Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:09 AM - EGT sender (GLikar)
2. 02:13 AM - Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Dan Checkoway)
3. 04:15 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Miles McCallum)
4. 05:27 AM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (barry pote)
5. 05:27 AM - Re: unsuscribe (Dennis O'Connor)
6. 05:33 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Dennis O'Connor)
7. 05:37 AM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (John Schroeder)
8. 05:38 AM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (Dennis O'Connor)
9. 06:06 AM - Antenna Splitter (Randy Pflanzer)
10. 06:42 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Robert Dickson)
11. 06:46 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 06:53 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Miller Robert)
13. 07:22 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Matt Prather)
14. 07:35 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Richard Tasker)
15. 08:49 AM - Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Freddie Freeloader)
16. 09:09 AM - (no subject) (Jrg3689@aol.com)
17. 09:22 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Dan Checkoway)
18. 09:42 AM - Re: Re[2]: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (BobsV35B@aol.com)
19. 10:24 AM - Re: Wing tip strobes. (Billie Lamb)
20. 11:04 AM - Re: Wing tip strobes. (Rob Miller)
21. 11:09 AM - Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator (Miles McCallum)
22. 11:18 AM - Re: Wire Size.... (Shannon Knoepflein)
23. 12:48 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (Richard Tasker)
24. 02:16 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (Shannon Knoepflein)
25. 02:47 PM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (Paul Kuntz)
26. 02:56 PM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (Charlie & Tupper England)
27. 03:01 PM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (William Mills)
28. 04:37 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (Richard Tasker)
29. 05:55 PM - SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS (Francis, David CMDR)
30. 07:58 PM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (Wendell & Jean Durr)
31. 08:31 PM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS (Shaun Simpkins)
32. 08:55 PM - Re: Wire Size.... (Rob Logan)
33. 09:19 PM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (Mark Phillips)
34. 10:25 PM - Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS (richard@riley.net)
35. 10:31 PM - Re: Off line for a time . . . (richard@riley.net)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: GLikar <glikar@shaw.ca>
Hi, looking for an EGT sender that lasts longer. Tried the Westac
clamp type and threaded type. Both have a very small stainless cap
that seems to burn off in time. The senders are monunted about 3.5
inches down from the exhaust outlet on the E81 block. Anyone else
have the same problem or is mine to close to the head.
Thanks
Gord
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I'm looking for a solid explanation about why a Turn & Bank indicator is a
better choice than a Turn Coordinator. The little I know is that Turn &
Banks are usually DC-AC-DC, as opposed to DC-DC-DC. I'm curious why an AC
powered gyro would function better, last longer, cost more, etc.
I don't recall the last time I heard of anybody replacing a turn
coordinator, so I'm wondering if the claims of low reliability of the lower
cost turn coordinators is founded in fact.
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (fuselage/finish)
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Miles McCallum" <milesm@avnet.co.uk>
> I'm looking for a solid explanation about why a Turn & Bank indicator is a
> better choice than a Turn Coordinator. The little I know is that Turn &
> Banks are usually DC-AC-DC, as opposed to DC-DC-DC. I'm curious why an AC
> powered gyro would function better, last longer, cost more, etc.
>
> I don't recall the last time I heard of anybody replacing a turn
> coordinator, so I'm wondering if the claims of low reliability of the
lower
> cost turn coordinators is founded in fact.
>
It's because the T&B needle displays yaw only, whilst TC's mix yaw and
roll - TC's are easier to interpret in near stable flight, but misleading in
extreme attitudes and maneouvers (like spinning) - T&B's give reliable
information all of the time, so are preferred by experienced pilots....
Miles
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: barry pote <barrypote@comcast.net>
Bob, our prayers are with you, too.
Barry Pote RV9a
do not archive
>
> Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
> with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
> the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . . no
> further treatment necessary. However, she's a very unhappy
> camper right now.
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Cy, you are wasting your energy... Those who are cognitively challenged and
unable to understand the instructions appended to EVERY post, won't notice
if you rub their very noses against said instructions..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: unsuscribe
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> Try clicking on this... But you have to read and follow the directions.
> This link is at the bottom of ALL messages.
>
> UN/SUBSCRIBE: http://www.matronics.com/subscription
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: unsuscribe
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
> <mprather@spro.net>
> >
> > I am not convinced that even when spelled correctly, that sending the
> server
> > an "unsubscribe" message will stop the flow of emails. I looked through
> > the web
> > links at the bottom and wasn't able to find reference to this procedure.
> It
> > works on some servers, but I couldn't see where it would on this one.
> > Someone
> > may wish to educate me.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Matt Prather
> > N34RD
> >
> > do not archive.
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell"
> > > <jjewell@telus.net>
> > >
> > > Try "unsubscribe", that is unsu 'b' scribe sir :)!
