Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:12 AM - Z-14 with two rear batteries (Dan O'Brien)
2. 08:55 AM - Re: Battery Cable (Charlie Kuss)
3. 10:36 AM - Re: soldering iron wattage ()
4. 12:14 PM - Re: Battery Cable (Eric M. Jones)
5. 12:17 PM - Re: Battery voltage on start (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:55 PM - Re: Garmin/UPS merger (iflyaa5)
7. 01:11 PM - Re: soldering iron wattage (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 01:36 PM - LR-3 V/R and Alternators (John Perry)
9. 02:53 PM - IFR minimum equipment and solid state instruments (Rob W M Shipley)
10. 03:06 PM - Re: Re: Battery Cable (Charlie Kuss)
11. 03:59 PM - Re: Re: Garmin/UPS merger (richard@riley.net)
12. 04:02 PM - Dual COM's, one antenna?? (Jim Cameron)
13. 04:55 PM - Re: Battery Cable (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
14. 05:21 PM - Re: Re: Garmin/UPS merger (Terry Watson)
15. 06:05 PM - Bureaucratic Fungus (BAKEROCB@aol.com)
16. 07:27 PM - Use of relay S704-1 (PeterHunt1@aol.com)
17. 07:52 PM - Re: Avionics-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger (James E. Clark)
18. 10:18 PM - Re: LR-3 V/R and Alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 10:22 PM - Re: Battery Cable (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Z-14 with two rear batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien@cox.net>
Bob,
Awhile back you posted a hand-drawn diagram showing the basic electrical
configuration for a Z-14 system with two rear-mounted batteries. The
figure shows six buses: a fuseblock near each battery in back, a ground bus
in back tied in with the panel/firewall ground bus in front, and the main
and auxiliary buses in front. I wasn't able to find this diagram on your
site. I just want to confirm that this is the configuration you recommend
for two rear-mounted batteries.
Thanks.
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: Battery Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Eric,
What is the weight per foot of this cable?
Charlie Kuss
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Don't know the cost adder will be for tinning or plating. I will let you know.
The insulation will be yellow Radox FX. Really super stuff.
>
>Later,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>Phone (508) 764-2072
>Email: emjones@charter.net
>
>Eric M. Jones
>
>When trouble arises and things look bad, there is always one individual
>who perceives a solution and is willing to take command.
>Very often, that individual is crazy.
> --Dave Barry
>
>
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: soldering iron wattage |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <mjheinen@adelphia.net>
I built both RST kits and then some and was complimented on the quality when I
sent the audio panel up to be calibrated. I used one of those butane powered units
that you can adjust the heat. They are now widely available at places like
Lowes and Home Depot.....very portable and I could work in front of the TV ...listen
to the wife(counts as quality time...)while working on my units. I believe
it is a Weller unit and came with a starter several sizes of soldering tips,
a hot knife tip that was great for running up and down both sides of the
rivet lines on the aluminum sheet metal skins to remove the plastic protector
leaving it on the rest of the skin for protection...and does not mar the surface,
and came with a small hot air gun attachment ...great for heat shrink and
a small torch....I believe I pad about $50 but have since seen them for about
$35 If you need the brand and model let me know.
>
> From: drew.schumann@us.army.mil
> Date: 2003/08/17 Sun AM 01:15:43 EDT
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering iron wattage
>
>
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: Battery Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
All the info is on http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwiremanual.pdf
Note that the weight on the chart is calculated for bare wire. In my hand is a
sample of copper-clad-aluminum, Radox insulated #1/0 AWG that weighs 2.4 ounces
per foot. #1/0 AWG copper-clad aluminum should be used to replace #2 AWG copper
to get the same resistance per foot.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"It's getting hard to be cynical enough to keep up with reality"
--Lily Tomlin
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: Battery voltage on start |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:33 AM 8/17/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor" <dwg@iafrica.com>
>
>Thanks Bob. That answers my question. The reason I asked was two fold.
>With my kit I was supplied with a 16Ah wet motorcycle battery. I know the
>advantages of using an RG battery, but decided to put this thing in and use
>it until it died because I have paid for it.
