Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:17 AM - Re: Garmin 430 install manual (ivorphillips)
2. 12:18 AM - Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter (Jeffrey W. Skiba)
3. 05:03 AM - Re: Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter (Alex Peterson)
4. 07:15 AM - Re: Headset noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:26 AM - Flap motor testing (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
6. 07:36 AM - Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output (Phil Birkelbach)
7. 07:38 AM - Re: Electric fuel pump circuit (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:42 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Benford2@aol.com)
9. 07:49 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Nightingale Michael)
10. 07:55 AM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 08:02 AM - Load Dumps (George Braly)
12. 08:10 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Cy Galley)
13. 08:32 AM - metalic paint (Ron Raby)
14. 08:34 AM - Re: Pass during flight test (Paul Messinger)
15. 08:55 AM - ANR headsets (Ron Lee)
16. 09:25 AM - Re: ANR headsets (Matt Prather)
17. 09:26 AM - Re: metalic paint (F1Rocket@comcast.net)
18. 09:44 AM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (George Braly)
19. 09:48 AM - Re: metalic paint (Ron Raby)
20. 09:54 AM - Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output (David Carter)
21. 10:24 AM - Re: metalic paint (Jeff Hildebrand)
22. 10:39 AM - Re: metalic paint (F1Rocket@comcast.net)
23. 11:09 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
24. 11:37 AM - Re: Flap motor testing (Dan Branstrom)
25. 11:47 AM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two bat (Ken Harrill)
26. 12:38 PM - Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output (BobsV35B@aol.com)
27. 01:27 PM - Re: Flap motor testing (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
28. 02:08 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (Jim Stone)
29. 03:07 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two (Mickey Coggins)
30. 04:18 PM - Re: Garmin 430 install manual (David Schaefer)
31. 05:11 PM - Re: Dual fuel pumps (czechsix@juno.com)
32. 05:49 PM - Re: Electric fuel pump circuit (Charlie Kuss)
33. 06:04 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (GMC)
34. 06:04 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
35. 07:18 PM - Re: ANR headsets (Lowell Fitt)
36. 07:18 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (John Slade)
37. 07:26 PM - Flap motors and Fuel pumps (Dale Martin)
38. 08:09 PM - Re: metalic paint (Ron Raby)
39. 08:33 PM - Re: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries (Dan Branstrom)
40. 08:47 PM - Re: Flap motor testing (James E. Clark)
41. 09:50 PM - Garmin 430, where to purchase (Colt Seavers)
42. 10:10 PM - Re: Garmin 430, where to purchase (richard@riley.net)
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: Garmin 430 install manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ivorphillips" <ivor@ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk>
I can send it as a PDF file if you want?
let me know
regards
Ivor Phillips
XS486 London UK
CM Installed,working on rudder cables,
trial fit top and wings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba@icosa.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba"
<jskiba@icosa.net>
>
> I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual
> for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there
> site, Anybody know where I can download this ??
>
> Thanks
> Jeff.
>
>
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: | Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba" <jskiba@icosa.net>
Quick question,
On a Garmin 430 or 530 for that matter is a Diplexer/splitter required if
you have Bob Archer (like the one found at
http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/vorwingtipantenna/plans24bit.jpg )
Wing tip NAV antennas ?? One in each wing tip Total of TWO.
I am trying to get a hold of an install manual to confirm this for my self
but a recent contestation brought up the topic and would like answer faster
than I will probably have my hands on an install manual
Thanks
Jeff.
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: | Garmin 430 and Diplexer/splitter |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> Quick question,
>
> On a Garmin 430 or 530 for that matter is a Diplexer/splitter
> required if you have Bob Archer (like the one found at
> http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/vorwingtipantenna/plans24
bit.jpg ) Wing tip NAV antennas ?? One in each wing tip Total of TWO.
Is the second nav antenna for a second nav radio? If so, you need one
coax from one nav antenna brought to a splitter near the 430, then a
splitter to feed the nav/loc and gs portions of the 430. I got my
splitter from my local avionics guy.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
RV6-A N66AP 442 hours
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/
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: Headset noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:14 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Hersha" <shersha@fuse.net>
>
>Bob,
> I connected the filter between the bus and the power lead to my #1 COM
>and it worked like a charm. This was a new filter with a 10uf capacitor. I
>also wired the other filter I made with the 220uf capacitor the same way to
>my #2 COM. It works just as well as #1. I can't tell any difference. I
>now have a quiet, clear headset with no noise...Yea!!!