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim in Kelowna
> > >
> > > do not archive
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Peter Spear" <sauvita@ocis.net>
> > > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: unsuscribe
> > >
> > >
> > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Spear"
> > >> <sauvita@ocis.net>
> > >>
> > >> >I didn't type unsuscribe!!! I don't even use spell check as spelling
> > >> is one of my forte's. You should in fact check your automated
> > >> unsuscribe/suscribe system before sending out your smiley note - the
> > >> error
> > > is
> > >> yours and I wish to unsuscribe. smiles -
> > > ->
> > >> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> > >> >
> > >> > In a message dated 01/21/2003 12:14:11 PM Eastern Standard
> > >> > Time, nknobil@gwi.net writes:
> > >> >
> > >> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "nknobil@gwi.net"
> > > <nknobil@gwi.net>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > unsuscribe
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> > Nice try, but you have to spell it using _all_ the letters
> > >> > ;-)
> > >> >
> > >> > do not archive
> > >> >
> > >> > This forum is sponsored entirely through the Contributions
> > >> > with other List members.
> > >> aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > >> > List FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> > >> > Browse: http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Peter
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Dan, in a lifetime of banging around in airplanes I have not had either a TC
or a TB fail... The TC is considered better because the gyro is canted and
gives you some rate information as opposed to just angle of displacement and
direction... I will be putting a TC into N15ET - rather than just a needle
and ball...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
<dan@rvproject.com>
>
> I'm looking for a solid explanation about why a Turn & Bank indicator is a
> better choice than a Turn Coordinator. The little I know is that Turn &
> Banks are usually DC-AC-DC, as opposed to DC-DC-DC. I'm curious why an AC
> powered gyro would function better, last longer, cost more, etc.
>
> I don't recall the last time I heard of anybody replacing a turn
> coordinator, so I'm wondering if the claims of low reliability of the
lower
> cost turn coordinators is founded in fact.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> )_( Dan
> RV-7 N714D (fuselage/finish)
> http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Hi Bob -
Hope this finds Dee's progress to recovery moving along well and nothing other
than fatigue for you. Keep us posted on her progress.
Will this have an effect on the Nashville Seminar? (cancel/postpone)
Thanks,
John Schroeder
>Not sure how coherent I'm going to be with electrical matters
>in the near term but this too will pass . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Jesus Bob, people die in hospitals... How could you let a family member go
there!
Better you get that guy from Mexico who does abortions on kitchen tables
with a coat hangar to come to the house and do her surgery...
Jeezzzz
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off line for a time . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
> with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
> the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . . no
> further treatment necessary. However, she's a very unhappy
> camper right now.
>
> Given that about 2x more folks croak in hospitals due to
> medical accident than accidents on our hazardous highways, the
> family is providing 100% assistance/monitoring for the
> next few days. I'm just waiting for my Stanley full of
> coffee to finish perking and I'll be off to relieve my
> sister-in-law for the 11pm to 8am shift.
>
> Not sure how coherent I'm going to be with electrical matters
> in the near term but this too will pass . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Antenna Splitter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
I am thinking of using an antenna splitter on my wingtip VOR antenna
for the glidelsope. I have a Bob Archer antenna out there now.
Is there anyone flying with this set up that can provide some real
experience regarding how well this works?
Thanks.
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert Dickson" <robert@thenews-journal.com>
I'm also interested in a TC for my rv. What brands do you folks recommend?
Robert Dickson
RV-6A
----------
>From: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
>Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2003, 8:33 AM
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor"
<doconnor@chartermi.net>
>
> Dan, in a lifetime of banging around in airplanes I have not had either a TC
> or a TB fail... The TC is considered better because the gyro is canted and
> gives you some rate information as opposed to just angle of displacement and
> direction... I will be putting a TC into N15ET - rather than just a needle
> and ball...
>
> Denny
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
> <dan@rvproject.com>
>>
>> I'm looking for a solid explanation about why a Turn & Bank indicator is a
>> better choice than a Turn Coordinator. The little I know is that Turn &
>> Banks are usually DC-AC-DC, as opposed to DC-DC-DC. I'm curious why an AC
>> powered gyro would function better, last longer, cost more, etc.
>>
>> I don't recall the last time I heard of anybody replacing a turn
>> coordinator, so I'm wondering if the claims of low reliability of the
> lower
>> cost turn coordinators is founded in fact.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> )_( Dan
>> RV-7 N714D (fuselage/finish)
>> http://www.rvproject.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/03 4:13:43 AM Central Standard Time,
dan@rvproject.com writes:
> I'm looking for a solid explanation about why a Turn &Bank indicator is a
> better choice than a Turn Coordinator. The little I know is that Turn &
> Banks are usually DC-AC-DC, as opposed to DC-DC-DC. I'm curious why an AC
> powered gyro would function better, last longer, cost more, etc.