Good idea. I've often recommended that folks use any ol'
boat, tractor, or car battery and plug-in-the-wall charger
to test things. Don't put real battery in your airplane
until day before first-flight.
Don't know how many folks hauled brand new batteries home
from OSH 'cause they were good deals on "show specials" and
then had to store/maintain them for a couple of years.
Flight battery is among very last things to purchase and
install . . .
>I was doing more tests with my OV module glitch and put a recording scope on
>my bus. When I hit the start button, the battery voltage is dropping right
>down to 9 volts. The battery cranks the starter with enough enthusiasm to
>start the engine (Rotax starter draws 50A) but my second problem related to
>a Rotax engine information system called a FlyDat that I have fitted. It
>doesn't like the low voltage and resets itself. It takes 30 seconds to go
>though its initialisation process which means you don't see an oil press
>reading for at least 30 secs.
Aha! yet another product not designed to live in the real
world . . .
>I was wondering if a 16Ah RG battery will also suffer from the same sort of
>volt drop. I saw the specs on a Hawker RG battery which say it will deliver
>680A for 30 secs before dropping to 7.2 volts but I wanted to know if it
>will deliver 50A for 10 secs without dropping substantially. Thanks to your
>reply and looking at the specs again I see the impedance is 7milliohms which
>will give me a 0.35V drop - I can live with that.
You're question was incomplete . . . you asked about 60A
of cranking current. Keep in mind that while a motor is
not in motion, its current draw is MUCH higher . . . oft
referred to as "locked rotor current" . . . virtually
every electrical rotating machine powered with AC or DC
has this characteristic. I published some battery voltage
plots a few months ago taken from my van during a cranking
event. For a few milliseconds while the starter motor was
getting into motion, it was pulling perhaps 800-1200 amps!
Battery voltage drooped to about 6 volts during this interval.
I poked around looking for that .jpg file and couldn't come
up with it. I may have to go out and measure it again.
In any case, what you may need to do with your picky display
is power it through a diode and put a fat electrolytic capacitor
downstream of the diode to mitigate the micro-brown-out that
upsets it. This capability should have been built into the device.
If you ever have any conversation with the manufacturer,
you might suggest this change to later models. Feel
free to have them contact me for more detailed suggestions.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
<aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: | Re: Garmin/UPS merger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "iflyaa5" <iflyaa5@comcast.net>
Are you saying that AOPA does not have a position because both manufacturers
buy advertising from the AOPA and you're afraid that taking a position will
jeopardize that revenue? That's what it sounds like to me!
Furthermore, how does consolidation of the industry lead to product
improvement and more affordable costs? Please explain. Free enterprise
markets don't work that way! Perhaps the AOPA leadership needs to go back
and review their Economics textbooks?
I find AOPA's position on this as mousey and cowardly. You love to pat
yourselves on the back for taking on government entities such as the FAA,
TSA, City of Chicago, etc. But when it comes to taking on advertisers you
run scared.
Is OUR association of Airplane Owners and Pilots just chartered to defend
against the actions of non-revenue generating adversaries, or all of them?
Think about it. I don't think AOPA's position on this is in the best
interest of the membership!
Andy Morehouse
Bedford, TX
AOPA #04175087
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barnhart, Larry" <Larry.Barnhart@aopa.org>
Subject: Garmin/UPS merger
> Andy,
>
> AOPA doe snot have a position on the merger of Garmin and UPS. As I am
sure
> you know both advertise in our magazine and on our web site. For various
> reasons AOPA does not place one firm over another. Rather, we do support
> what the industry is doing to consolidate manufacturers of equipment and
for
> product improvement as long as cost is controlled and the products are
> available at reasonable costs.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Larry Barnhart
> Aviation Services Department
----- Original Message -----
From: "ANDY MOREHOUSE" <AMOREH@childmed.dallas.tx.us>
Subject: Garmin acquisition of UPSAT
> I am writing to inquire as to the AOPA's position on the announced
> acquisition of UPSAT by Garmin.
