---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 08/17/03: 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:12:56 AM PST US From: "Dan O'Brien" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 with two rear batteries --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan O'Brien" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:14 AM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Cable --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss Eric, What is the weight per foot of this cable? Charlie Kuss >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:36:28 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: soldering iron wattage --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:14:38 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Cable --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:17:25 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery voltage on start --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:33 AM 8/17/2003 +0200, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Grosvenor" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:55:09 PM PST US From: "iflyaa5" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "iflyaa5" 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" 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:11:03 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: soldering iron wattage --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:36:56 PM PST US From: "John Perry" Subject: AeroElectric-List: LR-3 V/R and Alternators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Perry" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:53:04 PM PST US From: "Rob W M Shipley" Subject: AeroElectric-List: IFR minimum equipment and solid state instruments --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:06:49 PM PST US From: Charlie Kuss Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Battery Cable --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss 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" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:59:23 PM PST US From: richard@riley.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" > >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" >To: >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" >To: >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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:02:09 PM PST US From: "Jim Cameron" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual COM's, one antenna?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Cameron" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:55:22 PM PST US From: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:21:09 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" * 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:05:26 PM PST US From: BAKEROCB@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bureaucratic Fungus --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BAKEROCB@aol.com Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "William" <> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:27:35 PM PST US From: PeterHunt1@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:52:37 PM PST US From: "James E. Clark" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Avionics-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" 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. . 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*** <> 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" > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Garmin/UPS merger > > > --> Avionics-List message posted by: "iflyaa5" > > 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" > To: > 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" > To: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:18:07 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LR-3 V/R and Alternators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:30 PM 8/17/2003 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Perry" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:22:42 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Cable --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 . . .