Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:28 AM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Tony Babb)
2. 05:47 AM - Fuel level indicators (Gary Casey)
3. 06:21 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
4. 06:25 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 07:13 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (Dennis O'Connor)
6. 09:47 AM - Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (brucem@olypen.com)
7. 09:56 AM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Rick Caldwell)
8. 10:16 AM - Re: Fuel level indicators (John Schroeder)
9. 11:19 AM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (SportAV8R@aol.com)
10. 01:34 PM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (nhulin)
11. 03:20 PM - Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Tom Schiff)
12. 04:19 PM - FAR 19 Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? (Ed Anderson)
13. 06:53 PM - Re: Source for Pins & Extraction tools (Richard V. Reynolds)
14. 09:15 PM - Alternator fields (John Herminghaus)
15. 09:53 PM - Z-13 mod'd by David Carter (David Carter)
16. 09:56 PM - test - do not archive (David Carter)
17. 10:03 PM - Re: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter (David Carter)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb@alejandra.net>
I like the idea of the totalizer and agree the only unknowns are - what
happens if a fuel cap comes loose and what does the FAA need. I was planning
on going with fuel gauges and Vance Atkinson sight gauges, now I'm thinking
a totalizer and sight gauges would do the job. In the event that there is a
leak I could see what's happening and in any case would get a warning when
the low-fuel light in the sump tank (or whatever it's called) comes on.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob@RobsGlass.com>
<aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley"
<Rob@RobsGlass.com>
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>
> Neil Hulin's comment about using a fuel totalizer instead of a fuel gauge
linearizer
> has been burning a hole in my brain. I believe he is right....
>
> Here's the deal--
>
> You only need one fuel totalizer meter if you take fuel from only one tank
at a
> time. The fuel quantity meter (and memory) for that tank is simply updated
as
> required. I trust in this system, totalizers really work well.
> Consider too, that you wouldn't need fuel-level senders or gauges at all.
Always
> problematic devices. You also would not need anti-slosh electronic
filters
> either. My airplane just got a whole lot lighter!
>
> There are a few practical concerns--how do we know the tank is at the
level the
> "gauge" says it is? Well, I always checked it visually with a wooden stick
anyway.
> So when tanks are refilled they must be filled to the top (ideally) and
> visually checked. You really wanted the fuel flow rate anyway. Not a bad
tradeoff.
>
> This is a nice idea but what happens if fuel is lost from the system
anywhere on the tank side of totalizer sender? e.g. loose fuel cap, cracked
pipe etc. Now your totalizer is telling you that full fuel, less that
burned in the engine, remains. Not!
> Also I may be wrong but I have this hazy memory of the Feds, (always here
to help), requiring gauges ......
> Don't get me wrong. I think totalizers are a terrific idea but a pair of
steam fuel gauges a watch and knowledge of approximate fuel burn make a
terrific cross check with each other to confirm what you actually have to
get you home. Bit like doing a mental approximation of a problem to check
you hit the right buttons on the calculator or in this case that your
totalizer figures are valid.
> Fly safe
> Rob
> Rob W M Shipley
> RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!!
>
>
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: | Fuel level indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
I'll have to weigh in in favor of retaining a fuel level indicator,
regardless of whether a fuel flow meter (totalizer) is installed. The
reason is simple - the totalizer REQUIRES active intervention of the pilot
to work. He has to set in the quantity of fuel added EACH time or the
system won't work. While designing our planes I think it is most important
to design in protection against ourselves - accident studies have shown that
it is ourselves that are the weak link. It scares me to hear things like "I
dipstick the tanks every time." Every time? Every time in the future? I
do a lot of audits of manufacturing systems and it's easy - just listen for
the words "every," "always" and "never." That will usually be the problem,
or at least a problem waiting to happen. A fuel level gauge works
regardless of any action by the pilot. And that is its advantage.
Gary Casey
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: Fuel level indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/19/03 7:48:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
glcasey@adelphia.net writes:
> While designing our planes I think it is most important
> to design in protection against ourselves - accident studies have shown
> that
> it is ourselves that are the weak link. It scares me to hear things like
> "I
> dipstick the tanks every time." Every time? Every time in the future? I
> do a lot of audits of manufacturing systems and it's easy - just listen for
> the words "every," "always" and "never." That will usually be the problem,
> or at least a problem waiting to happen. A fuel level gauge works
> regardless of any action by the pilot. And that is its advantage.