Good Morning Dan,
I am one of the few folks who strongly recommend the T&B over the TC, but I
have never heard about the electrical difference.
Let me start off by saying that there are some very well built TCs and T&Bs
available, but the costs are such that they are rarely used in GA aircraft.
Maybe those are the ones that are electrically different.
The ones that are readily available and used in most GA airplanes are all
built by one company and sold under various brand names.
I have found both instruments to be almost equally reliable.
Those TCs which are also used as a sensor source for an autopilot seem to be
a little better built than the stand alone units.
However, I have seen failures of those units a couple of times. Possibly
that is because they have more work to do.
My intuitive feeling is that the less complicated any instrument is the more
reliable it will be. The current crop of available GA OEM TCs and T&Bs both
use the same gyroscope. For the TC, it is mounted at an angle within the
case. Consequently, the gyro itself is smaller than the ones that were used
in earlier T&Bs and TCs. In my mind, that makes all of those new turn rate
instruments shorter lived than the older WWII type T&B.
In addition, there is a tiny bit more mechanism needed to attain the turn
coordinator indication than it takes to deliver the wiggly T&B needle
picture.
My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory about
how our minds react when in a panic situation.
Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation, I
won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the whole
enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory about
> how our minds react when in a panic situation.
>
> Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation, I
> won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the whole
> enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
I would be interested in your thoughts on this... :)
(if you have a moment.)
Robert
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I would also recommend that people have a look in the archive for
this. Lots has already been said. Search for the word 'coordinator.'
I got 162 messages that discuss this. Many were relevant.
Regards,
Matt Prather
N34RD
do not archive
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert
> <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>
> BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>> My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory
>> about how our minds react when in a panic situation.
>>
>> Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded
>> explanation, I won't bore you and others now. However, if you would
>> like to see the whole enchilada, let me know and I will send it off
>> list.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>> AKA
>> Bob Siegfried
>> Ancient Aviator
>
> I would be interested in your thoughts on this... :)
> (if you have a moment.)
>
> Robert
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
Me too.
Dick Tasker
Miller Robert wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>
>BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory about
>>how our minds react when in a panic situation.
>>
>>Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation, I
>>won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the whole
>>enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
>>
>>Happy Skies,
>>
>>Old Bob
>>AKA
>>Bob Siegfried
>>Ancient Aviator
>>
>>
>
>I would be interested in your thoughts on this... :)
>(if you have a moment.)
>
>Robert
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Freddie Freeloader <lists@stevet.net>
Hello All,
Why not just post it here for everyone?
RT> Miller Robert wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
>>
>>BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory about
>>>how our minds react when in a panic situation.
>>>
>>>Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded explanation, I
>>>won't bore you and others now. However, if you would like to see the whole
>>>enchilada, let me know and I will send it off list.
>>>
>>>Happy Skies,
>>>
>>>Old Bob
>>>AKA
>>>Bob Siegfried
>>>Ancient Aviator
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I would be interested in your thoughts on this... :)
>>(if you have a moment.)
>>
>>Robert
--
Best regards,
Freddie mailto:lists@stevet.net
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jrg3689@aol.com
Hi all im tryin to find a some answers to finding an air filter setup for a
lancair superes io500. no joy from the facrtory any vendors or builders out
can help. Thanks Jon Gosselin
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
I originally searched for "turn & bank & coordinator & ac" but found
basically nothing...but doh...I just realized I probably searched RV-list
inadvertently, not this list.
Sorry to raise an already-discussed issue!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
>
>
> I would also recommend that people have a look in the archive for
> this. Lots has already been said. Search for the word 'coordinator.'
> I got 162 messages that discuss this. Many were relevant.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt Prather
> N34RD
>
> do not archive
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Miller Robert
> > <rmiller3@earthlink.net>
> >
> > BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> My reasons for preferring the T&B over the TC have to do with a theory
> >> about how our minds react when in a panic situation.
> >>
> >> Since that is very controversial and requires a long winded
> >> explanation, I won't bore you and others now. However, if you would
> >> like to see the whole enchilada, let me know and I will send it off
> >> list.
> >>
> >> Happy Skies,
> >>
> >> Old Bob
> >> AKA
> >> Bob Siegfried
> >> Ancient Aviator
> >
> > I would be interested in your thoughts on this... :)
> > (if you have a moment.)
> >
> > Robert
> >
> >
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/22/03 10:50:15 AM Central Standard Time,
lists@stevet.net writes:
> Hello All,
>
> Why not just post it here for everyone?
