Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:13 AM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 02:23 AM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 05:02 AM - Re: Ammeter Shunts, Fuses, Volts (MikeEasley@aol.com)
4. 05:15 AM - Wiring those tiny wires on Ray Allen Servos (MikeEasley@aol.com)
5. 06:16 AM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Brad Benson)
6. 08:06 AM - Re: Alternator diode bridge measurement (MikeM)
7. 08:07 AM - Ritchie M2 electronic compasses ... any interest???? (James E. Clark)
8. 08:48 AM - Re: Enduring the greedy corporations . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:07 AM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:10 AM - Shielded Wires in EI Install (Tinne maha)
11. 10:20 AM - Re: Re: Enduring the greedy corporations . . . (Richard Tasker)
12. 10:38 AM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 12:27 PM - Re: Re: Ammeter Shunts, Fuses, Volts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:07 PM - Panel layout - request for comments (brucem@olypen.com)
15. 01:43 PM - Panel planner software (David.vonLinsowe)
16. 01:46 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Dan Checkoway)
17. 01:56 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Pat Hatch)
18. 02:11 PM - Shielded Wires on EI Install (Tinne maha)
19. 02:41 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (Dan Checkoway)
20. 02:47 PM - Re: Panel planner software (Trampas)
21. 03:13 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (Tinne maha)
22. 03:55 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (Dan Checkoway)
23. 04:06 PM - Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install (richard@riley.net)
24. 10:32 PM - Re: Panel layout - request for comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 11:19 PM - Aeroelectric Connection (drew.schumann@us.army.mil)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/7/03 10:21:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
dan@rvproject.com writes:
> Folks, sorry to be blunt, but it's time to break out the FARs and refresh
> your memory on 91.205.
>
Well Dan, I did review my copy of 91.205 and find nothing that changes my
opinion that no standby source is required.
The FAA has been insisting that new certified aircraft have an alternate
source of power as a condition of certification. I don't believe you will find
that the requirement is retroactive.
Whether or not such a requirement is imposed on OBAM aircraft, I have no
idea.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/7/03 10:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
> An
> airplane with one-source vacuum gyros still has an
> electric T/C with two power sources. The idea is that
> with some degree of practice, one can reasonably
> expect to navigate sans one power source.
>
Good Morning Bob,
For What It Is Worth, my first 1947 Bonanza came from Beech with a vacuum
powered T&B and a vacuum powered DG. When the FAA added the requirement for an
Artificial Horizon and Directional gyro, all I had to do was add the Attitude
gyro.
I had previously installed an electric T&B as a back up to be used if my
vacuum pump should fail, but having the electric T&B was not a requirement for
IFR
flight. My reading of the FARs say that is still the case. All gyro
instruments could be pneumatically powered and the airplane would be legal for
IFR
flight.
Vacuum T&Bs are getting a bit hard to find, but I did buy one with a fresh
overhaul just last year at Oshkosh.
A single source of power is all that is required.
Happy Skies,
Old 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: Ammeter Shunts, Fuses, Volts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
Bob,
Ammeter Shunts...
So if I were to use a 70 and a 20 amp shunt, I would convert my display from
an "amp" reading to a "percentage of output" reading. I'm assuming that my
instrument is calibrated so that 50mv reads "100" on the readout. However, if
I
want actual amps I need to get another matching 100 amp shunt for my 20 amp
alternator so they both will read actual amps. I like your idea of using the
percentage setup. The unit has alarms that you can set to the low and high
points. That would be much more usable if my two alternators were reading
percentages.
Fuses...
I should fuse the + feed coming from the shunt?????
Volts...
The EDM900 also displays volts. The problem is that it uses the main power
feed to measure it. If I were to switch the incoming power between the two
busses I'd temporarily shut off the unit every time I flipped the switch. I
guess I could use some type of rotary shorting switch to switch both the amps and
volts between busses. Any ideas?
I would really like to overthink the situation and find some auto switching
device that would alternate every 10 seconds or something in "auto" mode or be
able to switch it to either bus manually.
I am installing the two warning lights that came with my alternator
controllers. Low voltage on either bus will be right in my face if anything happens.
Then my load readouts would come in handy to monitor my remaining good
alternator.
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
Colorado Springs
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: | Wiring those tiny wires on Ray Allen Servos |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
I found a good solution, it works for me anyway. I'm using Molex connectors
throughout my airplane. The local electronics shop has everything from 2 to
15 pin versions in stock. I standardized on the .093 pins. The problem was
they came with 18-22 awg pins. But I found additional pin sizes from Allied
Electronics in 14-20 and 24-30 awg sizes. For about $6 per 100, I got the smaller
and larger sizes. I got plenty of the medium ones with the connectors. They
work great on the little Ray Allen wires. I just put a 6 pin connector on
the servo and run "normal" size wire from there.