>
> In my view this is nothing more than Garmin's attempt to reduce
> competition. In a General Aviation marketplace where prices are already
> outrageously expensive for modern technology avionics systems, this will
> only drive pricing higher. This merger (if approved) will effectively
> eliminating one-fourth to one-third of the competition in this arena. In
> addition, it is arguable that this merger will be beneficial to the
> advancement of technology since advancements are often driven by
> competitive pressures.
>
> As a member, I encourage the AOPA to strongly oppose this merger, and I
> offer my support in doing so. Please advise as to any AOPA actions
> underway in this area. Additionally, please provide guidance as to what
> government representatives and agencies I should address my concerns.
>
> Andy Morehouse
> Member ID# 04175087
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: soldering iron wattage |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:15 AM 8/17/2003 +0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: drew.schumann@us.army.mil
>
>In reading the instructions for building an RST Marker Beacon kit, they
>call out for a 35-80 watt pencil soldering iron. I have access to a 25
>watt iron from Radio Shack. Looking through the kit, I don't see anything
>so big as to need all that extra wattage. Am I wrong in thinking I could
>do just as good a job with a 25 watt iron?
It's fairly useless to rate and purchase soldering irons
based on wattage alone . . . or price either. I've had
some rechargeable soldering irons like
http://www.starkelectronic.com/wahl.htm
that don't even mention wattage in the sales literature . . .
if they did, folks might not buy them 'cause at
power levels on the order of 12 WATTS, surely they
couldn't be very useful.
I've purchased 110v irons at Radio Shack for under $10.00
when I need something quick in the field. The irons on
my workbench retail for $400+ but I get them off Ebay for a whole
lot less.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2551056976&category=1504
I've got some gas-powered irons in my toolbox (really nice
when there's no place to plug in) that can be had for
$15 to $50 depending on manufacturer and retailer.
All soldering irons have trade offs. The gas irons are
really handy in remote service but have lousy temperature
control and are not convenient. $5 plug in irons from
Radio Shack tend to be adequate for small etched circuit
board work but have poor quality tips that erode away
and are difficult to get replacement tips for . . . or
the tips corrode so badly that you can't get the bad one
out to put a new one in.
Here's a couple of irons both rated at "50W"
http://216.55.140.222/Pictures/soldering_irons.jpg
The black one is the business end of my $high$ iron off
of Ebay. This has dozens of quickly replaceable tips,
some of which are tiny enough to solder .025" spaced
leads on surface mount chips. The tip you see here
is the largest physical sized tip they offer. I've soldered
un-insulated terminals onto 2AWG wires with this iron.
The red iron is typical of low cost irons that have
been around for over 60 years. See the switch in the
cord? Throwing that switch one way puts a diode in
series with the iron. When I put this hummer down
it eventually gets so hot that the thing glows cherry
red in the dark. Putting it into the low-power mode
between soldering tasks makes it last a lot longer.
So wattage alone is not very significant in the
selection of an iron. If you can get all the watts
focused at the tip and CONTROLLED, you can do jobs
that grandpa's 200W billy-club iron wouldn't do.
Soldering is like flying an airplane . . . it's all
in your ability to manage energy.
Having offered this, if you're buying your first
soldering iron, get a cheapy from Radio Shack
(or B&C)
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?9X358218
and have at it. It's reasonable to believe that if an
iron is offered by a company that sells lots of
other electronic goodies, the thing will have
some utility at your proposed task. If you've
got one kit to assemble and won't use the iron again
for years . . . shucks, you're done. However, as
your skills mature so will your tastes in tools.
I've probably owned more kinds of soldering tools
than for any other task.
If you find that soldering is an oft-used technology
in your shop, I don't think you can do better than
Metcal. When I started buying these, all of my
other "temperature controlled" solder stations
(some costing much more) got donated to other
workshops in the family. I got B&C converted
over to them several years ago with Ebay purchases.
These are the only soldering irons we use at Raytheon.
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: | LR-3 V/R and Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Perry" <jperryfly@earthlink.net>
Does the LR-3 volt reg from B&C come with directions to dissconnect an internal
reg on something like the Nippon-Denso alternators? Is a new alternator availible?
I think the Auto Parts stores are going to have rebuilt ones.
