Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:16 AM - location of the starter contactor (Ron Raby)
2. 06:37 AM - Re: King 520 CDI GS Flag (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:56 AM - Re: location of the starter contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:36 AM - Re: location of the starter contactor (Ron Raby)
5. 07:36 AM - Re: Windows viewable sketches (was Todd's Coolant Header Tank...) (Rob Housman)
6. 11:34 AM - Comant Communications Antenna Mounting (Doug Landmann)
7. 05:54 PM - Re: Comant Communications Antenna Mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:34 PM - Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:58 PM - Re: aircraft microphones (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:54 PM - Electric T&B noise (Dave Grosvenor)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | location of the starter contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Are there any concerns with mounting the starter contactor remote?
Like 20 ft away and going through a 1/4-20 stud on the firewall and then on
to the starter?
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
N829R
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: King 520 CDI GS Flag |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:22 AM 5/3/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Derrick <scott@tnstaafl.net>
>
>I just hooked up a King 520 CDI to my Garmin GNC300
>
>Everything works as per the Garmin manual. However the 520 has a GS and
>GS flag. I left the GS flag pins floating thinking it would retract
>automatically but it doesn't.
>
>I'm only using the Garmin to drive the 520 right now so I would like to
>retract the GS flag when ever power is applied to the avionics stack.
>
>I have two pins, GS+ and GS-, which pin do I pull to ground or common
>and which do I pull up to 14 volts to get the flag to retract? Do I
>need to put a resister in line to limit the current? If so does 10K
>sound about right?
Those are meter movement type motors that raise the flags. I don't
recall now what current it takes to fully raise one but there is
a spec and it's part of the acceptance test procedure for the instrument.
Start out with 0.1 ma (100 uA) which is a 150K resistor. Increase
by factor of 2x (75k, 36k, 18k, etc) until the flag is out of sight.
This empirical procedure will let you sneak up on the right value
without endangering the instruments inner works.
Alternatively, someone at an avionics shop might be able to tell
you the typical flag current . . . I think it's relatively standard
throughout the industry.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: location of the starter contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:15 AM 5/5/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>
>Are there any concerns with mounting the starter contactor remote?
>Like 20 ft away and going through a 1/4-20 stud on the firewall and then on
>to the starter?
>
>Thanks
>
>Ron Raby
>
>Lancair ES
This was discussed in detail about a week ago here on the
list. The short answer is "yes, there are concerns."
Suggest you check the archives over the past three weeks
or so.
BTW, 1/4-20 is a tad light for firewall penetrations by
fat wires . .. 5/16 is the lightest hardware recommended
and it should be brass.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: location of the starter contactor |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
thanks, I will. the 1/4-20 studs were put in by the factory. I will replace
them
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: location of the starter contactor
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:15 AM 5/5/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
<ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> >
> >
> >Are there any concerns with mounting the starter contactor remote?
> >Like 20 ft away and going through a 1/4-20 stud on the firewall and then
on
> >to the starter?
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Ron Raby
> >
> >Lancair ES
>
> This was discussed in detail about a week ago here on the
> list. The short answer is "yes, there are concerns."
> Suggest you check the archives over the past three weeks
> or so.
>
> BTW, 1/4-20 is a tad light for firewall penetrations by
> fat wires . .. 5/16 is the lightest hardware recommended
> and it should be brass.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
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: | Windows viewable sketches (was Todd's Coolant Header |
Tank...)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <RobH@hyperion-ef.com>
Just about any cad software can open a dxf file for editing, and those same
programs can save to that "universal" drawing file format.
If your intent is simply to permit others to view your drawings (as opposed
to editing them) AutoCad will do the job. Use the help function and the
search term "raster file plotter" to find out how to save an AutoCad file as
a graphic. The first paragraph in the help window (in AutoCad 2000) is . .
. .
"Plotting to Raster File Formats
The nonsystem raster driver supports several raster file formats, including
Windows BMP, CALS, TIFF, PNG, TGA, PCX, and JPEG. The raster driver is most
commonly used to plot to files for desktop publishing. "
. . . . with further detail to follow. Most of these file types can be
opened in Paint.
Another scheme that will permit anyone to view your drawings by using the
free Adobe Acrobat Reader is for you to use FinePrint to save the file in
Adobe Acrobat's pdf format. Go to www.fineprint.com and download the free
version of that program.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of David
Carter
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Windows viewable sketches (was Todd's Coolant
Header Tank...)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
<dcarter@datarecall.net>
Todd ( and/or others on all 3 lists who know how to create "Windows viewable
sketches",
This is a "builder documentation" and "builder put out sketches for peer
review" question/issue.
Todd, I looked at your pictures and the color sketch of your coolant system,
a .jpg file.
