Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:37 AM - Switch for AI ? (gilles.thesee)
2. 05:27 AM - Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors (DHPHKH@aol.com)
3. 05:37 AM - Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors (Ron Raby)
4. 05:48 AM - Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors (Shannon Knoepflein)
5. 06:14 AM - Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors (John Schroeder)
6. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Marking wires made easier (Ron Raby)
7. 06:57 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:37 AM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Chris Adkins)
9. 07:41 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (Walter Casey)
10. 08:00 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (Wayne Sweet)
11. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (PSENGINE@aol.com)
12. 08:42 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (Cy Galley)
13. 09:30 AM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Rob Housman)
14. 10:06 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (John Schroeder)
15. 10:48 AM - Alternator circuit breakers (Charles Brame)
16. 10:56 AM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (PSENGINE@aol.com)
17. 11:15 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (N823ms@aol.com)
18. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Canyon)
19. 11:36 AM - Re: Switch for AI ? (Walter Casey)
20. 11:55 AM - Re: Marking wires made easier (Rick Fogerson)
21. 12:08 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Chris Adkins)
22. 12:13 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Shannon Knoepflein)
23. 12:35 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (PSENGINE@aol.com)
24. 12:42 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (PSENGINE@aol.com)
25. 01:25 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Canyon)
26. 01:46 PM - Re: Marking wires made easier (Peter Laurence)
27. 02:01 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Shannon Knoepflein)
28. 02:12 PM - Re: Switch for AI ? (Jim Oke)
29. 02:35 PM - Re: Alternator circuit breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Canyon)
31. 02:45 PM - Re: Marking wires made easier (Billie Lamb)
32. 03:01 PM - Re: Switch for AH ? (gilles.thesee)
33. 03:01 PM - Re: Switch for AH ? (gilles.thesee)
34. 03:16 PM - Re: Switch for AH ? (BobsV35B@aol.com)
35. 03:57 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Shannon Knoepflein)
36. 04:16 PM - Switches (N823ms@aol.com)
37. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Canyon)
38. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Shannon Knoepflein)
39. 05:14 PM - Re: Electric DG with heading bug (Ralph E. Capen)
40. 05:29 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (DHPHKH@aol.com)
41. 05:29 PM - Re: Marking wires made easier (John Rourke)
42. 05:31 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Larry Bowen)
43. 05:37 PM - [Fw: Aeroelectirc Labels for John] (John Rourke)
44. 05:55 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Shannon Knoepflein)
45. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (John Rourke)
46. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (James E. Clark)
47. 06:41 PM - Re: Switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
48. 07:18 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Canyon)
49. 07:23 PM - Re: Re: Mic Wiring (Canyon)
50. 09:31 PM - Re: Switch for AH ? (Jerzy Krasinski)
51. 10:19 PM - Re: Switch for AH ? (John Slade)
52. 11:21 PM - Antw: Re: Marking wires made easier (Alfred Buess)
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: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bob and all,
What is your opinion about the following ?
While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been advised
to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running it
unnecessarily.
We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
short-lived instruments.
So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
Thanks,
Gilles
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: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
Bob and Gang,
Discussion of connectors raises an interesting thought; don't think I've
ever seen a good article on multi-wire plug connectors, and the selection of
a particular type for a particular application. Electronics guys know the
details because they've worked with them for years. The rest of us pick up a
Digi-Key catalog or similar, find a jaw-dropping selection, and groan.
Need examples? When does one use a Molex connector vs a D-sub? Why are
(most?) D-sub pins gold plated? Is connector selection as simple as
observing an amperage rating, or is there more to it? Why a choice of metal
or plastic backshells? The automotive world uses plastic connector shells
that lock when mated; why don't we use similar connectors in our airplanes?
Or do we, and where do you get them? Does a Molex shell offer any wire
support, or does it strictly depend on the insulation crimp of the little
sheet copper pin?
May seem like dumb questions to some, but...
Dan Horton
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: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
John
Try this # 800-522-6752 this is the amp info line
This # is one of the vendors I use.
Coghlin /Wesco 800-643-1499
Ron Raby
N829R
http://www.tycoelectronics.com/
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Anyone have a good source for the thru-firewall 39 pin or 24 pin
(thereabouts)
> electrical connectors? Finding any data on AMP CPC connectors or a
supplier is
> difficult.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Schroeder
> LNCE
>
>
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: | AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Lancair sells a 28 pin through connector. They run 100 total for a set
of plugs on each side, and connector.
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: AeroElectric-List: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
Anyone have a good source for the thru-firewall 39 pin or 24 pin
(thereabouts)
electrical connectors? Finding any data on AMP CPC connectors or a
supplier is
difficult.
Thanks,
John Schroeder
LNCE
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: AMP CPC or Equivalent Connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Hi Guys -
Many thanks for the fast response and information. Will call for a catalog. We
figure on 2 of these to carry wiring thru the firewall so the metal casing types
sound better.
After sending the email, I finally found a couple of .pdf files at the Tyco/AMP
website last night. Search for documents 114-10038 and 408-7593. The former is
the application spec and has tooling, table of dimensions and other useful info
(11pp). The latter is more of a design paper but has useful stuff in it (4pp).
Their website is not all that easy to navigate. Very frustrating.
Cheers,
John
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: Marking wires made easier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
I have been using the panduit self laminating labels for years. You do not
have to buy there software. They can be done with a generic label program.
They work with a laser printer. They have a clear tail that overlaps the
writing. Here is an example part # PLL-12-Y3
I have also used the brother p touch labels for marking the backs of panels.
I think both systems will work well. Some added work may be needed for the
brother or kroy for longevity when wrapping wires. Like the clear heat
shrink that was mentioned earlier.
Ron Raby
N829R
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> >If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
> >highly recommend it.
>
> Shannon -
>
> The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy a
DYMO
> model labeler?
>
> John
>
>
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:35 AM 2/18/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob and all,
>
>What is your opinion about the following ?
>While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been advised
>to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running it
>unnecessarily.
>We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
>short-lived instruments.
>So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gilles
I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
that constant operation keeps temperatures and
lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
not using them.
Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
experiment to confirm or disprove either
philosophy. Given that the average light
aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
in the thousands of hours probably makes
both arguments moot for the vast majority
of airplane owners.
If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Adkins" <ccadkins@dragg.net>
By correcting the inferior workmanship of your supplied harness to an
acceptable standard, has Mike voided his warranty by modifying the "as
supplied" harness? Just wondering...
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PSENGINE@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PSENGINE@aol.com
Dear Mike:
You wrote:
>When I got the harness, I was disgusted with the workmanship...
I am very sorry that you had a harness that was made poorly. I am glad to
hear that we offered to replace it, though, and wish you would have taken us
up on that, then you would have seen how we would have taken responsibility
for it. And there wouldn't have been any costs associated with the
replacement at all.
I am glad to hear that it was an easy task to fix the problems.
Even though we an outside shop build the harness, PS Engineering is
completely responsible for it's quality. No excuses here.
I will be performing a QIP on Monday to make sure that if we get an
opportunity to build another harness, that it will meet the quality that we
expect from our own employees.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
<A HREF="www.ps-engineering.com">www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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: | Re: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Casey <mikec@caseyspm.com>
My advice is don't buy any instruments which contain gyros.
You can purchase the equivalent of the six pack (six primary
instruments) without gyros from Dynon
http://www.dynondevelopment.com/index.html
for $1995
Also look at
http://www.caseyspm.com/RV7A.html
Walter
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 03:35 AM, gilles.thesee wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee"
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Bob and all,
>
> What is your opinion about the following ?
> While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
> advised
> to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid
> running it
> unnecessarily.
> We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> short-lived instruments.
> So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gilles
>
>
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <wsweet@attbi.com>
I guess a back-up battery should also be installed with this system if one
is to fly IMC comfortably. Even the 777's, etc have "steam gages" as backup.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Walter Casey" <mikec@caseyspm.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AI ?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Casey <mikec@caseyspm.com>
>
> My advice is don't buy any instruments which contain gyros.
> You can purchase the equivalent of the six pack (six primary
> instruments) without gyros from Dynon
> http://www.dynondevelopment.com/index.html
> for $1995
> Also look at
> http://www.caseyspm.com/RV7A.html
> Walter
> On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 03:35 AM, gilles.thesee wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee"
> > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> > Bob and all,
> >
> > What is your opinion about the following ?
> > While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
> > advised
> > to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid
> > running it
> > unnecessarily.
> > We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> > short-lived instruments.
> > So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Gilles
> >
> >
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> > _-
> > ======================================================================
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PSENGINE@aol.com
Dear Chris:
Thanks for asking.
No, his warranty is not void. I'm wondering what made you would think that?