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: | IFR minimum equipment and solid state instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob@robsglass.com>
I've been reading the various listers input on this topic with considerable interest.
Making the assumption that most of us are designing our electrical systems in accordance
with Bob's principles it seems to me that to satisfy the required redundancy
in the event of a D10 or EFIS failure a wing leveler and a com radio
on the e-bus in conjunction with a hand held GPS for situational awareness would
provide a means for staying greasy side down, pointed in the right direction
and able to ask for help if necessary.
Now please note that I'm building a VFR ship and view the above suggestion as two
layer insurance in the event that, God forbid, I should ever stray into IMC.
Just my .02 and very willing to hear other ideas.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
RV9A N919RV (res) Fuselage
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: Battery Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Eric,
Thanks for the info. The info I have says that #2 gauge Tefzel Mil-Spec wire weighs
3.7 ounces per foot. So your product only weighs 64% of aircraft wire.
Do you expect to add #4 & #6 gauge wire soon?
What is the recommended solder for use in attaching lug terminals to this wire?
Charlie Kuss
RV-8A cockpit systems stuff
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>All the info is on http://www.periheliondesign.com/fatwiremanual.pdf
>
>Note that the weight on the chart is calculated for bare wire. In my hand is a
sample of copper-clad-aluminum, Radox insulated #1/0 AWG that weighs 2.4 ounces
per foot. #1/0 AWG copper-clad aluminum should be used to replace #2 AWG copper
to get the same resistance per foot.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>Phone (508) 764-2072
>Email: emjones@charter.net
>
>"It's getting hard to be cynical enough to keep up with reality"
>--Lily Tomlin
>
>
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: Garmin/UPS merger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
I already have a couple of pools out there on how long Groen Brothers and
Eclipse will last before they announce Ch 11.
Anyone want in on how long before Garmin shuts down the UPS line? I give
it 18 months from closing. A week after that we'll see a 30% increase in
the price of Garmin stuff.
If you can afford it, buy now. The Avionics Revolution has just ended.
At 02:50 PM 8/17/03 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "iflyaa5" <iflyaa5@comcast.net>
>
>Are you saying that AOPA does not have a position because both manufacturers
>buy advertising from the AOPA and you're afraid that taking a position will
>jeopardize that revenue? That's what it sounds like to me!
>
>Furthermore, how does consolidation of the industry lead to product
>improvement and more affordable costs? Please explain. Free enterprise
>markets don't work that way! Perhaps the AOPA leadership needs to go back
>and review their Economics textbooks?
>
>I find AOPA's position on this as mousey and cowardly. You love to pat
>yourselves on the back for taking on government entities such as the FAA,
>TSA, City of Chicago, etc. But when it comes to taking on advertisers you
>run scared.
>
>Is OUR association of Airplane Owners and Pilots just chartered to defend
>against the actions of non-revenue generating adversaries, or all of them?
>Think about it. I don't think AOPA's position on this is in the best
>interest of the membership!
>
>Andy Morehouse
>Bedford, TX
>AOPA #04175087
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Barnhart, Larry" <Larry.Barnhart@aopa.org>
>To: <IFLYAA5@ATTBI.COM>
>Subject: Garmin/UPS merger
>
>
> > Andy,
> >
> > AOPA doe snot have a position on the merger of Garmin and UPS. As I am
>sure
> > you know both advertise in our magazine and on our web site. For various
> > reasons AOPA does not place one firm over another. Rather, we do support
> > what the industry is doing to consolidate manufacturers of equipment and
>for
> > product improvement as long as cost is controlled and the products are
> > available at reasonable costs.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Larry Barnhart
> > Aviation Services Department
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ANDY MOREHOUSE" <AMOREH@childmed.dallas.tx.us>
>To: <aopahq@aopa.org>
>Subject: Garmin acquisition of UPSAT
>
>
> > I am writing to inquire as to the AOPA's position on the announced
> > acquisition of UPSAT by Garmin.