Did you do the sketch free hand and scan it? Or, did you use some software
product to draw/sketch it?
With your .jpg file sketch opened and viewed by my Kodak "Imaging for
Windows", I studied the Help document and tried some things, to try to learn
how to "draw" - no luck. The drawing toolbar at bottom is greyed out.
- I notice at the very top of screen, it says, after the icon for the
Imaging viewer software: "Coolant flow system.jpg - Imaging [Read Only]"
- Why would it be "Read Only"? Is there a feature like in spreadsheets
which can be "locked" to prevent changing critical cells?
- Is my "bundled" software one of those damnable "lite" (less features)
versions of "real" software?
I have Intellicad, an Autocad clone, to create drawings with, but drawings
created that way require anyone wanting to view it to have a similar
software package, which many do not.
- So, I'm looking for a drawing tool other than Intellicad/Autocad that
can be viewed by anyone with Windows (and the typical viewers bundled with
it).
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Haywire" <haywire@telus.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Coolant header tank & Coolant filler neck thingy???
> Hi Guys;
> I've been away at tech school for a few months and am just beginning to
get
> back to work on my engine. I did fly home every weekend, but just worked
on
> painting the plane so this is the first I've worked on the engine since
> doing coolant flow tests back in December.
> In an effort to design the most efficient coolant system possible, I've
> built my own header tank. I've drawn a diagram of the system similar to
the
> diagram provided by Lyn. To finish this tank I need to put a cap on it. I
> searched the internet for aluminum filler necks and found some in England,
> but while looking through my repair manual I found a pic of a bolt-on
> plastic flange mount filler neck. This is shown in the pic "rad cap filler
> neck". Can somebody out there tell me if this is just a mount for a filler
> cap or if it is for a pressure cap? Can I also get the dimensions of it
with
> & without the cap.
> The "coolantheadertank" pics show how it will be mounted & the "coolant
> recovery bottle" pic is an old snowmobile coolant tank modified. Side port
> on this tank has been plugged and bottom port has been modified to accept
a
> 3/8 hose.
> Comments, criticism are welcome, but I'd really like the info on the
filler
> neck thingy, so I can order one tomorrow if it is appropriate.
> Thanks
>
> S. Todd Bartrim
> Turbo 13B rotary powered
> RV-9endurance (FWF)
> C-FSTB
> http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
>
> "Imagination is more important than Knowledge"
> -Albert Einstein
>
>
> ---
> Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/03
>
----
> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>
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: | Comant Communications Antenna Mounting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Doug Landmann <douglandmann@wi.rr.com>
I am posting this for a friend who has a flying RV-6. He is removing a
wing tip communications antenna and replacing it with a Comant
communications antenna. His question has to do with the necessity of
removing all the paint in the area where the die cast aluminum antenna base
contacts the metal skin of the aircraft and the added use of a conductive
grease (embedded silver particles) between the antenna base and the
aircraft skin. A hangar neighbor explained to him that complete paint
removal was necessary to prevent possible future corrosion. And that the
conductive grease assisted in the reduction of corrosion and completes the
electrical ground plane circuit to include the aluminum base. My
understanding of antenna theory is that the aluminum fuselage would serve
as the ground plane and that the 1.5" diameter of the antenna base would
not enhance the ground plane significantly and that had the manufacturer
felt it necessary to have the base grounded they would have done so
internally via the shielded portion of the coaxial conductor. Would his
removal of all the paint and application of conductive grease improve his
communications performance or provide for a more long-term trouble free
installation or if nothing else do no harm?
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Comant Communications Antenna Mounting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:33 PM 5/5/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Doug Landmann
><douglandmann@wi.rr.com>
>
>I am posting this for a friend who has a flying RV-6. He is removing a
>wing tip communications antenna and replacing it with a Comant
>communications antenna. His question has to do with the necessity of
>removing all the paint in the area where the die cast aluminum antenna base
>contacts the metal skin of the aircraft and the added use of a conductive
>grease (embedded silver particles) between the antenna base and the
>aircraft skin. A hangar neighbor explained to him that complete paint
>removal was necessary to prevent possible future corrosion. And that the
>conductive grease assisted in the reduction of corrosion and completes the
>electrical ground plane circuit to include the aluminum base. My
>understanding of antenna theory is that the aluminum fuselage would serve
>as the ground plane and that the 1.5" diameter of the antenna base would
>not enhance the ground plane significantly and that had the manufacturer
>felt it necessary to have the base grounded they would have done so
>internally via the shielded portion of the coaxial conductor. Would his
>removal of all the paint and application of conductive grease improve his
>communications performance or provide for a more long-term trouble free
>installation or if nothing else do no harm?
