memory is not all that good any more. The memo
> rescinding the restriction was issued in 2006. Maybe it was issued
> over your case? Here is the copy I received. Even though it refers
> to Experimental Exhibition aircraft, they clearly think it applies to
> E-AB as well. I hope that the Matronics list doesn't strip attachments.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Steve Thomas
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ed Holyoke > wrote:
>
>> I don't have a copy of the new memo and I don't want to stir up
>> another s**t storm by walking in and demanding to see it. Let
>> sleeping dogs lie. Steve, do you have a copy of the memo that they cited?
>
>
> Steve Thomas
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | How do you work this soldering iron? |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Group
Sorry, I don't have a picture.
I found a weird soldering iron. It has ~ 3 foot line cord, but its only one conductor?
It has a big 100 amp rated alligator clip attached to the single conductor.
If it were a Weller style iron, I guess it would be perhaps 175 to 250 watts? Bad
light tonight and it needs to be cleaned to see if there are any markings.
Do you by chance know how you work this thing and what it was meant to be used
for?
Perhaps connect a car battery to ground of the thing you want to solder, and connect
the positive of the battery to the alligator clip? Perhaps used for old
style auto solder fill touch ups? Or??
Looks to be in pretty good shape with little or no use, I'm trying to figure out
if it needs to live in my hangar.
L8r
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390674#390674
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you work this soldering iron? |
| From: | "rparigoris" <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
Hi Group
OK figured it out.
This is the iron:
http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point.jpg
Here are the instructions:
http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point-inst.gif
Interesting website:
http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/electricirons.htm
One was for sale:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Soldering-Iron-NEW-WITH-TAGS-WORKS-ON-A-BATTERY-RARE-no-reserve-/170919825685?nma=true&si=xfE%2BuetYdsHGvil0c6U0uiCK6VY%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
I guess it will end up living in my hangar!
Ron P.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390675#390675
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How do you work this soldering iron? |
| From: | James Kilford <james(at)etravel.org> |
This amazes me! It's brilliant in its simplicity!
James
On 19 December 2012 05:43, rparigoris wrote:
> rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> Hi Group
>
> OK figured it out.
>
> This is the iron:
> http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point.jpg
>
> Here are the instructions:
>
> http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/pics/reinhard-mccabe-glow-point-inst.gif
>
> Interesting website:
> http://www.stevenjohnson.com/soldering/electricirons.htm
>
> One was for sale:
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Soldering-Iron-NEW-WITH-TAGS-WORKS-ON-A-BATTERY-RARE-no-reserve-/170919825685?nma=true&si=xfE%2BuetYdsHGvil0c6U0uiCK6VY%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
>
> I guess it will end up living in my hangar!
>
> Ron P.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390675#390675
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charles Brame <chasb(at)satx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
major alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke
wrote:
>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
my RV as
>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
alteration and I
>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects the
flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I depends
on your FSDO and your judgement.
On 12/19/2012 8:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
> My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
> major alteration?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke>>> > wrote:
>>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
>>>>> my RV as
>>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
>>>>> alteration and I
>>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
> *
>
>
> *
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "B. Ray Griffith" <rgriffith(at)griffithes.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Battery tester |
Hay Bob what is up with the battery tester?
Ray
From: B. Ray Griffith
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: Poor Man's Battery tester
I built the poor mans tester Figure 2-4 in AeroElectric Connection. My
only modification was I have three bulbs in parallel to simulate the
load I have on the battery that I estimate at 11amps to run my fuel
pump, ECU, and Ignition. The problem is when I connect the test to the
battery and have all three bulbs on the tester kicks off at 13 volts
with one bulb it kicks off about 10.5 Volts and with 2 bulbs it kicks
off at 12 volts. I have rebuilt the unit with new 10v Zener and I get
the same results. Does anyone have any suggestions what I have done
wrong is do I need to change the resistor size between the load (bulbs)?
Thanks,
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43
for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent
ones) have wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of
intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your
intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims read
day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR,
so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are
binding and not just ballast. ;-) The oplims on a certificated aircraft
are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
> My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
> major alteration?
>
> Charlie Brame
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke>>> > wrote:
>>>>> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for
>>>>> my RV as
>>>>> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major
>>>>> alteration and I
>>>>> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>
>It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
>the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
>depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
aircraft project?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com> |
| Subject: | FSDO horror shows |
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an
experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive
OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it's clearly not
needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta-that's not as cut and dried as you may
may have thought either), but I'd be careful not to mix requirments from
TC'd aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite
often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our
certification..but we've also been working on these experimentals for
decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA
is it's own dance, but once you learn the dance it's not that difficult.
Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Holyoke
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows
Howdy Charlie,
It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part 43 for
the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the recent ones) have
wording in them that require notification to the FSDO of intent to re-enter
Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with your intended flight test area.
Another issue was that my old oplims read day/night VFR. There was no
provision in the oplims to be legal for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to
update my operating limitations.
It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are
binding and not just ballast. ;-) The oplims on a certificated aircraft are
contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
Ed
On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a major
alteration?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed Holyoke wrote:
I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating limitations for my RV as
the old ones didn't have any provision for making a major alteration and I
was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Bob,
There is a reference to appx. A and D to 43 contained in the operating
limitations. A for definition of major alterations, D for a reference of
what must be inspected.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
>> the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
>> depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
>
> How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
> aircraft project?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and
night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped
for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on
that. The old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had
made the mod under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and
the only way to fix it up would have been an inspection and a brand new
AW cert with new oplims. So, I just asked for that without the
inspection. If I remember correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for
flight over densely populated areas with no reference to for the purpose
of take off or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in
general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an
incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible
lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to my simple request
would be, I would probably still have had to move ahead or just shelve
the mods and give up on the idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more
research first, though. That's why I say to have every duck lined up
before walking in their door. I thought that I had, but there were
several ducks of which I was unaware. ;-)
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>
> Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
>
> "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
> an experimental
>
> certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
> airworthiness certificate
>
> for that aircraft."
>
> I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive
> OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it's clearly
> not needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta--that's not as cut and dried as
> you may may have thought either), but I'd be careful not to mix
> requirments from TC'd aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal
> with the rules quite often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly
> by the FAA to maintain our certification....but we've also been
> working on these experimentals for decades and have come to know the
> nuances quite well. Dealing with the FAA is it's own dance, but once
> you learn the dance it's not that difficult. Sometimes they need
> educated, sometimes we do.
>
> No flames intended, just curiosity.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stein
>
> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *Ed Holyoke
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:02 AM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows
>
> Howdy Charlie,
>
> It's an alteration to the flight controls. Look at appendix A to Part
> 43 for the definitions of major/minor. My new oplims (and all the
> recent ones) have wording in them that require notification to the
> FSDO of intent to re-enter Phase 1 and to get their concurrence with
> your intended flight test area. Another issue was that my old oplims
> read day/night VFR. There was no provision in the oplims to be legal
> for IFR, so I had two reasons to want to update my operating limitations.
>
> It's a good idea to re-read your oplims every now and then as they are
> binding and not just ballast. ;-) The oplims on a certificated
> aircraft are contained in the POH and of course we are subject to Part 91.
>
> Ed
>
> On 12/19/2012 7:02 AM, Charles Brame wrote:
>
> My question is, why would you consider installing a wing leveler as a
> major alteration?
>
> Charlie Brame
>
> RV-6A N11CB
>
> San Antonio
>
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Ed
> Holyoke > wrote:
>
> I went into the FSDO to get a new set of operating
> limitations for my RV as
>
> the old ones didn't have any provision for making a
> major alteration and I
>
> was in the process of installing a wing leveler.
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> * <-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month nbsp; (And Get Some AWESOME FREE November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click below to find out more Free Incentive Gifts AeroElectricwww.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com>www.homebuilthelp.comhttp://www.matronics.com/c= -Matt Dralle, List - The AeroElectric-List Email List utilities such as List Photoshare, and much much --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> http://forums.matronics.com====
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were
authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have gone
ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the
airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not
restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited,
is
permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I
have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and
night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped f
or
IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The
old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod
under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to f
ix
it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplim
s.
So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly,
my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no
reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive
oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general.
Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident -
certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If
I
had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probabl
y
still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the
idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's w
hy
I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought
that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware. ;-)
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote:
Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
"This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued an
experimental
certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different kind of
airworthiness certificate
for that aircraft."
I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more restrictive
OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with when it=99s cle
arly not
needed? I get the IFR thing (sorta=93that=99s not as cut and d
ried as you may may
have thought either), but I=99d be careful not to mix requirments fr
om TC=99d
aircraft with our OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite
often, becase we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our
certification.but we=99ve also been working on these experim
entals for
decades and have come to know the nuances quite well. Dealing with the FA
A is it=99
s own dance, but once you learn the dance it=99s not that difficult.
Sometimes they need educated, sometimes we do.
No flames intended, just curiosity.
Cheers,
Stein
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
There are sections of Part 43 that apply to OBAM aircraft by reference
from the oplims. Part 43 Appendix A and D specifically.
While we have a lot of freedom, it isn't absolute freedom.
On 12/19/2012 9:11 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 09:12 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> It is per part 43, Appendix A, because it is attached to and affects
>> the flight controls. Whether that means another abbreviated Phase I
>> depends on your FSDO and your judgement.
>
> How did Part 43 become attached to an OBAM
> aircraft project?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Battery tester |
HI Ray
It's because the load is not a constant current type. The batteries internal
resistance (which varies with the state of charge) along with the connected
load will determine the current flow. The amount of
current the Zener will have to sink to pull the output voltage down to 10.5
volts just adds to the problem. Unless you are willing to pay for or build a
constant current type
Load device you will just have to average the current draw over a set period
of time.
How long do you intend to test the battery for?
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV 10 # 41016
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of B. Ray
Griffith
Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2012 2:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Poor Man's Battery tester
Hay Bob what is up with the battery tester?
Ray
From: B. Ray Griffith <mailto:rgriffith(at)griffithes.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 3:19 PM
Subject: Poor Man's Battery tester
I built the poor mans tester Figure 2-4 in AeroElectric Connection. My only
modification was I have three bulbs in parallel to simulate the load I have
on the battery that I estimate at 11amps to run my fuel pump, ECU, and
Ignition. The problem is when I connect the test to the battery and have
all three bulbs on the tester kicks off at 13 volts with one bulb it kicks
off about 10.5 Volts and with 2 bulbs it kicks off at 12 volts. I have
rebuilt the unit with new 10v Zener and I get the same results. Does anyone
have any suggestions what I have done wrong is do I need to change the
resistor size between the load (bulbs)?
Thanks,
Ray
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Battery tester |
At 09:14 AM 12/19/2012, you wrote:
>Hay Bob what is up with the battery tester?
>
>Ray
It's in process. The board is the same one used on
the new wig-wag controller. My software guy for this
program is the bottleneck. I'll be seeing him this
weekend and will get you an update. As soon as
I have some code to push into the chip, we'll
photograph it for an article and get it back to
you.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Howdy Bob,
I don't have a copy of the old set that I can lay my hands on right now,
but it seems as if it went something like this; "no person shall operate
this aircraft except in VFR conditions." That isn't a permissive
wording. I don't recall how the day/night thing was worded. I believe
the prohibition against operation over densely populated areas had
similar wording and didn't have the except for clause. If they had
wanted to, they probably could have violated me for operating in and out
of my home airport anytime they wanted based on my oplims.
I agree about not asking the fed, but I really didn't have much option
if I wanted to do the mods and be legal.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 10:37 AM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Afternoon Ed,
> My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were
> authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
> It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
> Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have
> gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as
> the airplane met Part 91 requirements.
> An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not
> restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically
> prohibited, is permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list
> will let us know if I have that all wrong!
> Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
> Happy Skies,
> Old Bob
> In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
>
> Howdy Stein,
>
> Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day
> and night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless
> properly equipped for IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a
> lot of wiggle room on that. The old set had no pathway for any
> major modifications. If I had made the mod under the old oplims, I
> would have been in violation and the only way to fix it up would
> have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims.
> So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember
> correctly, my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely
> populated areas with no reference to for the purpose of take off
> or landing. Much more restrictive oplims than I have now.
>
> I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in
> general. Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork
> after an incident - certificate actions, denial of insurance
> claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I had known what the response to
> my simple request would be, I would probably still have had to
> move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the idea of IFR.
> I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why I
> say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I
> thought that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was
> unaware. ;-)
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed
>
> On 12/19/2012 8:39 AM, Stein Bruch wrote:
>>
>> Of course there is the statement in 43 that very clearly states:
>>
>> "This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has
>> issued an experimental
>>
>> certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a different
>> kind of airworthiness certificate
>>
>> for that aircraft."
>>
>> I too was a bit curious why you voluntarily asked for more
>> restrictive OpLims and invite the entire situation to begin with
>> when its clearly not needed? I get the IFR thing (sortathats
>> not as cut and dried as you may may have thought either), but Id
>> be careful not to mix requirments from TCd aircraft with our
>> OBAM planes. I do get to deal with the rules quite often, becase
>> we get inspected/audited regularly by the FAA to maintain our
>> certification.but weve also been working on these experimentals
>> for decades and have come to know the nuances quite well.
>> Dealing with the FAA is its own dance, but once you learn the
>> dance its not that difficult. Sometimes they need educated,
>> sometimes we do.
>>
>> No flames intended, just curiosity.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Stein
>>
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
Good Evening Ed,
No doubt that the wording has varied over the years and I have not been
heavily involved in the home built field, but I do not recall having seen the
language you tell us about. I have seen it written as you described earlier
and our Granddaughter has a home built Legend Cub that has the language
stating "VFR Day and Night" or very close to that. We are confident that she
can fly her Cub IFR with the airworthiness certificate she was issued
considering the equipment it now has installed.
As Always. It All Depends!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 9:47:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bicyclop(at)pacbell.net writes:
Howdy Bob,
I don't have a copy of the old set that I can lay my hands on right now,
but it seems as if it went something like this; "no person shall operate
this aircraft except in VFR conditions." That isn't a permissive wording. I
don't recall how the day/night thing was worded. I believe the prohibition
against operation over densely populated areas had similar wording and didn't
have the except for clause. If they had wanted to, they probably could
have violated me for operating in and out of my home airport anytime they
wanted based on my oplims.
I agree about not asking the fed, but I really didn't have much option if
I wanted to do the mods and be legal.
Pax,
Ed
On 12/19/2012 10:37 AM, _BobsV35B(at)aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B(at)aol.com)
wrote:
Good Afternoon Ed,
My interpretation of the language: "stated that VFR day and night were
authorized." is just that. Day and Night VFR are authorized.
It does not say the IFR is NOT authorized.
Part 91 does spell out what we need to have to fly IFR so I would have
gone ahead and flown IFR on your original AW certificate as soon as the
airplane met Part 91 requirements.
An older FAA inspector told me many years ago that the FARs are not
restrictive, but permissive. Anything that is not specifically prohibited, is
permissible. Maybe some of the lawyers on this list will let us know if I
have that all wrong!
Once again, much easier NOT to ask the FED.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/19/2012 11:35:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,
_bicyclop(at)pacbell.net_ (mailto:bicyclop(at)pacbell.net) writes:
Howdy Stein,
Less restrictive oplims, not more. The old set stated that VFR day and
night were authorized. There was no mention of "unless properly equipped for
IFR" like the new set. Didn't seem like a lot of wiggle room on that. The
old set had no pathway for any major modifications. If I had made the mod
under the old oplims, I would have been in violation and the only way to fix
it up would have been an inspection and a brand new AW cert with new oplims.
So, I just asked for that without the inspection. If I remember correctly,
my old oplims didn't allow for flight over densely populated areas with no
reference to for the purpose of take off or landing. Much more restrictive
oplims than I have now.
I wanted to be in compliance, and I think that is a good idea in general.
Think about the consequences of having bad paperwork after an incident -
certificate actions, denial of insurance claim, possible lawsuits, etc. If I
had known what the response to my simple request would be, I would probably
still have had to move ahead or just shelve the mods and give up on the
idea of IFR. I would have done a lot more research first, though. That's why
I say to have every duck lined up before walking in their door. I thought
that I had, but there were several ducks of which I was unaware. ;-)
Pax,
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | TV Antennas in parallel |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
This is not aviation related, but may be of interest to electron herders.
Cable is not available at my location. I get TV signals from antennas in the attic.
I read some place that two antennas can be connected together if the feed
lines are of equal length. I took it one step further and connected 3 antennas
together using equal ( 8 foot) lengths of 300 ohm twin-lead TV antenna cable.
The 3 antennas point in different directions. I was surprised to receive
even more stations than I had hoped for, a total of 34 counting the sub-channels,
all with digital quality.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390745#390745
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wire too short? Just stretch it a bit... |
| From: | Dj Merrill <deej(at)deej.net> |
We've been making the joke for years that if a wire is just a
little bit too short, pull on it and stretch it a little bit to make it fit.
Well, this group took that to a whole new level:
http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wms-dickey-stretch-wire/
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT |
Hi Bob
This post from several weeks ago but Id like to revisit it please, I plan to try
to fix this problem soon.
Again the problem is fuel pressure indication spike on transmit from either comm
at the higher end of the band.
The engine monitor connector is a DB-25. My plan is to install the capacitor
listed between the fuel pressure "Aux" input and ground pins inside the
connector if possible using short-as-possible lead length, then a split toroid
on the wire bundle coming into the DB-25connector.
Thanks for any clarification, Tim
________________________________
>
> If it makes you feel better I have the same problem. On mine it only occurs
>when on the upper end of the band, like center frequencies above 130 MHz, and
>happens when I key either the 430W or Icom A210 on those upper frequencies.
> I spoke to Carlos at GRT about this and he suggested the split ferrite that
>you have tried. I have not attempted to fix it yet and was about to ask the
>group what specs I need when I buy it.
> I wonder if a small capacitor could be used to drain off the RF since the
>torrid didn't work. It could be installed inside the D-sub between the fuel
>sensor pin and ground. Can anyone here tell if this might work and if so what
>cap to use?
The value of such capacitors is not so critical
as their construction. A few days ago I published
a capacitors-in-the-connector fix that I crafted
on a Hawker 800 a few years back. See http://tinyurl.com/dxeuj6b
and scroll down to bottom for pictures.
Those capacitor were monolythic ceramics, 0.1 uF
at 50 volts. But probably any value between 0.01
and 0.47 would have worked. What we're interested
in is tiny size so that they can make short lead
connection to the pin and low inductance characteristics
for which the monolythic construction is noted.