> >
> > In my view this is nothing more than Garmin's attempt to reduce
> > competition. In a General Aviation marketplace where prices are already
> > outrageously expensive for modern technology avionics systems, this will
> > only drive pricing higher. This merger (if approved) will effectively
> > eliminating one-fourth to one-third of the competition in this arena. In
> > addition, it is arguable that this merger will be beneficial to the
> > advancement of technology since advancements are often driven by
> > competitive pressures.
> >
> > As a member, I encourage the AOPA to strongly oppose this merger, and I
> > offer my support in doing so. Please advise as to any AOPA actions
> > underway in this area. Additionally, please provide guidance as to what
> > government representatives and agencies I should address my concerns.
> >
> > Andy Morehouse
> > Member ID# 04175087
>
>
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: | Dual COM's, one antenna?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Cameron" <toucan@78055.com>
I'm building a Lancair Legacy now, all carbon fiber, and wondering how
to handle 2 COM's without 2 separate, external COM antennas. The Legacy is
such a sleek design, I hate to have it end up looking like a hedgehog,
antennae bristling out all over it.
I've seen the Comant CI 605 "diplexer," but I've heard mixed things
about it, and its almost $700 price is a little hard to get around.
Any opinions or experience here?
Jim Cameron
Medina, Texas
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: Battery Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
In a message dated 8/15/2003 6:31:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
> Individual strands are copper clad so that they SOLDER like copper.
> Obviously, the cladding has to be thin to maximize the weight
> savings advantage of aluminum. I'd be curious about the
> integrity of the copper in the interior of a crimped joint . . .
> but then, if the cladding is intact up to and for some distance
> into the joint, then it wouldn't matter if some aluminum were
> exposed.
Bob & Eric,
Will be interested in hearing more about this cable, but need to make a move
quickly as I was planning to address this within the next two weeks.
One thing that concerns me with respect to possibly crimping this wire is not
fracturing of the fused copper, but the propensity for aluminum (possibly
limited to certain alloys) to relax or cold flow to relieve the pressure it is
under when "tightness" is used as the attach mechanism to achieve the gas free
interface. I am aware that several transformer/switchgear aluminum busses were
implicated in fires when the aluminum was reported to have relaxed relieving
pressure inder the joint thereby increasing the resistance in the connection.
I would be much less concerned if this were to be soldered under minimal
mechanical pressure.
Do you share this concern, or disagree with it?
Regards, Doug Windhorn
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Garmin/UPS merger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
* AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
If you can afford it, buy now. The Avionics Revolution has just ended.
Why does this remind me of the head of the patent office who wanted to shut
it down because everything worthwhile had already been invented - around
1900!. Garmin was founded in 1989. It's a 14 year old company. It's going
to take me about half that long to build my kit airplane. Do you really
believe that if Garmin and UPS Avionics merge they will decide to stop
innovating no one else will come along to unseat them? You could as easily
create an empty hole in the ocean as you can in a market. The laws of
physics will fill any void in the ocean. The laws of economics will just as
predictably fill any void in the market, be it in avionics or lawn chairs or
pickup trucks. Garmin and UPS are both excellent companies and I plan to buy
from both. If they leave the market it will only be because competitors
maybe just as invisible to us now as Garmin was in 1988 make them
non-competitive. Translation: someone offers us a better deal.
Or I guess we could just shut down the patent office and go home thinking
the future will look just like the past. Who needs a telegraph in an
airplane anyway?
Terry
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: | Bureaucratic Fungus |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "William"
<wschertz@ispwest.com>
<<Scratch built don't require bill of sale, different box is checked. Bill
Schertz>>
8/17/2003
Hello Bill, You are right, a different box is checked, but on a different
form (AC Form 8050-88). But that only points to the fundamental issue --
insidious growth of bureacratic fungus which creates barriers to progress with
no
commensurate benefit.
It goes something like this:
1) FAR Part 21.191 permits issuance of experimental airworthiness
certificates for the purpose of "operating an aircraft the major portion of which
has
been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project
solely for their own education or recreation".
2) When the aircraft was "built from miscellaneous parts" (See box to check
on AC Form 8050-88) by the amateur builder the major portion requirement was
usually and obviously met.
3) When kits began to be provided to amateur builders the "major portion"
issue became more problematical.