I am finding some misunderstandings here pertaining to PS Engineering, Inc.
and I'm working hard in my responses to make clear our positions and policies
when it comes to our products and support.
Why do I spend this time here? Because I care. Because my name is on every
one of these products. I want to do everything within my means so that our
company not only delivers great products, but that it can be portrayed fairly
and accurately. And what would I like our image to be? That of a small
company doing it's level best to provide pilots with the best audio control
systems ay very reasonable price.
Now back to Mike's harness.
In fact Chris, it is still under warranty! We warrant it to be free from
defects and that is was built to best aviation accepted practices. And when
this doesn't happen, we do what is it takes to make lemonade out of lemons.
If you read his email, he stated that when he called to let us know about the
substandard construction, he was offered corrective actions from us. He
elected not to take us up on the offer because the changes were minor and
easy to perform. He also didn't want to be without the harness for a new
harness would have taken him 3 days to have gotten.
We try really hard to achieve 100% perfection, however, we haven't gotten
there yet. And because we know we are not perfect, we have put policies and
procedure in place to address such occurrences when they occur.
Please know that we continue to invest in people and equipment to minimize
the risk of sending anything out that is substandard.
Finally, as an example how we respond internally when an event like this
occurs, we sent one of our QA personnel to the facility that make these
harnesses, his report is due to be review during our next QA meeting. You can
rest assured, if we find something that isn't correct in the overall process,
it will be corrected.
Again, thanks for asking.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
There are even Electric AI owners that have to overhaul the instrument
before flight as it sat and gummed up by just sitting on the shelf.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AI ?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 11:35 AM 2/18/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee"
> ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> >Bob and all,
> >
> >What is your opinion about the following ?
> >While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
advised
> >to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running
it
> >unnecessarily.
> >We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> >short-lived instruments.
> >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gilles
>
>
> I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
> of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
> have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
> time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
> that constant operation keeps temperatures and
> lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
> your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
> operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
> not using them.
>
> Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
> experiment to confirm or disprove either
> philosophy. Given that the average light
> aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
> installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
> in the thousands of hours probably makes
> both arguments moot for the vast majority
> of airplane owners.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
I for one am not at all "wondering" why Chris thought that modifying the
factory supplied harness would void the warranty. You (PS Engineering)
quite clearly do not trust any homebuilder (no matter how well qualified) to
assemble the harness from scratch so I (and probably most of the other folks
reading your comments) would conclude that you likewise do not consider us
homebuilders competent to repair your faulty harness.
How do you rationalize that we have the expertise to repair but not to
assemble a harness?
Further, how do you rationalize your insistence that your audio panel (when
sold as an Apollo SL15 or SL10) must be installed with your harness or by a
"FAA-certified avionics shop," while UPS trusts us homebuilders to install
the entire "full stack" of Apollo radios (except the SL15) and all of the
necessary wiring? Let's get real here - the audio panel is decidedly low
tech compared to the rest of the stack.
Just for laughs, do you consider the holder of a Repairman Certificate to be
"a non-certified individual?"
I am not raising these points to harass you - I had decided on the Apollo
radios, including your audio panel, but this thread has made me reconsider
my choice of audio panel. If you start coming up with some better answers
and more enlightened warranty policies I (and I think many others) will
reconsider (again) and buy your products. Your current policy makes the
decision a no brainer.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airfarame complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PSENGINE@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PSENGINE@aol.com
Dear Chris:
Thanks for asking.
No, his warranty is not void. I'm wondering what made you would think that?
I am finding some misunderstandings here pertaining to PS Engineering, Inc.
and I'm working hard in my responses to make clear our positions and
policies
when it comes to our products and support.
Why do I spend this time here? Because I care. Because my name is on every
one of these products. I want to do everything within my means so that our
company not only delivers great products, but that it can be portrayed
fairly
and accurately. And what would I like our image to be? That of a small
company doing it's level best to provide pilots with the best audio control
systems ay very reasonable price.
Now back to Mike's harness.
In fact Chris, it is still under warranty! We warrant it to be free from
defects and that is was built to best aviation accepted practices. And when
this doesn't happen, we do what is it takes to make lemonade out of lemons.
If you read his email, he stated that when he called to let us know about
the
substandard construction, he was offered corrective actions from us. He
elected not to take us up on the offer because the changes were minor and
easy to perform. He also didn't want to be without the harness for a new
harness would have taken him 3 days to have gotten.
We try really hard to achieve 100% perfection, however, we haven't gotten
there yet. And because we know we are not perfect, we have put policies and
procedure in place to address such occurrences when they occur.
Please know that we continue to invest in people and equipment to minimize
the risk of sending anything out that is substandard.
Finally, as an example how we respond internally when an event like this
occurs, we sent one of our QA personnel to the facility that make these
harnesses, his report is due to be review during our next QA meeting. You
can
rest assured, if we find something that isn't correct in the overall
process,
it will be corrected.
Again, thanks for asking.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Walt -
The picture of your proposed panel has the Dynon EFIS listed for $2323, but your
email said $1995. Have the increased the price?
Thanks,
John
Do not archive
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: | Alternator circuit breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame <charleyb@earthlink.net>
I am wiring my 6A IAW plan Z-13 - All Electric on a Budget. I am using
fuse blocks and will only have two circuit breakers in the airplane.
Both will be on the panel to protect the field circuits from both the
main and aux alternators.
I have a 60 Amp B&C alternator as the main, and a B&C SD-8 as the backup.
Z-13 shows a 5 amp breaker in each alternator field circuit. I was given
two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price was
right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing nuisance
trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using a 4
Amp breaker in either circuit?
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
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: PSENGINE@aol.com
Dear Rob:
Once again, incorrect assumptions have been made!
Actually, I can't tell you about the "low tech thing," but I can tell you I
know no other piece of avionics that has 88 pins associated with them, do
you? Intercoms have 25 pins. That means there are a lot of potential of miss
wiring.
The warranty policy that PS Engineering, Inc. is not unique to PS
Engineering, Inc. It is an industry wide accepted policy adopted by other
companies such as GARMIN (IFR equipment including the GMA340 and GNS series),
Avidyne (all certified products), Bendix/King (Silver Crown) and NAT (all
products).
Why this policy? Cost of support.
While undoubtedly you have the qualifications to perform such installations,
I think you will agree, not everyone is so well trained. And it's those
individuals that don't that will require hours and hours of phone support. I
know this from first hand experience.
And then how do we ever determine who is and who isn't? This is why we sell
through FAA CRS with at least a Limited Radio Class Endorsement. We then have
at least a basis to judge their qualifications, the FAA already did that for
us when they awarded the Limited Radio Class.
And none of those vendors have a fixed repair fee policy like we have in
place. When our products are out of warranty, we have published fixed repair
fees, and they are very reasonable. For example, the fixed repair fee for our
intercoms is $29.95, $69.95 for the PMA7000 series and $109.95 for the 6000
series. These "out of warranty" repair prices is far below the industry norm,
which are usually based upon of time and materials with a minimum repair fee.
For example, while we give you a 3 year knob to rear connector warranty on
the PMA7000, GARMIN provides just one year, and then they have a repair fee
of $200!
So all in all, the cost of ownership of our products is very reasonable.
(even if you elect NOT to have the PS Engineering product installed by an
authorized dealer or purchase a dealer made harness).
While I know I haven't convinced many of you, I know I feel better from
trying to keep the information about our company and others for that matter,
accurate.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
In a message dated 2/18/2003 12:06:52 PM Central Standard Time,
jschroeder@perigee.net writes:
> Walt -
>
> The picture of your proposed panel has the Dynon EFIS listed for $2323, but
> your
> email said $1995. Have the increased the price?
>
>
John:
Ed here: I will be ordering my Dynon on March 3rd. It is $1995.00,
however, you can add its own independent GPS, AOA, and backup Battery. I
believe that it adds up to that. Checkout Dynondevelopment.com. It has the
total for various packages
Cold up here in YYC
Ed Silvanic
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
PSENGINE@aol.com wrote:
>Finally, as an example how we respond internally when an event like this
>occurs, we sent one of our QA personnel to the facility that make these
>harnesses, his report is due to be review during our next QA meeting.
>You can
>rest assured, if we find something that isn't correct in the overall
>process,
>it will be corrected.
---
Respectfully, and in an attempt to finally understand the reasons for
your policy regarding the lack of warranty without buying your harness,
I have some simple questions for which I hope to get simple answers for
my simple mind.
1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
view, stand up to logical explanation?
2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not correct,
please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
implementation disallow self-protection?
3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the unsatisfactory
harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
knowledge?
I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time here, but I really don't
understand the rationale of very much of your policy explanations
you've posted here. Surely I'm missing some vital element yet
unexplained somewhere.