Radio Shack used to stock a 0.1 uf cerami (about
1.5 times size of a paper match head). Here's an
exemplar part
http://tinyurl.com/bsk27pw
Ferrites are a whole other ball game. They tend
to improve on an RFI problem with a combination
of two characteristics. (1) they add a lumped
inductance into the wire or wires that are coupling
the energy into the victim (or out of the antagonist).
(2) Ferrites designed for RFI mitigation are TERRIBLE
transformer cores. I.e. they're designed to be
very lossy at the frequencies of interest. By lossy,
we mean that energy coupled into the core is converted
to heat.
BOTH effects are enhanced by the capacitor that
lowers the parallel impedance against which the
series impedance of the ferrite can work. The BEST
ferrite in the world does nothing if the downstream
path to the victim is a high impedance at the
frequency of interest.
This is why the odds are so long that ferrites
alone will fix a problem. The problem would not
have existed had the victim's i/o leads been
designed for that environment in the first place.
So the best moves call for capacitors first with
ferrites stacked on top.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT |
At 11:53 AM 12/20/2012, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>This post from several weeks ago but Id like to revisit it please, I
>plan to try to fix this problem soon.
>Again the problem is fuel pressure indication spike on transmit from
>either comm at the higher end of the band.
>The engine monitor connector is a DB-25. My plan is to install the
>capacitor listed between the fuel pressure "Aux" input and ground
>pins inside the connector if possible using short-as-possible lead
>length, then a split toroid on the wire bundle coming into the DB-25connector.
>Thanks for any clarification, Tim
Try just the capacitor first. Add only one component
at a time to make sure that you know the benefit of
each. I've had readers report that a whole lot of
"stuff" in an RFI mitigation experiment was "successful"
leaving me wondering how much of that stuff could be
taken out without reducing the degree of success.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | FSDO horror shows |
12/20/2012
Hello Ed Holyoke, You wrote:
=9CA friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue
his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane
himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C=9D
Why would your friend expect to be issued a Repairman=99s
Certificate for an experimental amateur built aircraft if he had not
built the plane himself? See here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/repairman_ce
rt/
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sam Marlow <sam.marlow(at)roadrunner.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
Where did you purchase your antennas?
user9253 wrote:
>
> This is not aviation related, but may be of interest to electron herders.
> Cable is not available at my location. I get TV signals from antennas in the
attic. I read some place that two antennas can be connected together if the
feed lines are of equal length. I took it one step further and connected 3 antennas
together using equal ( 8 foot) lengths of 300 ohm twin-lead TV antenna
cable. The 3 antennas point in different directions. I was surprised to receive
even more stations than I had hoped for, a total of 34 counting the sub-channels,
all with digital quality.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390745#390745
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
I did the same thing that Joe did, but with only two antennas...I
get 32 channels over the air (again, including the subchannels),
here just south of Rochester NY, most from Rochester, but some of
them from Buffalo.
I didn't buy the antennas, I made them, and mounted them in the
crawl space above my ceiling, pointing North and West (although,
unlike the instructions, I used old wire coat hangars for the
wire, didn't use screws and washers to connect but scraped the
enamel off where contact was needed and soldered them together,
and bent them so the cross wires don't touch...didn't use any
shrink tubing):
www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/tv/build-your-own-digital-tv-antenna
You can also find a number of video instructions to make these on
Youtube. And they do work better than any commercial ones I've
used in the past. I am thinking of dropping Dish Network, as
several of the channels I receive here over the air are also on
Dish (Ion for example)!
Harley
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/20/2012 1:47 PM, Sam Marlow wrote:
>
>
> Where did you purchase your antennas?
>
> user9253 wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is not aviation related, but may be of interest to
>> electron herders.
>> Cable is not available at my location. I get TV signals from
>> antennas in the attic. I read some place that two antennas
>> can be connected together if the feed lines are of equal
>> length. I took it one step further and connected 3 antennas
>> together using equal ( 8 foot) lengths of 300 ohm twin-lead
>> TV antenna cable. The 3 antennas point in different
>> directions. I was surprised to receive even more stations
>> than I had hoped for, a total of 34 counting the sub-channels,
>> all with digital quality.
>> Joe
>>
>> --------
>> Joe Gores
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390745#390745
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Date: 12/19/12
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DVS" <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | FSDO horror shows |
Oc
Read Ed=99s post again. He did not say that his friend did not
build the aircraft. The FAA wanted more proof than is normally
required. The repair cert is in my possession at this time.
dFrom: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen
Baker
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 10:42 AM
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: FSDO horror shows
12/20/2012
Hello Ed Holyoke, You wrote:
=9CA friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue
his Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane
himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C=9D
Why would your friend expect to be issued a Repairman=99s
Certificate for an experimental amateur built aircraft if he had not
built the plane himself? See here:
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/repairman_ce
rt/
Thanks,
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
> Where did you purchase your antennas?
I do not remember where I bought them. They have been in the attic for years.
Long ago there were 3 sets of lead-in cables connected to a RF A-B-C switch behind
the TV. Now the A-B-C switch is not needed. There is only one lead-in
cable used.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390764#390764
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: FSDO horror shows |
No, no, no. He wasn't fraudulently applying for the cert. He built the
plane. They just didn't want to believe him. Said that pictures of him
with tools in his hands and the aircraft under construction could have
been faked. Asked him questions about mechanical stuff on certificated
aircraft as if he was trying to sell himself as an A&P.
Ed
On 12/20/2012 10:42 AM, Owen Baker wrote:
> 12/20/2012
> Hello Ed Holyoke, You wrote:
> *A friend of mine was quizzed severely before they would issue his
> Repairman's Cert. The thrust was that he hadn't built the plane
> himself and was fraudulently applying for the R.C*
> **
> *Why would your friend expect to be issued a Repairmans Certificate
> for an experimental amateur built aircraft if he had not built the
> plane himself? See here:*
> **
> **
> http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ultralights/amateur_built/repairman_cert/
> Thanks,
> OC
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
> gather and understand information."
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | TV Antennas in parallel |
Hi Joe,
That is a good outcome but usually you just can't add antennas in parallel
like that due to Impedance and phasing mismatches.
The feedlines need to be matched to the frequency you are working at and be
either 1/4 wave or 1/2 wavelength multiples depending on
The antenna configuration and not just be equal lengths.
The characteristic feed line impedance in your 300 ohm hook up will be way
off and it will not be 100 ohms as is suggested by simple
Mathematics and as well the impedance will also vary with frequency.
Multipath will cause issues with such a setup and the antennas will have
multiple
lobes and nulls. Being in the attic instead of outside is less than ideal to
boot.
But if it works it works! Just don't expect it to work at other locations
with the same degree of success.
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV 10 # 41016
VK2GCN
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253
Sent: Friday, 21 December 2012 3:24 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: TV Antennas in parallel
This is not aviation related, but may be of interest to electron herders.
Cable is not available at my location. I get TV signals from antennas in
the attic. I read some place that two antennas can be connected together if
the feed lines are of equal length. I took it one step further and
connected 3 antennas together using equal ( 8 foot) lengths of 300 ohm
twin-lead TV antenna cable. The 3 antennas point in different directions.
I was surprised to receive even more stations than I had hoped for, a total
of 34 counting the sub-channels, all with digital quality.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390745#390745
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Gee Dave. if you'd been sitting out with the rest of the class last time I was
there . . . seriously tho . . . that was some time ago.
Thermocouples are a unique kind of voltage source with a very low source impedance.
I.e. the source impedance is equal to that of the wires which make up the
thermocouple. In the present case, we're talking about type-K (iron-constantan)
wire-couple. See:
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
Those readings sound like resistances from the instrument end of one wire to the
plug washer . . . If you measured beween the two wires at the instrument end,
you would get 10 ohms . . . in the ball park for a properly working thermocouple.
To make ACCURATE low resistance measurements you need something like the
precision low resistance adapter on my website or some similar 4-wire ohmmeter.
In any case, the slightly too-high reading you got is consistent with such lo-ohms
readings at the ends of ordinary test leads.
The thermocouple you have may be repairable. I've fixed a number of them that became
'open' right where the two wires crimp into the plug washer. I trim the
wire back, strip ends, silver-solder together and then tack silver-solder the
junction back onto the tang of the plug washer.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390768#390768
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Saylor <dave.saylor.aircrafters(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
What can I say...the old neurons need the rust busted off just like an iron
wire now and then. At least I didn't ask about parasitic junctions--that I
remembered from your seminar, and I use that little tidbit every time we
install the eight to 14 thermocouples on most of the engines we wire.
The thermocouple that failed (the one in the picture) is a probe type that
threads into the oil screen housing.
Once I realized it was terminal, I took it apart. The iron wire was badly
corroded and literally fell out of the probe body onto my workbench.
It was covered with thick red rust.
The other wire was firmly attached inside at the tip of the probe. I don't
see any practical way to reattach an iron wire inside the tube of the probe
so I'm open to suggestions. I'll probably try to find something similar to
replace it.
It's not surprising that the iron corroded. It got a hot/cold cycle on
each engine run, and it was by no means sealed from the atmosphere. On
every warming it drove out the air in the tube and on every cooldown it
pulled in whatever was outside. It took 65 years, but it finally gave up
the ghost.
Dave Saylor
831-750-0284 CL
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:17 PM, nuckollsr wrote:
> bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
> Gee Dave. if you'd been sitting out with the rest of the class last time I
> was there . . . seriously tho . . . that was some time ago.
>
> Thermocouples are a unique kind of voltage source with a very low source
> impedance. I.e. the source impedance is equal to that of the wires which
> make up the thermocouple. In the present case, we're talking about type-K
> (iron-constantan) wire-couple. See:
>
> www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
>
> Those readings sound like resistances from the instrument end of one wire
> to the plug washer . . . If you measured beween the two wires at the
> instrument end, you would get 10 ohms . . . in the ball park for a properly
> working thermocouple. To make ACCURATE low resistance measurements you need
> something like the precision low resistance adapter on my website or some
> similar 4-wire ohmmeter.
>
> In any case, the slightly too-high reading you got is consistent with such
> lo-ohms readings at the ends of ordinary test leads.
>
>
> The thermocouple you have may be repairable. I've fixed a number of them
> that became 'open' right where the two wires crimp into the plug washer. I
> trim the wire back, strip ends, silver-solder together and then tack
> silver-solder the junction back onto the tang of the plug washer.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390768#390768
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean Curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | TV Antennas in parallel |
I did the same thing that Joe did, but with only two antennas...I get 32
channels over the air (again, including the subchannels), here just
south of
Rochester NY, most from Rochester, but some of them from Buffalo.
Harley
How did you connect the 2 antennas together? Did you use an impedance
match
transformer at the antennas? A picture or a simple sketch would be
interesting.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
*How did you connect the 2 antennas together? *
-----------------------------------------------------------------
www.amazon.com/CHANNEL-2512-Passing-Splitter-Combiner/dp/B00006JPEA/ref=pd_cp_e_0
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
user9253 wrote:
> snip... I was surprised to receive even more stations than I had hoped for,
a total of 34 counting the sub-channels, all with digital quality.
> Joe
Except for TV, nature abhors a vacuum.
My condolences, Joe. [Laughing]
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390794#390794
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roger & Jean Curtis" <mrspudandcompany(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | TV Antennas in parallel |
How did you connect the 2 antennas together?
_____
www.amazon.com/CHANNEL-2512-Passing-Splitter-Combiner/dp/B00006JPEA/ref=
pd_c
p_e_0
OK, the above is one piece of the puzzle! I am assuming that you
connected
an impedance matching
transformer to each of the antennas then went through the above combiner
with the output
into a 75 ohm cable to the TV.
Roger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harley <harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
Yeah...I didn't mention them because as far as I'm concerned they
are part of the antenna themselves... as part of the construction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On 12/21/2012 3:05 PM, Roger & Jean Curtis wrote:
>
> *How did you connect the 2 antennas together? *
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> www.amazon.com/CHANNEL-2512-Passing-Splitter-Combiner/dp/B00006JPEA/ref=pd_cp_e_0
> <http://www.amazon.com/CHANNEL-2512-Passing-Splitter-Combiner/dp/B00006JPEA/ref=pd_cp_e_0>
>
> * *
> * *
> * *
> *OK, the above is one piece of the puzzle! I am assuming that you connected
an impedance matching*
> *transformer to each of the antennas then went through the above combiner with
the output*
> *into a 75 ohm cable to the TV.*
> * *
> *Roger*
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie E <ceengland7(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
On 12/21/2012 2:05 PM, Roger & Jean Curtis wrote:
>
> *How did you connect the 2 antennas together? *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> www.amazon.com/CHANNEL-2512-Passing-Splitter-Combiner/dp/B00006JPEA/ref=pd_cp_e_0
> <http://www.amazon.com/CHANNEL-2512-Passing-Splitter-Combiner/dp/B00006JPEA/ref=pd_cp_e_0>
>
> * *
> * *
> *
>> http://www.google.com/search?q=tv+balun&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a*
> *OK, the above is one piece of the puzzle! I am assuming that you connected
an impedance matching*
> *transformer to each of the antennas then went through the above combiner with
the output*
> *into a 75 ohm cable to the TV.*
> * *
> *Roger*
>
*TV balun for converting 300 ohm balanced (antenna) to 75 ohm unbalanced
(coax):
> http://www.google.com/search?q=tv+balun&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
A regular 75 ohm splitter can be turned around & used as a combiner for
a lot less money than the one shown with the DC pass-through (assuming
you don't need the pass-through):
> http://www.google.com/search?q=4+way+splitter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The only need for a DC pass-through is if you're using some type of
remotely powered RF amp.
You can buy frequency selective filters that will reduce interference
from 2 antennas seeing the same station, but as others have
demonstrated, you often don't need them.
Charlie
*
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Send me the probe if you like. I can probably refurbish it.
Bob . . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390798#390798
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
| From: | "nuckollsr" <bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
Actually Dave, that thread looks like 1/4"NPT, give me the length below the threads
and I can make a whole new probe.
Bob. . .
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390800#390800
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Lucas Electrical Theory |
For your holiday laughs.
ELECTRICAL THEORY BY JOSEPH LUCAS
Positive ground depends on proper circuit functioning, which is the
transmission of negative ions by retention of the visible spectral
manifestation known as =93smoke=94. Smoke is the thing that makes electrica
l
circuits work. We know this to be true because every time one lets the
smoke out of an electrical circuit, it stops working. This can be verified
repeatedly through empirical testing.
For example, if one places a copper bar across the terminals of a battery,
prodigious quantities of smoke are liberated and the battery shortly ceases
to function. In addition, if one observes smoke escaping from an electrical
component such as a Lucas voltage regulator, it will also be observed that
the component no longer functions. The logic is elementary and inescapable!
The function of the wiring harness is to conduct the smoke from one device
to another. When the wiring springs a leak and lets all the smoke out of
the system, nothing works afterward.
Starter motors were considered unsuitable for British motorcycles for some
time largely because they consumed large quantities of smoke, requiring
very unsightly large wires.
It has been reported that Lucas electrical components are possibly more
prone to electrical leakage than their Bosch, Japanese or American
counterparts. Experts point out that this is because Lucas is British, and
all things British leak. British engines leak oil, British shock absorbers,
hydraulic forks and disk brake systems leak fluid, British tires leak air
and British Intelligence leaks national defense secrets.
Therefore, it follows that British electrical systems must leak smoke. Once
again, the logic is clear and inescapable.
In conclusion, the basic concept of transmission of electrical energy in
the form of smoke provides a logical explanation of the mysteries of
electrical components especially British units manufactured by Joseph
Lucas, Ltd.
And remember: =93A gentleman does not motor about after dark.=94
Joseph Lucas =93The Prince of Darkness=94
1842-1903
A few Lucas quips:
The Lucas motto: =93Get home before dark.=94
Lucas is the patent holder for the short circuit.
Lucas - Inventor of the first intermittent wiper.
Lucas - Inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.
The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three
switch settings--SMOKE, SMOLDER and IGNITE.
The Original Anti-Theft Device - Lucas Electrics.
If Lucas made guns, wars would not start
Back in the =9170s, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began
manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered which
did not suck.
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Because Lucas makes their
refrigerators.
This has been referred to as the smoke theory, when the smoke comes out
it's finished, cooked or done for.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Lucas Electrical Theory |
Yes these are the undeniable truths!
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV 10 # 41016
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
Finch
Sent: Saturday, 22 December 2012 3:10 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lucas Electrical Theory
For your holiday laughs.
ELECTRICAL THEORY BY JOSEPH LUCAS
Positive ground depends on proper circuit functioning, which is the
transmission of negative ions by retention of the visible spectral
manifestation known as "smoke". Smoke is the thing that makes electrical
circuits work. We know this to be true because every time one lets the smoke
out of an electrical circuit, it stops working. This can be verified
repeatedly through empirical testing.
For example, if one places a copper bar across the terminals of a battery,
prodigious quantities of smoke are liberated and the battery shortly ceases
to function. In addition, if one observes smoke escaping from an electrical
component such as a Lucas voltage regulator, it will also be observed that
the component no longer functions. The logic is elementary and inescapable!
The function of the wiring harness is to conduct the smoke from one device
to another. When the wiring springs a leak and lets all the smoke out of the
system, nothing works afterward.
Starter motors were considered unsuitable for British motorcycles for some
time largely because they consumed large quantities of smoke, requiring very
unsightly large wires.
It has been reported that Lucas electrical components are possibly more
prone to electrical leakage than their Bosch, Japanese or American
counterparts. Experts point out that this is because Lucas is British, and
all things British leak. British engines leak oil, British shock absorbers,
hydraulic forks and disk brake systems leak fluid, British tires leak air
and British Intelligence leaks national defense secrets.
Therefore, it follows that British electrical systems must leak smoke. Once
again, the logic is clear and inescapable.
In conclusion, the basic concept of transmission of electrical energy in the
form of smoke provides a logical explanation of the mysteries of electrical
components especially British units manufactured by Joseph Lucas, Ltd.
And remember: "A gentleman does not motor about after dark."
Joseph Lucas "The Prince of Darkness"
1842-1903
A few Lucas quips:
The Lucas motto: "Get home before dark."
Lucas is the patent holder for the short circuit.
Lucas - Inventor of the first intermittent wiper.
Lucas - Inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.
The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three
switch settings--SMOKE, SMOLDER and IGNITE.