Mike Easley
Lancair ES
Colorado Springs
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brad Benson" <brad@cds-inc.com>
I'm not planning on having one (an electrical system failure, that
is) and in fact am planning on using one of the systems outline in
the AeroElectric connection. However, for the low cost/weight
addition, a battery backup for the PFD certainly seems reasonable.
I've had to abort a flight twice (one emergency) due to electrical
system failure, and I heard a King Air declare an emergency due to
"total electrical failure" once, so I'm happy with the cost/weight
tradeoff.
In any event it will be as reliable, if not more so, than the vacuum
system that would have gone in its place.
What do you think?
Cheers,
Brad "Sharpie" Benson
RV6A QB Underway - Panel!!!
A/FD for Palm and PocketPC - visit http://www.notamd.com
Robert L. Nuckolls, III said:
>
> How do you plan to have an "electrical system failure?"
>
> It's usually less expensive, lighter and safer to plan
> an electrical system that isn't going to fail than to plan
> for a flight system that is tolerant of an electrical
> system failure.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> Digests: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list _-> Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
Brad Benson, Software Architect
Computer Data Strategies, Inc.
Ph. 651-730-4156 / Fax 651-730-4161
"What's another word for thesaurus?"
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Alternator diode bridge measurement |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeM <mladejov@ced.utah.edu>
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> From: "mailbox bob at mail.flyboybob.com" <bob@flyboybob.com>
> . . .
> I have disconnected the diode/regulator board from the stator.
> The stator windings read 1 ohm from A-B, A-C, or B-C and infinite resistance
> to the core. The rotor measures 3 ohms between the two brush slip rings and
> infinite resistance to the core. Do these values seem reasonable for a 40A
> Hitachi alternator?
These are typical values for most alternators, including
Prestolite, Motorola, and Rhone. The resistance of the stator
windings is much less than 1 Ohm so your Ohmmeter is just
providing a "rough" indication.
The DC resistance of the rotor (field winding) is typically 3 to
5 Ohms. If you connect 14V direct across the slip rings, the
field current is usually about 3 A, meaning that the resistance
has to be about 14/3 or 4.7 Ohms.
> . . .
> My assumption is that my DVM does not supply sufficient
> voltage to bias the diodes??? Is there a way to measure diode bridge
> without removing each individual diode?
Some DVMs, like my Fluke 77 and Fluke 87, provide a "Diode Test"
mode, which effectively forward biases the Diode Under Test with
a constant current source of 100uA. The meter then measures the
forward drop, and displays it in mV. e.g., when testing an old
Germanium diode, it shows about 0.2V, a Silicon rectifier shows
about 0.65V, and a Shottky diode shows about 0.15V. Either of my
Flukes can determine the integrity of the individual diodes in a
Full-wave bridge rectifier stack as long as the stack is
disconnected from the stators...
Mike Mladejovsky
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 |
|
"Rv-List@Matronics.Com" <rv-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Ritchie M2 electronic compasses ... any interest???? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
GlacierSeveral of us have used the Ritchie M2 electronic compass in our
custom/homebuilt/experimental planes and they seem to work just fine.
The sensor is remote from the display and as soon as you turn it on, it
locks on to the correct heading.
The reason for this message is that a few people asked about how to get one
and I have found that Ritchie has put the program on the "back burner" (I
guess due to lack of interest from boaters) and are therefore not making
them at this time. There are many places that have them for $200+.
BUT ... I have found about 10 or so of these units and if there is interest,
I can purchase the entire lot. The price would be somewhere in the $100-$150
range, **definitely** less than $200.
Any interest??
If so, email me "off-list" with contact info. (james@nextupventures.com) .
James
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: Enduring the greedy corporations . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:09 PM 8/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
><retasker@optonline.net>
<snip>
>So it is not specifically "greedy corporations" - it is more the lawyers
>and our litigious society that raises the costs.
>
>My $0.02...
That has to be a significant portion of the reason but
I suspect it's not the major reason. Beyond a certain
stage of growth, "economies of scale" reverse and the
bigger a company gets, the MORE it costs to produce
the same product. This is ESPECIALLY true of
low-volume, skill-demanding, labor-intensive products
like aircraft.
The really successful big companies know
how to operate like an association of little
companies . . . but it runs against the grain of
a high-dollar CEOs of mega-corps to delegate
real power to subordinates many steps below them.