4) So the FAA set up a system whereby a kit provider could have a kit
evaluated by the FAA and the FAA would then issue a letter blessing the kit as
requiring a major portion effort by the amateur builder. Absolutely no other aspect
of the kit was approved by the FAA as they explicitly state in AC 20-139. I
quote "This letter SHOULD NOT (sic) be construed to mean the kit or its
manufacturer is FAA certified, certficated, or approved, and it is not appropriate
to
represent it as such."
5) Nevertheless with this "major portion only" FAA approval foot in the door,
individual FAA bureaucrats then began to expand their charter on two fronts.
5A) To keeping track of specific individual kits to ensure that they were, in
fact, the ones that were "FAA approved".
5B) To ensuring that the amateur builder built the "FAA approved" kit as
intended by the kit provider and as "approved" by the FAA.
6) The result of 5A) is the FAA legal types at Oklahoma attempting to treat
the original sale of ANY collection of material that was called a "kit" by ANY
provider to be potentially built by an amateur builder into an aircraft, as a
legal, titleable entity. Examples of these legal entities with titles are: a
specific piece of real estate, an automobile, or an existing airplane.
Therefore the FAA legal types are requiring for the original kit sale the same
administrative and legal titling and transfer of title treatment as the transfer
of
the title of one of those existing legal entities. (See AC Form 8050-2). A
valid bill of sale from the kit provider for the collection of material sold as
a
kit (which AC 20-27E specifically calls for) which does not contain the
sacred "words of transfer" is insufficient in their bureaucratic eyes.
7) The result of 5B) is that we have individual FAA inspectors out in the
field asking amateur builders "In building this aircraft did you make any
modifications from what the kit provider said you should do?" If the amateur builder
answers "Yes" then he starts a process wherein the amateur builder may have to
prove to the satisfaction of the inspector that the kit provider has no
objections to the modifications that were made to this kit during construction
by
the amateur builder EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A KIT THAT WAS NEVER PREVIOUSLY
EVALUATED BY THE FAA IN ANY FASHION WHATEVER such as for a major portion
determination. This obviously makes a mockey of the word "experimental" for the
amateur
builder in creating an amateur built experimental aircraft starting from a kit.
Alert citizens standing by the bridge are still needed in this country.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
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: | Use of relay S704-1 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PeterHunt1@aol.com
Bob,
I am using toggle switches from B&C (P/N S700-1-3 and -2-3) mounted on my
panel. On my pitot heat with 12 amp draw should I use a S704-1 relay to reduce
the amps going through my 1-3 switch? Do I need the relay on a 7 amp landing
light or just run the full load through the switch? What about on my master
switch to my main bus through which I may run 30 amps with everything powered up
and transmitting? I am using a S704-1 on my OVM (Figure Z-13). Where else
is an S704-1 appropriate and why? What prolonged amperage can a S700-1-3
switch handle?
Thanks.
Pete
RV-6 Panel
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: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Andy,
Since you put this here on the list, here is another perspective.
First, I think that AOPA **implied** position is as stated so to speak. They
support it given certain assumptions as mentioned.
Second, here is a view as to how this **COULD** be a good thing.
***SPECULATION ON*** (with a few facts thrown in)
UPS is getting back to the core business. I was happy to see that a big
company like UPS picked up II Morrow but I never saw it as core to their
business. In the grand scheme of things, UPSAT was only worth sone items
that could go into the UPS planes (equipment and results of maybe the
CAPSTONE effort). Glad they did it but it was not to last forever.
Garmin has been focussed on the G1000 program and not keeping up with some
of the GA stuff that UPSAT engineers were working on and trying to get out
the door. Of course they did a better Marketing job of what they did have.
Also, what they have, though it may be technically inferior, does for some
have a better user interface. <Lousy sentence but you get the idea>.
So ... UPS decides it wants out of this business and wants to do it
gracefully. They have a ferw options:
1. They can "spin out" the company (the current employees go off and try to
raise funds in today's market) If they did this, I suspect they would be
worse off. Capital comes with a LOT of strings.