Steve
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Casey <mikec@caseyspm.com>
Hi John,
At the very top of the page
http://www.dynondevelopment.com/docs/efis-d10.html
it says $1995
I added some options to the Dynon EFIS which added to my cost. The
prices listed on my proposed panel are high and I am using them just
for approximations. Go to the Dynon site for actual prices.
Best wishes,
Walter
On Tuesday, February 18, 2003, at 11:06 AM, John Schroeder wrote:
>
>
> Walt -
>
> The picture of your proposed panel has the Dynon EFIS listed for
> $2323, but your
> email said $1995. Have the increased the price?
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
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: Marking wires made easier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
Do not archive
I'm somewhat confused by all the wire labeling e-mails. Can someone
summarize what the bottom line is?
Re: labeling instrument panel, sounds like any unit will do that will make
black letters on clear sticky tape.
Re: labeling wires, sounds like because of the labels being heat sensitive
(Bobs comment), the Dymo won't work?
Or is it the kind of tape?
How about the Brothers unit (PT 1200)? Will its labels take the heat?
Thanks for any help,
Rick Fogerson
RV3 finish kit
Boise, ID
> I bought the big Dymo or Dyna or whatever. It was 39.99, and has a big
> keyboard, and will take the clear tapes if you desire. I used white
> tape with black letters, which is what is included with it. The heat
> shrink idea will work fine, but this is faster IMHO.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> >If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
> >highly recommend it.
>
> Shannon -
>
> The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy
> a DYMO
> model labeler?
>
> John
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Adkins" <ccadkins@dragg.net>
Mike,
You've obviously taken a tremendous amount of time out of your work day to
pen your most recent responses, and that is appreciated by (I think!)
everyone on this list. I think the point that's being missed here either due
to financial concerns, "spin doctoring", liability concerns, or "whatever"
is this: Each and every one of us on the list are either building our own
airplane and assembling the associated avionics, refitting an existing plane
with upgraded avionics, or dreaming of doing one of the two. Just by virtue
of our presence here, we are self-identified "participants" who like (or
even INSIST upon) doing things OURSELVES.
When someone, either through policy or direct statement, implies that we
need to "farm out" some portion of our project, the red flag invariably
rises in our minds. "Is this guy saying I CAN'T do it?" or "Does he think
I'm not SMART enough to do it right?". Whether or not you or your company
INTENDS this to be the message to the "do-it-yourself" crowd, that's what's
coming through on this end.
I don't think anyone here is attempting to harass you or your company. Your
policies probably won't change because of anything written here, but the
buying trends of the group most assuredly will. That's not a threat, or
even a smart-ass remark. It's just a fact.
We (the Owner Built And Maintained crowd) apparently need intercoms and
audio panels a lot more than PS Engineering needs us, and that's OK, but I
wouldn't expect everyone to remain silent about it.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PSENGINE@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PSENGINE@aol.com
Dear Rob:
Once again, incorrect assumptions have been made!
Actually, I can't tell you about the "low tech thing," but I can tell you I
know no other piece of avionics that has 88 pins associated with them, do
you? Intercoms have 25 pins. That means there are a lot of potential of
miss
wiring.
The warranty policy that PS Engineering, Inc. is not unique to PS
Engineering, Inc. It is an industry wide accepted policy adopted by other
companies such as GARMIN (IFR equipment including the GMA340 and GNS
series),
Avidyne (all certified products), Bendix/King (Silver Crown) and NAT (all
products).
Why this policy? Cost of support.
While undoubtedly you have the qualifications to perform such installations,
I think you will agree, not everyone is so well trained. And it's those
individuals that don't that will require hours and hours of phone support. I
know this from first hand experience.
And then how do we ever determine who is and who isn't? This is why we sell
through FAA CRS with at least a Limited Radio Class Endorsement. We then
have
at least a basis to judge their qualifications, the FAA already did that for
us when they awarded the Limited Radio Class.
And none of those vendors have a fixed repair fee policy like we have in
place. When our products are out of warranty, we have published fixed repair
fees, and they are very reasonable. For example, the fixed repair fee for
our
intercoms is $29.95, $69.95 for the PMA7000 series and $109.95 for the 6000
series. These "out of warranty" repair prices is far below the industry
norm,
which are usually based upon of time and materials with a minimum repair
fee.
For example, while we give you a 3 year knob to rear connector warranty on
the PMA7000, GARMIN provides just one year, and then they have a repair fee
of $200!
So all in all, the cost of ownership of our products is very reasonable.
(even if you elect NOT to have the PS Engineering product installed by an
authorized dealer or purchase a dealer made harness).
While I know I haven't convinced many of you, I know I feel better from
trying to keep the information about our company and others for that matter,
accurate.
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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>
I don't understand why you all are all getting upset at Mark for PSE's
policy. This is NOT an uncommon policy in the industry. Actually, it's
the NORM. Garmin has it, Avidyne, Bendix/King, etc. Apollo might not
right now, but they will soon when their new product line comes out.
This isn't something new that PSE just dreamed up. Its just the reality
of cost of support when the OBAM is only 20% of your market.
Why is everyone yelling at JUST Mark@PSE? Why not yell at Garmin and
others? I for one would like Mark to stick around on this forum and be
here to answer questions, not be run off by some wire harness nazi.
Jeez, they are just asking you have someone that is a dealer build a
harness for it. They'd probably even be happy if you built it and then
had a qualified shop just check it all out. Mark, would this suffice, a
shop checking it out and signing off on it?
PSE even offers the harness to you custom built to your specs. Garmin,
etc, DON'T do this--why don't you yell at them for not offering that?
PSE does offer it, and considering it takes 3-5 hours to build one, the
price isn't that bad, actually, its probably quite cheap. In the big
scheme of things of building an airplane, is a couple hundred bucks for
a well-built wire harness that big a deal? I think not. I think PSE
has gone above an beyond here, where most manufacturers don't.
Also, Mark has NEVER said that he feels homebuilders are stupid and
can't build the harness. All he has said is the cost of support is too
high. Most of the people on this list could easily build their harness,
but what about the 1000's that aren't on this list. Realize, don't be
so selfish to think that PSE only has to support YOU, and can tailor its
policies to only YOU. They have to have policies that cover everyone,
and they feel this policy is acceptable to cover everyone. I agree.
You may ask why they don't just include a harness in the price. Just
including a harness in the price isn't really possible financially
either. PSE's products are certified, so each harness for each person
would have to be certified, and to get each individual harness TSO'd
would be a nightmare. I'm sure you can see the complications. They
can't include a standard harness, as this would not work for all planes
and would take work from their dealers who build and install the
harnesses for all the certified ships, which is probably 80% of their
business.
All in all, if you don't like this industry wide policy, I'd say you
probably won't be putting many advanced avionics in your panel.
PSE, you make a great product, and I'll gladly pay to have a
professional harness built if that is your policy.
I think I'll get on with building the rest of my plane and not worry
about paying a few hundred dollars to have someone build a harness.
Just for the record, I'm an electrical engineer and I do stuff like this
all day long with industrial controls....so, if having a policy that
requires someone else to build a harness I could easily build myself
doesn't upset my ego, why would it yours?
Moving on to more important things.......
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PSENGINE@aol.com
In a message dated 2/18/2003 2:35:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
steve.canyon@verizon.net writes:
> 1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
> harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
>
> 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
> the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
> view, stand up to logical explanation?
I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
>
> 2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
> products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not correct,
> please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
> implementation disallow self-protection?
Power going to ground while ground is going to power. Has this happened?
More than you'd imagine.
>
> 3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
> harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the unsatisfactory
> harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
> knowledge?
I was not made aware of this issue. So I failed.
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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: PSENGINE@aol.com
Thank you very much Shannon, I was beginning to feel really lonely.
I think I'm done now too. If the people who are really upset about our
policies reads what I have been writing the last 4 days, I hope that they
will at least see that:
1) I'm not a liar
2) This warranty policy is not bait and switch
3) We make a very good product at a relatively modest price
4) Our products are innovative, the type that fits well with aircraft that
pushes technology a little.
So, please don't be offended, but I am now saying 73's (Best Wishes) and
going QRT (Closing Down).
Sincerely,
Mark Scheuer
PS Engineering, Inc.
www.ps-engineering.com
mscheuer@ps-engineering.com
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
PSENGINE@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/18/2003 2:35:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>steve.canyon@verizon.net writes:
>
> > 1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
> > harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
>
>We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
And it would not violate the warranty then? Why not?
> > 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
> > the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
> > view, stand up to logical explanation?
