Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:47 AM - Re: Re: Compass shielding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:52 AM - Electrical current needs (Fergus Kyle)
3. 07:16 AM - Re:Re: For Bob, Comment? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:40 AM - Re: Re: Compass shielding (Alex Peterson)
5. 08:28 AM - Re: Bus Load Analysis .. An Idea (John Schroeder)
6. 08:28 AM - Compass shielding (Glen Matejcek)
7. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: Compass shielding (Dale Martin)
8. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Compass shielding (Dj Merrill)
9. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: Compass shielding (Mike Nellis)
10. 09:33 AM - Re: Dynon and EMI (Jeff Point)
11. 09:58 AM - Re: Bus Load Analysis .. An Idea (Walter Tondu)
12. 01:15 PM - Locating Switches (Dale Martin)
13. 03:06 PM - Re: Locating Switches (I-Blackler, Wayne R)
14. 03:43 PM - Off line for a week . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 04:38 PM - Re: Off line for a week . . . (Dave Morris)
16. 04:57 PM - FS: SL70 Transponder (richard@riley.net)
17. 05:15 PM - round transponder recommendations (AI Nut)
18. 05:20 PM - Re: Off line for a week . . . (mprather)
19. 05:40 PM - alternator switch (klehman@albedo.net)
20. 06:17 PM - Re: Re: Compass shielding (Alex Peterson)
21. 06:30 PM - Re: round transponder recommendations (richard@riley.net)
22. 07:38 PM - Re: FS: SL70 Transponder (Richard E. Tasker)
23. 08:40 PM - Re: Locating Switches (flmike)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:29 AM 2/13/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 2/12/2004 10:07:57 PM Mountain Standard Time,
>Speedy11@aol.com writes:
>
>
> >
> > It is easiest - I certainly use it - but if you are being vectored by ATC,
> > using GPS ground track is not what they are expecting of you. In many
> parts
> > of
> > the USA, true heading and mag heading will be the same number, but they
> will
> >
> > rarely match the GPS track. Am I splitting hairs - Yup. But, when ATC
> > assigns a heading, they are expecting you to fly mag heading.
If strictly true, then GPS is useless for complying
with ATC instructions. GPS doesn't display heading (direction
airplane is pointed) but course (direction airplane is going).
Depending on winds, the difference between the two can be
10 degrees or more depending on speed of your airplane.
An ATC controller used to live on our airport and I asked
him about the "fly heading xx degrees" instruction. Since
his radar display was based on course, not heading, does
he do the mental gymnastics to account for winds. He said
no. When I give you a "heading" of 90 degrees, I'm pointing
you off into airspace well clear of other aircraft. If you
in fact give me a course of 80 or 100 degrees, it mostly
doesn't matter. If I don't get enough of an effect for my
instructions, I may follow up with come right 10 degrees
or a new heading of 100 degrees. It's like painting a portrait
with a 4" brush. He opined that flying GPS course in response
to an ATC instruction would probably make every controller
happy . . . even if your magnetically slaved DG displayed
something different due to winds. That should be a MAGNETIC course
which is, I believe, available from most GPS receivers.
>so ya just set your DG on your take off roll. Runway heading is as close as a
> magnetic compass reading. Probably closer. Stan is right about the Mag
>variation though. Here in Jackson Hole Wy the difference is 15 degrees,
My GPS receivers will optionally display either magnetic or
true. They contain a look-up table of variations that does
the calculation for you. I fly with them set for Magnetic
course display.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: | Electrical current needs |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"Excellent Idea! How about a spreadsheet with know values for some of
the standard equipment out there. I'll even volunteer to manage it.
This would be a huge timesaver for current and future builders who aspire
to follow the Mr. K route of electronics design. Perhaps those of you
who have completed their system analysis could forward their information
we could compile the list in short order. Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7"
I seem to recall a site on the web where someone has compiled a list
of units and their current requirements.....
Perhaps a reader on this net might remember and display the site?
Ferg
Europa A064 monowheel 914
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: For Bob, Comment? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> >
> > STC is EXACTLY what those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-
> > we-do like. Treat every installation like it's never been done
> > before and test the hell out of it. This keeps those who
> > don't understand what's happening from having to think or
> > learn anything. It makes sure that some wheels get invented
> > over and over again. The STC route is relatively low risk
> > but also expensive because common sense approaches are
> > neither encouraged or allowed. Everyone is expected to
> > read and respond to a rule book. Whether or not he/she
> > understands the system to which the rules are applied
> > no longer matters.