The Original Anti-Theft Device - Lucas Electrics.
If Lucas made guns, wars would not start
Back in the '70s, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began
manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered which
did not suck.
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Because Lucas makes their
refrigerators.
This has been referred to as the smoke theory, when the smoke comes out it's
finished, cooked or done for.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jan <jan(at)CLAVER.DEMON.CO.UK> |
| Subject: | Lucas Electrical Theory |
Brilliant !!
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
Finch
Sent: 22 December 2012 04:10
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lucas Electrical Theory
For your holiday laughs.
ELECTRICAL THEORY BY JOSEPH LUCAS
Positive ground depends on proper circuit functioning, which is the
transmission of negative ions by retention of the visible spectral
manifestation known as "smoke". Smoke is the thing that makes electrical
circuits work. We know this to be true because every time one lets the smoke
out of an electrical circuit, it stops working. This can be verified
repeatedly through empirical testing.
For example, if one places a copper bar across the terminals of a battery,
prodigious quantities of smoke are liberated and the battery shortly ceases
to function. In addition, if one observes smoke escaping from an electrical
component such as a Lucas voltage regulator, it will also be observed that
the component no longer functions. The logic is elementary and inescapable!
The function of the wiring harness is to conduct the smoke from one device
to another. When the wiring springs a leak and lets all the smoke out of the
system, nothing works afterward.
Starter motors were considered unsuitable for British motorcycles for some
time largely because they consumed large quantities of smoke, requiring very
unsightly large wires.
It has been reported that Lucas electrical components are possibly more
prone to electrical leakage than their Bosch, Japanese or American
counterparts. Experts point out that this is because Lucas is British, and
all things British leak. British engines leak oil, British shock absorbers,
hydraulic forks and disk brake systems leak fluid, British tires leak air
and British Intelligence leaks national defense secrets.
Therefore, it follows that British electrical systems must leak smoke. Once
again, the logic is clear and inescapable.
In conclusion, the basic concept of transmission of electrical energy in the
form of smoke provides a logical explanation of the mysteries of electrical
components especially British units manufactured by Joseph Lucas, Ltd.
And remember: "A gentleman does not motor about after dark."
Joseph Lucas "The Prince of Darkness"
1842-1903
A few Lucas quips:
The Lucas motto: "Get home before dark."
Lucas is the patent holder for the short circuit.
Lucas - Inventor of the first intermittent wiper.
Lucas - Inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.
The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three
switch settings--SMOKE, SMOLDER and IGNITE.
The Original Anti-Theft Device - Lucas Electrics.
If Lucas made guns, wars would not start
Back in the '70s, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began
manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered which
did not suck.
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Because Lucas makes their
refrigerators.
This has been referred to as the smoke theory, when the smoke comes out it's
finished, cooked or done for.
<http://www.buildersbooks.com>
<http://www.matronics.com/contribution>
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
Brilliant !!
From:
owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
Sent: 22 December 2012
04:10
To:
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject:
AeroElectric-List: Lucas
Electrical Theory
For your holiday laughs.
ELECTRICAL THEORY BY JOSEPH LUCAS
Positive ground depends on proper
circuit
functioning, which is the transmission of negative ions by retention of
the
visible spectral manifestation known as “smoke”. Smoke is
the thing that makes
electrical circuits work. We know this to be true because every time
one lets
the smoke out of an electrical circuit, it stops working. This
can be
verified repeatedly through empirical testing.
For example, if one places a copper bar across the terminals of a
battery,
prodigious quantities of smoke are liberated and the battery shortly
ceases to
function. In addition, if one observes smoke escaping from an
electrical
component such as a Lucas voltage regulator, it will also be observed
that the
component no longer functions. The logic is elementary and
inescapable!
The function of the wiring harness is to conduct the smoke from one
device to
another. When the wiring springs a leak and lets all the smoke out of
the system,
nothing works afterward.
Starter motors were considered unsuitable for British motorcycles for
some time
largely because they consumed large quantities of smoke, requiring very
unsightly large wires.
It has been reported that Lucas electrical components are possibly more
prone
to electrical leakage than their Bosch, Japanese or American
counterparts.
Experts point out that this is because Lucas is British, and all things
British
leak. British engines leak oil, British shock absorbers, hydraulic
forks and
disk brake systems leak fluid, British tires leak air and British
Intelligence
leaks national defense secrets.
Therefore, it follows that British electrical systems must leak smoke.
Once
again, the logic is clear and inescapable.
In conclusion, the basic concept of transmission of electrical energy
in the
form of smoke provides a logical explanation of the mysteries of
electrical
components especially British units manufactured by Joseph Lucas,
Ltd.
And remember: “A gentleman does not motor about after
dark.”
Joseph Lucas “The Prince of Darkness”
1842-1903
A few Lucas quips:
The Lucas motto: “Get home before dark.”
Lucas is the patent holder for the short circuit.
Lucas - Inventor of the first intermittent wiper.
Lucas - Inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.
The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three
switch
settings--SMOKE, SMOLDER and IGNITE.
The Original Anti-Theft Device - Lucas Electrics.
If Lucas made guns, wars would not start
Back in the ‘70s, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and
began
manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered
which did
not suck.
Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Because Lucas makes their
refrigerators.
This has been referred to as the smoke theory, when the smoke comes out
it's
finished, cooked or done for.
www.aeroelectric.com
www.buildersbooks.com
www.homebuilthelp.com
http://www.matronics.com/
contribution
http://www
.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
http://forums.matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Ogden" <ogdenk(at)upstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Lucas Electrical Theory |
Here is an excellent tribute to Joseph Lucas:
http://www.hummingbirds.net/lucas/index.html
Don't think on it too long ;)
Kent Ogden
RV-10 (wings), getting my electrical questions ready . .
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 22, 2012, at 6:09 AM, "jan " wrote:
> Brilliant !!
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelec
tric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph Finch
> Sent: 22 December 2012 04:10
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lucas Electrical Theory
>
> For your holiday laughs.
>
> ELECTRICAL THEORY BY JOSEPH LUCAS
>
> Positive ground depends on proper circuit functioning, which is the
transmission of negative ions by retention of the visible spectral
manifestation known as =93smoke=94. Smoke is the thing that makes
electrical circuits work. We know this to be true because every time one
lets the smoke out of an electrical circuit, it stops working. This can
be verified repeatedly through empirical testing.
>
> For example, if one places a copper bar across the terminals of a
battery, prodigious quantities of smoke are liberated and the battery
shortly ceases to function. In addition, if one observes smoke escaping
from an electrical component such as a Lucas voltage regulator, it will
also be observed that the component no longer functions. The logic is
elementary and inescapable!
>
> The function of the wiring harness is to conduct the smoke from one
device to another. When the wiring springs a leak and lets all the smoke
out of the system, nothing works afterward.
>
> Starter motors were considered unsuitable for British motorcycles for
some time largely because they consumed large quantities of smoke,
requiring very unsightly large wires.
>
> It has been reported that Lucas electrical components are possibly more
prone to electrical leakage than their Bosch, Japanese or American
counterparts. Experts point out that this is because Lucas is British, and
all things British leak. British engines leak oil, British shock absorbers,
hydraulic forks and disk brake systems leak fluid, British tires leak air
and British Intelligence leaks national defense secrets.
>
> Therefore, it follows that British electrical systems must leak smoke.
Once again, the logic is clear and inescapable.
>
> In conclusion, the basic concept of transmission of electrical energy in
the form of smoke provides a logical explanation of the mysteries of
electrical components especially British units manufactured by Joseph
Lucas, Ltd.
>
> And remember: =93A gentleman does not motor about after dark.=94
>
> Joseph Lucas =93The Prince of Darkness=94
> 1842-1903
>
> A few Lucas quips:
>
> The Lucas motto: =93Get home before dark.=94
> Lucas is the patent holder for the short circuit.
> Lucas - Inventor of the first intermittent wiper.
> Lucas - Inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.
>
> The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three
switch settings--SMOKE, SMOLDER and IGNITE.
>
> The Original Anti-Theft Device - Lucas Electrics.
> If Lucas made guns, wars would not start
>
> Back in the =9170s, Lucas decided to diversify its product line and
began manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they offered
which did not suck.
>
> Q: Why do the British drink warm beer? A: Because Lucas makes their
refrigerators.
>
> This has been referred to as the smoke theory, when the smoke comes out
it's finished, cooked or done for.
>
>
> www.aeroelectric.com
> www.buildersbooks.com
> www.homebuilthelp.com
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
On 12/20/2012 8:17 PM, nuckollsr wrote:
> In the present case, we're talking about type-K (iron-constantan) wire-couple
Don't think so... Type J is iron-constantan. Type K is chromel-alumel, no?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
On 12/20/2012 8:17 PM, nuckollsr wrote:
> In the present case, we're talking about type-K (iron-constantan) wire-couple
Don't think so... Type J is iron-constantan. Type K is chromel-alumel, no?
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Iron-Constantan oil temp gauge |
At 03:34 PM 12/22/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>On 12/20/2012 8:17 PM, nuckollsr wrote:
>>In the present case, we're talking about type-K
>>(iron-constantan) wire-couple
>
>Don't think so... Type J is iron-constantan. Type K is chromel-alumel, no?
Ah yes . . . but of course . . . thanks for saving me from stepping off
into that hole!
Dave, what colors the insulation on your thermocouple leads.
"Most" folks follow the convention for Type J wire (Iron
Constantan) to have red and white insulation on the individual
strands.
http://tinyurl.com/cutt7qu
The Type K wire (Chromel-Alumel) strands are usually
yellow and red.
http://tinyurl.com/cgz6yxe
I think one of the reasons that Type-J wire is
not favored for long term installation is vulnerablity
to corrosion for the iron wire. If the probe you have
did indeed rust through one of the conductors,
it seems likely that your working with J wire, not
K.
In fact, I note that the back of your gage is marked
for 8 ohm, I-C leads. I think you mentioned that earlier
but it got stuck in a transient short between the headphones.
This page on Omega.com will let you order 25' of
GG-J-20S wire for about $32. I think I'd use new
wire and fabricate a new probe from scratch.
Silver solder a piece of stainless tube into a
suitable brass pipe plug. Fabricate a thermocouple
with a few twists of bared conductor and capture them
into the deep end of the tube by mashing in a vice.
Then silver solder the deep end of the probe shut.
According to this table
http://tinyurl.com/d8c67e7
The loop resistance for 20 gage stranded type J wire
is .348 ohms per foot. An 8-ohm probe lead would require
all of the 25 feet. Were your old leads that long?
The they were originally 22AWG, then the overall
length would have been about 16'
Alternatively, you could use a shorter lead set
up to require a precision low-ohms resistor. For
example, a 10' lead set of 20S I-C wire would have
a resistance on the order of 3.5 ohms . . . so you'd
want to insert an additional 4.5 ohms in series with
one lead. Yeah, this creates some parasitic
thermocouples but they are opposing pairs in close
thermal proximity.
Self powered thermocouple instruments for large
airplanes used to always require calibration resistors.
This let you use a common instrument and probes
for all 4 engines while offering a way to compensate
for different installed lengths of thermocouple wire.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: TV Antennas in parallel |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ANTENNAS/ganging.html
There is a drawing on this website that is similar to the way that I connected
my antennas together, except that my 3 antennas are all connected in parallel.
Another 300 ohm cable connects that junction to a balun for conversion to 75
ohms. After reading this article, I realize that I am lucky to have good reception.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390839#390839
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Problem with the Harbor Freight Carbon Pile battery |
tester
I've used this unit a few times without a problem. Then it suddenly
stopped working. I couldn't seem to apply a load though the exact
symptoms I don't quite remember.
Today, I pulled the unit apart and found
1) a fuse on a small circuit board which had not blown (not easily
replaceable either)
2) the carbon disks that presumably supplies the variable resistance
seem to be stacked between two steel plates but the carbon disks
appeared to be loose or askew.
If I screw the big knob down and shake things a bit, I can get the stack
of carbon plates lined up and it seems that increased resistance results
from placing more pressure on the stack.
Does that sound right?
Furthermore, it would seem for consistent operation, it would be best to
lie the unit on its back to insure the carbon plates remain flat.
Tomorrow I will attempt to use it again to see if it works now that the
plates are back in position.
Any insight or tips welcome. I will report further tomorrow.
Thanks
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Paul Millner <millner(at)me.com> |
| Subject: | Carbon Pile battery tester |
On 12/23/2012 4:25 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
> If I screw the big knob down and shake things a bit, I can get the
> stack of carbon plates lined up and it seems that increased resistance
> results from placing more pressure on the stack.
>
> Does that sound right?
Don't know about your unit, but traditional carbon piles *decrease*
resistance as you tighten them up, pushing the pack into better contact,
or decreasing the total electron path length, depending on how you'd
like to think about it. Relaxing pressure *increases* resistance, as
the carbon gets further away from each other, at least microscopically.
At least, our 1937 2400 volt AC generators' excitation current control
widgets work that way... technology may have marched on in the interim.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with the Harbor Freight Carbon Pile battery |
tester
At 06:25 PM 12/23/2012, you wrote:
>
>I've used this unit a few times without a problem. Then it suddenly
>stopped working. I couldn't seem to apply a load though the exact
>symptoms I don't quite remember.
is it failing to APPLY a load or failing to
INDICATE what that load is? Does the voltmeter
behave as expected? Can you depress the voltmeter
reading and get it to smell hot by cranking the
load knob down?
>Today, I pulled the unit apart and found
>1) a fuse on a small circuit board which had not blown (not easily
>replaceable either)
>2) the carbon disks that presumably supplies the variable resistance
>seem to be stacked between two steel plates but the carbon disks
>appeared to be loose or askew.
Those are classically not tightly captive.
A carbon pile rheostat is a PRESSURE device
wherein once the slack is taken out of the
stack height by the first turn of load knob
rotation, the pile doesn't physically move
much after that. It's behavior is a response
to pressure not motion.
>If I screw the big knob down and shake things a bit, I can get the
>stack of carbon plates lined up and it seems that increased
>resistance results from placing more pressure on the stack.
>
>Does that sound right?
No, the resistance between the fat wires to hte
battery should drop markedly. To load a battery
to 500A at 8 volts requires a resistance on
the order of 16 MILLIOHMS.
>Furthermore, it would seem for consistent operation, it would be
>best to lie the unit on its back to insure the carbon plates remain flat.
Doesn't matter.
>Tomorrow I will attempt to use it again to see if it works now that
>the plates are back in position.
>
>Any insight or tips welcome. I will report further tomorrow.
I've got two of these critters and they've
performed as expected for 5+ years. Sounds
like something may be unhooked. Tell us what
behaviors you see on the voltmeter while trying
to get the load increased.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Pile battery tester |
>Don't know about your unit, but traditional carbon piles *decrease*
>resistance as you tighten them up, pushing the pack into better
>contact, or decreasing the total electron path length, depending on
>how you'd like to think about it. Relaxing pressure *increases*
>resistance, as the carbon gets further away from each other, at
>least microscopically.
>
>At least, our 1937 2400 volt AC generators' excitation current
>control widgets work that way... technology may have marched on in the interim.
Yeah, those were the good ol' days.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Carbon_Pile_1a.jpg
A carbon pile regulator had no contacts to burn. It could
be taken apart and refurbished. Adding a separate
offset winding to the regulator provided an opportunity
to make two generators parallel onto one bus.
http://tinyurl.com/cf8b43e
It's one of my favorite examples of creativity in
electronic controls from the era of copper, steel, rubber
and Bakelite.
http://tinyurl.com/d9nyju4
This control device came out of a steam turbine
power plant, one of many shepherded by one of
several favorite uncles. Throughout this assembly
one can identify a/d converters, d/a converters and control
logic that presided over line power quality for
hundreds of thousands of Kansans. Uncle Bill received
this piece with a plaque on it commemorating his
decades of service to the only job he ever held after
graduating college.
I'm pleased that he saw fit to pass it on to me.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with the Harbor Freight Carbon Pile |
battery tester
All is well now. Not exactly sure what my problem was but I suspect
that 1) at some point I had completely unscrewed the knob and 2) one of
the carbon disk got out of position and got jammed. But I can't be
sure. For those interested, I made some additional notes among those
already made at the bottom of this note.
So I proceeded on with the task I had in mind.
I run a Z-14 with dual PC680s. It seemed that one of my batteries is
below par. In cold weather 1 of my 3 GRT HX screens will not boot up
before engine start and the alternator comes on line. The plan has
always been to keep the best battery on the starter circuit so I figured
it may be time to get a new one and swap the starter battery to the GRT
circuit.
In addition, I get a solid warning light from the LRC3 regulator on that
circuit. I'm not sure that is a battery problem at all but hoping it
may clear up too.
Even though I've only been flying the RV10 for 1.5 years, I've been
playing with PC680s for 6 or 7 years now. With the latest purchase, I
now have 5 batteries (!!). I've hurt 1 or 2 of them by using them
heavily and recharging them exclusively with a trickle charger before I
learned better. By the time the plane was flying, they wouldn't charge
up to full capacity.
But the task at hand was to test the performance of all 5 batteries to
confirm selection of the best two. Here is the test and the results.
The battery numbers reflect the sequence of purchase. (Temp = 62F)
Initial Voltage Voltage 30min after load
Battery 24hrs after charge 120amps for 15 sec
Batt1 12.71 12.56
Batt2 13.10 13.02
Batt3 13.00 12.84
Batt4 12.99 12.86
Batt5 13.15 13.08
I had been using Batts 2&3. Now I will be moving 3 out of the plane,
putting 2 in it's place and using Batt5 on the starter circuit.
Interestingly, I would have come to same conclusions using the first
column of numbers (without load testing) that I would have based on the
load testing.
Battery 4 is the 'aviation version' of the PC680. Right out of the box,
It never performed as well as the standard PC680s, even though there is
no apparent external difference other than mention of "PMA" and it's all
orange color. In the end, it's never been in the plane.
Thanks Bob and everyone!
Bill Watson
On 12/24/2012 10:09 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> At 06:25 PM 12/23/2012, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've used this unit a few times without a problem. Then it suddenly
>> stopped working. I couldn't seem to apply a load though the exact
>> symptoms I don't quite remember.
>
> is it failing to APPLY a load or failing to
> INDICATE what that load is? Does the voltmeter
> behave as expected? Can you depress the voltmeter
> reading and get it to smell hot by cranking the
> load knob down?
