Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:08 AM - Trim Wiring ()
2. 06:24 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:28 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (Randy Pflanzer)
4. 06:30 AM - Re: 10446 Prichard (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:53 AM - Re: E-mail Contact Request (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:22 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (Michel Therrien)
7. 09:59 AM - Re: Trim Wiring (MikeEasley@aol.com)
8. 12:06 PM - Re: Trim Wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 12:28 PM - Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? (Julia)
10. 01:04 PM - Irrecom question. (Ian Scott)
11. 01:30 PM - Re: Landing Light - on e-buss or main (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:46 PM - Re: Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? (Matt Prather)
13. 01:54 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Rob Housman)
14. 01:59 PM - Limited Power Circuits/Fault Detection-Interruption (KITFOXZ@aol.com)
15. 02:45 PM - Off Topic - Mayor Daley kills Meigs Field in night time raid. (Sam Hoskins)
16. 04:55 PM - Re: Electrical System Gremlin (Jim Stone)
17. 05:36 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Ed Holyoke)
18. 06:44 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Terry Watson)
19. 06:58 PM - Re: Electrical System Gremlin (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:11 PM - Re: Limited Power Circuits/Fault (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:54 PM - Re: Irrecom question. (Rino)
22. 11:51 PM - Re: Filter inductor question (Gilles.Thesee)
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: <danobrien@cox.net>
Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I notice that diagrams at the Connection
and Ray Allen call for two breakers (or fuses) for each trim system: one
for the wire supplying power to the servo, and one for the wire that powers
the LED indicator. That gives six breakers for a three axis trim system. Is
there any reason not to run the servo and the indicator off the same breaker
for each system to economize on the number of breakers?
Thanks,
Dan
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:05 AM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <danobrien@cox.net>
>
>Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I notice that diagrams at
>the Connection and Ray Allen call for two breakers (or fuses) for each
>trim system: one for the wire supplying power to the servo, and one for
>the wire that powers the LED indicator. That gives six breakers for a
>three axis trim system. Is there any reason not to run the servo and the
>indicator off the same breaker for each system to economize on the number
>of breakers?
Purists like to have separate supplies for each system
such that faults which open circuit protection for one
system doesn't take down other systems. To the degree
that you're willing to be less than pure, wire as you
see fit. If you're using fuseblocks, then having lots
of protected circuits becomes less of an issue for both
expense and panel space.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Randy Pflanzer <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
I think the reason is to drive the trim motors off of the essential bus
and the indicators off of the main bus, to conserve electrons in
an "essentail bus" situation. It is okay to drive them all off of the
same bus feed if you chose to do it that way.
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/f1rocket/
----- Original Message -----
From: danobrien@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim Wiring
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <danobrien@cox.net>
>
> Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I notice that
> diagrams at the Connection and Ray Allen call for two breakers (or
> fuses) for each trim system: one for the wire supplying power to
> the servo, and one for the wire that powers the LED indicator.
> That gives six breakers for a three axis trim system. Is there
> any reason not to run the servo and the indicator off the same
> breaker for each system to economize on the number of breakers?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
>
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= !! NEWish !!
> _-
>
======================================================================_-
= List Related Information
> _-
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 10446 Prichard |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:08 AM 3/31/2003 +0000, you wrote:
>Below is the result of your inquiry. It was submitted by
>Devon Prichard (dsprichard@mindspring.com) on Sunday, March 30, 2003 at
>22:08:43
>
>Sunday, March 30, 2003
>
>Devon Prichard
>
>,
>Email: dsprichard@mindspring.com
>Comments/Questions: Bob, I've skimmed thru your electrics book and enjoyed
>it a lot. One puzzler for me is, do we really need a battery contactor?
>The main function I can imagine it doing is preventing parasitic loads
>from draining the battery during long-term disuse. But an unintended
>inflight disconnect would be ugly. Seems like the long term parking
>problem would be better addressed with a plain ol' knife switch. Cars
>don't have battery contactors/relays.
You need a battery switch located as close to the battery
as possible so that in the event of an inevitable but unplanned
arrival with the ground, you can get as much of ship's wiring
"cold" as possible. Whether you do this with a contactor or
a switch is your choice. An old Tri-Pacer I used to fly
had a battery master switch for a battery mounted under
the right front seat.