I'm doing a task for RAC right now that would
normally take the time and attention of 3 or 4
other folks to "manage" certain aspects of the
job while adding no value. I got into a real
wrestling match with a bean-counter yesterday
because I told him I wanted a $1000 budget
for materials. He demanded a bill of materials
to know what I wanted to buy. I told him I was
going to design the system on-the-fly and didn't
know what parts would ultimately go into the
test fixture . . . I allowed as how some of
the parts I would buy will end up on the floor.
That really bent him out of shape. Actually,
I'll do the project for $500 or less and
the only questionable parts are already
bought for total $75 . . .
I'll confess to some delight in thinking this
bureaucrat will lay awake at night thinking
I'm going to bust the lid out of the budget
and he'll have to share blame for not
exercising some level of positive if not
ignorant control.
I won't do drawings and bill of materials
on the fixture until it is complete and
operable. My real budget for the task
will be a small fraction of what he would
have willingly approved if I'd agreed to
enlist all the "help" that is primed and
ready to ride on my work order. What he
failed to grasp while arm wrestling over
a few hundred dollars worth of parts
was the fact that I'm trimming about
$5000 of overhead labor not enlisting
all the "help" that was offered.
This is a tip of the iceberg example of what
can happen to elevate the simplest of tasks
into expensive, time consuming efforts.
It doesn't happen in Mom-n-Pop's Airplane
Parts Emporium, they couldn't invest
$5,000 in a one week task if they wanted
to . . . and they can't imagine why
a big company would want to do that either.
When you pay $50 for a new die cast
"Beechcraft" logo molding for the side
of your Bonanza, be advised that the company
probably isn't making a killing on that $5
part.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:12 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/7/03 10:21:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
>dan@rvproject.com writes:
>
> > Folks, sorry to be blunt, but it's time to break out the FARs and refresh
> > your memory on 91.205.
> >
>
>Well Dan, I did review my copy of 91.205 and find nothing that changes my
>opinion that no standby source is required.
>
>The FAA has been insisting that new certified aircraft have an alternate
>source of power as a condition of certification. I don't believe you will
>find
>that the requirement is retroactive.
>
>Whether or not such a requirement is imposed on OBAM aircraft, I have no
>idea.
Who gives a rat's patootie about whether or not the
FAA "requires" backups? It's your airplane, your
responsibility to operate it well. Taking an
airplane into an environment where single points
of failure have profound influences on outcome
of flight is at least negligent if not foolhardy.
OBAM aircraft owners have no excuses. We cannot
HONORABLY hide behind the notion that lack of
holy-watered blessings or application of
senseless restrictions were an impediment
to doing the best we know how.
After spending 30-50 kilobux on a project, the
added dollars to make it truly failure tolerant
is chicken-feed. It will take some thought. Solutions
will be outside the thinking behind contemporary
certified aircraft. All the regulations and anecdotes
should be carefully combed for useful, simple-ideas
that help us evolve. 99% of what we KNOW about
the certified experience is of no value in this
regard except to acknowledge that they're not doing
it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
makes us look like really good pilots because
our airplanes are free of disappointments.
Bob . . .
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: | Shielded Wires in EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Enduring the greedy corporations . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
I agree with what you are saying. We are a small company at present
(getting bigger) and, while we document everything and keep track of
everything properly, we do not have any fat. I can do a design in a
fraction of the time and for a fraction of the cost as I could do if I
had lots of "helpers"!
A lot of the cost is also due to the bureaucracy and paperwork required
by the government and required to CYA thanks to the lawyers. On the
surface this is supposed to be good, but it seems that it does little to
prevent the seemingly continuous ADs for old designs that should be rock
solid by now.
The other primary contributor to the cost, as you point out, is the fact
that the volumes are low. As you know, when setting up to manufacture
something, the setup cost (including operator training) is essentially
the same whether you are making 10 or 10,000 units. Further, the
component and/or raw material cost is much lower for the 10,000 vs the 10.
What we need is for GA to become more popular so the production runs
become greater (of course, that means lots more planes flying around
with me and I don't know how I feel about that :-) ).
Dick Tasker
Do not archive
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 06:09 PM 8/7/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
>><retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>>So it is not specifically "greedy corporations" - it is more the lawyers
>>and our litigious society that raises the costs.
>>
>>My $0.02...
>>
>>
>
> That has to be a significant portion of the reason but
> I suspect it's not the major reason. Beyond a certain
> stage of growth, "economies of scale" reverse and the
> bigger a company gets, the MORE it costs to produce
> the same product. This is ESPECIALLY true of
> low-volume, skill-demanding, labor-intensive products
> like aircraft.