Voltmeter was working fine. Cranking the knob resulted in no change, no
smell. I think the know was jammed by a disk being out of position.
>
>
>> Today, I pulled the unit apart and found
>> 1) a fuse on a small circuit board which had not blown (not easily
>> replaceable either)
>> 2) the carbon disks that presumably supplies the variable resistance
>> seem to be stacked between two steel plates but the carbon disks
>> appeared to be loose or askew.
>
> Those are classically not tightly captive.
> A carbon pile rheostat is a PRESSURE device
> wherein once the slack is taken out of the
> stack height by the first turn of load knob
> rotation, the pile doesn't physically move
> much after that. It's behavior is a response
> to pressure not motion.
That makes sense.
>
>> If I screw the big knob down and shake things a bit, I can get the
>> stack of carbon plates lined up and it seems that increased
>> resistance results from placing more pressure on the stack.
>>
>> Does that sound right?
>
> No, the resistance between the fat wires to hte
> battery should drop markedly. To load a battery
> to 500A at 8 volts requires a resistance on
> the order of 16 MILLIOHMS.
My mistake here - I was referring to physical resistance on the knob,
not electrical resistance
>
>
>> Furthermore, it would seem for consistent operation, it would be best
>> to lie the unit on its back to insure the carbon plates remain flat.
>
> Doesn't matter.
>
>
>> Tomorrow I will attempt to use it again to see if it works now that
>> the plates are back in position.
>>
>> Any insight or tips welcome. I will report further tomorrow.
>
> I've got two of these critters and they've
> performed as expected for 5+ years. Sounds
> like something may be unhooked. Tell us what
> behaviors you see on the voltmeter while trying
> to get the load increased.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Switches all upside-down... |
I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted panel. To
my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I drilled the
key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the bottom of the main
hole. This means that all my switches are upside down. Off is up and on is down.
ARG!
I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and drill new ones
on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if there is a alternate
keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches 180 degrees.
Thanks for any suggestions!
Michael-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | Eric Page <edpav8r(at)yahoo.com> |
Can the key be bent 180 deg to face the opposite side of the washer without breaking
off?
If it makes you feel any better, many airliners have their switches mounted the
way you've done yours. Of course, they're on the overhead panel, so forward
is on and aft is off...
Eric
On Dec 25, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted panel. To
my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I drilled
the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the bottom of the main
hole. This means that all my switches are upside down. Off is up and on is
down. ARG!
>
> I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and drill new
ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if there is a alternate
keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches 180 degrees.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
> Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | "racerjerry" <gki(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us> |
I understand your grief. Shhh.., dont tell anyone else of your mistake. Go ahead
and install the switches without the keyed washer; just make sure that you
use a star washer on the switch mounting stem, which will keep them from loosening.
--------
Jerry King
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390957#390957
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
Good Morning Eric and Michael,
Is the panel installed yet? How thick is the panel? Did you drill the holes
all the way through? Front or back?
One possibility is to just drill new holes. The holes will show no more
without the tang in them than they would have with the tang in the hole. If
the panel is thick enough, I drill the holes on the back side and not all
the way through. I also drill them top and bottom so that I can put in the
switch either way. Why do I do that? Because I have been in the same boat
you are when I discovered that the manufacturer of a switch or CB I wanted to
install used a different protocol than I had planned for. No idea at all
as to how to find the upside down washers, but they ARE out there. In any
case, it is no disaster. The switches will work very well with no tang on the
washer at all. Just make sure they are straight when first installed and
it is highly unlikely they will ever come loose. I have done it that way
when I did not want to take the time to utilize the keyway and I cannot recall
any of the switches loosening enough to turn. Between the wires and being
closely spaced, they are unlikely to turn even if they get loose!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 12/26/2012 1:25:12 A.M. Central Standard Time,
edpav8r(at)yahoo.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Eric Page
Can the key be bent 180 deg to face the opposite side of the washer
without breaking off?
If it makes you feel any better, many airliners have their switches
mounted the way you've done yours. Of course, they're on the overhead panel,
so
forward is on and aft is off...
Eric
On Dec 25, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted
panel. To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I
drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the
bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are upside down. Off
is up and on is down. ARG!
>
> I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and
drill new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if
there is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches
180 degrees.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
> Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Pile battery tester |
Bob, I've been staring at this thing for a couple of days and realize
why I'm enjoying it so much. My Dad was an electronics hobbyist and
used to get a lot of surplus electrical boards and boxes to scavenge
parts from. He would give a piece or 2 to my brother and I to
dissassemble.... sometimes to get a particular component, sometimes to
just keep our busy hands out of the way.
I know that some parts were just so interesting that he'd get them just
to look at and study. This would have been one of those.
Thanks
Bill
On 12/24/2012 10:48 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls,
> It's one of my favorite examples of creativity in
> electronic controls from the era of copper, steel, rubber
> and Bakelite.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d9nyju4
>
> This control device came out of a steam turbine
> power plant, one of many shepherded by one of
> several favorite uncles. Throughout this assembly
> one can identify a/d converters, d/a converters and control
> logic that presided over line power quality for
> hundreds of thousands of Kansans. Uncle Bill received
> this piece with a plaque on it commemorating his
> decades of service to the only job he ever held after
> graduating college.
>
> I'm pleased that he saw fit to pass it on to me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Watson <Mauledriver(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Carbon Pile battery tester |
On 12/23/2012 9:37 PM, Paul Millner wrote:
>
>
> On 12/23/2012 4:25 PM, Bill Watson wrote:
>> If I screw the big knob down and shake things a bit, I can get the
>> stack of carbon plates lined up and it seems that increased
>> resistance results from placing more pressure on the stack.
>>
>> Does that sound right?
>
> Don't know about your unit, but traditional carbon piles *decrease*
> resistance as you tighten them up, pushing the pack into better
> contact, or decreasing the total electron path length, depending on
> how you'd like to think about it. Relaxing pressure *increases*
> resistance, as the carbon gets further away from each other, at least
> microscopically.
Well, this one definitely seems to press the carbon discs together to
increase resistance. Your explanation makes more sense to me. What I'm
seeing in this box makes none, but no matter. As I mentioned
separately, it's working fine now. Nice low cost box that seems to do
the job.
Thanks.
>
> At least, our 1937 2400 volt AC generators' excitation current control
> widgets work that way... technology may have marched on in the interim.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Hi Michael, I had the same issue, but my tabs were CNC cut into the panel. One
would think the lock tab goes up with the switch off and down and that's not always
the case. I was able to select different model switches from B&C and correct
it. If you study the "all about switches" article Bob has online or in the
manual you can probably work it out with a different switch.
Another option is drill new holes, they do not have to go all the way thru. If
you make a drill stop or use a drill press you can make new blind holes for the
tabs.
Good luck
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 25, 2012, at 10:43 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted panel. To
my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I drilled
the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the bottom of the main
hole. This means that all my switches are upside down. Off is up and on is
down. ARG!
>
> I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and drill new
ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if there is a alternate
keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches 180 degrees.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
> Michael-
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
Make a .040 backing plate drilled for the switch holes and the key holes in
the correct position. Mount this backing plate between the panel and the
switches. If the plate is designed to hold more than 1 switch, it will
serve to provide the anti-rotation function.
Alternatively, the SPDT switches that B&C will all work either way, simply
by using the secondary poles on the switch. Wire the power to the center
pole and the load to the bottom pole. This may not work for some of the
other switches, such as the ON-OFF-(ON) switches etc.
Vern
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Burbidge
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 10:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switches all upside-down...
I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted panel.
To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I
drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the
bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are upside down.
Off is up and on is down. ARG!
I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and drill
new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if there
is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches 180
degrees.
Thanks for any suggestions!
Michael-
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | "jonlaury" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
Don't feel too bad.
The first NACA duct I cut into a full-length fuselage aluminm skin I carefully
did backward with the wide end forward. Not knowing how they worked, I just assumed
that the wide end should face the slip stream where it could gather more
air :? Couldn't face the idea of tossing all that carefully drilled aluminum,
so I scribed the errant cut-out on another piece of sheet, cut it out, and bonded
it to a backing plate. It fit into the hole perfectly and flush rivets through
the backing plate made it nice and tidy and it looked almost intentional
on the polished skin.
It was amusing to see experienced builders touch and puzzle over the patch.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=390972#390972
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Michael, I had the same experience last summer. I used Radio Shack SPST
switches for the mags on a Rotax two stroke engine and found they were
backward to the switches I bought from B & C. I took the switches apart and
reversed the key slot location that way. Worked fine and was a relatively
quick fix.
Rick Girard
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Tim Andres wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Michael, I had the same issue, but my tabs were CNC cut into the panel.
> One would think the lock tab goes up with the switch off and down and
> that's not always the case. I was able to select different model switches
> from B&C and correct it. If you study the "all about switches" article Bob
> has online or in the manual you can probably work it out with a different
> switch.
> Another option is drill new holes, they do not have to go all the way
> thru. If you make a drill stop or use a drill press you can make new blind
> holes for the tabs.
> Good luck
> Tim
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 25, 2012, at 10:43 PM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> mburbidg(at)gmail.com>
> >
> > I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted
> panel. To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago,
> I drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the
> bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are upside down.
> Off is up and on is down. ARG!
> >
> > I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and
> drill new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if
> there is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the
> switches 180 degrees.
> >
> > Thanks for any suggestions!
> > Michael-
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT |
| From: | "ChangDriver" <capav8r(at)gmail.com> |
Forget about trying to put the capacitor on the line and solder to ground and just
get one of these noise supression connector adapters.
http://www.camiresearch.com/connector_protector.html
Way simpler and it puts EMI supression on each pin!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391000#391000
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT |
Wow cool idea. Ill be the guinea pig and report back when its see if it fixes
the problem.
Tim
________________________________
From: ChangDriver <capav8r(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 26, 2012 2:19:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
Forget about trying to put the capacitor on the line and solder to ground and
just get one of these noise supression connector adapters.
http://www.camiresearch.com/connector_protector.html
Way simpler and it puts EMI supression on each pin!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391000#391000
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John MacCallum <john.maccallum(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Switches all upside-down... |
Don't worry as the active terminal is the one opposite to the Switch Toggle
just swap the Terminals around Bottom to Top on Double Throw Switches.
On Single pole single throw it may be a bit a problem but you could make a
small doubler to take the tag in the opposite sense and just bond the
doubler to the Back of the panel.
Cheers
John MacCallum
VH-DUU
RV 10 # 41016
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Burbidge
Sent: Wednesday, 26 December 2012 5:44 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switches all upside-down...
-->
I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted panel.
To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I
drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the
bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are upside down.
Off is up and on is down. ARG!
I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and drill
new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if there
is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches 180
degrees.
Thanks for any suggestions!
Michael-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lynn Cole <LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
All of the switches on my 1946 Cessna 140 are upside down. Apparently
they were made that way at the factory. I just try to get used to it,
but given my druthers I would prefer having them mounted in the US
convention. I try to check the switches carefully after flying, but on
a few occasions I have left the master on. ARRGH!
I like the idea of drilling key holes top and bottom on the panel. As
others have pointed out, you can drill blind holes from the back on a
thick panel. On a thin panel, you can drill the holes all the way
through and use a thin stainless--steel washer (standard electrical
hardware) to cover the holes and protect the panel when you use a wrench
to tighten the nut.
-----
Lynn Cole
LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net
On Dec 26, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
> I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted
panel. To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months
ago, I drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead
of the bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are
upside down. Off is up and on is down. ARG!
>
> I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and
drill new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see
if there is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the
switches 180 degrees.
>
> Thanks for any suggestions!
> Michael-
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Burbidge <mburbidg(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
Thanks for all the replies. Lots of good ideas. In the end, I decided
that I wanted to fly sooner rather than later. So I just drilled key
holes in the bottom also. Only about half the hole shows on the top.
Like you mention, if I find the right washer, I can probably cover the
entire hole.
Be there a next time, I will blind drill the holes on the bottom in the
back.
Michael-
On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Lynn Cole wrote:
> All of the switches on my 1946 Cessna 140 are upside down. Apparently
they were made that way at the factory. I just try to get used to it,
but given my druthers I would prefer having them mounted in the US
convention. I try to check the switches carefully after flying, but on
a few occasions I have left the master on. ARRGH!
>
> I like the idea of drilling key holes top and bottom on the panel. As
others have pointed out, you can drill blind holes from the back on a
thick panel. On a thin panel, you can drill the holes all the way
through and use a thin stainless--steel washer (standard electrical
hardware) to cover the holes and protect the panel when you use a wrench
to tighten the nut.
> -----
> Lynn Cole
> LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>
>>
>> I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted
panel. To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months
ago, I drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead
of the bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are
upside down. Off is up and on is down. ARG!
>>
>> I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and
drill new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see
if there is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the
switches 180 degrees.
>>
>> Thanks for any (And Get AeroElectric
http://www.matronics.com/co -Matt Dralle,
List - The --> http://www.m &n========
====
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Schertz" <wschertz(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
Lynn,
I used the =98thin .035-.065=99 strip behind my switches to
allow the tabs to go in the correct place for switch orientation. As
long as you have two or more switches side by side, you can avoid
rotation. Easier than drilling into the panel itself
Bill Schertz
From: Lynn Cole
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switches all upside-down...
All of the switches on my 1946 Cessna 140 are upside down. Apparently
they were made that way at the factory. I just try to get used to it,
but given my druthers I would prefer having them mounted in the US
convention. I try to check the switches carefully after flying, but on
a few occasions I have left the master on. ARRGH!
I like the idea of drilling key holes top and bottom on the panel. As
others have pointed out, you can drill blind holes from the back on a
thick panel. On a thin panel, you can drill the holes all the way
through and use a thin stainless--steel washer (standard electrical
hardware) to cover the holes and protect the panel when you use a wrench
to tighten the nut.
-----
Lynn Cole
LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net
On Dec 26, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted
panel. To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months
ago, I drilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead
of the bottom of the main hole. This means that all my switches are
upside down. Off is up and on is down. ARG!
I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and
drill new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see
if there is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the
switches 180 degrees.
Thanks for any (And Get AeroElectric
http://www.matronics.com/co -Matt Dralle,
List - The --> http://www.m
&n============
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTTRF |
interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
I just put in an order for their evaluation kit for four DB25 EMC units
(Item # 903C). I've been having problems with RFI getting into the fuel
pressure circuit, causing fuel pressure warnings on the EFIS engine page.
I'll put this unit onto the DB-25 on the EIS and see if it solves the issue
(or makes it worst). It can't hurt, but may not eliminate the issue is RFI
getting into the fuel pressure sending unit, causing it to send the wrong
information. Only a cap across it's leads would then eliminate the
problem...
Fred Stucklen
RV-7A N924RV 800+ Hrs
Triple GRT EFIS
GRT EIS
Time:
From:
Tim Andres
Subject:
Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
Wow cool idea. I'll be the guinea pig and report back when it's see if
it fixes
the problem.
Tim
________________________________
From: ChangDriver <capav8r(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 26, 2012 2:19:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure
with PTT
Forget about trying to put the capacitor on the line and solder to
ground and
just get one of these noise supression connector adapters.
http://www.camiresearch.com/connector_protector.html
Way simpler and it puts EMI supression on each pin!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTTRF |
interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Thanks Fred, I had not gotten around to ordering yet as I recall one DB was m
ale pin and the other female. Do you plan to put one on each connector or ju
st the one that has the fuel pres. sensor?
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 27, 2012, at 11:35 AM, "Fred Stucklen" wrote:
> I just put in an order for their evaluation kit for four DB25 EMC units (I
tem # 903C). I=99ve been having problems with RFI getting into the fue
l pressure circuit, causing fuel pressure warnings on the EFIS engine page. I
=99ll put this unit onto the DB-25 on the EIS and see if it solves the
issue (or makes it worst). It can=99t hurt, but may not eliminate the
issue is RFI getting into the fuel pressure sending unit, causing it to sen
d the wrong information. Only a cap across it=99s leads would then eli
minate the problem..
>
> Fred Stucklen
> RV-7A N924RV 800+ Hrs
> Triple GRT EFIS
> GRT EIS
>
>
> Time:
> From:
> Tim Andres
> Subject:
> Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
>
> Wow cool idea. I=99ll be the guinea pig and report back when i
t=99s see if it fixes
> the problem.
> Tim
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ChangDriver <capav8r(at)gmail.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 26, 2012 2:19:18 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure
with PTT
>
>
> Forget about trying to put the capacitor on the line and solder to g
round and
> just get one of these noise supression connector adapters.
>
> http://www.camiresearch.com/connector_protector.html
>
> Way simpler and it puts EMI supression on each pin!
>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | Jared Yates <email(at)jaredyates.com> |
Contrary to a widely held belief among many homebuilders and most TC manufac
turers, my opinion is that airplanes need not make excuses for being airplan
es. Sometimes there will be holes, wires, hoses, or hardware that will be vi
sible- this is because simplicity and light weight matter much more in airpl
anes than they do in luxury cars. Being in the air with an extra lightening h
ole sounds much better than being on the ground with a panel that most folks
wouldn't be able to differentiate from the other without help. I think you m
ade a great choice!
On Dec 27, 2012, at 13:20, Michael Burbidge wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies. Lots of good ideas. In the end, I decided that
I wanted to fly sooner rather than later. So I just drilled key holes in th
e bottom also. Only about half the hole shows on the top. Like you mention, i
f I find the right washer, I can probably cover the entire hole.
>
> Be there a next time, I will blind drill the holes on the bottom in the ba
ck.
>
> Michael-
>
> On Dec 27, 2012, at 10:03 AM, Lynn Cole wrote:
>
>> All of the switches on my 1946 Cessna 140 are upside down. Apparently th
ey were made that way at the factory. I just try to get used to it, but giv
en my druthers I would prefer having them mounted in the US convention. I t
ry to check the switches carefully after flying, but on a few occasions I ha
ve left the master on. ARRGH!
>>
>> I like the idea of drilling key holes top and bottom on the panel. As ot
hers have pointed out, you can drill blind holes from the back on a thick pa
nel. On a thin panel, you can drill the holes all the way through and use a
thin stainless--steel washer (standard electrical hardware) to cover the ho
les and protect the panel when you use a wrench to tighten the nut.