Now, if you're considering a compromise of convenience
and control due to concern about contactor reliability,
keep in mind that one of two reasons for the e-bus was
to assist in dealing comfortably with a contactor failure.
Consider also that a simple battery master switch leaves
open the possibility of leaving an alternator on line with
the battery off line . . . an unpredictable and sometimes
unhappy condition.
Contactor failure is rare. I wouldn't do a contactor-less
battery master switch in my airplane.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
You can join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
|---------------------------------------------------|
| A lie can travel half way around the world while |
| the truth is till putting on its shoes . . . |
| -Mark Twain- |
|---------------------------------------------------|
Bob . . .
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: E-mail Contact Request |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:23 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
> Thanks for the reply. The only additional question I have is what
>am I looking for, as the pilot, for failure states on the alternator.
>Obviously, no output is one. Then there would be higher than normal
>output. Any others? Thanks.
Alternators FAIL, and they go into over voltage which is
caught by an ov protection system and converted
to a FAILed condition. So basically, you have either a
working alternator or you don't . . . no special conditions.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien <mtherr@yahoo.com>
They recommend a 1A fuse for the indicator and an 1A
fuse for the servo. I checked how much current these
devices are taking and elected to use a single 1A fuse
for both of them.
--- danobrien@cox.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> <danobrien@cox.net>
>
> Question about wiring Ray Allen trim servos. I
> notice that diagrams at the Connection and Ray Allen
> call for two breakers (or fuses) for each trim
> system: one for the wire supplying power to the
> servo, and one for the wire that powers the LED
> indicator. That gives six breakers for a three axis
> trim system. Is there any reason not to run the
> servo and the indicator off the same breaker for
> each system to economize on the number of breakers?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
I asked Mac the same question. They recommend the indicators be on the
avionics bus and the trim be on the main bus. I guess the indicators are
"sensitive to electrical spikes, etc." That's why you end up with one fuse
for each.
I don't want to start the whole arguement over the avionics bus, so please
don't go there. I don't know the answer to the question of whether the
indicators can handle whatever little gremlins exist on the main bus during
starting. We already know the avionics can, but only Mac could answer the
question about their indicators. It could be a "just in case" deal or maybe
a bunch of indicators have failed in the past.
Mac also told me that there's no reason to put each trim circuit on a
separate breaker/fuse since you only use one trim motor at a time and they
draw such little current you wouldn't trip the circuit if you ran two motors
at once anyway.
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:56 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
>
>I asked Mac the same question. They recommend the indicators be on the
>avionics bus and the trim be on the main bus. I guess the indicators are
>"sensitive to electrical spikes, etc." That's why you end up with one fuse
>for each.
BS . . . their indicators are not sensitive to any "spike"
your airplane is going to generate.
>I don't want to start the whole arguement over the avionics bus, so please
>don't go there. I don't know the answer to the question of whether the
>indicators can handle whatever little gremlins exist on the main bus during
>starting. We already know the avionics can, but only Mac could answer the
>question about their indicators. It could be a "just in case" deal or maybe
>a bunch of indicators have failed in the past.
I've had their indicators apart . . . any concerns they might
express are figments of their imagination and/or manifestations
of their lack of understanding about the machines for which
they design products.
>Mac also told me that there's no reason to put each trim circuit on a
>separate breaker/fuse since you only use one trim motor at a time and they
>draw such little current you wouldn't trip the circuit if you ran two motors
>at once anyway.
This totally misses the point. It's not a matter of how
much current their product draws . . . it's a choice about
allowing single FAILURE in any one system to take down
more than the single system.
Keep in mind, these guys are black box designers. They
may or may not be pilots. If they are pilots, they are
undoubtedly tainted by decades of dogma. YOU are the system
designer and the pilot who will have to fly it. It's up
to you to decide the rational for whether you provide
independent power sources for each product in the airplane
or choose to pile numerous devices on a single protected
feed.
Bob . . .
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: | Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
Bob:
If I remember correctly you put the landing light on the Main buss - rather than
on the E-bus. Wouldn't it be good to be able to turn it on when landing at
night?? If it appeared to be killing my bat. then I could flip it off again and
land without it - but if I had enough juise in the bat. why not make it so I
could use it??
---------------------------------
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: | Irrecom question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" <jabiru22@yahoo.com.au>
HI,
I am looking to build a intercom that will do the following with a
Microair 760 radio 4 place plane
I have some reasonable electrical experience, I am just liiking for a
design.