>
>I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
Please explain the difference between wiring one end of the harness
correctly and the other end of the harness incorrectly. In both cases,
most of the error result is identical. In only one case, and then
assuming your provided harness is correct, do you imply your warranty
is still valid and that you will work hand in hand with the
builder. Please explain why this is so?
> > 2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
> > products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not
> correct,
> > please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
> > implementation disallow self-protection?
>
>Power going to ground while ground is going to power. Has this happened?
>More than you'd imagine.
Considering no refutation from you and therefore believing that we are
dealing here with only power and audio rails, I find this nearly
inexcusable in a product intended to go into a high reliability
application such as we encounter in aircraft. Surely there is a reason
this is so beyond the simple fact it may be, because there are well
established and inexpensive methods of making your product impervious
to such a connection, or at least totally non destructive. Since
reversal of power could be made totally inconsequential to the proper
performance of the product in any way, that would seem a much better
design parameter and would probably avoid many support costs you might
have otherwise.
> > 3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
> > harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the unsatisfactory
> > harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
> > knowledge?
>
>I was not made aware of this issue. So I failed.
I understand, but I think you're being too hard on yourself, Mark. But
maybe it will prompt a minor change in your QA procedures to account
for such in the future and a real benefit can result from it.
To offer another perspective to Shannon's post and your earlier
comment, just because the rest of the industry does it the same way is
of no concern to leaders. If you lead, you get to enjoy clear vision
and your system is not clogged by the dust of the herd. In every case
of an established industry turned on it's collective head, it has been
because a new leader emerged with a clear vision of the future. To do
otherwise is to join the herd. Some are happy with that -- I never was.
On the other hand, rather than say your warranty will be invalidated
without your harness, why not simply state that repairs will be
corrected under warranty any way it was wired but a $29.95 charge will
be made for any user induced failure due to miswiring? Or, if you're
truly unable to tolerate power reversals, why not sell a simple harness
for power only and let the builder figure out the rest. Both case
would of course require some simple documentation for installation.
Either of the above, would no doubt be much more palatable to the
amateur crowd (who for the most part are anything but amateur) and have
a sound rationale to back it up.
Respectfully,
Steve
Do not archive
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: Marking wires made easier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Peter Laurence <dr.laurence@mbdi.org>
Rick,
after trying different methods, I found this to be the best for me:
There are strips of adhesive tape that come in a tablet with three numberson
a strip.. Place them close to the wire termination and place clear heat
shrink tubing.
Yes, it's a little time consuming, and maybe a little expensive, but it will
not come off.
Peter Laurence
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson"
<rickf@cableone.net>
>
> Do not archive
>
> I'm somewhat confused by all the wire labeling e-mails. Can someone
> summarize what the bottom line is?
>
> Re: labeling instrument panel, sounds like any unit will do that will make
> black letters on clear sticky tape.
>
> Re: labeling wires, sounds like because of the labels being heat sensitive
> (Bobs comment), the Dymo won't work?
> Or is it the kind of tape?
> How about the Brothers unit (PT 1200)? Will its labels take the heat?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Rick Fogerson
> RV3 finish kit
> Boise, ID
>
> > I bought the big Dymo or Dyna or whatever. It was 39.99, and has a big
> > keyboard, and will take the clear tapes if you desire. I used white
> > tape with black letters, which is what is included with it. The heat
> > shrink idea will work fine, but this is faster IMHO.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> > Schroeder
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
> > <jschroeder@perigee.net>
> >
> > >If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
> > >highly recommend it.
> >
> > Shannon -
> >
> > The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy
> > a DYMO
> > model labeler?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
people still want to crucify them.
They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
just don't see it.
What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
the issue lies, and I think their solution of actually OFFERING a custom
harness for each builder is way above the rest.
Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
crucify them for it. Jeez.
Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
---
Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Canyon
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon
<steve.canyon@verizon.net>
PSENGINE@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/18/2003 2:35:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>steve.canyon@verizon.net writes:
>
> > 1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
> > harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
>
>We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
And it would not violate the warranty then? Why not?
> > 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
> > the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
> > view, stand up to logical explanation?
>
>I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
Please explain the difference between wiring one end of the harness
correctly and the other end of the harness incorrectly. In both cases,
most of the error result is identical. In only one case, and then
assuming your provided harness is correct, do you imply your warranty
is still valid and that you will work hand in hand with the
builder. Please explain why this is so?
> > 2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
> > products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not
> correct,
> > please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
> > implementation disallow self-protection?
>
>Power going to ground while ground is going to power. Has this
happened?
>More than you'd imagine.
Considering no refutation from you and therefore believing that we are
dealing here with only power and audio rails, I find this nearly
inexcusable in a product intended to go into a high reliability
application such as we encounter in aircraft. Surely there is a reason
this is so beyond the simple fact it may be, because there are well
established and inexpensive methods of making your product impervious
to such a connection, or at least totally non destructive. Since
reversal of power could be made totally inconsequential to the proper
performance of the product in any way, that would seem a much better
design parameter and would probably avoid many support costs you might
have otherwise.
> > 3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
> > harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the
unsatisfactory
> > harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
> > knowledge?
>
>I was not made aware of this issue. So I failed.
I understand, but I think you're being too hard on yourself, Mark. But
maybe it will prompt a minor change in your QA procedures to account
for such in the future and a real benefit can result from it.
To offer another perspective to Shannon's post and your earlier
comment, just because the rest of the industry does it the same way is
of no concern to leaders. If you lead, you get to enjoy clear vision
and your system is not clogged by the dust of the herd. In every case
of an established industry turned on it's collective head, it has been
because a new leader emerged with a clear vision of the future. To do
otherwise is to join the herd. Some are happy with that -- I never was.
On the other hand, rather than say your warranty will be invalidated
without your harness, why not simply state that repairs will be
corrected under warranty any way it was wired but a $29.95 charge will
be made for any user induced failure due to miswiring? Or, if you're
truly unable to tolerate power reversals, why not sell a simple harness
for power only and let the builder figure out the rest. Both case
would of course require some simple documentation for installation.
Either of the above, would no doubt be much more palatable to the
amateur crowd (who for the most part are anything but amateur) and have
a sound rationale to back it up.
Respectfully,
Steve
Do not archive
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: Switch for AI ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke <wjoke@shaw.ca>
Bon jour, Gilles;
A common aviation perception (well, it could be fact !) is that gyro
instruments (elec. or air) do not like a lot of rapid pitch/roll changes as
found in aerobatics. If the intended use of the aircraft will involve
significant aerobatic flight, it may be worthwhile to have an inflight means
of removing the gyro power source to avoid stressing the gyro bearings and
stops, etc. with the object of prolonging instrument life. This should be a
visible, well-marked switch or similar to avoid accidentally de-powering the
gyro in a phase of flight (IMC app., etc.) where gyro rundown could be
dangerous. Serious aerobatic aircraft often have a removable gyro panel that
is taken out after transiting to a competition/airshow site to 1) protect
the gyros, 2) save weight.
If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping the
gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce the
gyro off the limits stops, etc.
Jim Oke
Winnipeg, MB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch for AI ?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 11:35 AM 2/18/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee"
> ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> >Bob and all,
> >
> >What is your opinion about the following ?
> >While talking with an FBO manager and instrument vendor, we've been
advised
> >to install a switch on the artificial horizon in order to avoid running
it
> >unnecessarily.
> >We were told this was the best way to prolong the life of those rather
> >short-lived instruments.
> >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gilles
>
>
> I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
> of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
> have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
> time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
> that constant operation keeps temperatures and
> lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
> your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
> operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
> not using them.
>
> Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
> experiment to confirm or disprove either
> philosophy. Given that the average light
> aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
> installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
> in the thousands of hours probably makes
> both arguments moot for the vast majority
> of airplane owners.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Re: Alternator circuit breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:45 PM 2/18/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charles Brame
><charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
>I am wiring my 6A IAW plan Z-13 - All Electric on a Budget. I am using
>fuse blocks and will only have two circuit breakers in the airplane.
>Both will be on the panel to protect the field circuits from both the
>main and aux alternators.
>
>I have a 60 Amp B&C alternator as the main, and a B&C SD-8 as the backup.
>
>Z-13 shows a 5 amp breaker in each alternator field circuit. I was given
>two new 4 Amp Potter-Brownfield Circuit Breakers. Since the price was
>right, I'd like to use them, if feasible. Will I be chancing nuisance
>trips if I use the lighter breakers? Should I even consider using a 4
>Amp breaker in either circuit?
Peak current on the ND alternator is just over 3 amps.
4A breakers will be fine.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
>leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
>the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
>people still want to crucify them.
Well, my goodness! What do you really think, Shannon? I don't believe
I've crucified anyone here or elsewhere. I respectfully asked
questions from a man that volunteered to answer them and I think they
were fair and logical questions.