>> -----
>> Lynn Cole
>> LynnCole(at)foxvalley.net
>>
>>
>> On Dec 26, 2012, at 12:43 AM, Michael Burbidge wrote:
>>
l.com>
>>>
>>> I just mounted my instruments and switches in my beautifully painted pan
el. To my dismay I discovered that when I cut my panel, many months ago, I d
rilled the key hole for all my B&C switches on the top instead of the bottom
of the main hole. This means that all my switches are upside down. Off is u
p and on is down. ARG!
>>>
>>> I'm thinking I'm going to have to fill the key holes with putty and dril
l new ones on the bottom. But I thought I'd check real quick to see if there
is a alternate keyed washer that would allow be to rotate the switches 180 d
egrees.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any (And Get AeroElectric http://www.matronics.com/
co -Matt Dralle, List - The --> http:
//www.m &n============
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> face="courier new,courier">www.aeroelectric.com
>> href="http://www.buildersbooks.com/">www.buildersbooks.com
>> href="http://www.homebuilthelp.com/">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
ontribution
>> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> href="http://forums.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | "hooverra" <hooverra(at)comcast.net> |
If the switches are in a row or several rows drill a plate to go behind the panel
as thick as the tang on the anti turn washer. In this plate punch the index
holes in the correct location. This is then interposed between the switch with
washer and the back of the panel.
On my RV7 all of the switches are mounted to a u channel that is fastened to the
panel with 4 screws and spacers. Only the end of the threaded switch bushing
goes through the panel and remains flush with the panel. The panel is removable
with a few connectors and removing the switch mounting screws. The switches
remain connected.
--------
Ralph & Laura Hoover
RV7A N527LR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391067#391067
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Stucklen" <wstucklen1(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTTRF |
interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
Tim,
I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by trying
just the sensor DB. If that doesn't solve the problem, I'll add one to the
TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I have the high
pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being effected by the
RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor would be bad,
causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solved by
protecting the sensor with capacitors.
The EMC units have male pins on one side, female on the other side,
allowing them to be put in-line with the existing cable connectors.
Fred Stucklen
Time:
Subject:
Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTTRF
interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
From:
Tim Andres
Thanks Fred, I had not gotten around to ordering yet as I recall one
DB was m
ale pin and the other female. Do you plan to put one on each connector
or ju
st the one that has the fuel pres. sensor?
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 27, 2012, at 11:35 AM, "Fred Stucklen"
wrote:
> I just put in an order for their evaluation kit for four DB25 EMC
units (I
tem # 903C). I=99ve been having problems with RFI getting into the fue
l pressure circuit, causing fuel pressure warnings on the EFIS engine
page. I
=99ll put this unit onto the DB-25 on the EIS and see if it solves the
issue (or makes it worst). It can=99t hurt, but may not eliminate the
issue is RFI getting into the fuel pressure sending unit, causing it
to sen
d the wrong information. Only a cap across it=99s leads would then eli
minate the problem..
>
> Fred Stucklen
> RV-7A N924RV 800+ Hrs
> Triple GRT EFIS
> GRT EIS
>
>
> Time:
> From:
> Tim Andres
> Subject:
> Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure with PTT
>
> Wow cool idea. I=99ll be the guinea pig and report back when i
t=99s see if it fixes
> the problem.
> Tim
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: ChangDriver <capav8r(at)gmail.com>
> Sent: Wed, December 26, 2012 2:19:18 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel
pressure
with PTT
>
>
> Forget about trying to put the capacitor on the line and
solder to g
round and
> just get one of these noise supression connector adapters.
>
> http://www.camiresearch.com/connector_protector.html
>
> Way simpler and it puts EMI supression on each pin!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
>Tim,
>
> I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by
> trying just the sensor DB. If that doesn't solve the problem, I'll
> add one to the TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual
> sensor (I have the high pressure precision unit for a fuel injected
> engine) is being effected by the RFI. If this is the case, the
> signal coming from the sensor would be bad, causing the EFIS
> alarms. This type of problem can only be solved by protecting the
> sensor with capacitors.
I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
Extended family holiday activities (still going
on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
uh . . indisposed.
Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
Is the problem common to other identical installations
or just with your airplane?
The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
conditions outside the affected system.
Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
tried, etc.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
At 12:56 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:
>Lynn,
>I used the =98thin .035-.065=99 strip behind my
>switches to allow the tabs to go in the correct
>place for switch orientation. As long as you
>have two or more switches side by side, you can
>avoid rotation. Easier than drilling into the panel itself
>
>Bill Schertz
Yes. We had this very same discussion some years
back. I think I did a short article suggesting that
a 'drill fixture' be fabricated from a strip of
aluminum that featured #40 drilled centers for
switches and washer tabs. Then use the fixture to
match drill a set of pilot holes in the panel.
Drill out all holes to final size and then use
the 'fixture' on the back side to secure the
locking tabs. It could be assembled with tabs
up or down.
The only toggle switches that are really upside
down are the un-symmetrical devices. I.e., Single
throw or spring loaded to one side. This is why
I only stocked the S700-2-3 switch for single throw
service, it could be wired to function right side up
with the locking tab in either position. The only
time you risk getting 'hosed' is with switches having
spring loading from one side to center. In any case,
making a drill template on the bench assures tighter
location for holes to centers.
Having a tight-tolerance template makes the job
in the airplane go much faster, with greater precision
and accommodates locking tabs without having to
drill the instrument panel.
At one time, I considered offering aluminum strips about
1-1/2" wide center-drilled on a mill to locate the two rows
of holes with great precision. I might still do that.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Hi Bob and thanks!
The issue is fuel pressure spikes on transmit with the GRT EIS system. At le
ast 3 cases I know of. On mine it only occurs at the higher end of the band u
sing either comm.
GRT suggested a split ferrite over the bundle just before it enters the DB 2
5 connector, I have not tried anything yet myself but plan to during my cond
ition inspection.
These look like a slick way to do what you had suggested earlier, that is sm
all caps between the pins and ground. My only concern is I know there are bo
th gender DB 25 connectors on the back of the unit and I need to determine i
f they sell both and or which one I need.
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroel
ectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
>> Tim,
>>
>> I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by tryin
g just the sensor DB. If that doesn=99t solve the problem, I=99l
l add one to the TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I h
ave the high pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being ef
fected by the RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor wo
uld be bad, causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solved
by protecting the sensor with capacitors.
>
> I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
> Extended family holiday activities (still going
> on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
> a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
> for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
> uh . . indisposed.
>
> Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
> Is the problem common to other identical installations
> or just with your airplane?
>
> The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
> to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
> conditions outside the affected system.
>
> Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
> tried, etc.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Load Analysis Feedback Please... |
| From: | "idleup" <matt(at)mattandmel.com> |
Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet and tell me if
you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to make it better?
I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still
question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some peer review...
Thanks.
Of if you would prefer to download the PDF: http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf
Thank you much.
Matt
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391129#391129
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Pengilly <peter(at)sportingaero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please... |
Hi Matt,
The only issue that might cause you a problem is the equipment on the
battery buss - if you cannot switch most of those items off with the
master switch you will drain the battery quickly. Are you sure the EI
should not be switched? Are you sure you will always turn off the
instrument & compass lights? The remaining comments are details.
When I construct a loading table I use the steady state load as the
value I'm interested in for load assessment, and the max draw to size
the fuse and wire. A wiring diagram showing the feeds to the busbars
(not to the individual loads) would also be useful. You appear to have
listed the peak load only, for example you have listed an SL-40 taking
2A and a 430 taking 6A, these are probably transmit currents and would
be pulled for only short periods. I would use the steady state figure
for all the devices for load calculation, but use the peak load to size
fuse and wire size. It is usually assumed that the battery will handle
any transient loads, such as radio transmit, flap motor, trim or gear
motor (if you had one), otherwise the alternator becomes huge. When
calculating the size of the battery for alternator out purposes the
increase in draw of large loads at the reduced battery voltage can be
significant (landing/taxi light, pitot heat) so may be worth listing
separately - your battery at 72% charge should be able to support the
endurance & battery loads for 30 minutes. As written a PC-680 would not
meet this requirement (12Ah available, 22Ah required).
Some of your fuse sizes seem low (3A fuse on a 2.5A load, for example
EFIS). Fuses protect the wire, double the load at least. Some also seem
high (10A fuse on a 2.4A load on the strobes). Wire sizes seem
inconsistent, the SL-40, a 2A load, has an 18g wire, but the audio
panel, a 2.5A load, has a 22g wire, CO monitor, a 0.1A load, has a 20g
wire.
Some specific points,
- Why 4ga wire of the battery connector, it only pulls 1 amp? If that is
the main battery feed is 4ga large enough (2 or 0 is common)? There
should be a switch to pull in the battery contactor, often wired with 18ga.
- Starter, does that starter contactor take a different load from the
battery contactor?
- Does the audio panel really pull 2.5A continuously?
- Flap motor load is not consistent
- Landing light load is high, are you sure it is 100W? If so it will
draw 7A on the alternator or 8A on the battery.
- Do you not have a back-up battery on at least one of your EFISs?
Hope this helps,
Peter
On 29/12/2012 06:08, idleup wrote:
>
> Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet and tell me
if you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to make it better?
I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still
question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some peer review...
Thanks.
>
>
> Of if you would prefer to download the PDF: http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf
>
> Thank you much.
>
> Matt
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391129#391129
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
hi all,
my led's on my trim display light up when i key the mike. also recently
the warning light on my gr eis blinks but i didn't notice if a particular
warning was displayed. light stops when i release the key. wonder if i am
getting the same thing?
bob noffs
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
> Hi Bob and thanks!
> The issue is fuel pressure spikes on transmit with the GRT EIS system. At
> least 3 cases I know of. On mine it only occurs at the higher end of the
> band using either comm.
> GRT suggested a split ferrite over the bundle just before it enters the D
B
> 25 connector, I have not tried anything yet myself but plan to during my
> condition inspection.
> These look like a slick way to do what you had suggested earlier, that is
> small caps between the pins and ground. My only concern is I know there a
re
> both gender DB 25 connectors on the back of the unit and I need to
> determine if they sell both and or which one I need.
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
>
> Tim,
>
> I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by tryin
g
> just the sensor DB. If that doesn=92t solve the problem, I=92ll add one t
o the
> TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I have the high
> pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being effected by
> the RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor would be
> bad, causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solved by
> protecting the sensor with capacitors.**
>
>
> I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
> Extended family holiday activities (still going
> on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
> a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
> for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
> uh . . indisposed.
>
> Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
> Is the problem common to other identical installations
> or just with your airplane?
>
> The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
> to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
> conditions outside the affected system.
>
> Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
> tried, etc.
>
>
> **
>
> Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> ========================
===========ctric.com
> >www.buildersbooks.comuilthelp.commatronics.com/contribution
> ========================
> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ========================
===========cs.com
> ========================
> *
>
> **
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
| From: | Tom Chapman <tomrv4(at)me.com> |
My turn...
My stand alone led low voltage warning light comes on every time I key the m
ic. My Dynon D180 shows no effect of keying the mic on the voltage read out.
Suggestions on which direction I need go to solve?
Tom
On Dec 29, 2012, at 6:12 AM, bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> my led's on my trim display light up when i key the mike. also recently t
he warning light on my gr eis blinks but i didn't notice if a particular war
ning was displayed. light stops when i release the key. wonder if i am getti
ng the same thing?
> bob noffs
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
>> Hi Bob and thanks!
>> The issue is fuel pressure spikes on transmit with the GRT EIS system. At
least 3 cases I know of. On mine it only occurs at the higher end of the ba
nd using either comm.
>> GRT suggested a split ferrite over the bundle just before it enters the D
B 25 connector, I have not tried anything yet myself but plan to during my c
ondition inspection.
>> These look like a slick way to do what you had suggested earlier, that is
small caps between the pins and ground. My only concern is I know there are
both gender DB 25 connectors on the back of the unit and I need to determin
e if they sell both and or which one I need.
>> Tim
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aer
oelectric.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
>>>> Tim,
>>>>
>>>> I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by try
ing just the sensor DB. If that doesn=99t solve the problem, I=99
ll add one to the TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I
have the high pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being e
ffected by the RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor w
ould be bad, causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solve
d by protecting the sensor with capacitors.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
>>> Extended family holiday activities (still going
>>> on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
>>> a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
>>> for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
>>> uh . . indisposed.
>>>
>>> Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
>>> Is the problem common to other identical installations
>>> or just with your airplane?
>>>
>>> The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
>>> to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
>>> conditions outside the affected system.
>>>
>>> Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
>>> tried, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> =========
>>> ctric.com
>>> >www.buildersbooks.com
>>> uilthelp.com
>>> matronics.com/contribution
>>> =========
>>> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>> =========
>>> cs.com
>>> =========
>>>
>>
>>
>> _blank">www.aeroelectric.com
>> .com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
>> ="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
>> _blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Li
st
>> tp://forums.matronics.com
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
Well if we are going to have a throwdown..
My rudder trim position indicator dims and goes to one end when I key the
mike. The elevator trim position indicator right beside it is not affected.
RAC trim system, Garmin GNS430W radio.
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Chapman
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure
My turn...
My stand alone led low voltage warning light comes on every time I key the
mic. My Dynon D180 shows no effect of keying the mic on the voltage read
out. Suggestions on which direction I need go to solve?
Tom
On Dec 29, 2012, at 6:12 AM, bob noffs wrote:
hi all,
my led's on my trim display light up when i key the mike. also recently the
warning light on my gr eis blinks but i didn't notice if a particular
warning was displayed. light stops when i release the key. wonder if i am
getting the same thing?
bob noffs
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Tim Andres wrote:
Hi Bob and thanks!
The issue is fuel pressure spikes on transmit with the GRT EIS system. At
least 3 cases I know of. On mine it only occurs at the higher end of the
band using either comm.
GRT suggested a split ferrite over the bundle just before it enters the DB
25 connector, I have not tried anything yet myself but plan to during my
condition inspection.
These look like a slick way to do what you had suggested earlier, that is
small caps between the pins and ground. My only concern is I know there are
both gender DB 25 connectors on the back of the unit and I need to determine
if they sell both and or which one I need.
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
Tim,
I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by trying
just the sensor DB. If that doesn't solve the problem, I'll add one to the
TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I have the high
pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being effected by the
RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor would be bad,
causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solved by
protecting the sensor with capacitors.
I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
Extended family holiday activities (still going
on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
uh . . indisposed.
Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
Is the problem common to other identical installations
or just with your airplane?
The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
conditions outside the affected system.
Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
tried, etc.
Bob . . .
=========
ctric.com
>www.buildersbooks.com
uilthelp.com
matronics.com/contribution
=========
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
=========
cs.com
=========
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
==================================
ctric.com
>www.buildersbooks.com
uilthelp.com
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bob McCallum <robert.mccallum2(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
Tim;
There is no issue with determining the "gender" of the suppression device.
It has both a male and a female side and is inserted between the existing
"plug" and "socket" therefore the same device does both "genders". There is
only one suppressor for each size DB connector (in your case presumably 25
pin) which works in all cases.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Andres
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure
Hi Bob and thanks!
The issue is fuel pressure spikes on transmit with the GRT EIS system. At
least 3 cases I know of. On mine it only occurs at the higher end of the
band using either comm.
GRT suggested a split ferrite over the bundle just before it enters the DB
25 connector, I have not tried anything yet myself but plan to during my
condition inspection.
These look like a slick way to do what you had suggested earlier, that is
small caps between the pins and ground. My only concern is I know there are
both gender DB 25 connectors on the back of the unit and I need to determine
if they sell both and or which one I need.
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
wrote:
At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
Tim,
I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by trying
just the sensor DB. If that doesn't solve the problem, I'll add one to the
TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I have the high
pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being effected by the
RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor would be bad,
causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solved by
protecting the sensor with capacitors.
I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
Extended family holiday activities (still going
on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
uh . . indisposed.
Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
Is the problem common to other identical installations
or just with your airplane?
The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
conditions outside the affected system.
Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
tried, etc.
Bob . . .
==================================
ctric.com
>www.buildersbooks.com
uilthelp.com
matronics.com/contribution
==================================
st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==================================
cs.com
==================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Page <jpx(at)qenesis.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please... |
Matt,
You definitely put a lot of work into this :-)
You have used maximum currents, although in many cases, actual runtime
currents will be much lower. The radios are a good example. The
SL-40 is about 0.4A during receive. The Garmin 430 is about 2A for
receive + nav. The audio panel probably uses less than 2A too.
You decide what really needs to be on the endurance buss, but I would
suggest moving the flap motor and landing light to the main buss.
Once you have successfully arrived at the airport, you can turn the
main buss back on and use the battery reserve to lower the flaps and
maybe use the landing light (or just land without it).
I would put the lighting controller and compass light on the endurance
buss. You are less likely to leave them on accidentally draining the
battery. More importantly, if you have an electrical fire, you want
to be able to disconnect everything (except the ignition) by turning
off the master switch.
Using more typical currents, your endurance buss will be below 18A,
allowing extended flight with a 20A backup alternator. You didn't
mention what your architecture is.
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
> From: "idleup" <matt(at)mattandmel.com>
>
>
> Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet
> and tell me if
> you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to
> make it better?
> I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still
> question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some
> peer review...
> Thanks.
>
>
> Of if you would prefer to download the PDF:
> http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf
>
> Thank you much.
>
> Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
| From: | Tim Andres <tim2542(at)sbcglobal.net> |
Ok thanks Bob. I guess I had not thought it through...the thing is reversibl
e!
Tim
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 29, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Bob McCallum wr
ote:
> Tim;
>
> There is no issue with determining the =9Cgender=9D of the sup
pression device. It has both a male and a female side and is inserted betwee
n the existing =9Cplug=9D and =9Csocket=9D therefore
the same device does both =9Cgenders=9D. There is only one supp
ressor for each size DB connector (in your case presumably 25 pin) which wor
ks in all cases.
>
> Bob McC
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelect
ric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Andres
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 3:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure
>
> Hi Bob and thanks!
> The issue is fuel pressure spikes on transmit with the GRT EIS system. At l
east 3 cases I know of. On mine it only occurs at the higher end of the band
using either comm.
> GRT suggested a split ferrite over the bundle just before it enters the DB
25 connector, I have not tried anything yet myself but plan to during my co
ndition inspection.
> These look like a slick way to do what you had suggested earlier, that is s
mall caps between the pins and ground. My only concern is I know there are b
oth gender DB 25 connectors on the back of the unit and I need to determine i
f they sell both and or which one I need.