1 VOX as the radio is a hot mike setup and I want to save some extra
noise.
2 various inputs, some are both in and out and some are only inputs
Both way would be
Sat phone
CDMA phone
Handheld com
UHF radio
And input only would be
Tpas
CD player
Alt alert (from transponder)
And maybe a master caution alarm
Thanks
Ian
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Landing Light - on e-buss or main |
buss???
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:27 PM 3/31/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>
>Bob:
>
>If I remember correctly you put the landing light on the Main buss -
>rather than on the E-bus. Wouldn't it be good to be able to turn it on
>when landing at night?? If it appeared to be killing my bat. then I could
>flip it off again and land without it - but if I had enough juise in the
>bat. why not make it so I could use it??
E stands for "endurance" . . . these are the things needed
to get you to airport-in-sight, battery-only after an alternator
failure. Once the airport is in sight -AND- you are cleared to
land, turn the master back on and use whatever battery you have
left to increase your level of comfort for approach and landing.
If you don't have enough battery left, then it shouldn't matter
by this time in the flight.
Bob . . .
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: Landing Light - on e-buss or main buss??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I would put the landing light onto the main bus because it will only be
used during the final portions of the approach, by which time the main
bus can be re-lit. The battery WILL have the capacity to power
everything you need for the few minutes that you are on approach
because you designed your airplane to have more battery than gasoline,
right?
The e(ndurance)-bus is designed to have only the minimum equipment
required for long distance flight on your remaining power source. The landing
light doesn't fit into the category of things that are needed for
endurance. The
goal of the e-bus is to turn off everything but the things required to
keep the
wings upright, stay on course, and be able to tell someone about it.
Further, since the e-bus (in the architectures I have been looking at, like
z-11) is fed by a diode, the more power you run through it, the more power
it dissipates. This might be a minor issue, but I think its worth
considering.
Once you have a 8A (100W) light turned on, you are burning an additional
4.8W (8A*0.6V) just running it through the diode. I think 4W will keep
the main
bus contactor closed.
Matt-
N34RD
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Julia <wings97302@yahoo.com>
>
>
> Bob:
>
> If I remember correctly you put the landing light on the Main buss -
> rather than on the E-bus. Wouldn't it be good to be able to turn it on
> when landing at night?? If it appeared to be killing my bat. then I
> could flip it off again and land without it - but if I had enough juise
> in the bat. why not make it so I could use it??
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Irrecom question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Check out http://www.rst-engr.com/ for an audio panel kit with intercom for
US$278.
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 Ian Scott
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott" <jabiru22@yahoo.com.au>
HI,
I am looking to build a intercom that will do the following with a
Microair 760 radio 4 place plane
I have some reasonable electrical experience, I am just liiking for a
design.
1 VOX as the radio is a hot mike setup and I want to save some extra
noise.
2 various inputs, some are both in and out and some are only inputs
Both way would be
Sat phone
CDMA phone
Handheld com
UHF radio
And input only would be
Tpas
CD player
Alt alert (from transponder)
And maybe a master caution alarm
Thanks
Ian
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: | Limited Power Circuits/Fault Detection-Interruption |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
Hello Bob,
I like your comment of: "Sometimes the best way to hit a nail is with a
hammer!"
BUT....
Do you know of any move to design aircraft circuits to be either "power
limited" or "fault detection-interruptable" instead of "Max current limited"
as a protection against smoke in the cockpit? Is sizing load
current/wire/fuse/breaker combinations all that should be considered? Would
fault detection prior to a smoke event be practical at all to accomplish?
Would you guess that such technology will turn out to be another nuisance
trip merry-go-round?
Swissair's 1998 flight 111 (MD-11) crash was found to be caused by "sparks"
from "faulty wiring" that ignited "flammable insulation" above the cockpit.
Obviously the circuit of cause was sized large enough to provide enough power
to its load resistances and short or (lower resistance) circuit current
limitation was inadequate to prevent a fire.
I guess removing the "flammable insulation" from the design is the first and
most important fix but what about a design that will not allow a "fault" to
occur that will not also cause the circuit to open? Supply/return leg
current transducers looking for equal readings before deciding to shut the
juice off? Micro smoke detectors every few inches? Too much variation from
KISS here?