>
> Gary Casey
>
>
Good Morning Gary,
Nicely said, thanks.
Your statement says more about air safety than almost any other similar
length statement I have ever read
Air safety is the realization that we all make mistakes. As long as we can
avoid that trap of saying; "That could never happen to me, because I
always----------------" We have a reasonable chance of living to a Ripe Old
Age.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: Fuel level indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/19/03 7:48:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
glcasey@adelphia.net writes:
> I'll have to weigh in in favor of retaining a fuel level indicator,
> regardless of whether a fuel flow meter (totalizer) is installed.
Good Morning Once Again,
I should have commented here as well. I'm with you!
I particularly like the idea of sight gauges on tanks where that will work.
I have them on my tip tanks, wish they could be used on my very unreliably
gauged main tanks.
Happy Skies.
Old 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: Fuel level indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net>
Unfortunately, the pilot of the Lancair 4P this weekend didn't believe the
old story about avoiding thunderstorms...
Denny
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel level indicators
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 5/19/03 7:48:26 AM Central Daylight Time,
> glcasey@adelphia.net writes:
>
> > While designing our planes I think it is most important
> > to design in protection against ourselves - accident studies have shown
> > that
> > it is ourselves that are the weak link. It scares me to hear things
like
> > "I
> > dipstick the tanks every time." Every time? Every time in the future?
I
> > do a lot of audits of manufacturing systems and it's easy - just listen
for
> > the words "every," "always" and "never." That will usually be the
problem,
> > or at least a problem waiting to happen. A fuel level gauge works
> > regardless of any action by the pilot. And that is its advantage.
> >
> > Gary Casey
> >
> >
>
> Good Morning Gary,
>
> Nicely said, thanks.
>
> Your statement says more about air safety than almost any other similar
> length statement I have ever read
>
> Air safety is the realization that we all make mistakes. As long as we
can
> avoid that trap of saying; "That could never happen to me, because I
> always----------------" We have a reasonable chance of living to a Ripe
Old
> Age.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old 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 |
|
| Subject: | Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com
Sorry, but FAR 91.205(b)(9) requires a fuel gauge indicating the quantity of
fuel in each tank.
Bruce McGregor
(GlaStar)
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Caldwell" <racaldwell@hotmail.com>
>Don't get me wrong. I think totalizers are a terrific idea but a pair of
>steam fuel gauges a watch and knowledge of approximate fuel burn make a
>terrific cross check with each other to confirm what you actually have to
>get you home. Bit like doing a mental approximation of a problem to check
>you hit the right buttons on the calculator or in this case that your
>totalizer figures are valid.
>Fly safe
>Rob
>Rob W M Shipley
>RV9A N919RV Fuselage - now a canoe!!!
Rob,
The fuel guages in my RV-6 are basically worthless. The wing tanks are at
the wing dihedral angle. The flop tube in the left wing tank necessitates
the sender be mounted further toward tank center. The right tank sender is
not completely at the low point in the tank. Far from it actually.
Therefore, when both guages read empty, I have about 5 gal. in the left tank
and 2 gal. in the right. That is 1 hr of flight at 65% power. Of course I
normally do not fly around with 7 gal. remaining but I am legally allowed to
fly with about 4 gal.
I use my fuel totalizer. On a recent X-C, I had to revise flight plans due
to lowering ceilings ahead. I returned back to the sunny blue skies of FL.
I had fuel to make it to a fuel stop with 5 gal on board after landing or
stop sooner and pay $1/gal. more. I chose to save the money. However, try
telling your nonflying wife why you are flying with both fuel guages on
empty. The digital fuel remaining readout did nothing for calming her fears.
I did not know this until after landing. Otherwise, I would have paid the
$3.25/gal. The fuel guages did me no favors that day. Wish I didn't have
them.
Rick Caldwell
RV-6
One Design
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: Fuel level indicators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dennis -
I believe it is a tad early to make this conclusion.
John
> Unfortunately, the pilot of the Lancair 4P this weekend didn't believe
> the old story about avoiding thunderstorms...
>
> Denny
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: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 05/19/2003 12:48:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brucem@olypen.com writes:
> Sorry, but FAR 91.205(b)(9) requires a fuel gauge indicating the quantity of
>
> fuel in each tank.
>
> Bruce McGregor
> (GlaStar)
>
Part 91 applies to homebuilts? I must be missing something somewhere (many
would agree :-)
do not archive
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: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "nhulin" <nhulin@hotmail.com>
Listers,
I hadn't looked at the digests for a couple of days. Looks like this one has
generated some interest.