>They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
>is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
>just don't see it.
And that's laudable -- and I don't believe I crucified them for doing
so not do I have a 'hangup.'
>What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
>us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
>attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
>they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
>the issue lies, and I think their solution of actually OFFERING a custom
>harness for each builder is way above the rest.
No, I don't believe I've lost sight of anything here though YMMV.
<sigh> I even made what I considered constructive suggestions to cope
with what has been perceived by many as an illogical policy. Saying
everyone does it sounds like my 13 YO grandson, "But Dad, all the other
kids get to do that!" In fact, having spent a major portion of my life
as CTO and CEO of a fairly large hi-tech electronics manufacturing
operation with world wide sales, I think I just might have some rather
unique views to share on the subject at hand. Incidentally, over a 15
year period, my combined failure rate of all products for all causes
amounted to about 0.003% . If you think that is easy, please
reconsider your thoughts.
>Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
>(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
>cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
>expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
>However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
>equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
>you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
>crucify them for it. Jeez.
I suppose Jeez is the operative word here -- see my paragraph above. I
came into this list to learn something. If it's not considered polite
or customary to ask fair and logical questions here, I guess I can
leave as I came in. If you feel comfortable with things at PSE, then
by all means feel free to act accordingly -- I don't believe I have
advised anyone to do otherwise. But please don't accuse me of
crucifying someone just because I have asked hard questions.
>Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
I would hope so! If questions asked of a volunteering product and
policy expert are something you can't tolerate, please feel free to set
up your twit filter to eliminate the aggravation of my posts. If the
rest here feel I've been off base with my questions it will no doubt be
made clear and I'll act accordingly.
I believe Mark is (or at least, should be) perfectly capable of
handling his own affairs.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Marking wires made easier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Billie Lamb" <N254BL@cfl.rr.com>
I purchased the Brother PT-2300 today because it had the features I felt
would do all the jobs I need done. I made a label with the sample of black
on white TZ tape that came with it. I then held it close to a soldering iron
for some time and no discoloration. I finally touched it to the iron and it
just melted where touching and still no discoloration. This is what I wanted
to know since I want to put the labels under clear shrink tube. I will label
the panel and various other things with black on clear.
This unit can also be hooked up to a computer and labels made on the
computer and the labeler then used to print the tape. Haven't tried that
function yet.
I would say any unit that will use the TZ tape would be fine if you just
want to label wires. The tape has it's own adhesive but I didn't know how
long it would up and the heat shrink protects it from dirt and weathering to
some extent.
Just go to Staples or some other vendor who sells various units and take
plenty of time. Try to decide what all you want the machine to do for you
before you go because there are many models and prices to choose from and
many option differences from model to model. Prices range widely too.
Brother appears to be trying to cover a wide range of demands as they had
more to choose from at Staples than other mfr's.
Bill Lamb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson"
<rickf@cableone.net>
>
> Do not archive
>
> I'm somewhat confused by all the wire labeling e-mails. Can someone
> summarize what the bottom line is?
>
> Re: labeling instrument panel, sounds like any unit will do that will make
> black letters on clear sticky tape.
>
> Re: labeling wires, sounds like because of the labels being heat sensitive
> (Bobs comment), the Dymo won't work?
> Or is it the kind of tape?
> How about the Brothers unit (PT 1200)? Will its labels take the heat?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Rick Fogerson
> RV3 finish kit
> Boise, ID
>
> > I bought the big Dymo or Dyna or whatever. It was 39.99, and has a big
> > keyboard, and will take the clear tapes if you desire. I used white
> > tape with black letters, which is what is included with it. The heat
> > shrink idea will work fine, but this is faster IMHO.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> > Schroeder
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
> > <jschroeder@perigee.net>
> >
> > >If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
> > >highly recommend it.
> >
> > Shannon -
> >
> > The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy
> > a DYMO
> > model labeler?
> >
> > John
> >
> >
>
>
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: Switch for AH ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bonjour Jim,
Merci pour ta reponse.
>
> A common aviation perception (well, it could be fact !) is that gyro
> instruments (elec. or air) do not like a lot of rapid pitch/roll changes
as
> found in aerobatics. If the intended use of the aircraft will involve
> significant aerobatic flight, it may be worthwhile to have an inflight
means
> of removing the gyro power source to avoid stressing the gyro bearings and
> stops, etc. with the object of prolonging instrument life. This should be
a
> visible, well-marked switch or similar to avoid accidentally de-powering
the
> gyro in a phase of flight (IMC app., etc.) where gyro rundown could be
> dangerous. Serious aerobatic aircraft often have a removable gyro panel
that
> is taken out after transiting to a competition/airshow site to 1) protect
> the gyros, 2) save weight.
>
We have being flying lots of aerobatics some years ago, but this project is
a rather sedate four seater.
The only gyro equipped aerobatic aircraft I flew were ex-army two-seater
Cap10Bs. And indeed they had a switch for every gyro.
But all the others were very scarcely equipped. No gyros, sometimes no VSI,
but always 2 g-meters, one of them 'safety wired'.
Navigation was sometimes *adventurous* in marginal weather in those pre-GPS
days. Some French pilots say VFR stands for 'Voies Ferrees, Routes'
('Railroad tracks, roads).
> If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
> occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping
the
> gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce
the
> gyro off the limits stops, etc.
>
Ah, good point.
Cheers,
Gilles
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: Switch for AH ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
> >Thanks,
> >Gilles
>
>
> I've heard it offered both ways in a variety
> of venues . . . for example, computer maintainers
> have told me that hard drives last longer (calender
> time) if left running 24 hours a day. They believe
> that constant operation keeps temperatures and
> lubrication more stable. Others have sided with
> your FBO manager . . . operating hours is
> operating hours . . . turn 'em off if you're
> not using them.
>
> Bottom line is that I've never seen a real
> experiment to confirm or disprove either
> philosophy. Given that the average light
> aircraft flies 50 hours or less per year,
> installing a gyro with MTBF numbers
> in the thousands of hours probably makes
> both arguments moot for the vast majority
> of airplane owners.
>
> If it were my airplane, I'd let 'er run . . .
>
> Bob . . .
Bob,
Thanks for your answer.
After all, no switch means lower parts count...
Cheers,
Gilles
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: Switch for AH ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 2/18/03 5:02:28 PM Central Standard Time,
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
> If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
> >occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping
> the
> >gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce
> the
> >gyro off the limits stops, etc.
> >
> Ah, good point.
>
Good Afternoon All,
For what it's worth, my instrument guru feels that the gyros do not last long
if they are flown when they are not operating. The units are designed to be
running. Damage will occur if they are allowed to bounce around without the
gyros spinning, The spinning strengthens the gyro and distributes the loads
that are applied by flight.
In the days of yore, we had the capability of caging our old AN gyros. Some
folks did that when they did aerobatics. That kept the gyros from banging
the stops, but having the gyros caged with the gyros spinning put such high
forces on the gyros that the axles bent and the bearings failed rapidly. The
consensus was that the lesser of the evils was to shut off the air before
engine start and then cage the gyros for flight.
All in all, the gyros would last longer if they were run full time and not
subjected to aerobatic flight.
I realize that modern gyros do address these problems, but I still think it
is best if they run during all flights and that we avoid banging them around.
Happy skies,
Old Bob
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein" <kycshann@kyol.net>
Steve,
I think you misunderstand me. My post was not directly at you directly;
notice I say "people". There are several others that have given Mark a
really hard way to go and I see no point. The post was more directed at
the general discussion that has gone on on this topic of the wiring
harness. Pretty much everyone that has spoke up on the topic has had
bad things to say about PSE and their policy. I, on the other hand, am
a happy customer, and I can easily understand their policy.
I initially agreed with the consensus that PSE should offer a harness
with their product, so instead of posting here, I just called Mark up.
Most people can explain things a lot better on the phone than over
email, so I figured I see what he had to say. I had my own suggestions,
just like you Steve, about them offering a harness that everyone could
use. However, Mark quickly explained the certification process of each
of these harnesses. Each harness for each airplane would have to be
TSO'd to be included. Also, about 80% of their business was on the
certified side, so taking a harness job out of the hands of their
dealers just didn't made good business sense. Making harnesses is not
what they are in the business for...innovative audio products is. The
comment has been made that the price is too high. I disagree and open
the floor for someone to contact an avionics shop to prove otherwise.
I by no means meant to push your buttons Steve. I just think there are
more important things to worry about. After all, we are talking about a
couple hundred bucks. And, if you really think about it, PSE has done
more to help the OBAM community with the harnesses they do offer than
any other manufacturer. I think this should be commended, not what has
went on here....