> Tim
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 28, 2012, at 10:00 AM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aero
electric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 07:28 AM 12/28/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> I ordered four units (Their evaluation kit), so will start out by tryin
g just the sensor DB. If that doesn=99t solve the problem, I=99l
l add one to the TEMP sensor DB input. My fear is that the actual sensor (I h
ave the high pressure precision unit for a fuel injected engine) is being ef
fected by the RFI. If this is the case, the signal coming from the sensor wo
uld be bad, causing the EFIS alarms. This type of problem can only be solved
by protecting the sensor with capacitors.
>>
>> I'm sorry to have been out of the loop on this.
>> Extended family holiday activities (still going
>> on) plus a run-in with the flu (grandkids attending
>> a constellation of schools are veritable dragnets
>> for viruses) has kept Dr. Dee and myself somewhat,
>> uh . . indisposed.
>>
>> Is this a new, untried combination of hardware?
>> Is the problem common to other identical installations
>> or just with your airplane?
>>
>> The great RFI/Filter/Ferrite/copper-box hat-dance
>> to mitigate an RFI issue may have more to do with
>> conditions outside the affected system.
>>
>> Bring me up to date on what's happening, what you've
>> tried, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>> =========================
=========
>> ctric.com
>> >www.buildersbooks.com
>> uilthelp.com
>> matronics.com/contribution
>> =========================
=========
>> st">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> =========================
=========
>> cs.com
>> =========================
=========
>>
>
>
> www.buildersbooks.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
At 08:24 AM 12/29/2012, you wrote:
>Tim;
>
>There is no issue with determining the "gender" of the suppression
>device. It has both a male and a female side and is inserted between
>the existing "plug" and "socket" therefore the same device does both
>"genders". There is only one suppressor for each size DB connector
>(in your case presumably 25 pin) which works in all cases.
I would expand on Bob's comments to remind
readers that the designers of 'universal'
suppression connectors cannot know which,
if any, pins within the array are at RF
ground. Hence, they MUST assume that all
pins are 'hot' and worthy of protection.
This means that the connector SHELL is expected
to become RF ground for all filters built
into the device.
When I add capacitors to the connector of
a unique 'victim', I am knowing which pins
are suitable for grounding the capacitors.
I can also focus on one or perhaps a few pins
that may be vulnerable . . . i.e. not all
pins get caps.
So when using a universal 'filtered' connector,
make sure your connector's shell gets into a
close relationship with RF ground for the
device you're trying to protect.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
At 08:21 AM 12/29/2012, you wrote:
>Well if we are going to have a throwdown..
>
>My rudder trim position indicator dims and goes to one end when I
>key the mike. The elevator trim position indicator right beside it
>is not affected.
>RAC trim system, Garmin GNS430W radio.
The RAC trim indicators have always been
very vulnerable to ordinary levels of RF
in the cockpit. I spoke with the folks at
OSH many years ago offering to assist in
getting their products RF hardened but they
weren't interested.
Most folks know that it happens and simply
ignores it . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Speedy11(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Load Analysis Feedback Please |
Matt,
For your Ray Allen trim servos you listed them at 1 amp each. Seems like
they would be more like 0.1 amp when in operation (which is not very
often). Since they are not used most of the time, I would not include them as
part of the load during various phases of flight. By listing them in, say,
night IFR with 0.15 amp, you are saying that they will draw 0.15 amp
continuously. Or your load analysis is relevant only during that split second
in
which the trim is being used.
I would say the same is true of your SL-40 and 430W. Seems like the full
amps on those are correct only during radio transmissions. The amperage
draw is much lower during "rest" periods or during receive only operation.
I doubt you will run the boost pump continuously during start. I run it
for about 10-15 seconds then it is off until takeoff. I also don't turn it
on during descent until ready for landing.
You have listed your EFISs and radios as being on during start.
Personally, I wait until after start to turn on all the avionics except the engine
monitor.
I have the pitot heat on only when needed. Maybe you are planning for
worst case scenario for loading by listing the pitot heat on during several
phases of flight.
The flap motor draws its max amperage only when air loaded. And it is
used only for a few seconds during each flight. So, by listing it in your
load plan, you are referring only to that particular moment when the flap motor
is running and you are transmitting on the radio and you are adjusting the
trim setting - a rare occurrence.
There's nothing wrong with planning for that situation - just realize it is
for only a few moments of time during a flight.
What I did was to plan the load without the items (such as trim) that are
momentary loads. You can also build several load sheets that show the load
when trim, flaps, radio are not being used and another for when they are.
My thoughts.
Stan Sutterfield
RV-8A
Reno Race #84
In a message dated 12/29/2012 3:01:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com writes:
Would you guys be so kind as to review my Load Analysis worksheet and tell
me if
you see anything that looks incorrect or have recommendations to make it
better?
I have spent quite a bit of time on this but at the end of the day still
question whether I know what I am doing and would appreciate some peer
review...
Thanks.
Of if you would prefer to download the PDF:
http://www.mattandmel.com/rv/Master_Load_Analysis_v1.pdf
Thank you much.
Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
Thanks, Bob. That is exactly what I will do.
I called and spoke with someone at RAC about this problem. His response was
"Well it works ok except when you transmit doesn't it?" I suspected then
that good enough was good enough.
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 1:14 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF interference on GRT fuel pressure
At 08:21 AM 12/29/2012, you wrote:
Well if we are going to have a throwdown..
My rudder trim position indicator dims and goes to one end when I key the
mike. The elevator trim position indicator right beside it is not affected.
RAC trim system, Garmin GNS430W radio.
The RAC trim indicators have always been
very vulnerable to ordinary levels of RF
in the cockpit. I spoke with the folks at
OSH many years ago offering to assist in
getting their products RF hardened but they
weren't interested.
Most folks know that it happens and simply
ignores it . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
[quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 12:56 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:
>
>
Yes. We had this very same discussion some years
back. I think I did a short article suggesting that
a 'drill fixture' be fabricated from a strip of
aluminum that featured #40 drilled centers for
switches and washer tabs. Then use the fixture to
match drill a set of pilot holes in the panel.
Having a tight-tolerance template makes the job
in the airplane go much faster, with greater precision
and accommodates locking tabs without having to
drill the instrument panel.
At one time, I considered offering aluminum strips about
1-1/2" wide center-drilled on a mill to locate the two rows
of holes with great precision. I might still do that.
Bob . . .
> [b]
After some searching, I found this thread in the archives about the drilling fixture
subject:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=63686&highlight=switch+hole+drill+fixture
I would be interested in a fixture for drilling switch holes. At the least, a template
would help me make it myself.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391183#391183
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | bob noffs <icubob(at)gmail.com> |
i made one for my installation when i built my panel. i am sure i got the
idea on this forum. easy enough and works great, no tiny holes in the panel.
bob noffs
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM, eschlanser wrote:
> eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
>
> [quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 12:56 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> Yes. We had this very same discussion some years
> back. I think I did a short article suggesting that
> a 'drill fixture' be fabricated from a strip of
> aluminum that featured #40 drilled centers for
> switches and washer tabs. Then use the fixture to
> match drill a set of pilot holes in the panel.
>
> Having a tight-tolerance template makes the job
> in the airplane go much faster, with greater precision
> and accommodates locking tabs without having to
> drill the instrument panel.
>
> At one time, I considered offering aluminum strips about
> 1-1/2" wide center-drilled on a mill to locate the two rows
> of holes with great precision. I might still do that.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> > [b]
>
>
> After some searching, I found this thread in the archives about the
> drilling fixture subject:
>
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=63686&highlight=switch+hole+drill+fixture
>
>
> I would be interested in a fixture for drilling switch holes. At the
> least, a template would help me make it myself.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391183#391183
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glen Matejcek <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: iCom batteries, was Rejuvenating Ni-MH battery |
There is an iCom battery pack available for replaceable, non-rechargeable batteries.
As cheap as dry cells are compared to the rechargeables, and as little
as I actually use the handheld, that is the way to go for me. Should my usage
go up to the point where rechargeables make sense, I can just drop the discrete
rechargeables into the same pack-
Glen Matejcek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Viorel Nichols <viorel.nichols(at)yahoo.com> |
Away on holiday from the 22 December 2012 till 29 January 2013
Wishing you a happy festive season .
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
from
Viorel ...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switches all upside-down... |
Why not use a pre drilled bus bar
http://www.chiefaircraft.com/aircraft/installation-supplies/terminal-blocks/ms-25226-10-16.html
which will not only give your switch/breaker spacing but your common feed
bus bar (for the breakers)
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 11:24 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam]AeroElectric-List: Re: Switches all upside-down...
>
>
> [quote="nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect"]At 12:56 PM 12/27/2012, you wrote:
>
>>
>>
>
> Yes. We had this very same discussion some years
> back. I think I did a short article suggesting that
> a 'drill fixture' be fabricated from a strip of
> aluminum that featured #40 drilled centers for
> switches and washer tabs. Then use the fixture to
> match drill a set of pilot holes in the panel.
>
> Having a tight-tolerance template makes the job
> in the airplane go much faster, with greater precision
> and accommodates locking tabs without having to
> drill the instrument panel.
>
> At one time, I considered offering aluminum strips about
> 1-1/2" wide center-drilled on a mill to locate the two rows
> of holes with great precision. I might still do that.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>> [b]
>
>
> After some searching, I found this thread in the archives about the
> drilling fixture subject:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=63686&highlight=switch+hole+drill+fixture
>
>
> I would be interested in a fixture for drilling switch holes. At the
> least, a template would help me make it myself.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391183#391183
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Weaver, Erich" <erich.weaver(at)urs.com> |
| Subject: | RF interference on GRT fuel pressure |
Hate to be discouraging, but I have this same problem and have previously tried
the dsub filter technique on both the EFIS and on the EIS with zero success.
Just living with a few seconds of flashing warning light on the EFIS now. Let
us know if anyone fares any better.
Erich
This e-mail and any attachments contain URS Corporation confidential information
that may be proprietary or privileged. If you receive this message in error
or are not the intended recipient, you should not retain, distribute, disclose
or use any of this information and you should destroy the e-mail and any attachments
or copies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Antenna Question (Yet Another) |
| From: | "dgaldrich" <dgaldrich(at)embarqmail.com> |
I am building a Pietenpol (wood fuselage) and will be installing 3 antennae. 1
VHF com, 1 ELT (121.5/406), and one transponder. The turtle deck is current
uncovered so I can install them anywhere I want. The issue is ground planes and
the question is can I use the same ground plane for the ELT and the comm with
one facing up and the other facing down with the feeds less than say 6 inches
apart. at the point where I'd like to put the two vhf antennae, the fuselage
is about 12 inches wide but the ground plane could be maybe 3 feet long and
I could get a wider ground plane by turning it 90 degrees and extending it down
the side of the fuselage.
So here are the questions:
1. Can I do the back-to-back almost collocated trick with the two VHF antennae.
If so, should they be mirror image (both angled back) or "concentric" (one
angled back and one angled front). Would using both a ferrous ( window screen?)
and non-ferrous (aluminum or copper) ground plane (sort of like a Faraday cage)
provide enough isolation bearing in mind that the ELT would be used as transmit
only when disaster strikes.
1a. Do I really care about the ELT antenna's capability on 121.5? If I go down,
it's the 406 frequency that will get SAR to me. My thinking is that the ELT
antenna's proximity to the VHF comm antenna shouldn't compromise the 406 signal.
1b. If 1a is true, then the only issue is the comm antenna radiation pattern.
Locating the antennae 1/4 wavelength apart might even help, sort of like reflectors
and directors in yagis.
2. How sensitive is the ground plane to width? Can I get away with 12 inches
by 36? Is there a benefit in extending the ground plane down the side say 6 inches
to get a 24 inch wide ground plane?
Lots of questions but it's not like the supposed question on an MIT physics exam.
"Given Maxwell's equations, derive the universe. Give two examples."
Thanks in advance
Dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391278#391278
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Selover-Stephan <holger-d(at)shadowbrush.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Removable comm antenna |
Just a quick note that I took the removable comm antenna out for a few
flights and got a "loud and clear". Thanks for all your advice, gents!
Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Holger Selover-Stephan <holger-d(at)shadowbrush.com> |
| Subject: | Re: iCom batteries, was Rejuvenating Ni-MH battery |
On 12/29/12 8:05 PM, Glen Matejcek wrote:
>
> There is an iCom battery pack available for replaceable, non-rechargeable batteries.
As cheap as dry cells are compared to the rechargeables, and as little
as I actually use the handheld, that is the way to go for me. Should my usage
go up to the point where rechargeables make sense, I can just drop the discrete
rechargeables into the same pack-
>
> Glen Matejcek
Good tip. I use this battery pack with Eneloop rechargeable. The ICOM is
my main radio.
Holger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
12/31/2012
Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, Here is the situation:
I have a spring bias pitch trim system in my KIS TR-1 experimental
amateur built airplane. I am using a Ray Allen T3-12A servo with their
RP 3 LED type indicator installed in my instrument panel. The 1.2 inch
travel of the T3-12A servo is just not enough movement to give me the
trim travel needed at both ends, nose up and nose down. See here:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
My intended solution is to purchase and install an electrical linear
actuator with a position indicator such as this:
http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP&Product=P
otentiometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+Sec%29+w
%2F10K+Ohm+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22
My questions:
Indicator Question 1: Could I possibly use the already installed Ray
Allen LED indicator with the 10K OHM POT that this linear actuator is
equipped with? See here:
http://www.aeicomp.com/image2/AE-6102TP.pdf
and here:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
Indicator Question 2: If so how would I connect the three LED indicator
wires (orange, green (signal return), blue) to the three wires
(white-ground, yellow-V input, blue-RS input) of the actuator?
Indicator Question 3: Assuming that I cannot use the Ray Allen LED
indicator with this linear actuator where can I obtain an indicator that
will work with this actuator? (AEI declines to help me with this
question.)
Speed Control Question: The linear actuator is much faster than the Ray
Allen actuator and I expect that I will have to slow down the linear
actuator. What is the best way to accomplish this?
Many thanks for your help.
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | Richard Girard <aslsa.rng(at)gmail.com> |
Owen, You can save $30 by getting it here.
https://www.surpluscenter.com/item.asp?item=5-1577-2&catname=electric
Rick Girard
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Owen Baker wrote:
> 12/31/2012
>
> Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, Here is the situation:
>
> I have a spring bias pitch trim system in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateur
> built airplane. I am using a Ray Allen T3-12A servo with their RP 3 LED
> type indicator installed in my instrument panel. The 1.2 inch travel of the
> T3-12A servo is just not enough movement to give me the trim travel needed
> at both ends, nose up and nose down. See here:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
>
> My intended solution is to purchase and install an electrical linear
> actuator with a position indicator such as this:
>
>
> http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP&Product=Potentiometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+Sec%29+w%2F10K+Ohm+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22
>
> My questions:
>
> Indicator Question 1: Could I possibly use the already installed Ray Allen
> LED indicator with the 10K OHM POT that this linear actuator is equipped
> with? See here:
>
> http://www.aeicomp.com/image2/AE-6102TP.pdf
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
>
> Indicator Question 2: If so how would I connect the three LED indicator
> wires (orange, green (signal return), blue) to the three wires
> (white-ground, yellow-V input, blue-RS input) of the actuator?
>
> Indicator Question 3: Assuming that I cannot use the Ray Allen LED
> indicator with this linear actuator where can I obtain an indicator that
> will work with this actuator? (AEI declines to help me with this question.)
>
> Speed Control Question: The linear actuator is much faster than the Ray
> Allen actuator and I expect that I will have to slow down the linear
> actuator. What is the best way to accomplish this?
>
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> OC
>
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
> and understand information."
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net> |
OC,
That linear actuator seems like overkill. Have you tried increasing the
chord of the trim tab? You can increase the length of the control horn and
or increase the chord of the tab and you should be able to use the servo you
have.
RAC has a trim tab travel computer that shows the movement you will get with
the different servos. Attached.
Bill B
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen
Baker
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:12 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Indicator Help
12/31/2012
Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, Here is the situation:
I have a spring bias pitch trim system in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateur
built airplane. I am using a Ray Allen T3-12A servo with their RP 3 LED type
indicator installed in my instrument panel. The 1.2 inch travel of the
T3-12A servo is just not enough movement to give me the trim travel needed
at both ends, nose up and nose down. See here:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
My intended solution is to purchase and install an electrical linear
actuator with a position indicator such as this:
http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP
<http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP&Product=Potenti
ometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+Sec%29+w%2F10K+Oh
m+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22>
&Product=Potentiometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+S
ec%29+w%2F10K+Ohm+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22
My questions:
Indicator Question 1: Could I possibly use the already installed Ray Allen
LED indicator with the 10K OHM POT that this linear actuator is equipped
with? See here:
http://www.aeicomp.com/image2/AE-6102TP.pdf
and here:
http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
Indicator Question 2: If so how would I connect the three LED indicator
wires (orange, green (signal return), blue) to the three wires
(white-ground, yellow-V input, blue-RS input) of the actuator?
Indicator Question 3: Assuming that I cannot use the Ray Allen LED indicator
with this linear actuator where can I obtain an indicator that will work
with this actuator? (AEI declines to help me with this question.)
Speed Control Question: The linear actuator is much faster than the Ray
Allen actuator and I expect that I will have to slow down the linear
actuator. What is the best way to accomplish this?
Many thanks for your help.
OC
'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather
and understand information."
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7(at)hotmail.com> |
On Dec 31, 2012, at 10:44 PM, Bill Bradburry wrote:
> OC,
>
> That linear actuator seems like overkill. Have you tried increasing
the chord of the trim tab? You can increase the length of the control
horn and or increase the chord of the tab and you should be able to use
the servo you have.
>
> RAC has a trim tab travel computer that shows the movement you will
get with the different servos. Attached.
>
> Bill B
>
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Owen
Baker
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 10:12 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Indicator Help
>
> 12/31/2012
>
> Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, Here is the situation:
>
> I have a spring bias pitch trim system in my KIS TR-1 experimental
amateur built airplane. I am using a Ray Allen T3-12A servo with their
RP 3 LED type indicator installed in my instrument panel. The 1.2 inch
travel of the T3-12A servo is just not enough movement to give me the
trim travel needed at both ends, nose up and nose down. See here:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
>
> My intended solution is to purchase and install an electrical linear
actuator with a position indicator such as this:
>
>
http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP&Product=Po
tentiometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+Sec%29+w%2
F10K+Ohm+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22
>
> My questions:
>
> Indicator Question 1: Could I possibly use the already installed Ray
Allen LED indicator with the 10K OHM POT that this linear actuator is
equipped with? See here:
>
> http://www.aeicomp.com/image2/AE-6102TP.pdf
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
>
> Indicator Question 2: If so how would I connect the three LED
indicator wires (orange, green (signal return), blue) to the three wires
(white-ground, yellow-V input, blue-RS input) of the actuator?