>
> The really successful big companies know
> how to operate like an association of little
> companies . . . but it runs against the grain of
> a high-dollar CEOs of mega-corps to delegate
> real power to subordinates many steps below them.
>
> I'm doing a task for RAC right now that would
> normally take the time and attention of 3 or 4
> other folks to "manage" certain aspects of the
> job while adding no value. I got into a real
> wrestling match with a bean-counter yesterday
> because I told him I wanted a $1000 budget
> for materials. He demanded a bill of materials
> to know what I wanted to buy. I told him I was
> going to design the system on-the-fly and didn't
> know what parts would ultimately go into the
> test fixture . . . I allowed as how some of
> the parts I would buy will end up on the floor.
>
> That really bent him out of shape. Actually,
> I'll do the project for $500 or less and
> the only questionable parts are already
> bought for total $75 . . .
>
> I'll confess to some delight in thinking this
> bureaucrat will lay awake at night thinking
> I'm going to bust the lid out of the budget
> and he'll have to share blame for not
> exercising some level of positive if not
> ignorant control.
>
> I won't do drawings and bill of materials
> on the fixture until it is complete and
> operable. My real budget for the task
> will be a small fraction of what he would
> have willingly approved if I'd agreed to
> enlist all the "help" that is primed and
> ready to ride on my work order. What he
> failed to grasp while arm wrestling over
> a few hundred dollars worth of parts
> was the fact that I'm trimming about
> $5000 of overhead labor not enlisting
> all the "help" that was offered.
>
> This is a tip of the iceberg example of what
> can happen to elevate the simplest of tasks
> into expensive, time consuming efforts.
> It doesn't happen in Mom-n-Pop's Airplane
> Parts Emporium, they couldn't invest
> $5,000 in a one week task if they wanted
> to . . . and they can't imagine why
> a big company would want to do that either.
>
> When you pay $50 for a new die cast
> "Beechcraft" logo molding for the side
> of your Bonanza, be advised that the company
> probably isn't making a killing on that $5
> part.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 8/8/03 11:08:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
> 99% of what we KNOW about
> the certified experience is of no value in this
> regard except to acknowledge that they're not doing
> it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
> makes us look like really good pilots because
> our airplanes are free of disappointments.
>
Good Afternoon Bob,
Now, that is the point I was trying to make.
mjheinen made the following statement and asked for comment.
> My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or have a
> vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR legally.
With
> steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you some
> options.
>
It seems to me that he is under the impression that there is some government
requirement that specifies a need for standby equipment to fly IFR legally.
That is just not true.
As you so strongly state, it is up to we users to determine what we feel is
required for the level of safety we desire.
I have many airline pilot friends who will vociferously state that they will
never fly a single engine airplane unless they are sitting on a parachute
mounted in a zero altitude, zero airspeed, ejection seat.
I respect their right to make that decision. I sure don't want them to be
able to make rules that would force all of us to do likewise
Thank goodness, I have the right to determine how safe I want to be and what
level of redundancy I need for the operation I am conducting.
Let's all try to keep it that way.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ammeter Shunts, Fuses, Volts |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:01 AM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: MikeEasley@aol.com
>
>Bob,
>
>Ammeter Shunts...
>
>So if I were to use a 70 and a 20 amp shunt, I would convert my display from
>an "amp" reading to a "percentage of output" reading. I'm assuming that my
>instrument is calibrated so that 50mv reads "100" on the
>readout. However, if I
>want actual amps I need to get another matching 100 amp shunt for my 20 amp
>alternator so they both will read actual amps. I like your idea of using the
>percentage setup. The unit has alarms that you can set to the low and high
>points. That would be much more usable if my two alternators were reading
>percentages.
You got it!
>Fuses...
>
>I should fuse the + feed coming from the shunt?????
(+) feed? Both wires from the shunt are tied to a high
fault current feeder. I show fuses (or fusible links)
in both sense leads right at the shunt.
>Volts...
>
>The EDM900 also displays volts. The problem is that it uses the main power
>feed to measure it. If I were to switch the incoming power between the two
>busses I'd temporarily shut off the unit every time I flipped the switch. I
>guess I could use some type of rotary shorting switch to switch both the
>amps and
>volts between busses. Any ideas?
If I had designed this thing, the voltage sense line would be
separate from input power for the instrument . . . benefits
are obvious. You can switch the sense point at will and not
upset the microcontroller within.
Given that this is not the case, let us consider the
physics upon which a work-around might be based.