How is Dee healing these days?
John P. Marzluf
Columbus, Ohio
Kitfox Outback (out back in the garage)
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: | Off Topic - Mayor Daley kills Meigs Field in night |
time raid.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Hoskins" <shoskins@globaleyes.net>
MERE WORDS CANNOT EXPRESS MY DISGUST REGARDING THIS ACT OF TERRORISM.
Tribune staff reports
Published March 31, 2003, 1:34 PM CST
Saying he acted out of concern for public safety and desire to spare
citizens "months and maybe years" of contentious debate, Mayor Richard Daley
today defended his decision to close Meigs Field and have its runway torn up
in the dark of night.
"We have done this to protect the millions of people who live, work and
visit downtown Chicago in these very uncertain times," Daley said at a City
Hall news conference after construction equipment early this morning put
Meigs out of commission.
"The safety of the entire city has to take precedence over the wishes of a
handful of private pilots and business people," the mayor said.
But Daley, who has long sought to close Meigs and replace it with a park and
nature preserve, said the city had received no specific threat about a
possible terrorist attack involving a private aircraft.
About 11 p.m. Sunday, several backhoes, large trucks carrying floodlights,
generators and other equipment arrived at the airport and started working on
the north-to-south runway. Chicago police barred access to the field for
anyone else.
At dawn, the view from atop the Adler Planetarium showed a series of large,
signs marked either end of the runway. The action came without public
notice.
Asked why the city took the action without warning, Daley said: "To do this
any other way would have been needlessly contentious and jeopardized public
safety and prolonged concerns and anxiety among Chicagoans for months and
maybe years."
The city has operated Meigs under a month-to-month lease with the Chicago
Park District. The park district has terminated the lease, so the city had
no choice but to close the airport, city officials said.
Daley said the March 22 federal implementation of a no-fly zone over the
city was "simply not enough" to ensure the safety of the public.
That rule prohibited small aircraft from flying within 3,000 feet of the
ground over downtown and much of the North Side, but allowed continued
access to Meigs.
But Daley complained that a temporary flight restriction could be rescinded
at any time.
"More important, it does not address the problem that occurs every day as
aircraft approach Meigs Field, with a few hundred yards and only a few
seconds' flight time from out tallest buildings."
The mayor also expressed concern for the safety of "hundreds of thousands of
people" at city festivals, museums and beaches within range of planes at
Meigs. "With a sudden turn, they can cause a terrible tragedy downtown or in
our crowded parks."
Daley promised that, if the Federal Aviation Administration doesn't let
owners of 16 planes stranded at Meigs use a still-intact taxiway for
takeoff, the city will reimburse them for removal of their craft by other
means.
Steve Whitney, former president of Friends of Meigs Field, criticized the
city's use of national security as justification for closing the airport.
Whitney said medical and air-sea rescue aircraft use Meigs, which he
contended could also be used by emergency aircraft following a downtown
disaster.
"It makes absolutely no sense from any standpoint, particularly for homeland
security, to close Meigs Field," Whitney said.
At a City Hall press conference after Daley spoke, Whitney described the
mayor's action as "a land grab" and "an abuse of power." He said that his
organization would study possible legal action.
"We are absolutely shocked and dismayed," said Phil Boyer, president of the
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, another organization that has fought
Meigs' closing.
"Mayor Daley has no honor and his word has no value," Boyer said. "The
sneaky way he did this shows that he knows it was wrong."
But Boyer and an FAA spokesman conceded that the city appeared to have the
legal right to close Meigs.
"The city can do this because Meigs is an unobligated airport," said the
FAA's Tony Molinaro. About three years ago, Chicago repaid federal grant
funds that had been used to improve Meigs, he said.
The closure did not violate FAA regulations, and the city had the authority
to issue a formal Notice to Airmen notifying pilots of the closed runway,
Molinaro said. An official with the Chicago Department of Aviation said the
notice was issued at 3:02 a.m.
"We at the FAA were concerned to learn this morning of the decision to close
Meigs Field, and we have heard already from members of the general aviation
community, and we share their concern," Molinaro said.
"We feel that removing any centrally located airport such as Meigs from the
national airspace system only diminishes capacity and puts added pressure on
O'Hare and Midway airports.''