2. They can "spin it in" deeper. Basically say, we are no longer interested
in you but if you can survive on your own then have at it. Might work, but
with Garmin being so dominant in this space for several of the items, they'd
have a tough row to hoe. Ya see, when Garmin came out with the "larger,
**COLOR**" units SEVERAL years ago and UPSAT did not respond, UPSAT go left
in the competitive dust. Sure they had *some* better products but the hot
cales seller was the Garmin 430.
3. They could "shop" the division. If this goes on for more than a few days,
you shoot the morale of the whole organization in the foot. Also, future
customers won't touch you with a ten foot pole. Once you decide to sell, you
need to have a buyer **ALREADY** in mind and be willing to close the deal
NOW!
4. They could find a "white/black/blue/green knight" to "take things over
and do right by everyone".
I am sure there are other options but they seemed to have chosen option #4.
Of course, it may have just fallen into their laps. Could have been the
result of a casual conversation over lunch somewhere. COuld have been that
Garmin really needs the additonal talent represented by UPSAT, especially
the engineering (though I would suggest that they try to keep as much of the
team as possible over the LONG haul).
I for one, am not so worried about Garmin purchasing UPSAT as much as I am
worried about what LOGIC they will use over time to "rationalize" the
priduct lines. To me THAT is the message we need to get to GARMIN (the
parent company of the two future divisions).
***SPECULATION OFF***
<<OPINION ON>>
If it were my decision to make here are the 10 things I would do with the
products.
[You can make up your own 10 if you disagree]
1. Phase out all the GX stuff as fast as possible (already underway I
believe)
Non color. Probably no cheaper than a color unit today and the 430 or a
cheaper future one would be better.
2. Phase out the SL50/SL60 (slimline GPS/GPSCOM) and SL10/SL15 (intercoms)
If you are going GPS these days, you might as well get more display
funtionality. You don't need to audio panels/intercoms
3. Merge the 430/530/CNX80 teams into one ... keeping them in current
locations for some time though. Establish product line roadmap that they all
work to.
4. Improve the user interface of the CNX80.
5. Promote the daylight out of the CNX80 to make the point that I am *not*
abandoning it.
6. Jack up the CPU in the MX20. CPU's are now available at 10x the speed
(for peanuts!)!!
7. Keep the SL70 transponder (because it can be offered as a remote and is
slim)
8. Keep the SL40 Com because it is probably the best value COM available
*and* is slim
9. Keep the SL30 because it can fit in the SL40 tray as an upgrade for
making your plane IFR
10. Eventually set up a "high end" team (G1000 etc) and a "plane ole GA"
team with a subgroup FOCUSSED on Experimental people who get to play with
early versions of stuff.
After doing this, I would then let the MARKET decide what to keep and
expand. If there is not demand, KILL IT! Do something the market wants
**or** your other/new competitors will.
If they did the above, I would be HAPPY that Garmin bought them because in
the long run if UPS has decided to get back to basics ("focus on the core")
then UPSAT **might** have become not just a casualty but a fatality in this
business.
James
... user of products from Garmin, UPSAT **and** Honeywell/King
... planned future user of products from Garmin-UPSAT Division
Your Mileage May Vary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of iflyaa5
> Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2003 3:51 PM
> To: "Barnhart, Larry" <Larry.Barnhart@aopa.org>
> Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger
>
>
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: "iflyaa5" <iflyaa5@comcast.net>
>
> Are you saying that AOPA does not have a position because both
> manufacturers
> buy advertising from the AOPA and you're afraid that taking a
> position will
> jeopardize that revenue? That's what it sounds like to me!
>
> Furthermore, how does consolidation of the industry lead to product
> improvement and more affordable costs? Please explain. Free enterprise
> markets don't work that way! Perhaps the AOPA leadership needs to go back
> and review their Economics textbooks?
>
> I find AOPA's position on this as mousey and cowardly. You love to pat
> yourselves on the back for taking on government entities such as the FAA,
> TSA, City of Chicago, etc. But when it comes to taking on advertisers you
> run scared.
>
> Is OUR association of Airplane Owners and Pilots just chartered to defend
> against the actions of non-revenue generating adversaries, or all of them?