>
>DO NOT ARCHIVE
This sounds like a lot of ado about nothing. I would leave all
the paint in place on the outside. Drill mounting holes for
screws close fit to the screws. Clean surface of fuselage
skin INSIDE around mounting screw holes. Clean metal under
screw heads in antenna base. Use good steel (maybe even stainless)
screws to attach antenna. Use internal tooth lockwashers under
nuts on inside. With this arrangement one can use a thin gasket
under the antenna or even a thin coating of electronic (no
vinegar smell) RTV to exclude moisture under the antenna base.
Tighten screws to recommended torque values for the type
of screw.
All that cleaning and magic grease is extra work,
looks like crap when you finish and adds no value I can
deduce with respect to either electronic or structural
performance of the antenna. Three or four mounting screws,
properly installed will provide a VERY adequate electrical
and mechanical connection of the antenna to the aircraft for
a VERY long time.
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:47 PM 5/5/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>I am sorry I cannot be more helpful on your questions. I think some of the
>different voltages that are listed may be due to the fact that the D0-160
>has changed since our instruments were certified. What I have been told is
>that our instrument exceeded the TSO requirements at the time the instrument
>was certified.
>
>I am sorry that I will not be able to give a more detailed answer.
>
>
>Mac S. Speed
>Electronics International Inc.
>63296 Powell Butte Highway
>Bend, OR 97701
>Phone: (541) 318-6060
>Fax: (541) 318-7575
>Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
Mac,
I'm sorry to hear this. I must conclude that
Electronic International's proscription for pampering
their products on the contemporary equivalent of a
protected avionics bus has no basis in physics
that you can describe for us.
Thank you for taking the time to correspond with me
on this important point of engineering. I would
encourage E.I. to see that at least one person on
your engineering staff become conversant in this
regard. It's not very good consumer relations to
adopt popular techlore and then promote the
mythology by pushing it off onto customers.
I'll invite any of E.I.'s tech-folk to join us on
the AeroElectric-List which is sponsored by Matt
Dralle's server at matronics.com.
Anyone can join at no cost by subscribing to the
list at http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
There is another list in addition to the AeroElectric-
List that specializes in avionics. You might
consider participation in that one also.
I believe the AeroElectric-List is unique. We're
always looking for new and better ways to get a task
done . . . or even take on a new and heretofore undoable
task. We have a penchant for comprehending
the physics of what we do so that success is
not an accident and failure is understood.
It's a sharing of knowledge that is not exclusive to
the builders of airplanes . . . I would invite your
folks as suppliers to the aircraft industry to
join us in this endeavor . . . it can only make
us all better at what we do.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2003 7:49 AM
>To: Mac S. Speed; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
>
>At 01:32 PM 4/30/2003 -0700, you wrote:
> >Here again is the copy that we have sent to you, which you claim was
> >never sent.
> >
> >
> >
> >Mac S. Speed
> >Electronics International Inc.
> >63296 Powell Butte Highway
> >Bend, OR 97701
> >Phone: (541) 318-6060
> >Fax: (541) 318-7575
> >Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: EI Tech Support [mailto:Sales@Buy-Ei.com]
> >Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:32 PM
> >To: 'Robert L. Nuckolls, III'
> >Subject: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
> >
> >We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
> >
> >1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a
> >-22 volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39
> >volt to a -11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output
> >impedance. In our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an
> >instrument to survive on the main bus during an engine start on most
> >aircraft. All of our instruments can survive transients that are well
> >over the DO-160 requirement.
>
> <snip>
>
> Mac,
>
> I DID receive the note you've copied above. I replied
> to David's letter the same day with amplifying questions.
> I found a copy of my reply in my archival files but didn't
> see that it was actually sent. My apologies, the ball was
> indeed still in my court. Here's the message I neglected
> to forward to you on 4/7 . . .
>
>
>---------- David Campbell's letter and Nuckolls' reply of 4/7/3 ---------
>
>At 02:31 PM 4/7/2003 -0700, <Sales@Buy-Ei.com> wrote:
>
> >We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
> >
> >1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a
> >-22 volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39
> >volt to a -11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output
> >impedance. In our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an
> >instrument to survive on the main bus during an engine start on most
> >aircraft.
>
>
> I am mystified by the numbers cited above. My copy of DO-160D
> speaks to a +/-300 v capacitively stored spike delivered through
> an air-core transformer and tailored for a 50-ohm source impedance.
> 28V system tests call for a +/-600 volt event. What change level
> is your copy of DO-160? Perhaps I'm out of date.
>
> Please cite a basis for your opinion. What is the amplitude,
> waveform and duration of any transients you have observed and
> identified as originating from the starter?
>
> > . . . . . All of our
> >instruments can survive transients that are well over the DO-160
> >requirement.