> >
> >
>
>I'm betting you are not a big fan of the Approved Model List STC for
>the Apollo CNX-80 Integrated Avionics System. That STC allows
>installation on pretty much every light single or twin just by using
>the Installation Manual. There doesn't seem to be any requirement to
>do any engineering analysis or specific testing.
>
>Approved Model List:
>http://www.garminat.com/dwnlds/cnxdoc/CNX80_AML.pdf
>
>STC docs, etc:
>http://www.garminat.com/cnx_docs.shtml
This is a great example of how absurd the certification
process has become. A type certificate is issued against
a particular airframe to encompass all of the characteristics
unique to that airframe. Anything which might affect performance
must be scientifically considered and accounted for.
When the first comm transceiver was attached to an airplane,
it was well understood that the radio added to the empty
weight of the airplane, had an electrical load requirement
to be satisfied and MIGHT have some structural issues with
respect to where you poked a hole in the skin for an antenna.
Of course, the customer had an intense interest in achieving
certain performance goals from the radio after installation.
An AI, mechanic and customer worked together to see that
these simple requirements were met. A logbook entry or
at most a 337 form filled the regulatory requirements.
The thrust of an STC is to amend the TC of an airplane
to account for any ways in which installation of an accessory
or new feature does not adversely affect the performance
of the airplane. The installation of a GPS receiver has
no greater potential for impact on the airframe than did
the comm radios of 60 years ago.
The documents cited above IMPLY that each of those
airframes was evaluated for effects on performance
based upon installation of the product per the instruction
manual. I'll bet that the instruction manuals never
address variability by citing something to be done
or avoided on any particular aircraft based on model
or type certificate.
Instructions that don't speak to specific variability
between models to avoid altering airframe performance
are a demonstration of how the STC process was corrupted . . .
They threw an appearance of valuable process
at an installation for which the process was neither
necessary nor did it add value to the final installation.
The radio manufacturer pulled of a real coup in acquiring
the documents . . . that probably couldn't have been
achieved in other FAA regions. Instead of one piece of
paper covering hundreds of aircraft, the manufacturer
would need single pieces of paper for all TC's . . .
but in neither case would the STC activity have added
value.
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
> > > rarely match the GPS track. Am I splitting hairs - Yup.
> But, when
> > > ATC assigns a heading, they are expecting you to fly mag heading.
Ok, ok. If one reads what I originally posted, to which the above was a
reply, I said to use GPS to SET the DG, not to fly tracks. I was
stating that I can't imagine using a magnetic compass anymore to set my
DG. I prefer to use runway heading or the mag track output of my gps
while taxiing to set the DG.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 437 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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: Bus Load Analysis .. An Idea |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Schroeder <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Walter -
I hope this rather long posting is taken as constructive and not in any
way denigrating the effort, or your most generous offer to compile the
list. I have agonized long hours over the same problems as we designed our
system and chose the equipment to install.
I think you will be getting too rigid and complicated with this much
information. For example:
1. Why put buss in there? That will depend on the Z diagram being used,
the aircraft, its mission etc.
2. Why "Wire gauge/Volts"? Again, that is influenced by a lot of other
variables and choices - especially where the equipment will be located in
the aircraft and what type. For example, we calculated a 44 foot round
trip in a glass aircraft for the pitot tube. Others are shorter, some may
be longer. Using Bob's formula in his paper on Wire Size Selection, one
has to check their initial calculations on wire size to keep the % voltage
drop under 5%. That could nullify any figure appended to a device sent in
for the database. What about the heat dissipation if one chooses to run a
wire in a bundle?
3. Why specify the size of the fuse? Often, the manufacturer specifies it
and it has no relation whatsoever to the wire size you calculate. If you
want to put the fuse size, it should only be the size recommended by the
mfg. You could put an M after the size to denote this.
4. The various phases of flight? Again, these are subjective and will
vary a lot with the aircraft and mission. Also, emergency is a very loose
category. There are too many to list and each may or may not have an
effect on the amperage total at the bottom of each sheet. It varies also
with the Z diagram and any variation one chooses to make. One fellow
remarked a long time ago that one should add a night and day category for
all of the phases of flight because lighting becomes a major
consideration. Bottom line on this is that your database would not be very
helpful and be too big.
5. The elements of the database should be: Accessory, Manufacturer, Model
#, Amps and Fuse. From there one can tailor the rest of the data based on
their design, aircraft, missions and plain old preferences.