>
OK, but it's long and controversial. If the moderator would prefer that I
not, let me know and I won't do it again.
This is a copy of something I sent to another gentleman a few days ago. When
I sent it again today, my spell checker kept questioning my punctuation. If
it comes across with a bunch of funny symbols instead of periods, please let
me know.
Thanks,
Old Bob
Old Bob's Stuff About the TC and T&B---------
It has to do with the way our minds work. Just my thoughts and no science
to base it on at all.
I figure that when a pilot gets disoriented, it takes a major mental effort
to accept that his/her senses are all wrong and that some instrument is
telling the truth.
I believe that the sense that is the hardest to convince is the one that
tells us whether or not we are right side up and one of the easier ones to
accept is whether or not we are turning.
Therefore, I think we should be emphasizing the idea that we should stop the
turn and not worry whether or not the wings are level. Even if our mind
tells us that we are in a horrendous bank, but the airplane is not turning,
we will survive. Our mind can be right or wrong. The wings can be level
or banked. It doesn't make any difference at all. If we don't turn,=20we
will survive. Period!!
Now, back to the instrument of choice for me.
The Turn Coordinator shows either yaw or roll. If both are occurring at=20the
same time, the results will be cumulative.
Sounds like a pretty good idea.
If the wings are level and the aircraft is in trim, when a roll develops it
is likely to be followed by a turn.
If you hook up an autopilot so that an anti-turning force is applied when the
first indication of a roll is noted, the TC becomes a very nice low cost
sensor for a low cost autopilot.
Still sounds like a good idea.
If it is good for an autopilot to have that early warning of an impending
turn, why not give that same warning to a human pilot?
Back to my theory. Autopilots never get confused. Pilots do.
If we aviators are comfortable with rate instrument flying and have good
situational awareness, partial panel is a piece of cake whether one is using
a TC or a T&B.
The trouble comes when some poor sole named Kennedy, Carnahan or John Q.
Public has a mind that is telling him/her one thing while an instrument is
telling him/her something else.
Why can't we tell them to not worry about it! Regardless of the attitude
they are in, just stop the turn. So what if you are leaning way over to=20one
side or the other. That is not important. JUST STOP THE TURN!
Putting the TC in the position where the "wings" are level will stop the
turn, but don't you think there will be a very difficult mental block to
accepting that fact?
If we are using a turn needle, it has nothing about it that even suggests a
wing or whether or not the aircraft is level. All it does is tell us if=20the
airplane is yawing. If it isn't yawing, it isn't turning. I think that
indication is MUCH easier for a confused pilot to accept.
There is nothing else in the airplane that looks anything at all like a T&B.
Go out someday in an aircraft equipped with a Turn Coordinator and do a nice
strong Knife Edge. Doesn't it seem rather strange to be flying that knife
edge and also be looking at the turn coordinator that is showing a "Wings
Level" indication?
Do the same maneuver in an airplane equipped with T&B.=A0 The T&B will be
sitting in the center for the same reason the TC was showing wings level.=20=A0
No turns and no yaw in a properly flown knife edge. Isn't it a lot easier
for even we experienced aviators to accept that the T&B is doing what it
should be doing than it is to accept that the wings level indication of the
TC is proper?
The TC is always compromised. There is no way to determine if it is showing
a roll or a yaw without using supporting information.
If a T&B needle is showing an indication, the aircraft is yawing. No yaw,
no turn. No turn, no graveyard spiral.
There is no doubt that I suffer somewhat from the primacy phenomenon. When
I received my instrument training, we were not allowed to use any attitude or
direction gyros either in training or on the flight test. The only
gyroscopic instrument allowed was the Turn Needle. It is a rate instrument
as are the airspeed, altimeter and vertical speed.
When the canted gyro was first introduced, it was as a device to allow a low
cost wing leveler. Someone realized that if the canted gyro was tied to
some sort of an indication which could be presented to the pilot, the pilot
would be given the same advance warning of an impending turn as the canted
gyro gave to the wing leveler.
Sounded good to me!
When the first TC came on the market, I installed them in my trainers and
started to use them for all training purposes. After a few years, I noted
that the proficiency in partial panel of students who had been trained on,
and continued the use of TCs, was not as good as had been the case when we
were all using T&Bs.
Part of the problem, I feel, is because we no longer emphasize the use of
standard rate turns so that regardless whether one is using a TC or a T&B, it
does not tend to be in the normal scan. Any technique we quit using gets
rusty.
Beyond that though, I think that there is always a bit of confusion in our
minds as to just what is happening with a TC. With the T&B, there is never
any doubt.
The example of the knife edged flight is one that I have used often. It=20is
amazing to see the look on the face of folks who have been flying with a TC
for years and have never seen such a demonstration.