>Scott Hersha
Success is always gratifying and I'm pleased that you're
pleased. The nagging question concerns why you needed to
install these filters in the first place. Unfortunately,
the answer lays in detailed analysis of the differences
between your system before filters were installed and
other systems that do not need filters.
Not trying to spotlight your efforts here Scott, but
your experience is perhaps illustrative of the value
in "doing a lot of things that have never been done
in 200,000+ certified ships" without demonstrable
reasons.
We often field questions about suggestions printed
in the 'Connection with respect to architecture and
techniques. Folks ask why they should go to all that
trouble when their C-172 doesn't have it and "it works
just fine."
It would be interesting to see how the variables in
your project stacked up to force adding filters to
the radios but it's probably not a practical effort.
The main thing is that your airplane's utility, performance
and comfort levels are now satisfactory to your needs.
We'll have to save the harvesting of knowledge
for another time and airplane.
A lot of my work at RAC involves harvesting knowledge
on designs already in production . . . some for 30 years
or more. In these cases, fixes to problems are retrofitted
to hundreds of aircraft and it's never easy or cheap.
There's a plaque I saw on the wall of an engineer
at one of our suppliers a few years ago that read:
"If you don't have time to do it right the first time,
how will you ever find the time to do it over?"
Here's hoping that the remaining efforts to get your
project completed are easy and cheap!
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
Thanks to all for your thoughts on the flap fuse failure fiasco- lot's of
good info... The following is long, tedious and boring (unless you're an
electrical masochist!) so delete now if so inclined............
Test results using Fluke 87 MM (10 amps max. current) connected at fuse
block. Flap motor (motion brand) is wired direct through a quality NKK DPDT switch
of the proper rating (no relays) using 18ga. My meter does have an "analog"
scale along the bottom of the display that responds very quickly, and it did
go off-scale the instant the switch is first turned on indicating over 10a on
start. This was also confirmed (If I did it correctly) by the min/max function
that records for 100 msec. which indicated "OL" or "out of range" for the
instrument. This confirms Bob's statement about inrush current. Below are my
readings, as best as I could tell while watching altimeter, airspeed, MM, and an
occasional glance for traffic (darn, no dang "required crew member"!) This
is all done with 10 amp fuse installed.
On the ground, engine off- cycled flaps repeatedly in both directions trying
to get a failure. Even held switch after full travel many times for as much
as 5 seconds with motor freewheeling, no failure, up or down.
Traveling Down: .8a
Freewheeling Down: 1.9a
Traveling Up: .9a
Freewheeling Up: 1.7a
(anyone know if this would indicate that the motion actuator has a a friction
clutch in it?)
Same values with engine running (LVWM off) at idle.
Tested again at runup (1700 rpm) and Down required .9 indicating harder work
against propwash. Up netted .8 for same reason- looks like we're getting good
data...
Climbed to 3000', trimmed for 100 mph indicated. Naturally these readings
are dynamic as the flaps change angle and airspeed falls, and the meter display
lags a little, but after repeated attempts, the values are as close as I could
get them by timing the extension/retraction - I'd release the switch while
watching the meter and verify flap had stopped at proper position- if not, I'd
re-do it. (again, no extra crewman!)
Traveling Down at 20 degrees: 2.0a
Traveling Up at 20 degrees: .7a
Trimmed for 90 mph.
Traveling Down at 40 degrees: 3.4a
Traveling Up at 40 degrees: .7a
Switch held in Up position with flaps Up in flight (motor freewheeling) 1.3a
(don't know why this is different than when sitting on ground)
One interesting thing I did notice was that when fully extending the flaps at
80-90mph to the point that the motor was freewheeling, or about 43 degrees on
my plane, the current would rise continuously until the end of travel, going
just over 5a at full extension, then as the motor began to freewheel, the
current dropped to 1.2 until I released the switch- not sure how the actuator is
constructed, but the air load is obviously not held by motor power alone...