>
> 2). It is our understanding the industry standard for most electronic
> >aircraft instrument installation is to install on an avionics or radio
> >bus. We just installed an Apollo GX-60, SL-30, ACU, MX-20, SL-15,
> >Garmin GTX 327, 550/20 encoder, NSD-360 H.S.I. and many other pieces of
> >equipment, and the install documentation made it clear that these
> >instruments should be installed on the radio or avionics bus (isolating
> >them from the starting sequence).
>
> It is indeed a "practice" originally promulgated by the notion
> that the root cause of lots of dead transistors at Cessna
> and elsewhere was "spikes" from the starter. This was the
> early days of low voltage, germanium transistors that
> were showing up in audio and power supply circuits in the
> current crop of aircraft radios. I cannot attest to studies done
> elsewhere but at Cessna, there were NO actual spikes captured,
> quantified and deemed antagonistic to our radios. When we
> added the avionics master, the problems mostly went away
> so the "practice" was called a success and we drove happily
> onward.
>
> Nearly 40 years later some folk assume that a "practice"
> has become a "standard" and that the standard has some foundation
> in real physics for its existence. I've been designing electronics
> for aircraft for nearly 40 years and never have I identified
> transients on the bus that reside outside the DO-160
> test envelope.
>
> My personal perception is that products tested to DO-160
> recommendations do not require extraordinary system
> architectures or pilot actions to "protect" the product.
> I.e, the "avionics bus" is a mis-understood and ill-
> conceived feature in the design of an aircraft electrical system.
>
> >3). Our definition of a sophisticated circuit (when referring to power
> >supplies), is one that would require fly back transformers to drive
> >plasma displays or TFT backlights, one that uses floating step-up power
> >to allow top side differential measurement, and high efficiency and
> >charge pump units.
> >
> >4). We know that our instruments can handle input voltage spikes in
> >excess of +/- 250 volts and over 400 microseconds AC input impedance.
> >This is approximately 100 times the energy limitation of DO-160 and
> >much better than other aviation equipment that we have tested.
>
> >We feel that the industry needs published data on the voltage spikes
> >produced during the start sequence for normal aircraft, worst case
> >normal, abnormal and worst case abnormal. Most manufacturers have
> >solved the uncertainty by going to a radio or avionics bus that is
> >switched off during engine start.
>
> I infer from this that E.I. believes there are undocumented stresses
> generated during the normal action of getting the engine started.
> Further, these stresses have been overlooked by 40 or
> so years of industry-staffed committees who have participated
> in the crafting of DO-160 and other documents at RTCA.
>
> If such stresses exist in the course of operating an
> airplane, I could not agree more. Based on EI installation
> recommendations, I would have assumed that EI has
> studied and quantified the problem and made an
> engineering judgment as to whether or not their products
> could/should be designed to withstand the worst case
> cranking transients but this appears not to be the case.
>
> >We have been producing TSO'd equipment for over 20 years that can
> >survive the somewhat hostile aircraft electrical environment, but would
> >prefer that the UBG-16 be operated from a source that is protected from
> >the starting sequence.
> >
> >We are always open to suggestions and new ideas. Thank you for your
> >input.
>
>
> >David Campbell
> >Electronics International Inc.
> >63296 Powell Butte Highway
> >Bend, OR 97701
> >Phone: (541) 318-6060
> >Fax: (541) 318-7575
> >Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
>
> Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
> at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
> + slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
> My Tektronix TDS220 could not capture a single transient at
> ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
> at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
> equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
>
> This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
> airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
> 25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
> recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
> data acquisition systems, etc.
>
> A charter adopted by the AeroElectric Connection is to
> identify, understand, and publish explanations for core
> principals upon which modern electrical systems can be
> crafted. Our readers would be pleased to know of any data
> you can add to the knowledge base upon which we will
> advance the state of our science.
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: aircraft microphones |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Hello !
>
>I have a problem with the radio of our Antonov 2.We have fitted a King KY 196.
>We can recieve well, but transmitting is poor.
>I have a feeling that something is wrong with the mic because we tried
>several and they all transmit different. I have always regarded all
>aircraft mics as of the same design but now i am not so shure about that
>anymore.
>Can you help me improve my knowledge about aircraft mics ?
They are supposed to be interchangeable. There will be
subtle differences in how microphones sound to the
receiving individual . . . each manufacturer has their
own notion of how the frequency response of their
product should be tailored. Microphones with and
without noise cancelation will sound differently
too. For the most part, any modern (younger than
20 years) microphone ought to work just fine with
your KY196.
What make and model of microphone would you like
to use with this radio?
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: | Electric T&B noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
I powered up my electrics this evening for the first time, and I'm getting a
whine from the electric turn coordinator through my headsets. What's my
best option to filter this noise out - try to get a filter from a car audio
shop?
Thanks
Dave
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! --
|