There would be 3 codes to add to the data. Two would be for the amps and
one for the fuse.
One would add an "M" after the amps to denote actual measured load taken
by the builder when the accessory is on. For a radio, there should be two
lines of data: one for receive and one for transmit. Same for a fuel boost
pump, if there is a high and a low mode. For something like a pitot tube,
there would be two lines: one for steady state and one for surge during
warmup.
The second code for the amps would be an "S" to denote that it is a
manufacturer's spec figure. If they have several figures, there should be
one line per figure.
The third code would be for the CB/fuzing. An "S" would be appended to
denote a manufacturer's recommended size. If someone actually experimented
to fine where a device nuisance tripped, they could add a figure and
append an "M"
The absence of a code in the amps cell would indicate caution to anyone
using that figure. I would think that once the list is initially compiled
and available to the community, there will be a refinement process and the
end point would most likely be M's or S's after each amperage. That is the
key figure we all need to make the calculations and do the design.
I would also ask that anyone furnishing a line or lines of data for a
device to state the source. I know that Panel Planner has some data and I
would not want to rely on that in my calculations. There are also a lot of
WAG's out there.
Again, I hope this has been helpful. Drop me an email if you would like to
discuss anything here. The idea is a wonderful one and the need is
certainly there. Thank you for volunteering.
Cheers,
John Schroeder
Lancair ES & Z-14
On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:54:36 -0500, Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
>
> On 02/12 1:53, Dale Martin wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin"
> <niceez@cableone.net>
> >
> > Walt,
> >
> > It will be WIRE GAUGE / VOLTAGE. I use much smaller wire then the 14
> volt
> > folks and there are others using 28 volt equipment.
>
> Right you are!
>
> BUS, ACCESSORY, VENDOR, MODEL #, WIRE-GUAGE/VOLTS, FUSE, PRE-FLIGHT,
> PRE-TAXI,
> TAKEOFF/CLIMB, VFR-CRUISE, IFR-CRUISE, APPRCH/LNDG, EMERG
>
>
--
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: | Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Jerzy-
Thanks for the amplification. It makes a lot of sense. I got back with
the source of my info, and he stood by it although in a less adamant way.
Sooo, I called a friend that does avionics development for uncle Sam, and
he agrees with you. I now sit corrected!
With regard to the inside out zoo reference, there are a couple of
aquariums (aquaria?) that are basically one big tank that you traverse by
walking along the bottom inside a lexan tube. Pretty cool! (insert grin
thingy here)
Glen MAtejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin" <niceez@cableone.net>
Alex has it right and is doing the right thing trying to shield his compass.
Runway headings change with the earth magnetic field and runways headings
are permitted to be off as much as 5. I mean if divisions for runway
headings are every 10 there has to be some room for error. For one I don't
like Speedy11's method and it doesn't comply with regs for VFR or IFR
flight. I won't quote FAR Part 91 as looking it up ourselves is a part of
continuing education we all need and if I were to tell you - you wouldn't
remember it (As now?).
All Gyro's precess and need correction including Slaved units. Relying on
GPS for sole navigation 100% of the time is nuts and illegal in some cases.
Further to use the "system" you are required to have the appropriate
equipment on board. I recall an airliner which had the Mag compass behind
both pilots but centered in the airplane and facing forward (not kidding)
and to use it would look up at a mirror to see it.
We had a similar discussion on the Canard-Aviators group last month about
GPS ground track verses mag heading and the current and ex-ATC controls in
the group spoke up and said if you turned to a heading and the controller
didn't like he would add more correction to your course and if it upset
him/her you would here - "Flight advisories/following is canceled - squawk
VFR - Good day"
Alex - You must have a forward hinged canopy on that RV-6A
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Compass shielding
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
<alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> > > > rarely match the GPS track. Am I splitting hairs - Yup.
> > But, when
> > > > ATC assigns a heading, they are expecting you to fly mag heading.
>
> Ok, ok. If one reads what I originally posted, to which the above was a
> reply, I said to use GPS to SET the DG, not to fly tracks. I was
> stating that I can't imagine using a magnetic compass anymore to set my
> DG. I prefer to use runway heading or the mag track output of my gps
> while taxiing to set the DG.
>
> Alex Peterson
> Maple Grove, MN
> RV6-A N66AP 437 hours
> www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
>
>
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: Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Alex Peterson wrote:
> Ok, ok. If one reads what I originally posted, to which the above was a
> reply, I said to use GPS to SET the DG, not to fly tracks. I was
> stating that I can't imagine using a magnetic compass anymore to set my
> DG. I prefer to use runway heading or the mag track output of my gps
> while taxiing to set the DG.