Flaps performed flawlessly throughout this regimen, as did the rest of the
plane (omigawd what an awesome machine! - can you tell I like it?!) Now here's
the clincher. I had a little time to kill before dark and did some T&G's. The
first was pretty darn acceptable, flaps raised before taking off again and
extended normally on approach. On the second T&G I let the bottom fall out a
few feet up and got a bounce. Again raised the flaps before taking off, all is
normal. On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown
again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point!
Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Two alternators-using total rated combined output |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
> - What is the "simplest" way to a) have the two identical regulators
> and alternators each share roughly 1/2 of the load, whatever it is, or, b)
> allow 1 alternator to go up to its rated output and then have any
subsequent
> increase in load be picked up by the other alternator? Are there other
> "approaches" to this?
>
> David Carter
The simplest way would be to simply split the loads. Have two electrical
systems. Put Comm 1 on buss 1 and Comm 2 on buss 2, put the taxi light on
one side the landing light on the other. Two smaller batteries and a
crossover contactor for starting, and for single alternator operations. Put
a load meter on each one so you know what is going on and you've got it.
This also builds in a level of redundancy. I think Bob has a 2 alternator,
2 battery system in the Z diagrams somewhere.
There are probably some voltage regulators out there that can handle the
load sharing but I doubt that any of it would be 'simple'.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Baffles / Cowling
http://www.myrv7.com
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electric fuel pump circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:45 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
>
>Bob & Listers,
> I am currently modifying your Z-11 drawing for my specific RV-8A. I
> recall that you recently recommended the use of relays for circuits
> drawing over 5 amps. My Airflow Performance electric fuel pump draws
> about 5 - 6 amps in rush. Once running, it draws 3.5 to 4 amps. Do I need
> a relay on this circuit? Would you recommend installing this circuit on
> the main, endurance or battery bus? I have an engine with 1 magneto and 1
> Jeff Rose electronic ignition.
Does your fuel pump run all the time or is it a backup for
an engine driven pump?
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Benford2@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/2004 8:27:55 AM Mountain Standard Time,
Fiveonepw@aol.com writes:
> On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown
> again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point!
>
> Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-)
>
Heck, thats easy.. Just leave the meter on the circuit and look at it often.
It will never blow another fuse... <g>. Jus kiddin.. Your extensive testing is
what homebuilding is all about, If it worked every time, woman and children
would be constructing these things. My best guess would be the inrush shortened
the life of the fuse and it finally died. Maybe a slow blow fuse or something
to eat up a little amps before the fuse. I am sure Bob will know exactly what
to do. Thanks again for posting your test results. Now we all know more then
we knew yesterday.
Ben Haas N801BH do not archive.
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: | Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Nightingale Michael" <NightingaleMichaelV@JohnDeere.com>
Possible heat build up in fuse from first two T&G's. Is the fuse cartridge a SLO-BLOW
or a standard link type?
Mike
90259 wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Fiveonepw@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
Thanks to all for your thoughts on the flap fuse failure fiasco- lot's of
good info... The following is long, tedious and boring (unless you're an
electrical masochist!) so delete now if so inclined............
Test results using Fluke 87 MM (10 amps max. current) connected at fuse
block. Flap motor (motion brand) is wired direct through a quality NKK DPDT switch
of the proper rating (no relays) using 18ga. My meter does have an "analog"
scale along the bottom of the display that responds very quickly, and it did
go off-scale the instant the switch is first turned on indicating over 10a on
start. This was also confirmed (If I did it correctly) by the min/max function
that records for 100 msec. which indicated "OL" or "out of range" for the
instrument. This confirms Bob's statement about inrush current. Below are my
readings, as best as I could tell while watching altimeter, airspeed, MM, and an
occasional glance for traffic (darn, no dang "required crew member"!) This
is all done with 10 amp fuse installed.
On the ground, engine off- cycled flaps repeatedly in both directions trying
to get a failure. Even held switch after full travel many times for as much
as 5 seconds with motor freewheeling, no failure, up or down.
Traveling Down: .8a
Freewheeling Down: 1.9a
Traveling Up: .9a
Freewheeling Up: 1.7a
(anyone know if this would indicate that the motion actuator has a a friction
clutch in it?)
Same values with engine running (LVWM off) at idle.
Tested again at runup (1700 rpm) and Down required .9 indicating harder work
against propwash. Up netted .8 for same reason- looks like we're getting good
data...