I repeat, there is nothing else on the panel that even looks remotely like a
classic T&B.=A0
So many folks confuse a TC with an attitude gyro that many have a notation
warning that it provides no pitch information.
Once again.
I think we should emphasize that one needs to stop the turn at all costs.
While leveling the wings will most likely stop the turn, it will require a
leap of faith and strong will to persuade us to go against what our senses
are telling us.
In my opinion, it is much easier to get that poor lost soul to accept the
fact that he/she just needs to stop that turn regardless of how it feels or
where the ball is located.
Any help?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobes. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Billie Lamb" <N254BL@cfl.rr.com>
Makes the most sense to me. That's what I'm going to use. Tail is mounted
but haven't built the wingtips yet. Still working on design but I see no
more problem with these than any other. Have you considered building your
own wingtips? Yes I know, there's that yucky fiberglass to work with.
Bill Lamb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
<aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing tip strobes.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley"
<Rob@RobsGlass.com>
>
> I'm still debating the best way of arranging my lighting. Has anyone
tried the combination postion/strobe/tail lights, (Whelen A600PG/PR)? This
seems the simplest way to provide the lighting but I'm not quite convinced
as to the ease of mounting these to an RV wing tip to give the necessary
coverage and also wonder about the vulnerability issues.
> Your thoughts please gentlemen.
> Fly safe
> Rob
> Rob W M Shipley
> RV9A N919RV Fuselage.
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing tip strobes. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Miller <rmill2000@yahoo.com>
I have this setup (tail stobe/position, tips strobes, single power supply
drives all three). It works fine. Purchase the shielded, three
conductor, extra heavy insulated wire van sells (in 20' lengths I
believe). I'm very happy with this set up.
Rob Miller
--- Billie Lamb <N254BL@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Billie Lamb"
> <N254BL@cfl.rr.com>
>
> Makes the most sense to me. That's what I'm going to use. Tail is
> mounted
> but haven't built the wingtips yet. Still working on design but I see no
> more problem with these than any other. Have you considered building
> your
> own wingtips? Yes I know, there's that yucky fiberglass to work with.
>
> Bill Lamb
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
> To: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server"
> <aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wing tip strobes.
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley"
> <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
> >
> > I'm still debating the best way of arranging my lighting. Has anyone
> tried the combination postion/strobe/tail lights, (Whelen A600PG/PR)?
> This
> seems the simplest way to provide the lighting but I'm not quite
> convinced
> as to the ease of mounting these to an RV wing tip to give the necessary
> coverage and also wonder about the vulnerability issues.
> > Your thoughts please gentlemen.
> > Fly safe
> > Rob
> > Rob W M Shipley
> > RV9A N919RV Fuselage.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Turn & Bank vs. Turn Coordinator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Miles McCallum" <milesm@avnet.co.uk>
>
> Dan, in a lifetime of banging around in airplanes I have not had either a
TC
> or a TB fail... The TC is considered better because the gyro is canted
and
> gives you some rate information as opposed to just angle of displacement
and
> direction... I will be putting a TC into N15ET - rather than just a
needle
> and ball...
It gives rate of yaw and roll combined...whichever predominates at the time
is indicated - have them in opposition and it gets confused... T&B's give
you rate of yaw only.
M
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since the
current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an issue.
I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
continuous, so I'll go with that.
Main Feed, #4
Alt/ESS Feed, #4
Combined Ground for both #2
That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
Anyone? Bueller?
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Shannon Knoepflein
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
<kycshann@kyol.net>
Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2 for
Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Benford2@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show 72
amps
max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am runnig
a
V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
ways.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Size.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here about 2 #4's and 140
amps, but the issue for starting current is voltage drop, not
temperature rise.
Accordiing to my wire tables, #2 has a voltage drop of .396V per 1000
ampere-feet (current draw x length in feet) while #4 has .631V.
I don't know exactly what your setup is, but you need to consider how
many volts actually gets to the starter with the different wire sizes.
You will have to calculate the current in each wire (starter & whatever
else is on at that time) and the length of each wire both to and from
the battery to see what you get.
For example, assume you use the main feed to run the starter (200A) and
you ignore whatever else you have turned on. If the path is 10ft each
way, then you have .79 V drop on the #2 wire (to the starter) and 1.23 V
drop on the #4 wire (back to the battery). This means that you get
whatever the battery puts out less over 2V at the starter. This totally
ignores any resistance in the contactors, connections, etc. If you used
#2 wire each way in the path to the starter you would get an additional
.44V at the starter.
Dick Tasker
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
>is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since the
>current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an issue.
>I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
>continuous, so I'll go with that.
>
>Main Feed, #4
>Alt/ESS Feed, #4
>Combined Ground for both #2
>
>That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
>Anyone? Bueller?