Take a peek at:
http://216.55.140.222/temp/switch_transition.jpg
The upper graph is the interruption transition for
a C&K Components miniature toggle switch. We see
a power interruption of 1.4 milliseconds. The
lower graph is for the standard toggle, S700-1-3
part sold by B&C. The larger switch would give
you 1.8 mS interruption.
BTW, resist the urge to fit shorting switches or
diode arrays in the switching system. All choices
increase potential for fault hazards.
(1) if the designers did their homework with
respect to DO-160, then this kind of interruption
shouldn't affect operation of their product. This
is easy for you to test. Just hook the thing up
in series with a two-position switch wired to
power the instrument from a single source irrespective
of position. Flip the switch back and forth and see
how the instrument behaves.
(2) Assuming results of the above test are
disappointing, make a measurement of the current
required to operate the instrument. Let us assume
that you need 1 amp of supply voltage to run the
instrument. Know that 1 amp of current impressed
on a 1 farad capacitor will CHANGE its voltage
by 1 volt/second.
If we put a 1 farad capacitor across the input
supply to the instrument, a 2 mS interruption
would sag below bus voltage by 2 millivolts.
Drop the capacitor to .1 farad and the voltage
would sag 20 millivolts. Drop cap to .001
farad, the voltage will sag 2 volts during
transition. Hmmm . . . any piece of !$#@#!
should run on 12 volts . . . so this sizes
your cap at 1,000 micro farads and rated
at 16 volts or so. Now, if you want to do
switching with the alternator not running,
you have to make sure the critter behaves
well with momentary operation at 10 volts.
Anyhow, you see how this works. Want headroom
for doggier switch? Make capacitor
proportionately larger. If instrument
draws less current, it gets smaller. If
it's well behaved down to 9 volts, the capacitor
get smaller, etc.
>I would really like to overthink the situation and find some auto switching
>device that would alternate every 10 seconds or something in "auto" mode
>or be
>able to switch it to either bus manually.
Why auto switch? You can do this with a relay,
solid state timer, etc (and if needed, the
capacitor) . . . are you wanting to do this
for low voltage warning? We're adding
parts which increase cost of ownership
and reduce reliability.
>I am installing the two warning lights that came with my alternator
>controllers. Low voltage on either bus will be right in my face if
>anything happens.
>Then my load readouts would come in handy to monitor my remaining good
>alternator.
Hmmmm . . . okay, if you have smart lights on both
busses, and you're going to switch the loadmeter
readout, then if it were my airplane, I'd forget
the voltage switching thing entirely. Adding these
components in the power lead to the instrument
only reduces system reliability and adds to
panel clutter. Knowing the voltage on a
non-monitored bus while the companion low volts
light is OFF and the loadmeter readings are
within expected range adds nothing to probability
for comfortable continuation of flight.
Bob . . .
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: | Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com
See FAR 23.1311, available through www.faa.gov, for backups required for EFIS
in certificated aircraft . Adds about $2500 for an all-electric airplane.
Yes, an experimental aircraft does not have to comply with FAR 23, but then you
have to convince the DAR to remove the VFR only operating limitation with
something less.
Regards, Bruce
McGregor
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
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: | Panel planner software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe" <David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
While at Osh I ran into a booth that offered CAD style panel layout
software. It looked like it would do what I needed, but it didn't look
like they had the GRT Horizon 1 EFIS in their data base yet. I didn't
get a chance to get back to the booth to talk to the owner or pick up
any literature before we had to beat the incoming weather.
Could someone please point me in the right direction with either a web
address or phone number? Please send the info to davevon@tir.com, I
won't get the list info until Monday night.
BTW. A friend building a RV-7 figures he'll save 25 lbs by going to the
Dynon vs. a vacuum system!
Thanks,
Dave
The "Silver Turtle"
RV-6 Flying, but upgrading
Say good by to the vacuum pump :-)
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: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
Here's the link to 23.1311 for the URL-challenged:
http://checkoway.com/url/?s=86bb96ba
Quoting it:
"(5) Have an independent magnetic direction indicator and either an
independent secondary mechanical altimeter, airspeed indicator, and attitude
instrument or individual electronic display indicators for the altitude,
airspeed, and attitude that are independent from the airplane's primary
electrical power system. These secondary instruments may be installed in
panel positions that are displaced from the primary positions specified by
Sec. 23.1321(d), but must be located where they meet the pilot's visibility
requirements of Sec. 23.1321(a)."