I'd like to clarify the comment in my post. I wasn't advocating doing away
with the gauges, whether steam or processor, float or capacitive. I was
simply stating that there are mechanical limitations in that some of the
information required to be displayed might not be available due to the
configuration of the senders or the tanks. If I was going to spend money to
solve this problem then I'd prefer to spend it on a totalizer rather than
fixing the gauges I already have. One complements the other as others have
pointed out. Sort of like how the flight planning fuel consumption
calculation complements watching the gauges while in flight - everyone still
does that don't they?
Rick Caldwell correctly points out that in some configurations you can have
fuel remaining above unusable fuel when the gauge reads zero. This is what I
expect in my Zodiac. There would be hundreds of other aircraft out there in
the same situation. I don't see that there is anything that can be done
about that except review the entire fuel system and engineer a suitable
solution which may or may not include some sort of linearizer.
It is also true that Rick's gauges still read zero when there is only
unusable quantity of fuel. Hmmm. On a technical point we've satisfied
23.959(a) except that it might not be considered "calibrated" if it reads
zero for many quantities including unusable fuel. Simply because we consider
a statement to be true doesn't mean that it is of benefit to anyone. I agree
with Rick that flying for an hour or more with gauges on zero might be a bit
disconcerting.
For my Zodiac, I'll be happy with a full reading being clearly marked as
">10.5 gallons". I still need to dip the tanks during preflight if I am
getting close to max gross and am concerned about having too much fuel. At
the bottom end of the scale I'll know that I need to land and refuel when
the gauges get down towards zero. I didn't spend all this time building a
powered aircraft just to turn it into a glider.
...neil
601XL
Cincinnati
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: | Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom Schiff" <tomschiff@attbi.com>
No you don't have to follow FAR 91. But.
1. FAR 91 has some very good ideas to use as a reference. In my opinion
their requirement of a fuel quantity indicator for each tank is a good
one. So I will choose to include that in my home built.
2. Although not required you still have to get someone to sign off on
your completed bird. If I was the inspector I would "invite you to find
another inspector" if you didn't have fuel gages.
3. If you had an accident you (or your estate) may still have to
convince the insurance company that flying without some form of fuel
quantity indicator was not gross negligence. I wouldn't like to be put
into that position. Ditto for the FAA who may want to remove your
license.
Note most ultralights have a semi transparent fuel tank that the pilot
can see. There is a few felt tip pen markings on most of them
(1/4,1/2,3/4). That is a fuel quantity indicator.
I have had the engine stumble twice for me in cruse, at altitude. My
suspicions in both cases (confirmed in one) that it was carburetor ice.
Does my C 150 now have a carb temp gage? Yes. If my next airplane has a
carburetor what modification will I make as soon as title passes to me?
Check that I have a carb temp gage and that it is working.
I don't know if you have ever had an engine misbehave in flight. For me
it was a life altering experience. I don't want to be caught without
the information that I need to diagnose a problem. Fuel gages may
inherently inaccurate but I will have something that shows fuel level in
any aircraft that my body is transported above the ground.
Side note to those who are attempting to adjust their float fuel gages.
One of the problems with them is that the float must never touch either
the upper or lower surface of the tank. If I does then vibration will
either cause the float to wear and be damaged and or the even worse
scenario where a hole is worn in the top or bottom of the tank. This is
one of the root causes for gages showing empty when there is still
unusable reserve and for showing full when the tanks are less than full.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
SportAV8R@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
In a message dated 05/19/2003 12:48:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
brucem@olypen.com writes:
> Sorry, but FAR 91.205(b)(9) requires a fuel gauge indicating the
quantity of
>
> fuel in each tank.
>
> Bruce McGregor
> (GlaStar)
>
Part 91 applies to homebuilts? I must be missing something somewhere
(many
would agree :-)
do not archive
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: Unnecessary fuel gauges!!!? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
I think you will find that what ever the FSDO approving your Operating
limitations puts into that document is what you are obligated to follow.
Mine has a number of references to paragraphs of FAR 91 that I must comply
with, your milage may vary..
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW 200 Rotary Powered Hours
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Source for Pins & Extraction tools |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard V. Reynolds" <rvreynolds@macs.net>
Paul,
Call UPS/Apollo Tech support and ask them to send the pins. They will want to know
they
manufacture of the socket and the "color". Two different sockets have been used.