>
>---
>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Shannon Knoepflein
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2 for
>Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Benford2@aol.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>
>You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show 72
>amps
>max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am runnig
>a
>V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
>ways.
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
I totally understand your concern and have been contemplating that exact
issue. Every time you upsize the wire, you get less voltage
drop...thats the simple part. I guess my real question is this: What
is an acceptable voltage drop for starting?
My only real world experience with this exact setup is my buddy Rob
Logan up in Cleveland. He has a flying Legacy, very similar in set up
to mine. We both have dual alt, dual 17ah systems, with our batteries
behind the seat. The only major difference is his is actually flying,
while mine is still being built :) I helped him a bit with his power
wire decisions, and if I recall correctly, he has a #4 from each battery
a crossfeed contactor on the firewall, and a #2 ground. On starting,
the crossfeed is on, so the 2 #4's are in parallel. He has no problems
that I know of, Rob care to comment on starting voltage and currents?
At 10' and 200A, the 2 #4's in parallel would be 0.249V, while the #2
ground would be 0.312V, or 0.561V total.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Tasker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
<retasker@optonline.net>
I am not entirely sure what you are saying here about 2 #4's and 140
amps, but the issue for starting current is voltage drop, not
temperature rise.
Accordiing to my wire tables, #2 has a voltage drop of .396V per 1000
ampere-feet (current draw x length in feet) while #4 has .631V.
I don't know exactly what your setup is, but you need to consider how
many volts actually gets to the starter with the different wire sizes.
You will have to calculate the current in each wire (starter & whatever
else is on at that time) and the length of each wire both to and from
the battery to see what you get.
For example, assume you use the main feed to run the starter (200A) and
you ignore whatever else you have turned on. If the path is 10ft each
way, then you have .79 V drop on the #2 wire (to the starter) and 1.23 V
drop on the #4 wire (back to the battery). This means that you get
whatever the battery puts out less over 2V at the starter. This totally
ignores any resistance in the contactors, connections, etc. If you used
#2 wire each way in the path to the starter you would get an additional
.44V at the starter.
Dick Tasker
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
<kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
>is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since
the
>current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an issue.
>I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
>continuous, so I'll go with that.
>
>Main Feed, #4
>Alt/ESS Feed, #4
>Combined Ground for both #2
>
>That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
>Anyone? Bueller?
>
>---
>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Shannon Knoepflein
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2 for
>Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Benford2@aol.com
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>
>You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show 72
>amps
>max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am
runnig
>a
>V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
>ways.
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Kuntz" <paul.kuntz@virgin.net>
Bob,
My best to you and Dee. Keep your priorities straight, and give her all the
support she needs. I've been through major surgery myself. Initially the
recovery seems to go well and you feel pretty good -- probably your body
working on adrenaline and the pain killers. Then you crash for awhile and
the real recovery starts. Hang in there.
Warm regards,
Paul Kuntz
England
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off line for a time . . .
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
> with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
> the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . . no
> further treatment necessary. However, she's a very unhappy
> camper right now.
>
> Given that about 2x more folks croak in hospitals due to
> medical accident than accidents on our hazardous highways, the
> family is providing 100% assistance/monitoring for the
> next few days. I'm just waiting for my Stanley full of
> coffee to finish perking and I'll be off to relieve my
> sister-in-law for the 11pm to 8am shift.
>
> Not sure how coherent I'm going to be with electrical matters
> in the near term but this too will pass . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Dennis,
Maybe you should re-read his statement. What he said was, "Given that
about 2x more folks croak in hospitals due to medical accident..." Not
people dying because they are injured or sick, but because of MEDICAL
ACCIDENT. Having witnessed a step daughter enter a hospital with a
broken elbow & exit with a (surgically) permanently damaged elbow and a
4 inch diameter 3rd degree burn on her shoulder I can tell you that his
concern is valid. The New England Journal of Medicine agrees. In the
early '90's it published a study of hospitals in New York state that
concluded that around 13,000 people a year died in hospitals in the
state of New York due to medical 'accidents'. This was almost as many as
died from gunshots in the entire country.
Now, let's talk about publicly flaming someone who's wife just went through life
threatening surgery for a life threatening disease....
To quote you, "Jeezzzz"
Charlie
Dennis O'Connor wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
>
>Jesus Bob, people die in hospitals... How could you let a family member go
>there!
>Better you get that guy from Mexico who does abortions on kitchen tables
>with a coat hangar to come to the house and do her surgery...
>
>Jeezzzz
>
>Denny
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off line for a time . . .
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>>
>>
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
>>Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
>>with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
>>the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . . no
>>further treatment necessary. However, she's a very unhappy
>>camper right now.