The "or" in that constraint seems to be the magic bullet. I interpret that
to mean that a Dynon EFIS-D10 with its own internal backup battery satisfies
that requirement. You can rip the whole electrical system out of the plane,
and the Dynon's battery will run that puppy, complete with those required
display indicators (altitude, airspeed, attitude) independently of the
electrical system.
I hope my interpretation is a correct one.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem@olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com
>
> See FAR 23.1311, available through www.faa.gov, for backups required for
EFIS
> in certificated aircraft . Adds about $2500 for an all-electric airplane.
> Yes, an experimental aircraft does not have to comply with FAR 23, but
then you
> have to convince the DAR to remove the VFR only operating limitation with
> something less.
>
> Regards, Bruce
> McGregor
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
> http://www.olypen.com
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Bruce, I am not sure the DAR actually removes anything...I believe the
standard limitations will read something to the effect "After completion of
Phase 1 flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and /or
instrument flight in accordance with part 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under day only VFR It is up to you to make sure the aircraft is
properly equipped for night IFR and you are good to go. I don't believe you
should have to convince the DAR of anything in this regard.
Pat Hatch
RV-4
RV-6
RV-7 QB (Building)
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem@olypen.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel layout - request for comments
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@olypen.com
>
> See FAR 23.1311, available through www.faa.gov, for backups required for
EFIS
> in certificated aircraft . Adds about $2500 for an all-electric airplane.
> Yes, an experimental aircraft does not have to comply with FAR 23, but
then you
> have to convince the DAR to remove the VFR only operating limitation with
> something less.
>
> Regards, Bruce
> McGregor
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
> http://www.olypen.com
>
>
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: | Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Hello Bob List,
I am installing a singleLight Speed Engineering Electronic ignition on my Lyc O-235
powered Kitfox. As you may or may not remember, in order to avoid putting
a big hole in the firewall, I've decided to cut the main wire running from the
direct crank sensor to the 15 pin connector that inputs to the controller re-connect
the 15 pinwith D-Subs. I've already purchased the tools materials from
BC but need to get clear on a couple of things before I proceed. Am hoping
Bob /oranyone who has installed an LSE ignitionwill giveadvice on the following:
#1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so I can't
figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and the insertion/extraction
tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm missing something)
#2 - There are 2 shielded wires that go into the connector: One for power one
for ground. The two shields are connected to each other close to the 15 pin but
LSE says to leave thoseends un-connected. I don't understand what purpose they
could serve. As my battery is in the tail of my aircraft I need to lengthen
the existing wires to get back to my battery bus. Should I install shielded wires
install per LSE or is it permissible to install un-shielded wire.
#3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables that run
to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one side of the
cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small amount for the
fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in Bob's notes, but LSE
says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any advice here would help.
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
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: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> #1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
missing something)
They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
> #3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
advice here would help.
See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
gets wrapped around the shield.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | Panel planner software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Trampas" <tstern@nc.rr.com>
Try:
http://www.panelplanner.com/
Trampas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
David.vonLinsowe
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Panel planner software
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David.vonLinsowe"
<David.vonLinsowe@delphi.com>
While at Osh I ran into a booth that offered CAD style panel layout
software. It looked like it would do what I needed, but it didn't look
like they had the GRT Horizon 1 EFIS in their data base yet. I didn't
get a chance to get back to the booth to talk to the owner or pick up
any literature before we had to beat the incoming weather.
Could someone please point me in the right direction with either a web
address or phone number? Please send the info to davevon@tir.com, I
won't get the list info until Monday night.
BTW. A friend building a RV-7 figures he'll save 25 lbs by going to the
Dynon vs. a vacuum system!
Thanks,
Dave
The "Silver Turtle"
RV-6 Flying, but upgrading
Say good by to the vacuum pump :-)
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: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
#1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
missing something)
They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
Thanks Dan! I'll get a new one (or two) from BC like I probably should have in
the first place.
#3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
advice here would help.
See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
gets wrapped around the shield.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
That's the 'Bob's Notes' part I was referring to.I really likeBob's method a lot-
my only hesitation is LSE's instructions not to use heat shrink tubing on the
Co-Ax Cable. (I don't understand how it could hurt. Did you use heat shrink
tubing? How did you solder the pigtail on without melting the insulation around
the center conductor?
======================================================================
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: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> That's the 'Bob's Notes' part I was referring to.I really likeBob's method
a lot- my only hesitation is LSE's instructions not to use heat shrink
tubing on the Co-Ax Cable. (I don't understand how it could hurt. Did you
use heat shrink tubing? How did you solder the pigtail on without melting
the insulation around the center conductor?