I don't disagree that the whole industry should change to better assist
homebuilders, but if you think that anyone can build a harness, you have
in fact lost sight. Most are like us, not as technical, yet they have
to support us all.
Sorry if my email sounded so confrontational...it really wasn't meant to
be and I apologize. I just hate to see PSE get beat up on when I feel
they are actually doing better than anyone else.
Again, sorry if I sounded like an a$$...didn't mean to.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Canyon
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon
<steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
>leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
>the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
>people still want to crucify them.
Well, my goodness! What do you really think, Shannon? I don't believe
I've crucified anyone here or elsewhere. I respectfully asked
questions from a man that volunteered to answer them and I think they
were fair and logical questions.
>They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
>is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
>just don't see it.
And that's laudable -- and I don't believe I crucified them for doing
so not do I have a 'hangup.'
>What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
>us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
>attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
>they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
>the issue lies, and I think their solution of actually OFFERING a
custom
>harness for each builder is way above the rest.
No, I don't believe I've lost sight of anything here though YMMV.
<sigh> I even made what I considered constructive suggestions to cope
with what has been perceived by many as an illogical policy. Saying
everyone does it sounds like my 13 YO grandson, "But Dad, all the other
kids get to do that!" In fact, having spent a major portion of my life
as CTO and CEO of a fairly large hi-tech electronics manufacturing
operation with world wide sales, I think I just might have some rather
unique views to share on the subject at hand. Incidentally, over a 15
year period, my combined failure rate of all products for all causes
amounted to about 0.003% . If you think that is easy, please
reconsider your thoughts.
>Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
>(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
>cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
>expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
>However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
>equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
>you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
>crucify them for it. Jeez.
I suppose Jeez is the operative word here -- see my paragraph above. I
came into this list to learn something. If it's not considered polite
or customary to ask fair and logical questions here, I guess I can
leave as I came in. If you feel comfortable with things at PSE, then
by all means feel free to act accordingly -- I don't believe I have
advised anyone to do otherwise. But please don't accuse me of
crucifying someone just because I have asked hard questions.
>Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
I would hope so! If questions asked of a volunteering product and
policy expert are something you can't tolerate, please feel free to set
up your twit filter to eliminate the aggravation of my posts. If the
rest here feel I've been off base with my questions it will no doubt be
made clear and I'll act accordingly.
I believe Mark is (or at least, should be) perfectly capable of
handling his own affairs.
Message 36
| 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: N823ms@aol.com
Bob:
I like the switches on that Switches.pdf file. I am going to ditch the
mag switch. On this file it show a fuel primer switch. We have discussed that
with my IO-520 engine that a shot of high boost would be sufficient to start
the engine. The fuel pump will have a high/low boost position. What switch
would be good for a High-Off-Low, in place of that fuel primer switch that
it shows?
Thanks,
Ed
Lancair ES
Message 37
| 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: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>Sorry if my email sounded so confrontational...it really wasn't meant to
>be and I apologize. I just hate to see PSE get beat up on when I feel
>they are actually doing better than anyone else.
---
No problem -- apology accepted and thanks for replying. I still think
there are very viable and palatable (to the OBAMers) alternatives to
both Mark's policy presentation and product approach which would
benefit all concerned. I hope my questions were not the ones which
prompted him to bail out but he left just as the crux of the matter
came to a point of resolution, IMHO. And I can only trust his reason
for leaving was not because he had no answers to logical questions. I
certainly have no desire to hassle anyone -- life's too short.
As for the two wire harness and installation guide for the rest of it,
there is no need for it to be TSOed for the OBAM community, is there?
As for dummies, Heath made a considerable fortune using folks who
thought the world revolved around acid core solder a 1/4" thick to
build very complex circuits and products for their time. :-)
Regards,
Steve
Message 38
| 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>
That should read "most are NOT like us, not as technical, yet they have
to support us all", sorry.
-----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: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
<kycshann@kyol.net>
Steve,
I think you misunderstand me. My post was not directly at you directly;
notice I say "people". There are several others that have given Mark a
really hard way to go and I see no point. The post was more directed at
the general discussion that has gone on on this topic of the wiring
harness. Pretty much everyone that has spoke up on the topic has had
bad things to say about PSE and their policy. I, on the other hand, am
a happy customer, and I can easily understand their policy.
I initially agreed with the consensus that PSE should offer a harness
with their product, so instead of posting here, I just called Mark up.
Most people can explain things a lot better on the phone than over
email, so I figured I see what he had to say. I had my own suggestions,
just like you Steve, about them offering a harness that everyone could
use. However, Mark quickly explained the certification process of each
of these harnesses. Each harness for each airplane would have to be
TSO'd to be included. Also, about 80% of their business was on the
certified side, so taking a harness job out of the hands of their
dealers just didn't made good business sense. Making harnesses is not
what they are in the business for...innovative audio products is. The
comment has been made that the price is too high. I disagree and open
the floor for someone to contact an avionics shop to prove otherwise.
I by no means meant to push your buttons Steve. I just think there are
more important things to worry about. After all, we are talking about a
couple hundred bucks. And, if you really think about it, PSE has done
more to help the OBAM community with the harnesses they do offer than
any other manufacturer. I think this should be commended, not what has
went on here....
I don't disagree that the whole industry should change to better assist
homebuilders, but if you think that anyone can build a harness, you have
in fact lost sight. Most are like us, not as technical, yet they have
to support us all.
Sorry if my email sounded so confrontational...it really wasn't meant to
be and I apologize. I just hate to see PSE get beat up on when I feel
they are actually doing better than anyone else.
Again, sorry if I sounded like an a$$...didn't mean to.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Canyon
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon
<steve.canyon@verizon.net>
Shannon Knoepflein wrote:
>If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
>leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
>the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
>people still want to crucify them.
Well, my goodness! What do you really think, Shannon? I don't believe
I've crucified anyone here or elsewhere. I respectfully asked
questions from a man that volunteered to answer them and I think they
were fair and logical questions.
>They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
>is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
>just don't see it.
And that's laudable -- and I don't believe I crucified them for doing
so not do I have a 'hangup.'
>What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
>us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
>attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
>they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
>the issue lies, and I think their solution of actually OFFERING a
custom
>harness for each builder is way above the rest.
No, I don't believe I've lost sight of anything here though YMMV.
<sigh> I even made what I considered constructive suggestions to cope
with what has been perceived by many as an illogical policy. Saying
everyone does it sounds like my 13 YO grandson, "But Dad, all the other
kids get to do that!" In fact, having spent a major portion of my life
as CTO and CEO of a fairly large hi-tech electronics manufacturing
operation with world wide sales, I think I just might have some rather
unique views to share on the subject at hand. Incidentally, over a 15
year period, my combined failure rate of all products for all causes
amounted to about 0.003% . If you think that is easy, please
reconsider your thoughts.
>Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
>(http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
>cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
>expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
>However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
>equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
>you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
>crucify them for it. Jeez.
I suppose Jeez is the operative word here -- see my paragraph above. I
came into this list to learn something. If it's not considered polite
or customary to ask fair and logical questions here, I guess I can
leave as I came in. If you feel comfortable with things at PSE, then
by all means feel free to act accordingly -- I don't believe I have
advised anyone to do otherwise. But please don't accuse me of
crucifying someone just because I have asked hard questions.
>Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
I would hope so! If questions asked of a volunteering product and
policy expert are something you can't tolerate, please feel free to set
up your twit filter to eliminate the aggravation of my posts. If the
rest here feel I've been off base with my questions it will no doubt be
made clear and I'll act accordingly.
I believe Mark is (or at least, should be) perfectly capable of
handling his own affairs.
Message 39
| 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: Electric DG with heading bug |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
Pete,
I did this research a while ago...I've installed a Century NSD 1000 HSI -
it's more than a DG...! I've got the S-Tec 30 also...
This is probably not the answer that your bean counter wants to
hear...however if you want all electric, your choices are slim.
Ralph Capen
----- Original Message -----
From: <PeterHunt1@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Electric DG with heading bug
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
>
> Can anyone direct me to an ELECTRIC (not vacuum) DG with a "Heading Bug"
to
> interface with my System 30 autopilot?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Pete Hunt
> Clearwater, FL
> RV-6, Instrument panel
>
>
Message 40
| 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: DHPHKH@aol.com
Steve,
<<1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your harness,
then wires the other ends incorrectly?
1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does the
rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your view, stand
up to logical explanation?>>
BRAVO!
Dan
Message 41
| 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: Marking wires made easier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Rourke <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
I just checked the "M" type labels that the Brothewr PT65 uses - it's
weird, at 200 degrees (according to the oven), the ink kind of melts,
swells, and runs together - actually makes a kind of blob that you can
then peel off - not good for the engine compartment!