If you have the ACU also with the 78 pin connector, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to use
the
correct pins and the correct AMP crimping tool. It only cost $150, but if you don't
use
the correct tool, the pins will not fit the connector correctly and YOU WILL NOT
be
able to EXTRACT them!!!!
Richard Reynolds, A happy did it myself wiring UPS/Apollo.
Paul McAllister wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I purchased 50 sockets, but to no avail, well almost. They fitted the 37
> pin D Style connector on the SL70 transponder, but not the 37 pin connector
> for the GX60.
>
> The sockets wouldn't slide all the way in and when I examined them closely
> the sockets that did fit had a split on the front and the barrel was about
> 10 thou smaller. I found that the 15 pin connector on the GX60 and the 37
> pin on the Narco Nav 122 had the same problem.
>
> Any idea on where to get this style of pin? I can send you an example if it
> would help.
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for Pins & Extraction tools
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> > At 01:33 PM 5/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
> > ><paul.mcallister@qia.net>
> > >
> > >Hi all,
> > >
> > >I am approaching the stage where I will be wiring up my UPS GX60 Nav/Com
> &
> > >SL 70 transponder. The units come supplied with 37 pin D style
> connectors
> > >and I am seeking some advice.
> > >
> > >Where can I purchase a suitable crimping tool, insertion/extraction tool
> > >and some pins & sockets.
> >
> >
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#rct-3
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#dse-1
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/connect/connect.html#S604
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
> >
> >
> > > I would be interested to know what size wire do people typically use
> in
> > > these pins to ensure a good crimp
> >
> > 24-20 AWG wire works well in these pins. 20AWG for
> > power/ground and 22AWG for everything else is
> > good . . .
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------
> > ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> > ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> > ( and still understand nothing. )
> > ( C.F. Kettering )
> > --------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
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: | Alternator fields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Herminghaus <catignano@everyday.com>
Bob,
The alternator on my TSIO 550 has three small studs marked F1, F2 and
Aux. How should it be connected to an LR3c?
Regards,
John Herminghaus
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: | Z-13 mod'd by David Carter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Request "peer review"/comments/questions on the attached Autocad/Intellicad drawing
(.dwg file)
At the lower center part of drawing, there are 4 changes that I've made which I'd
like comments on.
I'm designing a "single PM alternator with 2 17ah batteries" system to power an
electrically dependent Mazda rotary engine (electronic fuel inj & ignition).
I've yet to add "battery busses" and details of what instruments, etc will feed
off the main and endurance and battery 1 & 2 busses. I'm seeking "validation"
of my basic concept, before I go into those details.
I don't know how to make this drawing viewable by those without a cad program.
When I convert to .bmp and to .jpg format, I only get the part of the drawing
that shows on the screen. So, . . .
if anyone wants it in .jpg, I'll get the upper left and right and lower left
and right quarters of the dwg zoomed in enough so all details are readable,
and make 4 images (.bmp to .jpg conversion) and attach all 4 to an e-mail so
anyone can see open and see each quarter of the drawing.
David Carter
RV-6
Nederland, Texas
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: | test - do not archive |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Test
do not archive
david carter
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: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
What have I missed on use of the list? The file I attached was stripped in
process of being posted to the AeroElectric List. I re-checked my "Sent"
file and the dwg was attached when I clicked "Send".
What do I need to do? Put it on my web site and provide a link? Can do
that.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-13 mod'd by David Carter
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
<dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
> Request "peer review"/comments/questions on the attached
Autocad/Intellicad drawing (.dwg file)
> At the lower center part of drawing, there are 4 changes that I've made
which I'd like comments on.
>
> I'm designing a "single PM alternator with 2 17ah batteries" system to
power an electrically dependent Mazda rotary engine (electronic fuel inj &
ignition).
>
> I've yet to add "battery busses" and details of what instruments, etc will
feed off the main and endurance and battery 1 & 2 busses. I'm seeking
"validation" of my basic concept, before I go into those details.
>
> I don't know how to make this drawing viewable by those without a cad
program. When I convert to .bmp and to .jpg format, I only get the part of
the drawing that shows on the screen. So, . . .
> if anyone wants it in .jpg, I'll get the upper left and right and
lower left and right quarters of the dwg zoomed in enough so all details
are readable, and make 4 images (.bmp to .jpg conversion) and attach all 4
to an e-mail so anyone can see open and see each quarter of the drawing.
>
> David Carter
> RV-6
> Nederland, Texas
>
>
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! --
|