I haven't completed that portion of the LSE wiring yet, but I have every
intention of putting tiny bit of heat shrink over that exposed/soldered
shield section. I'd love to hear the rationale for not using heat shrink...
Would silicone wrap be any better?
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Shielded Wires on EI Install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
Don't use the RG58 that comes with the LSE. Use RG400 from B&C. I've had
engine heat melt the insulator and short out RG58.
At 03:12 PM 8/8/03 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>
> #1 - Can I re-use the 15 pin connector that came with the ignition? If so
>I can't figure out how to remove the existing pins. They are not D-sub and
>the insertion/extraction tool from BC doesn't seem to work (unless I'm
>missing something)
>
>They're soldered. I just bought a new connector shell from Mouser for 88
>cents (part #ME156-1415). The new one takes crimp pins.
>
>
>Thanks Dan! I'll get a new one (or two) from BC like I probably should
>have in the first place.
>
>
> #3 - I'm having trouble'gathering'the shields of the RG58 (Co-ax) cables
>
>
>that run to the ignitions coils. Cutting the shields to gather them on one
>side of the cable seems to shred most of the shielding, leaving a small
>amount for the fast-on connector. I'd like to use the process outlined in
>Bob's notes, but LSE says not to used shrink tubing on the RG-58 cables. Any
>advice here would help.
>
>See Bob's article on shield pigtails:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
>Instead of having to comb out the shield, you can just solder a new wire the
>gets wrapped around the shield.
>
>)_( Dan
>RV-7 N714D
>http://www.rvproject.com
>
>
>That's the 'Bob's Notes' part I was referring to.I really likeBob's method
>a lot- my only hesitation is LSE's instructions not to use heat shrink
>tubing on the Co-Ax Cable. (I don't understand how it could hurt. Did you
>use heat shrink tubing? How did you solder the pigtail on without melting
>the insulation around the center conductor?
>
>
>======================================================================
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel layout - request for comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:37 PM 8/8/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/8/03 11:08:17 AM Central Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
> > . . . 99% of what we KNOW about
> > the certified experience is of no value in this
> > regard except to acknowledge that they're not doing
> > it right. Let us concentrate on deducing what
> > makes us look like really good pilots because
> > our airplanes are free of disappointments.
> >
>
>Good Afternoon Bob,
>
>Now, that is the point I was trying to make.
>
>mjheinen made the following statement and asked for comment.
>
> > My understanding and I believe companies that make these "glass panels" is
> > that you would need at least two of them to maybe qualify for IFR or
> have a
> > vacuum system backup. If you unit failed all your instruments would be
> > gone...no partial panel...thus I dont believe you could use it fro IFR
> legally. With
> > steam guages at least one instrument or system failure still gives you
> some
> > options.
> >
>
>It seems to me that he is under the impression that there is some government
>requirement that specifies a need for standby equipment to fly IFR legally.
>
>That is just not true.
. . . I agree that the words are not in the regs associated
uniquely with IFR operations for power sources but probably
because the requirements for multiple sources of power are imposed
elsewhere without even mentioning IFR operations. The multiple
or "standby" instrument package is in there too. Let's consider
power first.
For example, were I to design an aircraft with no battery,
a self-excited alternator and some handy but non-electric
starter (remember Capt'n Jimmy in Flight of the Phoenix?)
I'd have a real tough time certifying the airplane even
for day/vfr if, for example, if I had an electronic ignition.
23.1165 says I gotta have both generator and battery power sources.
23.1351(c) says that if I have electrical equipment necessary
for safe operation there MUST be a generator/alternator . . .
of course, this could be a wind driven generator for day
vfr. We might beg off redundancy based on the notion
that the airplane can continue to be flown safely with
the electrical system completely down (magnetos only
of course).
The place were dual power sources get the mandate
is in 23.1353, Storage Battery Installations.
Hmmm . . . we're designing an airplane that doesn't
require a battery. Does this section apply?
Looking at 23.1353(h) we see words about 30 minutes
of reserve power for equipment essential to continued
safe flight should the primary power source fail.
Shucks, we're seeking day/vfr only certification
and magneto fired . . . then again there are no
electrical devices essential to comfortable
termination of flight.
IFR isn't mentioned in this section but the requirement
is pretty clear. As soon as we put a suite of electrically
powered flight instruments intended for navigating
IFR conditions, the 30-minute rule under 23.1353 would
force addition of a battery (or second generator/alternator)
to our battery-free design.
Not only do we need the backup for certification, it's
capacity must be sufficient for, what in my opinion,
is an unnecessarily small value of endurance.