>
> Indicator Question 3: Assuming that I cannot use the Ray Allen LED
indicator with this linear actuator where can I obtain an indicator that
will work with this actuator? (AEI declines to help me with this
question.)
>
> Speed Control Question: The linear actuator is much faster than the
Ray Allen actuator and I expect that I will have to slow down the
linear actuator. What is the best way to accomplish this?
>
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> OC
>
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to
gather and understand information."
>
>
> www.buildersbooks.com
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Baker " <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/1/2013
Hello Bill, You wrote: =9CHave you tried increasing the chord of
the trim tab?=9D
Thanks for your input. I left out one important piece of information in
my posting. I do not have a trim tab. I am spring biasing the entire
elevator push rod with a center stop spring bias system.
I have experimented extensively with spring strength and rod lengths for
the springs and the only solution appears to be more center stop
movement.
OC
================
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Indicator Help
OC,
That linear actuator seems like overkill. Have you tried increasing the
chord of the trim tab? You can increase the length of the control horn
and
or increase the chord of the tab and you should be able to use the servo
you
have.
RAC has a trim tab travel computer that shows the movement you will get
with
the different servos. Attached.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | Ralph <hooverra(at)comcast.net> |
OC,
If you have the ray Allen potentiometer measure it with an ohm meter and see if
it 10k total. If so it will work. There is not enough info published on the Ray
Allen to tell but a simple way to construct these LED indicators is with a
series of comparators that compare the input voltage to a fixed voltage. In that
case it would be fairly insensitive to the source impedance of the voltage
within reason.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/lm3914.pdf
The linear actuator you have selected is quite beefy! How much force do you really
need? Could you use a lever with the Ray Allen to increase the range of motion
without running out of force required?
Ralph Hoover
Sent from my iPad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
Here is the schematic for the Ray Allen indicator. As shipped it uses a 5k pot.
Since the wiper of the pot drives a high impedance op amp node you could just
add a 10K resistor in parallel with the
10K pot in your actuator (between white and yellow) and the LEDs should work properly.
With this schematic you should be able to figure out how to connect the actuator
to the indicator. My best guess is shown below:
Actuator -> Indicator
White -> Blue (Common)
Yellow -> Orange (+V)
Blue -> Green (wiper)
If the pot is isolated then the orange and blue wires can be swapped if the indicator
operates in reverse to what you want. If the actuator pot is not isolated
(I assume it is) the the Ray Allen
indicator will not work quite right (the indicator blue wire is not at ground potential),
but may be okay for your application.
Dick Tasker
Owen Baker wrote:
> 12/31/2012
> Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, Here is the situation:
> I have a spring bias pitch trim system in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateur built
airplane. I am using a Ray Allen T3-12A servo with their RP 3 LED type indicator
installed in my instrument panel.
> The 1.2 inch travel of the T3-12A servo is just not enough movement to give me
the trim travel needed at both ends, nose up and nose down. See here:
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
> My intended solution is to purchase and install an electrical linear actuator
with a position indicator such as this:
> http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP&Product=Potentiometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+Sec%29+w%2F10K+Ohm+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22
> My questions:
> Indicator Question 1: Could I possibly use the already installed Ray Allen LED
indicator with the 10K OHM POT that this linear actuator is equipped with?
See here:
> http://www.aeicomp.com/image2/AE-6102TP.pdf
> and here:
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
> Indicator Question 2: If so how would I connect the three LED indicator wires
(orange, green (signal return), blue) to the three wires (white-ground, yellow-V
input, blue-RS input) of the actuator?
> Indicator Question 3: Assuming that I cannot use the Ray Allen LED indicator
with this linear actuator where can I obtain an indicator that will work with
this actuator? (AEI declines to help me
> with this question.)
> Speed Control Question: The linear actuator is much faster than the Ray Allen
actuator and I expect that I will have to slow down the linear actuator. What
is the best way to accomplish this?
> Many thanks for your help.
> OC
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gather and
understand information."
> *
>
>
> *
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | Nati Niv <n992dn(at)gmail.com> |
Here are my suggestions:
1) Buy the linear actuator from here, same product better
choice of models better product technical specifications
http://www.e-motionllc.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=FA%2DPO%2D150%2
D12%2D2&Show=TechSpecs
2) If 1.2=94 is not sufficient, 2=94 will probably not suf
fice
too to your application, select a product with higher stroke, 3=94 4=94 or
so.
3) To reduce travel speed, select a product with lower
speed. To reduce speed further more you can add power resistor in series
to the motor, try values from 10 to 50 ohms. You can always get fancy with
electronically regulated power supplies, but practically speaking a
resistor with the right value will do the job
4) Last but not least: do not pay attention to the
difference in pot impedance. The Allen Ray indicator will work just fine
because it actually measures voltages between 0 to 12 volts and also both
the pot circuit in the actuator and the input circuitry of the AR indicator
are isolated from ground, you should have no problem with the AR indicator
if connected properly.
Best Regards
Nati Niv
RANS S6
Illinois
(PS: with field experience with both line of products)
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Owen Baker wrote:
> 12/31/2012
>
> Hello Bob Nuckolls and Fellow Listers, Here is the situation:
>
> I have a spring bias pitch trim system in my KIS TR-1 experimental amateu
r
> built airplane. I am using a Ray Allen T3-12A servo with their RP 3 LED
> type indicator installed in my instrument panel. The 1.2 inch travel of t
he
> T3-12A servo is just not enough movement to give me the trim travel neede
d
> at both ends, nose up and nose down. See here:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/index.html
>
> My intended solution is to purchase and install an electrical linear
> actuator with a position indicator such as this:
>
>
> http://www.aeicomp.com/Detail.asp?Product_ID=302.390_6102TP&Product=P
otentiometer+Feedback+2%22+Linear+Actuator+%28Speed+1%2F2%22+per+Sec%29+w%2
F10K+Ohm+Pot++%22IP65+Rated%22
>
> My questions:
>
> Indicator Question 1: Could I possibly use the already installed Ray Alle
n
> LED indicator with the 10K OHM POT that this linear actuator is equippe
d
> with? See here:
>
> http://www.aeicomp.com/image2/AE-6102TP.pdf
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsRP3.pdf
>
> Indicator Question 2: If so how would I connect the three LED indicator
> wires (orange, green (signal return), blue) to the three wires
> (white-ground, yellow-V input, blue-RS input) of the actuator?
>
> Indicator Question 3: Assuming that I cannot use the Ray Allen LED
> indicator with this linear actuator where can I obtain an indicator that
> will work with this actuator? (AEI declines to help me with this question
.)
>
> Speed Control Question: The linear actuator is much faster than the Ray
> Allen actuator and I expect that I will have to slow down the linear
> actuator. What is the best way to accomplish this?
>
> Many thanks for your help.
>
> OC
>
> 'O C' Baker says "The best investment you can make is the effort to gathe
r
> and understand information."
>
> *
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Hi all
I've started wiring my -10 and am wondering if what I'm proposing is within
normal wiring standards.
A shielded 20 ga, 3 conductor wire enters the wing tip near the rear wing
spar, goes forward to the leading edge. I'd like to remove about 2" of
outer insulation, 3' from the end, pull the shielding away from the 3
wires, solder another wire to the shield and ground to the metal wing rib.
The 3' shielded wire then goes to the Aeroled light via a 4 pin connector,
with the shielding tieing to the Aeroled base as per installation
instructions.
The idea is to ground at the light base and at the outboard wing rib while
still having enough wire to set the wing tip on the floor. I guess I could
run another ground wire from the light base directly to the ouboard rib,
but why not use the shielding as it passes the rib?
Does this configuration seem right?
Thx, Rick
#40956
Southampton, Ont
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
At 08:09 PM 1/1/2013, you wrote:
>Hi all
>
>I've started wiring my -10 and am wondering if what I'm proposing is
>within normal wiring standards.
>
>A shielded 20 ga, 3 conductor wire enters the wing tip near the rear
>wing spar, goes forward to the leading edge. I'd like to remove
>about 2" of outer insulation, 3' from the end, pull the shielding
>away from the 3 wires, solder another wire to the shield and ground
>to the metal wing rib. The 3' shielded wire then goes to the
>Aeroled light via a 4 pin connector, with the shielding tieing to
>the Aeroled base as per installation instructions.
what part number of AEROLED are you using? I'd
like to see the instructions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, a pair of Pulsar NS 90's and the Suntail.
Here's a link to the installation instructions.
http://www.aeroleds.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VLoy7bgULOw%3d&tabid=6250
I've seen your description on how to add a faston connector to shielding,
so I'm basically proposing the same thing, just not at the end of the wire.
Make sense?
Thx, Rick
On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 08:09 PM 1/1/2013, you wrote:
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I've started wiring my -10 and am wondering if what I'm proposing is
>> within normal wiring standards.
>>
>> A shielded 20 ga, 3 conductor wire enters the wing tip near the rear wing
>> spar, goes forward to the leading edge. I'd like to remove about 2" of
>> outer insulation, 3' from the end, pull the shielding away from the 3
>> wires, solder another wire to the shield and ground to the metal wing rib.
>> The 3' shielded wire then goes to the Aeroled light via a 4 pin connector,
>> with the shielding tieing to the Aeroled base as per installation
>> instructions.
>>
>
> what part number of AEROLED are you using? I'd
> like to see the instructions.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
Nati Niv wrote:
>
>
>
> 4)Last but not least: do not pay attention to the difference in pot impedance.
The Allen Ray indicator will work just fine because it actually measures voltages
between 0 to 12 volts and also both
> the pot circuit in the actuator and the input circuitry of the AR indicator are
isolated from ground, you should have no problem with the AR indicator if connected
properly.
>
It actually does NOT measure voltages between 0-12V unless they have changed the
design recently. See the circuit diagram I sent earlier. It measures from
an internal 1.26V reference through a 5K
pot and a 1K resistor in series.
And it is Ray Allen...
Dick Tasker
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
As Dick Tasker posted, the reference voltage for the Ray Allen pot, which is routed
way way way back to the trim box--probably right along side transmitter cables,
etc, is 1.26V. This is the full-scale voltage available to the op amp feeding
the bar graph circuitry. At the first digit it is 0.126V...and how anybody
can expect no interference from transmitters, strobe...well, when pigs have
wings, bacon will fly.
The venerable LM914-based bar graph display is difficult to get (or make) in a
sunlight readable form. These have succumbed to microprocessor-driven displays.
I have posted several notes on this over the years, and have built a few devices
to allow various options.
But I want to say that the Ray Allen trim box is really a pretty good part. There
are only a few things one can do to improve it. And I am not at all sure the
alternative parts are any better.
To reduce the speed of the trimmer, one needs to maintain the torque, but these devices are easy to get. Matt from Matronics sells one. See: http://www.matronics.com/governor/index.htm.
I have vaporware device that will do this automatically depending on airspeed.
But I have sold a lot of trimmers based on a potentiometer which seem to reduce
this problem, since the potentiometer can be turned just a little, whereas a
pushbutton or momentary switch lacks some finesse. I also uses no relay.
Unfortunately our amazing "Cessna-Type Trim Wheel" is being retired. Reason: Too
much labor in the assembly.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391435#391435
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/tscmr_installation_manual_400.pdf
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | "user9253" <fransew(at)gmail.com> |
Here is another source for linear actuators:
http://firgelli.com/products.php
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391436#391436
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
At 09:15 PM 1/1/2013, you wrote:
>Bob, a pair of Pulsar NS 90's and the Suntail.
>
>Here's a link to the installation instructions.
>
><http://www.aeroleds.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VLoy7bgULOw%3d&tabid=6250>http://www.aeroleds.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VLoy7bgULOw%3d&tabid=6250
>
>I've seen your description on how to add a faston connector to
>shielding, so I'm basically proposing the same thing, just not at
>the end of the wire.
>
>Make sense?
>
>Thx, Rick
Their installation drawings don't make sense.
ASSUMING that the installation has been proven
to BENEFIT from shielded wire. Who is the victim,
who is the antagonist and how does this shielding
break the propagation?
SOME led power supplies have proven problematic
for integration into airplanes. One notable product
are the LuxDrive supplies popular with some
DIY position lights installations. We crafted
a filter board for these power supplies to
fix a fundamental shortcoming for use on aircraft.
[]
If the AEROLED product has a similar problem, shielding
the power leads won't fix it. Similarly, if the AEROLED
has some vulnerabilities to on-board transmitters, the
once again, shielded wire wont fix it.
Suggest you ditch the shielding (if the wires are already
in place, use it as a bundled trio and ignore the shields.
Install connectors as convenient to your anticipated
service requirements.
If a noise issue presents itself, let's attack the
problem with the judicious application of filter(s).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "CHARLES T BECKER" <ctbecker(at)atlanticbb.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
Thats exactly what I did on my installation and it seems
to work just fine.
Charlie Becker
Rick Lark wrote:
> Bob, a pair of Pulsar NS 90's and the Suntail.
>
> Here's a link to the installation instructions.
>
> http://www.aeroleds.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VLoy7bgULOw%3d&tabid=6250
>
> I've seen your description on how to add a faston
>connector to shielding,
> so I'm basically proposing the same thing, just not at
>the end of the wire.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Thx, Rick
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
><
> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>>Nuckolls, III" <
>> nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com**>
>>
>> At 08:09 PM 1/1/2013, you wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I've started wiring my -10 and am wondering if what I'm
>>>proposing is
>>> within normal wiring standards.
>>>
>>> A shielded 20 ga, 3 conductor wire enters the wing tip
>>>near the rear wing
>>> spar, goes forward to the leading edge. I'd like to
>>>remove about 2" of
>>> outer insulation, 3' from the end, pull the shielding
>>>away from the 3
>>> wires, solder another wire to the shield and ground to
>>>the metal wing rib.
>>> The 3' shielded wire then goes to the Aeroled light via
>>>a 4 pin connector,
>>> with the shielding tieing to the Aeroled base as per
>>> installation
>>> instructions.
>>>
>>
>> what part number of AEROLED are you using? I'd
>> like to see the instructions.
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant on contacts. |
| From: | "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com> |
On my RV7A I decided to instal additional connectors at the subpanel so that I
could easily remove the whole instrument panel for ready maintenance access.
Obviously this has bequeathed me additional contacts. I am now wondering whether
I should be using some anti-corrosion contact lubricant sprayed onto all of
those contacts.
Is that advisable, and if so, can some-one recommend a readily available dielectric
product (brush on or spray on) that will protect the contacts against corrosion
without damaging the actual plastic connectors.
Cheers Bob Barrow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391490#391490
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant |
on contacts.
>Is that advisable, and if so, can some-one recommend a readily
>available dielectric product (brush on or spray on) that will
>protect the contacts against corrosion without damaging the actual
>plastic connectors.
>
>Cheers Bob Barrow
What kind of connectors and what finish
on the pins?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant |
on contacts.
| From: | "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" <dee.whittington(at)gmail.com> |
Best product on the market is CorrosionX. You can and should use it all
over. During the 17 years I was Maintenance Manager of a four Cessna club,
we fogged inside the wings, empenage, tailcone, etc. using a special
pressure pot and very long wands . And I used it on all switches and
electrical connecctors. There are competitors on the market, but for my
money CorrosionX leads the pack. www.corrosionvproducts.com Sold by
Aircraft Spruce, Amazon.com and many other dealers.
Dee
On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, bobbarrow wrote:
> bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com >
>
> On my RV7A I decided to instal additional connectors at the subpanel so
> that I could easily remove the whole instrument panel for ready maintenance
> access.
>
> Obviously this has bequeathed me additional contacts. I am now wondering
> whether I should be using some anti-corrosion contact lubricant sprayed
> onto all of those contacts.
>
> Is that advisable, and if so, can some-one recommend a readily available
> dielectric product (brush on or spray on) that will protect the contacts
> against corrosion without damaging the actual plastic connectors.
>
> Cheers Bob Barrow
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391490#391490
>
>
--
DeWitt Whittington
www.VirginiaFlyIn.org
Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
| From: | Rick Lark <larkrv10(at)gmail.com> |
Bob, I believe the "victim"(s) are coax antenna and associated radios. The
"antagonist", I'm not sure. I did speak to Dean at Aeroled, and I remember
him talking about these lights not having a capacitor discharge, therfore
the noise characteristics were different than "Whelan" type strobes. How
the shielding breaks the propagation of noise, I have no idea.
It's going to be months before I will have the strobes and radios powered
up, but I'll let you know how I make out. Wiring has been installed, but no
connections made. I'm planning to go to Sun & Fun so hopefully the
Aeroled people are there and I will have a talk with them again.
Thx, Rick
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 09:15 PM 1/1/2013, you wrote:
>
> Bob, a pair of Pulsar NS 90's and the Suntail.
>
> Here's a link to the installation instructions.
>
> http://www.aeroleds.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VLoy7bgULOw%3d&tabid=6250
>
> I've seen your description on how to add a faston connector to shielding,
> so I'm basically proposing the same thing, just not at the end of the wire.
>
> Make sense?
>
> Thx, Rick
>
>
> Their installation drawings don't make sense.
> ASSUMING that the installation has been proven
> to BENEFIT from shielded wire. Who is the victim,
> who is the antagonist and how does this shielding
> break the propagation?
>
> SOME led power supplies have proven problematic
> for integration into airplanes. One notable product
> are the LuxDrive supplies popular with some
> DIY position lights installations. We crafted
> a filter board for these power supplies to
> fix a fundamental shortcoming for use on aircraft.
>
>
> [image: []]
>
> If the AEROLED product has a similar problem, shielding
> the power leads won't fix it. Similarly, if the AEROLED
> has some vulnerabilities to on-board transmitters, the
> once again, shielded wire wont fix it.
>
> Suggest you ditch the shielding (if the wires are already
> in place, use it as a bundled trio and ignore the shields.
> Install connectors as convenient to your anticipated
> service requirements.
>
> If a noise issue presents itself, let's attack the
> problem with the judicious application of filter(s).
>
> **
>
> ** Bob . . .
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
At 07:43 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote:
>Bob, I believe the "victim"(s) are coax antenna and associated
>radios. The "antagonist", I'm not sure. I did speak to Dean at
>Aeroled, and I remember him talking about these lights not having a
>capacitor discharge, therfore the noise characteristics were
>different than "Whelan" type strobes. How the shielding breaks the
>propagation of noise, I have no idea.