Last year, Meigs handled 32,000 takeoffs and landings.
Separately, a spokeswoman for Gov. Rod Blagojevich said the governor also
was not told of Daley's plans, but supported the mayor's decision to close
Meigs as a matter of public safety.
Daley originally intended to close the airport in February 2002 and turn it
into a park and nature preserve, but he held off doing so to win then-Gov.
George Ryan's support for federal legislation backing the $6.6 billion
expansion of O'Hare International Airport.
Under terms of a deal reached with Ryan in December 2001, Daley agreed to
keep the lakefront airport open until Jan. 1, 2026, although Meigs could
have been closed anytime after Jan. 1, 2006, by a vote of the General
Assembly.
The deal was supposed to have been solidified in federal legislation
endorsing the O'Hare expansion.
But U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, earlier this month declared
the federal bill dead because of opposition from his Republican counterpart,
U.S. Sen. Peter Fitzgerald.
Asked about that deal at today's news conference, Daley replied, "There is
no agreement whatsoever."
"The agreement is not in existence. There's no federal legislation," Daley
said.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Gremlin |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Tom,
Read Bob's book and then wire your airplane, not in reverse order.
Jim
>
> Just finished up all the Electrics on my RV6-A in the Hanger (garage) out
back and have a small Gremlin. Everything works including transmit and
receiving on both Comm's.
> Symptoms are as follows after turning on the Master:
> 1) About a 15 Amp. discharge shown on the Amp. Gauge
with only the Oil Pressure Light and BC Regulator Charge light activated?
> 2) Everything works with no more discharge shown no
matter how many things are brought online?
> 3) Now it gets interesting........If I transmit on
either radio the following occurs:
> a) CHT & EXT Gauges dance like crazy!
> b) Amp Gauge goes Nuts!
> c) Flap & Trim Indicators leds dance!
> d) Fuel gauges advance very slightly even though
the wings and thus indicators are not hooked up?
> The airport which is 3 miles away says I am transmitting
crystal clear even from inside my garage with a belly antenna?!?
> Any suggestions of where to start looking would be appreciated as I
don't want to put the forward skin down till I get this fixed.
>
Tom in Ohio
>
>
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: | Irrecom question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Check out :
http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/comparison.html
2 1/4" radio with more power than the microair and 4 place intercom
built in.
Ed Holyoke
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Housman
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 1:54 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question.
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-
> ef.com>
>
> Check out http://www.rst-engr.com/ for an audio panel kit with
intercom
> for
> US$278.
>
>
> 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 Ian
> Scott
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question.
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ian Scott"
> <jabiru22@yahoo.com.au>
>
> HI,
>
> I am looking to build a intercom that will do the following with a
> Microair 760 radio 4 place plane
>
> I have some reasonable electrical experience, I am just liiking for a
> design.
>
> 1 VOX as the radio is a hot mike setup and I want to save some extra
> noise.
> 2 various inputs, some are both in and out and some are only inputs
> Both way would be
> Sat phone
> CDMA phone
> Handheld com
> UHF radio
>
> And input only would be
> Tpas
> CD player
> Alt alert (from transponder)
> And maybe a master caution alarm
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Irrecom question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
I have been watching that website for some months. I really like the radio,
but it doesn't seem to have US FCC approval yet, so I doubt if we can buy
it. They also have an interesting intercom that I think is a part of the
radio that can be bought as a stand-alone intercom.
Terry
server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
Check out :
http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/comparison.html
2 1/4" radio with more power than the microair and 4 place intercom
built in.
Ed Holyoke
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: Electrical System Gremlin |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:09 PM 3/30/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin"
><tcervin@valkyrie.net>
>
> Just finished up all the Electrics on my RV6-A in the Hanger (garage)
> out back and have a small Gremlin. Everything works including transmit
> and receiving on both Comm's.
> Symptoms are as follows after turning on the Master:
> 1) About a 15 Amp. discharge shown on the Amp. Gauge
> with only the Oil Pressure Light and BC Regulator Charge light activated?
> 2) Everything works with no more discharge shown no
> matter how many things are brought online?
> 3) Now it gets interesting........If I transmit on
> either radio the following occurs:
> a) CHT & EXT Gauges dance like crazy!
> b) Amp Gauge goes Nuts!
> c) Flap & Trim Indicators leds dance!