What about precession in your DG after flying for awhile?
How do you check it in flight to make sure it is correct?
I'm just curious, not trying to start anything... :-)
-Dj
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: Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Nellis" <mike@bmnellis.com>
I don't know about anyone else, but my DG needs to be "reset" many time
during a 2 hour flight. To set it once on the runway heading and then
fly out to some airport without resetting the DG for two hours isn't
going to work. Sure, I can just follow the GPS and adjust my track to
get me there but then all the other functions of the GPS don't work
without an accurate DG (wind direction, TAS etc.)
Am I missing something here? Is there another way to accurately adjust
your DG other than with a compass?
Mike Nellis
RV-6 Fuselage N699BM
1947 Stinson 108-2 NC9666K
http://bmnellis.com
*** Ok, ok. If one reads what I originally posted, to which
*** the above was a
*** reply, I said to use GPS to SET the DG, not to fly tracks. I was
*** stating that I can't imagine using a magnetic compass
*** anymore to set my
*** DG. I prefer to use runway heading or the mag track output
*** of my gps
*** while taxiing to set the DG.
***
*** Alex Peterson
*** Maple Grove, MN
*** RV6-A N66AP 437 hours
*** www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
***
***
*** ==============
*** ==============
*** ==============
*** http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-*** List.htm
*** Search Engine:
*** http://www.matronics.com/search
*** *** http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-*** list
***
*** Browse Digests:
*** http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
*** ==============
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
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: Dynon and EMI |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Jim Rodrian wrote:
>Since Jeff Point is geographically close to me, I am willing to look at his
>installation to evaluate the situation.
>
>Jim
>Grafton, WI
>Defiant
>
Hi Jim,
You're welcome to come over and have a look at my installation if you
wish, but I believe I have solved the problem. Or more, accurately,
there never was any problem, I just removed the artificial condition
(low bus voltage) which was causing the appearance of a problem. I
finally got my replacement mixture cable, and so have been able to test
with the engine running. At 14.1 bus voltage, there is no discernable
noise from the Dynon, strobes or any other source. I did use shielded
cable for the remote compass module, located in the tail, which was run
back there via a path all its own, away from any other wires.
When Dynon comes out with their "solution" for the EMI problem, I will
try it just for experimentation's sake, but I am quite happy with the
installation as it is now.
Jeff Point
RV-6 getting close
Milwaukee WI
learning more about 'lectrics every day.
>
>
>
>
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: Bus Load Analysis .. An Idea |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 02/13 11:27, John Schroeder wrote:
> I hope this rather long posting is taken as constructive and not in any
> way denigrating the effort, or your most generous offer to compile the
> list. I have agonized long hours over the same problems as we designed our
> system and chose the equipment to install.
Thanks for taking the time to really think this out. But I think we
can come to an agreement that this project doesn't need to be this
complicated. What we *Really* want to get out of this is the amperage
draw for popular equipment during different phases of startup, taxi,
flight and shutdown. Not all of the columns are 'required'.
> I think you will be getting too rigid and complicated with this much
> information. For example:
>
> 1. Why put buss in there? That will depend on the Z diagram being used,
> the aircraft, its mission etc.
Again, voluntary. Main, E-Bus, Battery are common. Any others noted and
you can pretty much tell which Z-diagram they're using. Remember, the
Z-diagrams are just a starting point, each builders makeing subtle changes.
> 2. Why "Wire gauge/Volts"? Again, that is influenced by a lot of other
> variables and choices - especially where the equipment will be located in
> the aircraft and what type. For example, we calculated a 44 foot round
> trip in a glass aircraft for the pitot tube. Others are shorter, some may
> be longer. Using Bob's formula in his paper on Wire Size Selection, one
> has to check their initial calculations on wire size to keep the % voltage
> drop under 5%. That could nullify any figure appended to a device sent in
> for the database. What about the heat dissipation if one chooses to run a
> wire in a bundle?
Most of the equipment that will be listed in the document is common to
many aircraft, eg. in almost all cases the GPS will be on the panel and
the wiring length won't vary too much, probably not enought to warrant
a different guage. Volts used to indicate 12 or 24.