>>
>>Given that about 2x more folks croak in hospitals due to
>>medical accident than accidents on our hazardous highways, the
>>family is providing 100% assistance/monitoring for the
>>next few days. I'm just waiting for my Stanley full of
>>coffee to finish perking and I'll be off to relieve my
>>sister-in-law for the 11pm to 8am shift.
>>
>>Not sure how coherent I'm going to be with electrical matters
>>in the near term but this too will pass . . .
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
>> | over the man who cannot read them. |
>> | - Mark Twain |
>> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>>
>>
>>
>>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Mills <courierboy@earthlink.net>
Bob and Dee -
My best wishes to you both. It's good to hear such a positive report.
Bob, I commend you and your family for the "100% assistance/monitoring".
Bill Mills
RANS Courier in progress
SF bay area
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>>
>> Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
>> with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
>> the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . . no
>> further treatment necessary. However, she's a very unhappy
>> camper right now.
>>
>> Given that about 2x more folks croak in hospitals due to
>> medical accident than accidents on our hazardous highways, the
>> family is providing 100% assistance/monitoring for the
>> next few days. I'm just waiting for my Stanley full of
>> coffee to finish perking and I'll be off to relieve my
>> sister-in-law for the 11pm to 8am shift.
>>
>> Not sure how coherent I'm going to be with electrical matters
>> in the near term but this too will pass . . .
>>
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
>> | over the man who cannot read them. |
>> | - Mark Twain |
>> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> >
>>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Size.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
Make sure that you calculate the voltage drops correctly. At 200 amps
and 10 feet that is 2000 ampere-feet. A #2 conductor would have
(0.396V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 0.792V. A #4 conductor would have
(0.613V/1000A.ft) x 2000A.ft or 1.23V. Two #4s in parallel would have
half that or 0.613V. This would give you a total drop of 1.4V - an
appreciable part of the 12V (nominal) available at the batteries. Of
course, the batteries don't put out 12V when you are drawing 200A at start.
I cannot really say if this is okay or not - it depends on your
batteries, your starter, your engine, any additional voltage drops due
to contactors, connections, etc., additional loads over and above the
200A starting current, battery and engine temperature, etc., etc.
If Rob doesn't seem to have problems with this setup, assuming yours is
similar, then you should be okay.
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>I totally understand your concern and have been contemplating that exact
>issue. Every time you upsize the wire, you get less voltage
>drop...thats the simple part. I guess my real question is this: What
>is an acceptable voltage drop for starting?
>
>My only real world experience with this exact setup is my buddy Rob
>Logan up in Cleveland. He has a flying Legacy, very similar in set up
>to mine. We both have dual alt, dual 17ah systems, with our batteries
>behind the seat. The only major difference is his is actually flying,
>while mine is still being built :) I helped him a bit with his power
>wire decisions, and if I recall correctly, he has a #4 from each battery
>a crossfeed contactor on the firewall, and a #2 ground. On starting,
>the crossfeed is on, so the 2 #4's are in parallel. He has no problems
>that I know of, Rob care to comment on starting voltage and currents?
>At 10' and 200A, the 2 #4's in parallel would be 0.249V, while the #2
>ground would be 0.312V, or 0.561V total.
>
>---
>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>Richard Tasker
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
><retasker@optonline.net>
>
>I am not entirely sure what you are saying here about 2 #4's and 140
>amps, but the issue for starting current is voltage drop, not
>temperature rise.
>
>Accordiing to my wire tables, #2 has a voltage drop of .396V per 1000
>ampere-feet (current draw x length in feet) while #4 has .631V.
>
>I don't know exactly what your setup is, but you need to consider how
>many volts actually gets to the starter with the different wire sizes.
> You will have to calculate the current in each wire (starter & whatever
>
>else is on at that time) and the length of each wire both to and from
>the battery to see what you get.
>
>For example, assume you use the main feed to run the starter (200A) and
>you ignore whatever else you have turned on. If the path is 10ft each
>way, then you have .79 V drop on the #2 wire (to the starter) and 1.23 V
>
>drop on the #4 wire (back to the battery). This means that you get
>whatever the battery puts out less over 2V at the starter. This totally
>
>ignores any resistance in the contactors, connections, etc. If you used
>
>#2 wire each way in the path to the starter you would get an additional
>.44V at the starter.
>
>Dick Tasker
>
>Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>>
>>
><kycshann@kyol.net>
>
>
>>Actually, I've rethought this. 72A is the 30* temp rise number, which
>>is a rating just for continuous current on the insulation, and since
>>
>>
>the
>
>
>>current for starting is only momemtary, this shouldn't create an issue.
>>I figure starting might draw 200 amps, and with 2 #4's, that about 140
>>continuous, so I'll go with that.