As I see it, the only way I could stand a chance
of certifying a battery-less aircraft is if it
had a vacuum system too . . . but even then,
the airplane would be limited to flight in
uncontrolled airspace 'cause I could loose radios
even tho I had flight instruments powered from
independent sources.
While it may be quite legal to pop up into the clouds
in certain airspace sans radios, the prospect of
doing so far exceeds my thirst for challenge . . .
Technologies available to us today in the form of
SD-8/SD-20 products, yearly swapped or carefully
monitored RG batteries combined with multiple
feedpath e-bus architectures offer an opportunity
to far exceed the 30 minute "requirement" with
great ease and comfort.
With respect to standby instruments, we find 91.205(d)(3)
calls for rate of turn unless you have a spill proof
third gyro as called out in (i) plus directional
and attitude gyros. Are these combinations
of instrumentation not selected for their abilities
to substitute for or back up each other?
While not specifically called "standby"
instrumentation, I'll suggest that the intent
of the rules are clear . . . make sure that
no single failure can ruin your day.
If one intends to outfit an OBAM aircraft with any
of the current offerings of glass-screen all-in-one
instruments, how would we offer up the aircraft as
suited for IFR operations under Part 91 if we did not have
-EITHER- a second glass-screen system running from
an independent power source -OR- a cluster of
steam gages or other hardware that serves in
the capacity of needle-ball-and-and-airspeed
should a crack in that LCD screen lets all the juice
out.
If I stood toe-to-toe with an FAA-type after causing
but surviving an overly tense emergency on the ground
and tried to argue, "there are no requirements for
redundant power sources for IFR flight 'cause
Part 23 doesn't apply to my airplane. Further,
Part 91 doesn't say doodly-squat about 'standby'
instruments." he'd probably be pleased figure
out some way to make my life miserable. This
isn't likely to happen 'cause my emergency is more
likely to end in a smoking hole than in a discussion
about regulatory semantics with some chap from FSDO.
>As you so strongly state, it is up to we users to determine what we feel is
>required for the level of safety we desire.
Yup. We gotta keep in mind that requirements offered supposedly
as a "design floor" more often become the "design ceiling." Take
housing codes for example. Almost nobody builds houses with the notion
that excelling beyond the code requirements is a better value.
To build foundations suited to the soil upon which my house
was built 35 years ago would have increased the price of the
house about 5%. Nonetheless, the construction was (and still
is) compliant with code. By the time I get through paying to have it
fixed, the costs will be closer to 25% of the value
of the house and still not done as well as it could have been
when the house was built.
So it is with the FARs . . . While multiple sources of
power are not mentioned in Part 91 which applies to how
we USE any airplane, I think it's reasonable to
say that there ARE pieces of Part 23 (while not applicable
OBAM aircraft) that make multiple sources a requirement
for IFR in the spam-can and a hell-of-a-good idea on an
OBAM ship as well . . . in fact, how about THREE or
FOUR sources of power? TWO alternators and TWO batteries
can be lighter than one classic alternator, one battery and
a vacuum system.
The wording and intent of required gyro instruments
(or their functional equals) in Part 91 is pretty
clear too. It's how we choose to select, install and
power all this stuff up that determines whether
or not they become functional or regulatory
equivalents of "standby" instruments.
>I have many airline pilot friends who will vociferously state that they will
>never fly a single engine airplane unless they are sitting on a parachute
>mounted in a zero altitude, zero airspeed, ejection seat.
>
>I respect their right to make that decision. I sure don't want them to be
>able to make rules that would force all of us to do likewise.
Hear, HEAR my friend! . . . I know a number of rule makers/enforcers who
used to have jobs that added value . . .
>Thank goodness, I have the right to determine how safe I want to be and what
>level of redundancy I need for the operation I am conducting.
>
>Let's all try to keep it that way.
. . . to be sure, as numbers of certified SE-GA aircraft continue
to dwindle, there will be individuals in places of power who view
the last bastion of aviation liberty as fertile ground for
advancement of their careers. We can not relax our
vigil for an instant . . . and while we're guarding our
rear, we can show the rest of the aviation community just
what a CEILING for functionality and performance the FARS
have become.
Here's a piece I wrote on the subject nearly 6 years
ago . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/futurnow.pdf
Bob . . .
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aeroelectric Connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: drew.schumann@us.army.mil
I just received my copy of "The Aeroelectric Connection" along with the CD. I've
just started and have to say that I greatly admire and enjoy Bob's writing
style. AND the promptness in which this order was filled.
I look forward to reading through it in the next couple days.
Drew
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! --
|