> d) Fuel gauges advance very slightly even
> though the wings and thus indicators are not hooked up?
> The airport which is 3 miles away says I am transmitting
> crystal clear even from inside my garage with a belly antenna?!?
> Any suggestions of where to start looking would be appreciated as I
> don't want to put the forward skin down till I get this fixed.
sounds like an RF interference problem . . . had another
builder with similar situation just a week ago. Where
are your antennas located?
Bob . . .
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: Limited Power Circuits/Fault |
Detection-Interruption
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:57 PM 3/31/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: KITFOXZ@aol.com
>
>Hello Bob,
>
>I like your comment of: "Sometimes the best way to hit a nail is with a
>hammer!"
>
>BUT....
>
>Do you know of any move to design aircraft circuits to be either "power
>limited" or "fault detection-interruptable" instead of "Max current limited"
>as a protection against smoke in the cockpit? Is sizing load
>current/wire/fuse/breaker combinations all that should be considered? Would
>fault detection prior to a smoke event be practical at all to accomplish?
>Would you guess that such technology will turn out to be another nuisance
>trip merry-go-round?
Sure, but can't do it very often. One good example is illustrated
in powering up indicator lamps. I've done some designs where the
current limiting resistor for LEDs are right at the bus. A dead short
to ground downstream just makes the resistor get warmer. One
could do a similar thing with other lamps . . . use a lower voltage
lamp and install dropping resistor right at the bus.
Some gaging systems like fuel gages, oil pressure gages, etc
could be configured to use this philosophy. Obviously, this
technique is limited to very low power systems.
>Swissair's 1998 flight 111 (MD-11) crash was found to be caused by "sparks"
>from "faulty wiring" that ignited "flammable insulation" above the cockpit.
>Obviously the circuit of cause was sized large enough to provide enough power
>to its load resistances and short or (lower resistance) circuit current
>limitation was inadequate to prevent a fire.
I think that airplane used Kynar insulated wire . . . supposedly very
tough,
VERY thin, but prone to cracking. Stay with tefzel and don't worry about
it.
>I guess removing the "flammable insulation" from the design is the first and
>most important fix . . .
. . . you got that right. For all the hoops they jump
us through for flammability issues, I'm mystified as to
how the MD-80 had such materials on board . . .
> . . . but what about a design that will not allow a "fault" to
>occur that will not also cause the circuit to open? Supply/return leg
>current transducers looking for equal readings before deciding to shut the
>juice off? Micro smoke detectors every few inches? Too much variation from
>KISS here?
There are folks offering soft fault detection in smart circuit
breakers . . . you don't want to know what these cost.
>How is Dee healing these days?
We been going to the gym every morning for the past two weeks.
She's up to 50# on the ab-crunch machine. She's also been up
to her elbows in the garden dirt the past two days. All the
gardens got neglected the last two years of her graduate studies.
She took her mom to their favorite greenhouse last week
and came home with a van-load of new "bushes" of various
kinds. I was hoping she'd stuff some boards for me today
but the weather was too nice and her gardens were calling.
Thanks for asking.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Irrecom question. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rino <lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca>
I was told 6 weeks before US FCC approval.
They have a booth at Sun N Fun
Rino
Terry Watson wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> I have been watching that website for some months. I really like the radio,
> but it doesn't seem to have US FCC approval yet, so I doubt if we can buy
> it. They also have an interesting intercom that I think is a part of the
> radio that can be bought as a stand-alone intercom.
>
> Terry
>
> server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed Holyoke
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Irrecom question.
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Holyoke" <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Check out :
>
> http://www.mcp.com.au/xcom760/comparison.html
>
> 2 1/4" radio with more power than the microair and 4 place intercom
> built in.
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
--
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Filter inductor question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bob,
Thanks for the responding.
>
> I measured one on the bench and it comes out to about 1 Millihenry
> and is wound with 22AWG wire which gives it a current rating on the
> order of 2A or so.
>
Is it in the form of a strait coil, or some torroidal affair ?
Another question : the filter ground is to be connected to the firewall
ground bus (composite airplane), correct ?
> Why not a 2A fuse on the battery bus? Makes the hand held
> operable with everything else off for whatever reason.
> Of course, you don't want to walk away leaving the hand
> held turned on.
Good idea !
Thanks again
Gilles
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! --
|