> 3. Why specify the size of the fuse? Often, the manufacturer specifies it
> and it has no relation whatsoever to the wire size you calculate. If you
> want to put the fuse size, it should only be the size recommended by the
> mfg. You could put an M after the size to denote this.
I disagree. I'm not putting a fuse in there to protect the equipment
which already has internal protection. I'm putting it in there to
protect wiring.
> 4. The various phases of flight? Again, these are subjective and will
> vary a lot with the aircraft and mission. Also, emergency is a very loose
> category. There are too many to list and each may or may not have an
> effect on the amperage total at the bottom of each sheet. It varies also
> with the Z diagram and any variation one chooses to make. One fellow
> remarked a long time ago that one should add a night and day category for
> all of the phases of flight because lighting becomes a major
> consideration. Bottom line on this is that your database would not be very
> helpful and be too big.
Remember, this is about the accessories we put in the plane. Some may
have differing amperage draws during different phases of flight.
> 5. The elements of the database should be: Accessory, Manufacturer, Model
> #, Amps and Fuse. From there one can tailor the rest of the data based on
> their design, aircraft, missions and plain old preferences.
Again, I'm going to compile per Bob's document. I think it is well
thought-out.
> There would be 3 codes to add to the data. Two would be for the amps and
> one for the fuse.
>
> One would add an "M" after the amps to denote actual measured load taken
> by the builder when the accessory is on. For a radio, there should be two
> lines of data: one for receive and one for transmit. Same for a fuel boost
> pump, if there is a high and a low mode. For something like a pitot tube,
> there would be two lines: one for steady state and one for surge during
> warmup.
>
> The second code for the amps would be an "S" to denote that it is a
> manufacturer's spec figure. If they have several figures, there should be
> one line per figure.
>
> The third code would be for the CB/fuzing. An "S" would be appended to
> denote a manufacturer's recommended size. If someone actually experimented
> to fine where a device nuisance tripped, they could add a figure and
> append an "M"
>
> The absence of a code in the amps cell would indicate caution to anyone
> using that figure. I would think that once the list is initially compiled
> and available to the community, there will be a refinement process and the
> end point would most likely be M's or S's after each amperage. That is the
> key figure we all need to make the calculations and do the design.
>
> I would also ask that anyone furnishing a line or lines of data for a
> device to state the source. I know that Panel Planner has some data and I
> would not want to rely on that in my calculations. There are also a lot of
> WAG's out there.
>
> Again, I hope this has been helpful. Drop me an email if you would like to
> discuss anything here. The idea is a wonderful one and the need is
> certainly there. Thank you for volunteering.
I like the idea of the codes. But for those builders who have already
completed their analysis I doubt they will want to go back and re-do it.
I don't expect all the information received by builders to be
homogenious. I do hope that information provided helps others save time.
> Cheers,
>
> John Schroeder
> Lancair ES & Z-14
>
>
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:54:36 -0500, Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com> wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
> >
> > On 02/12 1:53, Dale Martin wrote:
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin"
> > <niceez@cableone.net>
> > >
> > > Walt,
> > >
> > > It will be WIRE GAUGE / VOLTAGE. I use much smaller wire then the 14
> > volt
> > > folks and there are others using 28 volt equipment.
> >
> > Right you are!
> >
> > BUS, ACCESSORY, VENDOR, MODEL #, WIRE-GUAGE/VOLTS, FUSE, PRE-FLIGHT,
> > PRE-TAXI,
> > TAKEOFF/CLIMB, VFR-CRUISE, IFR-CRUISE, APPRCH/LNDG, EMERG
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
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: | Locating Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin" <niceez@cableone.net>
Team,
Need a favor.....
I am looking for a good source for a Locking Lever Switch. The SPST type
with ON-OFF positions. Full size - no mini's.
Have one that says UR on the side. The top comes to more of a cone shape
rather then the round dome shape that the micoswitch company makes.
If you need a picture of the one I have I'll email the picture.
Thanks in Advance,
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
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: | Locating Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "I-Blackler, Wayne R" <wayne.r.blackler@boeing.com>
The only variety I'm aware of is the MS24659 series (-21A) from
Flame Enterprises
20945 Osborne St
Canoga Park, CA 91304
(818) 700-2905
The locking detents are available in a variety of positions. Check http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/environment/catalog/379.pdf
These are not cheap, but really good for Ignition switches IMO.
- Wayne Blackler
IO-360 Long EZ
Seattle, WA
-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Martin [mailto:niceez@cableone.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Locating Switches
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin" <niceez@cableone.net>
Team,
Need a favor.....