I have yet to try the "TZ" type labels, used by the PT1200 and up...
this is the kind that can do "ink printing on clear laminated adhesive
tape", suitable for the panel - of course, it doesn't need to withstand
200 degrees, but I'd like to know if other TZ tape does. But, TZ tape is
twice as expensive as the "M" type, so it's about the same cost as Dymo.
Incidentally, I received an email from someone not on the list who has
an interestin g offer using Kroytype labels apparently- he asked if I
would forward it, so I will in a separate message. I don't plan to take
advantage of that offer, though, unless my tests with the TZ tape showe
it won't work in the engine compartment.
-John R.
Rick Fogerson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
>
> Do not archive
>
> I'm somewhat confused by all the wire labeling e-mails. Can someone
> summarize what the bottom line is?
>
> Re: labeling instrument panel, sounds like any unit will do that will make
> black letters on clear sticky tape.
>
> Re: labeling wires, sounds like because of the labels being heat sensitive
> (Bobs comment), the Dymo won't work?
> Or is it the kind of tape?
> How about the Brothers unit (PT 1200)? Will its labels take the heat?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Rick Fogerson
> RV3 finish kit
> Boise, ID
>
>
>>I bought the big Dymo or Dyna or whatever. It was 39.99, and has a big
>>keyboard, and will take the clear tapes if you desire. I used white
>>tape with black letters, which is what is included with it. The heat
>>shrink idea will work fine, but this is faster IMHO.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
>>Schroeder
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
>><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>>
>>>If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
>>>highly recommend it.
>>
>>Shannon -
>>
>>The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy
>>a DYMO
>>model labeler?
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 42
| 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: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Do not archive
Oh please. "It's an industry standard, so it's ok." One of my
favorites....
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003 - The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Shannon Knoepflein
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
> --> <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
> I don't understand why you all are all getting upset at Mark
> for PSE's policy. This is NOT an uncommon policy in the
> industry. Actually, it's the NORM. Garmin has it, Avidyne,
> Bendix/King, etc. Apollo might not right now, but they will
> soon when their new product line comes out. This isn't
> something new that PSE just dreamed up. Its just the reality
> of cost of support when the OBAM is only 20% of your market.
[snip]
Message 43
| 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: | [Fwd: Aeroelectirc Labels for John] |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Rourke <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
This is an interesting offer... I'll consider it next week, after I've
had the time to check out my own labeler from Brother using TZ tape.
Here's the homepage of the place mentioned:
http://members.tripod.com/~HANOVER_TECHNICAL/index.html
Here's the offer mentioned on the website for a free wire marker (but
not the same one mentioned by Mike in the email I'm forwarding):
http://members.tripod.com/~HANOVER_TECHNICAL/k2500offer.html
Here's info on the K2500 and K3000 printers and supplies:
http://members.tripod.com/~HANOVER_TECHNICAL/kroy03.html
-John R.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Aeroelectirc Labels for John
From: "Mike Heinen" <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
I get the e mails but am not currently a subscriber....not sure if I can
make a post so if you could send this on...
Hanover Technical Sales will give you a free label printer your choice
of stand along or one that prints from your pc. You have to order 10
label cassettes. They have pre made wire wrap labels, printable heat
shrink (really cool) and all kinds of industrial solvent resistant as
well as normal labels. I got the pc version for building my Glastar. You
can print in any size or type font available on the computer as well as
black and white graphics on the labels and heat shrink. The printers are
Kroy. I have the
K-3000-PC.
You may even suggest if there are several that need labels to get
together and order the cartridges to get the free printer if still
available.
Mike
Message 44
| 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 never said it was ok. I just asked why everyone was yelling at PSE
when they do more than anyone else. Please don't twist my words. My
words and thoughts are very clear.
The fact is that it is an industry standard, and the fact that PSE does
more than others has merit. My only point to this whole thing is why is
everyone upset with PSE when they do more than most.
I agree the industry standard isn't what's best for the typical
AeroElectric list member.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Larry
Bowen
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen"
<Larry@BowenAero.com>
Do not archive
Oh please. "It's an industry standard, so it's ok." One of my
favorites....
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
2003 - The year of flight!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Shannon Knoepflein
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 3:11 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
> --> <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
> I don't understand why you all are all getting upset at Mark
> for PSE's policy. This is NOT an uncommon policy in the
> industry. Actually, it's the NORM. Garmin has it, Avidyne,
> Bendix/King, etc. Apollo might not right now, but they will
> soon when their new product line comes out. This isn't
> something new that PSE just dreamed up. Its just the reality
> of cost of support when the OBAM is only 20% of your market.
[snip]
Message 45
| 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: John Rourke <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
Steve,
While I don't necessarily agree with PSE's policy, I think the answer to
the question you ask is obvious: in the case of the purchased harness,
your purchase pays for hand-holding, even if you screw up the other end.
It's kind of an insurance policy.
It may be more than I need, but it's there if I want it. Otherwise I'll
just assume there's no warranty, and make my purchase decision on the
unit, and on the harness, on that basis.
-John R.
(I snipped the text because it was getting long - if I misattributed
comments to anyone, feel free to correct me)
Quoted text follows:
<somebody asked:>
>>>1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
>>>harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
>>
>>We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
>
>
<You (Steve) asked:>
> And it would not violate the warranty then? Why not?
>
>
<someone also asked:>
>>> 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
>>>the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
>>>view, stand up to logical explanation?
>>
>>I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
>
>
<Your question, rephrased:>
> Please explain the difference between wiring one end of the harness
> correctly and the other end of the harness incorrectly. In both cases,
> most of the error result is identical. In only one case, and then
> assuming your provided harness is correct, do you imply your warranty
> is still valid and that you will work hand in hand with the
> builder. Please explain why this is so?
Message 46
| 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: "James E. Clark" <jclark@conterra.com>
First, I agree with Shannon's comments.
Second, in the grand scheme of things, this is not a showstopper ... neither
for you the builder who wants to "roll your own", nor for PSE who will
continue to sell a LOT of high quality intercoms etc.
Third, and someone else made this point, I would like to see PSE (and others
like them) feel like they can in fact *contibute* to this list and our
knowledge without having to DEFEND every business policy they may have
developed over the years. It has gotten them thus far and may carry them
further. On the other hand, if you think it needs changing for your needs,
then send them an email or call them and tell then so. If they ignore you
and you choose not to buy their stuff then they lose something.
I would also like for them (PSE etc.) to stick around long enough to get
both the spirit of what we talk about here *AND* to hear some specific
needs/requirements we have. THEN if they choose to leverage that insight,
good for them ... and us.
Too often on lists, I have seen company representatives/execs/owners come on
in an attempt to answer questions and end up deciding that the return on the
time investment is simply not worth it. We lose then.
Not asking for kid gloves for anyone ... just look at the big picture.
James
... PSE and DRE intercoms and happy with both companies
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Shannon Knoepflein
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:59 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Shannon Knoepflein"
> <kycshann@kyol.net>
>
> If ACTUALLY providing a custom harness, when no one else is, is not
> leading, then I don't know what is. PSE is NOT doing it the same way
> the rest of the industry is. They have went above and beyond that, yet
> people still want to crucify them.
>
> They've provided a harness when no one else does, and all that they ask
> is that you buy it for a reasonable price. I don't see the hangup? I
> just don't see it.
>
> What you are losing sight of is the fact that most builders aren't like
> us on this list, aren't as technical and don't seek the answers before
> attempting something. However, PSE can't choose to just support US,
> they have to support EVERYONE that buys their product. This is where
> the issue lies, and I think their solution of actually OFFERING a custom
> harness for each builder is way above the rest.
>
> Let me just put it this way......my avionics panel
> (http://shannon.v8eaters.com/images/lancair/Knoepflein-l2k-121302.pdf)
> cost a LOT of money, and has some of the most advanced avionics (and
> expensive) in it from Chelton, Avidyne, Garmin, WSI, PSE, etc, etc.
> However, the ONLY manufacturer that offers a harness for any of this
> equipment (all of which has the same warranty restriction as PSE mind
> you) is PSE. I think that speaks bounds. However, you all want to
> crucify them for it. Jeez.
>
> Seriously, now, back to more important things.....
>
> ---
> Shannon Knoepflein <---> kycshann@kyol.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Canyon
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mic Wiring
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Canyon
> <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
>
> PSENGINE@aol.com wrote:
> >In a message dated 2/18/2003 2:35:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >steve.canyon@verizon.net writes:
> >
> > > 1) What do you do about the warranty if the exp builder buys your
> > > harness, then wires the other ends incorrectly?
> >
> >We work hand and hand with the customer to help him get it right.
>
> And it would not violate the warranty then? Why not?