>
>It's going to be months before I will have the strobes and radios
>powered up, but I'll let you know how I make out. Wiring has been
>installed, but no connections made. I'm planning to go to Sun &
>Fun so hopefully the Aeroled people are there and I will have a
>talk with them again.
>
Yes, the noise is very different. While
h.v. strobe systems are replete with fast-rise
current/voltage waveforms at the flash rate
of the strobes, the LED supply noise is
an artifact of the switchmode, constant
current power supply typically used to
drive leds.
If the AEROLED product generates noises at
unacceptable levels, it's likely to be
CONDUCTED noise that will propagate right
down the power lines, shielded or not.
Have Dean give me a call any time. My mobile
phone is 316-209-7528. I'd like to explore
his perceptions of noise issues for his product.
I think we can be of service and perhaps save
future customers from jumping unnecessary
hoops.
I'm 99% sure that shielding these wires is
of no value. If there are noise problems to
be addressed, then filters located at the
source are called for.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: [Norton AntiSpam]Re: Switches all upside-down... |
| From: | "eschlanser" <eschlanser(at)yahoo.com> |
JOHN TIPTON wrote:
> Why not use a pre drilled bus bar
> http://www.chiefaircraft.com/aircraft/installation-supplies/terminal-blocks/ms-25226-10-16.html
> which will not only give your switch/breaker spacing but your common feed
> bus bar (for the breakers)
>
> John
>
> ---
Because I'm using fuses and toggle switches instead of circuit breakers.
Eric
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391502#391502
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Lehman" <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant |
on contacts.
Below is an interesting read and the first time I've seen legitimate
cautions against using corrosion-x type products too liberally. I've
never seen a problem with it myself and have been a big believer in the
product.
Ken
AIRWORTHINESS BULLETIN
Corrosion Inhibiting Compounds and Effects
on Aircraft Structural Joints.
AWB 02-042 Issue : 1
Date : 23 November 2012
Page 1 of 2
1. Effectivity
This AWB is applicable to all aircraft.
2. Purpose
To advise maintainers, registered operators and manufacturers on the
unintended mechanisms that could result when corrosion inhibiting
compounds are applied to aircraft structural joints.
3. Background
A recent study has been carried out into the effects of corrosion
inhibiting compounds (CIC) on aircraft structural joints. The work
formed the basis for a Phd thesis and was funded by CASA. The resulting
outcomes are promulgated in this AWB for the benefit of the aviation
industry.
The study involved identification of common aircraft structural joints
and testing of representative structural specimens in which conclusions
were drawn.
4. Recommendations
That the use of water displacing thin film CIC can offer substantial
benefits in terms of preventing and/or retarding corrosion. Any change
in the use, frequency or application of these compounds should be done
in close consultation with the aircraft manufacturer before making
changes to the Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) for the
aircraft. An approved change should be via Service Bulletin or Letter or
approved as maintenance data under CAR 2A(4).
Research has shown that the use of CICs on structural joints that rely
on friction/clamp up force and are primarily in shear, such as aircraft
lap joints, may experience a reduction in fatigue life due to the
ingress of CICs on the faying surfaces of the joint. This effect is more
apparent for highly loaded joints where CIC application can exacerbate
relative movement within the joint. The use of CICs on certain lap joint
specimens tested shifted the failure mode from sheet failure to a less
desirable rivet failure mode at higher loading.
Caution should be exercised in applying CIC to aircraft structural
joints known to be highly loaded and/or fatigue critical. Fatigue
critical joints tested in the analysis showed a reduction in fatigue
life of up to half when CIC were introduced. Where a fatigue crack has
been initiated, the use of CICs has been shown to increase the fatigue
crack growth rate.
AIRWORTHINESS BULLETIN
Corrosion Inhibiting Compounds and Effects
on Aircraft Structural Joints.
AWB 02-042 Issue : 1
Date : 23 November 2012
Page 2 of 2
Careful sheet metal work practices should be followed during the
manufacture and repair of aircraft structures to ensure that the correct
rivet driving (clamp-up) force has been applied during installation.
Rivets that do not meet correct tail diameter specifications (i.e. D/Do
= 1.5) can result in working (smoking) of rivets under normal conditions
and coupled with the application of CICs, may result in joint fatigue
life reduction. Working rivets can lead to premature rivet failure with
a subsequent increase in loading on surrounding fasteners.
CICs should not be employed (without appropriate demonstration of
safety) in aircraft featuring unusual construction or materials such as
non-metallic structure or adhesives not normally employed in modern
aircraft. Caution should also be followed for the application of CIC
near and around aircraft electrical system wiring.
5. Summary
If CICs are used appropriately they can offer substantial benefits in
protecting aircraft structure however caution should be exercised to
ensure that they are applied in accordance with the manufacturers
instructions.
6. Reporting
Aircraft defects should be reported via the SDR system in accordance
with the requirements of CAR Part 4B.
7. Enquiries
Enquiries with regard to the content of this Airworthiness Bulletin
should be made via the direct link e-mail address:
AirworthinessBulletin(at)casa.gov.au
or in writing, to:
Airworthiness & Engineering Branch Civil Aviation Safety Authority GPO
Box 2005, Canberra, ACT, 2601
>
>
> Best product on the market is CorrosionX. You can and should use it all
> over. During the 17 years I was Maintenance Manager of a four Cessna club,
> we fogged inside the wings, empenage, tailcone, etc. using a special
> pressure pot and very long wands . And I used it on all switches and
> electrical connecctors. There are competitors on the market, but for my
> money CorrosionX leads the pack. www.corrosionvproducts.com Sold by
> Aircraft Spruce, Amazon.com and many other dealers.
>
> Dee
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2013, bobbarrow wrote:
>
> > bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com >
> >
> > On my RV7A I decided to instal additional connectors at the subpanel so
> > that I could easily remove the whole instrument panel for ready
maintenance
> > access.
> >
> > Obviously this has bequeathed me additional contacts. I am now wondering
> > whether I should be using some anti-corrosion contact lubricant sprayed
> > onto all of those contacts.
> >
> > Is that advisable, and if so, can some-one recommend a readily available
> > dielectric product (brush on or spray on) that will protect the contacts
> > against corrosion without damaging the actual plastic connectors.
> >
> > Cheers Bob Barrow
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant |
on contacts
| From: | "bobbarrow" <bobbarrow(at)bigpond.com> |
What kind of connectors and what finish
on the pins?
Power through Mil-C-26482 circular connectors with M39029 crimped contacts. Signals
through M24308 DSub connectors with M39029 crimped contacts.
The M39029 contacts are typically gold plated copper alloy. However the female
contact for the circular connector seems to have a stainless steel socket.
I have Corrosion X and LPS 1, 2, and 3 in stock.
I note that the spec on Corrosion X says it can be applied to "electrical and avionics
components such as micro switches, Cannon plugs, antenna bases, circuit
breakers, and bus bars.
The warning on Corrosion X in aircraft pertains to a research paper into the the
affects that the lubricity of Corrosion X could have on friction mated structural
components in shear. Nothing to do with use on electrical components.
I also have the normal run of behind-the-firewall connectors in the form of spades
and ring terminals (forest of spade tabs for ground, bus bar ring terminals
etc). These might benefit from some corrosion protection as well.
What do you think. Is a little corrosion X in order.
Cheers Bob Barrow
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391510#391510
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
| From: | "hooverra" <hooverra(at)comcast.net> |
[quote="retasker(at)optonline.net"]Here is the schematic for the Ray Allen indicator.
As shipped it uses a 5k pot. Since the wiper of the pot drives a high
impedance op amp node you could just add a 10K resistor in parallel with the
10K pot in your actuator (between white and yellow) and the LEDs should work properly.
Dick Tasker
Dick,
I believe adding a 10k parallel fixed resistor wil not add anything to the issue.
True the total load on the power supply would be equal but the voltage divider
provided by the potentiometer would be unaffected. At the center of travel
the source impedience of the potentiometer should look like 2.5k with a 5k linear
pot and 5k with a 10 k pot. The input of the indicator should not care if
it is a high impedience >100k. If less than that it will become more noticeably
nonlinear.
Ralph
--------
Ralph & Laura Hoover
RV7A N527LR
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391511#391511
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant |
on contacts
At 10:58 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote:
What kind of connectors and what finish
on the pins?
Power through Mil-C-26482 circular connectors with M39029 crimped
contacts. Signals through M24308 DSub connectors with M39029 crimped contacts.
The M39029 contacts are typically gold plated copper alloy. However
the female contact for the circular connector seems to have a
stainless steel socket.
I have Corrosion X and LPS 1, 2, and 3 in stock.
I note that the spec on Corrosion X says it can be applied to
"electrical and avionics components such as micro switches, Cannon
plugs, antenna bases, circuit breakers, and bus bars.
The warning on Corrosion X in aircraft pertains to a research paper
into the the affects that the lubricity of Corrosion X could have on
friction mated structural components in shear. Nothing to do with use
on electrical components.
I also have the normal run of behind-the-firewall connectors in the
form of spades and ring terminals (forest of spade tabs for ground,
bus bar ring terminals etc). These might benefit from some corrosion
protection as well.
What do you think. Is a little corrosion X in order.
Qualification for the connector materials you've
cited is rigorous. Their suitability to task has
be demonstrated by decades of service history
in a full range of applications. I cannot recall
having encountered a connector failure due to
environmental stresses within limits for which
the connector was designed. Connectors fail mostly
due to installation error or gross abuse that would
affect not only the connector but much of the system
hardware around it.
Other than addition of moisture displacing 'stuff'
in the faying services of bolt-up joints, I see no
value in application of 'more protection' for a
condition that has no demonstrable risk. I
ndiscriminate
use of such products seems more likely to raise
risks for unintended consequences (like just plain
messy) than to mitigate real risks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Idiot light circuits |
| From: | Bob Verwey <bob.verwey(at)gmail.com> |
I am hoping someone can help with a robust water temp and oil pressure
idiot light circuit/s.
The aim is to get a flashing warning with a reset button, that times out to
an adjustable period, of say 30 seconds, before re-ignition.
I plan to use dedicated probes for these circuits.
My temperature probe is 175 ohms at 20 deg C and 20 ohms at 110 deg C.
The oil pressure probe shows 9 ohms at 0 pressure and 60 ohms at 80 psi.
Best...
Bob Verwey
IO470 Bonanza A35 ZU-DLW
V6 Chevy Safari ZU-AJF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Idiot light circuits |
At 10:10 AM 1/3/2013, you wrote:
>I am hoping someone can help with a robust water temp and oil
>pressure idiot light circuit/s.
>The aim is to get a flashing warning with a reset button, that times
>out to an adjustable period, of say 30 seconds, before re-ignition.
>
>I plan to use dedicated probes for these circuits.
>My temperature probe is 175 ohms at 20 deg C and 20 ohms at 110 deg C.
>The oil pressure probe shows 9 ohms at 0 pressure and 60 ohms at 80 psi.
>
>Best...
>
>Bob Verwey
>IO470 Bonanza A35 ZU-DLW
>V6 Chevy Safari ZU-AJF
>
I'm aware of no off-the-shelf solutions to your
design goal. The functionality you describe
can be implemented with discrete components
consisting of two comparators (one for each
temperature sensor) and some logic gates
configured to do some timing for flashing
and hold-off intervals.
The ECB used to craft our 9012 wigwag flasher
is one of a family of 'do-lots' boards on
which I will build a constellation of
products. The 9012 board has two inputs
to analog-digital converters, two outputs
that drive lamps and a digital input for
a 'cancel' push button.
Perhaps one of our software gurus would
like to step up to this application. If so,
the hardware and packaging is done.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Tasker <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Indicator Help |
You are correct in your analysis except you neglected to note that the 5K pot is
in series with a 1K resistor. With the
5K pot the voltage going into the op amp will vary from 0.21V to 1.26V. With a
10K pot it will vary from 0.11V to
1.26V. This will cause a small dead band in the indication at the bottom end of
the travel of the actuator while the
actuator moves enough to cause the output to move from 0.11V to 0.21V - almost
10% of its travel. If you parallel a 10K
resistor with the pot the op amp will once again see 0.21V to 1.26V and the indicator
will properly indicate the
actuator position.
Of course, depending on how much the actuator actually moves this may be irrelevant.
Dick Tasker.
hooverra wrote:
>
> [quote="retasker(at)optonline.net"]Here is the schematic for the Ray Allen indicator.
As shipped it uses a 5k pot. Since the wiper of the pot drives a high
impedance op amp node you could just add a 10K resistor in parallel with the
> 10K pot in your actuator (between white and yellow) and the LEDs should work
properly.
>
>
> Dick Tasker
>
>
> Dick,
> I believe adding a 10k parallel fixed resistor wil not add anything to the issue.
True the total load on the power supply would be equal but the voltage divider
provided by the potentiometer would be unaffected. At the center of travel
the source impedience of the potentiometer should look like 2.5k with a 5k
linear pot and 5k with a 10 k pot. The input of the indicator should not care
if it is a high impedience >100k. If less than that it will become more noticeably
nonlinear.
>
> Ralph
>
> --------
> Ralph & Laura Hoover
> RV7A N527LR
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=391511#391511
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
| From: | Mike Fontenot <mikefapex(at)gmail.com> |
I have the AeroLeds (two of the combined nav light/white strobe units)
installed on my trike (Z19 RB). I wired up as per their instructions but
they exhibit a small 'three click' noise in my headsets every time they
flash. Not very loud but frustrating since all the other electrics work
just fine.
I've not had time to do further debugging since early last year/2012 but I
tried their suggestions of ferrite wraps. This did not help.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 07:43 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote:
>
> Bob, I believe the "victim"(s) are coax antenna and associated radios.
> The "antagonist", I'm not sure. I did speak to Dean at Aeroled, and I
> remember him talking about these lights not having a capacitor discharge,
> therfore the noise characteristics were different than "Whelan" type
> strobes. How the shielding breaks the propagation of noise, I have no idea.
>
> It's going to be months before I will have the strobes and radios powered
> up, but I'll let you know how I make out. Wiring has been installed, but no
> connections made. I'm planning to go to Sun & Fun so hopefully the
> Aeroled people are there and I will have a talk with them again.
> **
>
>
> Yes, the noise is very different. While
> h.v. strobe systems are replete with fast-rise
> current/voltage waveforms at the flash rate
> of the strobes, the LED supply noise is
> an artifact of the switchmode, constant
> current power supply typically used to
> drive leds.
>
> If the AEROLED product generates noises at
> unacceptable levels, it's likely to be
> CONDUCTED noise that will propagate right
> down the power lines, shielded or not.
>
> Have Dean give me a call any time. My mobile
> phone is 316-209-7528. I'd like to explore
> his perceptions of noise issues for his product.
> I think we can be of service and perhaps save
> future customers from jumping unnecessary
> hoops.
>
> I'm 99% sure that shielding these wires is
> of no value. If there are noise problems to
> be addressed, then filters located at the
> source are called for.
>
>
> **
>
> ** Bob . . .
>
> *
>
>
> --
> Mike
>
> ===============================
> Mike Fontenot
> Apex Consulting & Services LLC
> Lakewood, Colorado
> 303 / 731-6645
> mikef AT apexconsultingservices DOT com
> ===============================
> *
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <berkut13(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
Did you use the latest wiring diagram off their website? The one that
comes with the units is out of date.
-James
Berkut/Race 13
www.berkut13.com
From: Mike Fontenot
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroled wiring
I have the AeroLeds (two of the combined nav light/white strobe units)
installed on my trike (Z19 RB). I wired up as per their instructions
but they exhibit a small 'three click' noise in my headsets every time
they flash. Not very loud but frustrating since all the other electrics
work just fine.
I've not had time to do further debugging since early last year/2012 but
I tried their suggestions of ferrite wraps. This did not help.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
wrote:
At 07:43 PM 1/2/2013, you wrote:
Bob, I believe the "victim"(s) are coax antenna and associated
radios. The "antagonist", I'm not sure. I did speak to Dean at
Aeroled, and I remember him talking about these lights not having a
capacitor discharge, therfore the noise characteristics were different
than "Whelan" type strobes. How the shielding breaks the propagation of
noise, I have no idea.
It's going to be months before I will have the strobes and radios
powered up, but I'll let you know how I make out. Wiring has been
installed, but no connections made. I'm planning to go to Sun & Fun so
hopefully the Aeroled people are there and I will have a talk with them
again.
Yes, the noise is very different. While
h.v. strobe systems are replete with fast-rise
current/voltage waveforms at the flash rate
of the strobes, the LED supply noise is
an artifact of the switchmode, constant
current power supply typically used to
drive leds.
If the AEROLED product generates noises at
unacceptable levels, it's likely to be
CONDUCTED noise that will propagate right
down the power lines, shielded or not.
Have Dean give me a call any time. My mobile
phone is 316-209-7528. I'd like to explore
his perceptions of noise issues for his product.
I think we can be of service and perhaps save
future customers from jumping unnecessary
hoops.
I'm 99% sure that shielding these wires is
of no value. If there are noise problems to
be addressed, then filters located at the
source are called for.
Bob . . .
_blank">www.aeroelectric.com
.com" target="_blank">www.buildersbooks.com
="_blank">www.homebuilthelp.com
_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
ist"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
tp://forums.matronics.com
===========-- Mike=======Mike
FontenotApex Consulting & Services LLCLakewood, Colorado303 / 731-6645
mikef AT apexconsultingservices DOT
com========================
=======
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aeroled wiring |
At 05:32 PM 1/3/2013, you wrote:
>I have the AeroLeds (two of the combined nav light/white strobe
>units) installed on my trike (Z19 RB). I wired up as per their
>instructions but they exhibit a small 'three click' noise in my
>headsets every time they flash. Not very loud but frustrating since
>all the other electrics work just fine.
>
> I've not had time to do further debugging since early last
> year/2012 but I tried their suggestions of ferrite wraps. This did not help.
. . . and I wouldn't expect them to help.
What 'black boxes' are driving the headsets?
Do you have an intercom? Does a radio also
speak to the headsets?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant |
on contacts
| From: | "toddheffley" <public(at)toddheffley.com> |
Wow....Talk about the subject that will not die!
I have watched this controversy in my industry (large cabin executive jet maintenance)
for some time now, and much like the discussion here, it will not die.
December 12, 2012 - January 04, 2013
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ln