> Think about it. I don't think AOPA's position on this is in the best
> interest of the membership!
>
> Andy Morehouse
> Bedford, TX
> AOPA #04175087
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barnhart, Larry" <Larry.Barnhart@aopa.org>
> To: <IFLYAA5@ATTBI.COM>
> Subject: Garmin/UPS merger
>
>
> > Andy,
> >
> > AOPA doe snot have a position on the merger of Garmin and UPS. As I am
> sure
> > you know both advertise in our magazine and on our web site. For various
> > reasons AOPA does not place one firm over another. Rather, we do support
> > what the industry is doing to consolidate manufacturers of equipment and
> for
> > product improvement as long as cost is controlled and the products are
> > available at reasonable costs.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Larry Barnhart
> > Aviation Services Department
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ANDY MOREHOUSE" <AMOREH@childmed.dallas.tx.us>
> To: <aopahq@aopa.org>
> Subject: Garmin acquisition of UPSAT
>
>
> > I am writing to inquire as to the AOPA's position on the announced
> > acquisition of UPSAT by Garmin.
> >
> > In my view this is nothing more than Garmin's attempt to reduce
> > competition. In a General Aviation marketplace where prices are already
> > outrageously expensive for modern technology avionics systems, this will
> > only drive pricing higher. This merger (if approved) will effectively
> > eliminating one-fourth to one-third of the competition in this arena. In
> > addition, it is arguable that this merger will be beneficial to the
> > advancement of technology since advancements are often driven by
> > competitive pressures.
> >
> > As a member, I encourage the AOPA to strongly oppose this merger, and I
> > offer my support in doing so. Please advise as to any AOPA actions
> > underway in this area. Additionally, please provide guidance as to what
> > government representatives and agencies I should address my concerns.
> >
> > Andy Morehouse
> > Member ID# 04175087
>
>
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: | Re: LR-3 V/R and Alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:30 PM 8/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Perry"
><jperryfly@earthlink.net>
>
>Does the LR-3 volt reg from B&C come with directions to
>dissconnect an internal reg on something like the Nippon-Denso
>alternators?
No . . .
>Is a new alternator availible?
Yes, they are the B&C L-40, L60 and SD-20 alternators.
>I think the Auto Parts stores are going to have rebuilt ones.
Probably . . . although you can buy new ND alternators
from OEM dealers as spares for their cars . . . and all
of those will come with built in regulators.
Bob . . .
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: Battery Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:54 PM 8/17/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 8/15/2003 6:31:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>bob.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
>
> > Individual strands are copper clad so that they SOLDER like copper.
> > Obviously, the cladding has to be thin to maximize the weight
> > savings advantage of aluminum. I'd be curious about the
> > integrity of the copper in the interior of a crimped joint . . .
> > but then, if the cladding is intact up to and for some distance
> > into the joint, then it wouldn't matter if some aluminum were
> > exposed.
>
>Bob & Eric,
>
>Will be interested in hearing more about this cable, but need to make a move
>quickly as I was planning to address this within the next two weeks.
>
>One thing that concerns me with respect to possibly crimping this wire is not
>fracturing of the fused copper, but the propensity for aluminum (possibly
>limited to certain alloys) to relax or cold flow to relieve the pressure
>it is
>under when "tightness" is used as the attach mechanism to achieve the gas
>free
>interface. I am aware that several transformer/switchgear aluminum busses
>were
>implicated in fires when the aluminum was reported to have relaxed relieving
>pressure inder the joint thereby increasing the resistance in the
>connection.
>I would be much less concerned if this were to be soldered under minimal
>mechanical pressure.
>
>Do you share this concern, or disagree with it?
If I were using this material, I think I would solder
the joints. Gas-tight with no metal being mashed. Agreed . . .
"relaxing" of any metal under pressure is alloy dependent . . .
I don't think we worry much about thousands of riveted joints
in aluminum structures getting loose due to viscosity of the
metal.
I'll poke around the AMP application notes and position papers
on aluminum conductors. If ANYONE knows all the details, it
has to be AMP.
Bob . . .
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! --
|