>
> > > 1A) If the above does not violate your warranty, then how does
> > > the rationale on which you have based your warranty policy, in your
> > > view, stand up to logical explanation?
> >
> >I'm sorry, I don't get this question.
>
> Please explain the difference between wiring one end of the harness
> correctly and the other end of the harness incorrectly. In both cases,
> most of the error result is identical. In only one case, and then
> assuming your provided harness is correct, do you imply your warranty
> is still valid and that you will work hand in hand with the
> builder. Please explain why this is so?
>
> > > 2) Given the state of the art in electronics, and considering these
> > > products deal with only audio and power rails (if this is not
> > correct,
> > > please expound), in what ways does your product design criteria and
> > > implementation disallow self-protection?
> >
> >Power going to ground while ground is going to power. Has this
> happened?
> >More than you'd imagine.
>
> Considering no refutation from you and therefore believing that we are
> dealing here with only power and audio rails, I find this nearly
> inexcusable in a product intended to go into a high reliability
> application such as we encounter in aircraft. Surely there is a reason
> this is so beyond the simple fact it may be, because there are well
> established and inexpensive methods of making your product impervious
> to such a connection, or at least totally non destructive. Since
> reversal of power could be made totally inconsequential to the proper
> performance of the product in any way, that would seem a much better
> design parameter and would probably avoid many support costs you might
> have otherwise.
>
> > > 3) Well, actually I thought of another question: Why was not the
> > > harness subcontractor visited by your QA team when the
> unsatisfactory
> > > harness was first reported, rather than when it became community
> > > knowledge?
> >
> >I was not made aware of this issue. So I failed.
>
> I understand, but I think you're being too hard on yourself, Mark. But
> maybe it will prompt a minor change in your QA procedures to account
> for such in the future and a real benefit can result from it.
>
> To offer another perspective to Shannon's post and your earlier
> comment, just because the rest of the industry does it the same way is
> of no concern to leaders. If you lead, you get to enjoy clear vision
> and your system is not clogged by the dust of the herd. In every case
> of an established industry turned on it's collective head, it has been
> because a new leader emerged with a clear vision of the future. To do
> otherwise is to join the herd. Some are happy with that -- I never was.
>
> On the other hand, rather than say your warranty will be invalidated
> without your harness, why not simply state that repairs will be
> corrected under warranty any way it was wired but a $29.95 charge will
> be made for any user induced failure due to miswiring? Or, if you're
> truly unable to tolerate power reversals, why not sell a simple harness
> for power only and let the builder figure out the rest. Both case
> would of course require some simple documentation for installation.
>
> Either of the above, would no doubt be much more palatable to the
> amateur crowd (who for the most part are anything but amateur) and have
> a sound rationale to back it up.
>
> Respectfully,
> Steve
> Do not archive
>
>
Message 47
| 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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:14 PM 2/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N823ms@aol.com
>
>Bob:
>
> I like the switches on that Switches.pdf file. I am going to ditch
> the
>mag switch. On this file it show a fuel primer switch. We have discussed that
>with my IO-520 engine that a shot of high boost would be sufficient to start
>the engine. The fuel pump will have a high/low boost position. What switch
>would be good for a High-Off-Low, in place of that fuel primer switch that
>it shows?
Instead of the 2-50, you would use a 2-10 wired for single
pole, three position operation as shown in figure 11-17 of
the 'Connection . . . except in this case, you wouldn't
have landing and taxi light fixtures . . . the two loads
would be the low and high speed connections to your fuel
pump system.
Bob . . .
Message 48
| 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: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
John Rourke wrote:
>Steve,
>While I don't necessarily agree with PSE's policy, I think the answer to
>the question you ask is obvious: in the case of the purchased harness,
>your purchase pays for hand-holding, even if you screw up the other end.
>It's kind of an insurance policy.
It may well be, but if so, I think a well thought out policy could be
presented in a way to make that clear and even optional while
maintaining a warranty from literal product defects and not leave the
customer with a bad taste over it either.
But, from Mark's answer to some of my questions he certainly left me
with the impression that his product has no provision for self
protection at all. If this is true, it certainly represents an
inelegant and archaic fundamental design philosophy, which IMHO, is far
worse than a flawed warranty policy.
>It may be more than I need, but it's there if I want it. Otherwise I'll
>just assume there's no warranty, and make my purchase decision on the
>unit, and on the harness, on that basis.
That's certainly not an unreasonable approach and one I may some day
take myself in lieu of better options. The lack of self protection
inherent in the design may well be the primary cause of his concerns
over support costs but since he has bailed out I guess I'll never
know. Either way, one mark of a flawed policy is an inability to
clearly demonstrate the rationale in a manner acceptable to the customers.
While it is not my company and they are certainly free to run it any
way they like with no flak from me, I am very disappointed in the
answers (and lack of answers) I did get. I have no axe to grind here
whatsoever, just a prospective customer.
Message 49
| 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: Canyon <steve.canyon@verizon.net>
James E. Clark wrote:
>I would also like for them (PSE etc.) to stick around long enough to get
>both the spirit of what we talk about here *AND* to hear some specific
>needs/requirements we have. THEN if they choose to leverage that insight,
>good for them ... and us.
---
I certainly agree with that. Everyone usually wins with a give and
take discussion -- I wish he had stayed to participate.
Message 50
| 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: Switch for AH ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski@direcway.com>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/18/03 5:02:28 PM Central Standard Time,
>Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
>
>
>
>>If the aircraft's mission is generally straight and level flight with
>>
>>
>>>occasional gentle or medium turns, this is less of a factor and keeping
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>gyros powered may be better in that turbulence is less likely to bounce
>>>
>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>gyro off the limits stops, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
This is probably true for gyros with limit stops, but those gyros belong
to a museum. Good contemporary gyros have 360 degrees fredom in every
direction of motion, and the plane rolls and loops around them in
aerobatic figures. It seems that the only mechanism that would load them
more in aerobatics is due to higher g forces, but these forces would
be the same no matter if the gyro is on or off.
Jerzy.
Message 51
| 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: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> > >So is a switch to run the AI only for intended use a worthwhile idea ?
What about the possibility of leaving the switch off, then forgetting to
cover the giro and including the giro in you're scan. Could cause
disorientation or confusion at a bad time. I'd vote for no switch.
John Slade
Message 52
| 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: Marking wires made easier |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alfred Buess" <Alfred.Buess@shl.bfh.ch>
John,
In there product information for the PT-2420PC, Brother say that the TZ-band material
is fine up to 300 degrees centigrade. If this is true, I don't see any
problems with marking wires even in the engine compartment.
Alfred
>>> jrourke@allied-computer.com 02/19 2:23 >>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Rourke <jrourke@allied-computer.com>
I just checked the "M" type labels that the Brothewr PT65 uses - it's
weird, at 200 degrees (according to the oven), the ink kind of melts,
swells, and runs together - actually makes a kind of blob that you can
then peel off - not good for the engine compartment!
I have yet to try the "TZ" type labels, used by the PT1200 and up...
this is the kind that can do "ink printing on clear laminated adhesive
tape", suitable for the panel - of course, it doesn't need to withstand
200 degrees, but I'd like to know if other TZ tape does. But, TZ tape is
twice as expensive as the "M" type, so it's about the same cost as Dymo.
Incidentally, I received an email from someone not on the list who has
an interestin g offer using Kroytype labels apparently- he asked if I
would forward it, so I will in a separate message. I don't plan to take
advantage of that offer, though, unless my tests with the TZ tape showe
it won't work in the engine compartment.
-John R.
Rick Fogerson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
>
> Do not archive
>
> I'm somewhat confused by all the wire labeling e-mails. Can someone
> summarize what the bottom line is?
>
> Re: labeling instrument panel, sounds like any unit will do that will make
> black letters on clear sticky tape.
>
> Re: labeling wires, sounds like because of the labels being heat sensitive
> (Bobs comment), the Dymo won't work?
> Or is it the kind of tape?
> How about the Brothers unit (PT 1200)? Will its labels take the heat?
>
> Thanks for any help,
> Rick Fogerson
> RV3 finish kit
> Boise, ID
>
>
>>I bought the big Dymo or Dyna or whatever. It was 39.99, and has a big
>>keyboard, and will take the clear tapes if you desire. I used white
>>tape with black letters, which is what is included with it. The heat
>>shrink idea will work fine, but this is faster IMHO.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
>>Schroeder
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Marking wires made easier
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder
>><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>>
>>>If the PT1200 is the bigger unit from Dyna with the bigger keyboard, I
>>>highly recommend it.
>>
>>Shannon -
>>
>>The PT1200 is made by Brother. Is that the one you bought or did you buy
>>a DYMO
>>model labeler?
>>
>>John
>>
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! --
|