>>
>>Main Feed, #4
>>Alt/ESS Feed, #4
>>Combined Ground for both #2
>>
>>That's my plan, unless someone convinces me otherwise. Bueller?
>>Anyone? Bueller?
>>
>>---
>>Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Shannon Knoepflein
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
>><kycshann@kyol.net>
>>
>>Good call...glad I asked. So, a single #2 AWG for ground, and a #2 for
>>Main, and a #4 for Aux/ESS. Sound good to everyone for a 10' run?
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>>Benford2@aol.com
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire Size....
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>>
>>You need to take into account the max draw for the starter. You show 72
>>amps
>>max. The starter is gonna consume twice to three times that. I am
>>
>>
>runnig
>
>
>>a
>>V-8 Ford and my 10.3' run from the battery to the solonoid is #2 both
>>ways.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Francis, David CMDR" <David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
Rob, when designing my external lights priority went to low noise, low drag
and then low cost. My solution is:
a. landing & taxi lights take care of the forward sector, esp in
terminal areas.
b. One A650 strobe on top of the fin provides 360 degree coverage.
c. One A500 tail light with strobe on the bottom of the rudder takes
care of the aft sector.
d. One Nova Xpac power supply sits on the shelf at the base of the fin,
well away from antennas etc, with short high power runs to the strobes.
e. Standard wing tip red & green lights.
Regards, David Francis, VH-ZEE.
I'm still debating the best way of arranging my lighting. Has anyone tried
the combination postion/strobe/tail lights, (Whelen A600PG/PR)?
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV Fuselage.
David A Francis
Commander RAN
Action Plan for People Team
02 6266 4980 (Office)
02 6266 2416 (Fax)
Email: David.Francis@defence.gov.au <mailto:David.Francis@defence.gov.au>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wendell & Jean Durr" <legacy147@cableone.net>
I read Dennis O'Conner's comment as trying to inject some humor into a
serious situation to make it easier to handle emotionally, a technique we
all use to effect from time to time. Perhaps I misunderstood.
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<"'AeroElectric-List Digest Server'"@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns@hevanet.com>
A "Nova Xpac power supply" ?
What's that?
Shaun
Do not archive.
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Size.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Logan" <Rob@Logan.com>
> he has a #4 from each battery a crossfeed contactor on the firewall, and a #2
ground.
there is #4 wire on each terminal of the two B&C 17mh batteries, the two
grounds run up the center to a common firewall stud, and the two positives
run up the side of the aircraft to battery contractors on the firewall. I've started
the io-550 with one battery, but even when I start with two batteries
the voltage goes below 8volts because the EAU resets..
---
Utopian Maturity: Eternity, Liberty, Equality and now Fraternity & Altruism.
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mark Phillips <ripsteel@edge.net>
Bob-
If her Dr. knows 2% as much about kidneys as you now about 'lectrons,
Dee is in good hands- I just had my neck dug into, chopped on and bolted
back together and I had to put all my faith in the professionals trained
and experienced to the task- I too applaud you and your family's
vigilance, and wish her the speediest of recoveries- if this impacts the
Nashville seminar, so be it- no problem here if re-scheduled, just get
her better!
Mark Phillips, Columbia TN - do not archive -
>>Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
>>with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
>>the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . .
>
>
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - STOBE LIGHTS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
http://www.strobe.com/catalog/power-supplies.htm
Basically, it's a better-than-whelen strobe power supply for less than half
the price.
At 08:32 PM 1/22/03 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shaun Simpkins" <shauns@hevanet.com>
>
>A "Nova Xpac power supply" ?
>
>What's that?
>
>Shaun
>
>Do not archive.
>
>
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a time . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
Bob, my father passed on a couple of days ago after a long fight. Know
that our prayers are with you. Hold her close in your heart, as I know you
do.
Drop us a note in a couple of days, let us know how she is.
At 10:24 PM 1/21/03 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Almost-a-doctor Dee had surgery this morning to remove a kidney
>with a cancerous tumor growing on it. Doctors were happy with
>the outcome and called it a 99% chance of a cure . . . no
>further treatment necessary. However, she's a very unhappy
>camper right now.
>
>Given that about 2x more folks croak in hospitals due to
>medical accident than accidents on our hazardous highways, the
>family is providing 100% assistance/monitoring for the
>next few days. I'm just waiting for my Stanley full of
>coffee to finish perking and I'll be off to relieve my
>sister-in-law for the 11pm to 8am shift.
>
>Not sure how coherent I'm going to be with electrical matters
>in the near term but this too will pass . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
> | The man who does not read good books has no advantage |
> | over the man who cannot read them. |
> | - Mark Twain |
> |-------------------------------------------------------|
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|