I am looking for a good source for a Locking Lever Switch. The SPST type
with ON-OFF positions. Full size - no mini's.
Have one that says UR on the side. The top comes to more of a cone shape
rather then the round dome shape that the micoswitch company makes.
If you need a picture of the one I have I'll email the picture.
Thanks in Advance,
Dale Martin
Lewiston, ID
LEZ-235
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: | Off line for a week . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Bob and almost-a-doctor Dee are off to the sunny beaches
of Puerto Rico for a week. My old boss from RAC Missiles
group has a condo there and has been inviting me down
every winter for the past ten years . . . difference this
year was that Dee heard the invitation too. The next
question was, "Well, why not THIS year, dear?"
Why not indeed.
See you all on the 22nd.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: | Re: Off line for a week . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave Morris <dave@davemorris.com>
Have fun! I'm envious!
Dave Morris
At 05:43 PM 2/13/2004, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Bob and almost-a-doctor Dee are off to the sunny beaches
>of Puerto Rico for a week. My old boss from RAC Missiles
>group has a condo there and has been inviting me down
>every winter for the past ten years . . . difference this
>year was that Dee heard the invitation too. The next
>question was, "Well, why not THIS year, dear?"
>
>Why not indeed.
>
>See you all on the 22nd.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
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: | FS: SL70 Transponder |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
I have one last piece of UPS avionics left - an SL-70 transponder. New and
un-installed, full warrantee, full install kit. $1750
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: | round transponder recommendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
Anyone have a recommendation for a round transponder to fit into the panel?
Cheap is good!
I've heard some bad news about the one from Austraila.
Thanks,
David
price is always a consideration
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: Off line for a week . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mprather <mprather@spro.net>
You poor thing... :)
Have fun!!
Do not archive
Matt-
N34RD
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Bob and almost-a-doctor Dee are off to the sunny beaches
>of Puerto Rico for a week. My old boss from RAC Missiles
>group has a condo there and has been inviting me down
>every winter for the past ten years . . . difference this
>year was that Dee heard the invitation too. The next
>question was, "Well, why not THIS year, dear?"
>
>Why not indeed.
>
>See you all on the 22nd.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
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: | alternator switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: klehman@albedo.net
Yes that makes a lot of sense. I think I was given some duff info on
this. It's a John Deere unit like the one shown here.
http://flyboybob.com/web_pages/kr2/electrical%20and%20instrument/dynamo2.htm
Just from looking at the fin area and 280 watts of DC output, I think it
indeed has to be a series-pass unit.
thanks
Ken
> Not sure what kind of PM alternator you have . . . if it's
> an SD-8, that system uses a series-pass regulator that does
> not waste unused energy from the alternator. Not sure
> about other manufacturers but I think Ducati regulators
> for Rotax are series-pass also. There's no good reason
> to run a parallel-shunt regulator any more.
>
> Bob . . .
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: | Re: Compass shielding |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@usjet.net>
>
> What about precession in your DG after flying for
> awhile? How do you check it in flight to make sure it is
> correct? I'm just curious, not trying to start anything... :-)
>
Dj, good question - I'm fortunate in that my HSI doesn't precess much,
maybe 5 degrees in two hours. Obviously, one can compare it to the
magnetic compass, it is just that in my case, the errors in reading the
compass, particularly in rough air, are more than the precession of the
DG.
Dale, I'm not the one shielding anything, whoever started this thread
is.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 437 hours
www.usfamily.net/web/alexpeterson
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: round transponder recommendations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
At 07:15 PM 2/13/04 -0600, AI Nut wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
>
>Anyone have a recommendation for a round transponder to fit into the panel?
>Cheap is good!
>I've heard some bad news about the one from Austraila.
The only other one is the Becker.
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: FS: SL70 Transponder |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Geez! Why didn't you say so two weeks ago? I just bought one from ACS
for $1790 :-( .
Dick Tasker
Do not archive
richard@riley.net wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
>
>I have one last piece of UPS avionics left - an SL-70 transponder. New and
>un-installed, full warrantee, full install kit. $1750
>
>
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: Locating Switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike <flmike2001@yahoo.com>
NKK has a locking version, but it only comes with
solder lugs. Mouser carries them, about $10 ea. I
stumbled across the NKK part while looking for
something else the other day. There are probably
others out there as well.
http://www.nkkswitches.com/pdf/stogglesmedcap.pdf
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/617/857.pdf
__________________________________
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
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! --
|