Climbed to 3000', trimmed for 100 mph indicated. Naturally these readings
are dynamic as the flaps change angle and airspeed falls, and the meter display
lags a little, but after repeated attempts, the values are as close as I could
get them by timing the extension/retraction - I'd release the switch while
watching the meter and verify flap had stopped at proper position- if not, I'd
re-do it. (again, no extra crewman!)
Traveling Down at 20 degrees: 2.0a
Traveling Up at 20 degrees: .7a
Trimmed for 90 mph.
Traveling Down at 40 degrees: 3.4a
Traveling Up at 40 degrees: .7a
Switch held in Up position with flaps Up in flight (motor freewheeling) 1.3a
(don't know why this is different than when sitting on ground)
One interesting thing I did notice was that when fully extending the flaps at
80-90mph to the point that the motor was freewheeling, or about 43 degrees on
my plane, the current would rise continuously until the end of travel, going
just over 5a at full extension, then as the motor began to freewheel, the
current dropped to 1.2 until I released the switch- not sure how the actuator is
constructed, but the air load is obviously not held by motor power alone...
Flaps performed flawlessly throughout this regimen, as did the rest of the
plane (omigawd what an awesome machine! - can you tell I like it?!) Now here's
the clincher. I had a little time to kill before dark and did some T&G's. The
first was pretty darn acceptable, flaps raised before taking off again and
extended normally on approach. On the second T&G I let the bottom fall out a
few feet up and got a bounce. Again raised the flaps before taking off, all is
normal. On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse blown
again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point!
Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-)
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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two |
batteries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
batteries
At 03:23 PM 2/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
>The reason I went with two batteries is two fold. First, I have one mag
>and one electronic ignition (not a electrically dependant engine).
which by itself is not a driver for dual batteries
>During start I thought I would use the main battery for cranking engine,
>the aux battery for powering the electronic ignition (to avoid any
>possibility of kick back in the event main battery voltage drops below
>min required for electronic ignition).
???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer
of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified
by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps
it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building
airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding,
I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the manufacturers
of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's
design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds
long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why
you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing
sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is
a rudimentary technique of circuit design.
> The second reason is your
>recommended battery replacement plan of once a year, I will always have
>one new battery and one no more than two years old. So with that said,
>don't you agree that having the ability to use both batteries to power
>the essential bus to is a good idea? If so, is the solution a 2-10
>switch?
Dual, rotated batteries implies two batteries of the same
size. My personal favorite is the 17 a.h. VSLA/RG battery
at 15 or so pounds. If you're willing to carry a 15# "penalty"
for the value of improved battery performance, perhaps this
no big deal. You'll have a wealth of capacity aboard that
would allow you to close both battery contactors should
you find that the main battery is over-taxed during alternator
out ops.
Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for
e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking
through the requirement for dual batteries . . .
Your wife may wish that the airplane had 15# more payload
to bring home souvenirs of that trip to the Bahamas.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Bob, I have not tried to measure the energy in the load dump event. When I started
observing some component damage, I started to try to control it. This
was with an alternator pulling about 35 to 40 amps.
I tried the easy stuff first, and the 5KWatt TVS device was my second effort after
the 1.5K.
Regards, George
[PS... Bob, this is being sent as plaint text instead of HTML... should stop
the gibberish from the last message.]
At 10:51 AM 2/14/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Braly <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have done a fair amount of testing a couple of years ago, working with the
>TVS devices, including the larger sized versions.
>
>In my experience, they have not been adequate, alone, to prevent over
>voltage spikes on load dumps, even from smaller alternators.
>
>They help. But I have blown some of them on load dumps.
Have you taken any energy measurements on the load (battery)-dump
phenomenon?
Bob . . .
---
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
If you are having a fuse problem because of a temporary surge, wouldn't a
slo-blow fuse be in order?
----- Original Message -----
From: <Fiveonepw@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor testing
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
> Thanks to all for your thoughts on the flap fuse failure fiasco- lot's of
> good info... The following is long, tedious and boring (unless you're an
> electrical masochist!) so delete now if so inclined............
>
> Test results using Fluke 87 MM (10 amps max. current) connected at fuse
> block. Flap motor (motion brand) is wired direct through a quality NKK
DPDT switch
> of the proper rating (no relays) using 18ga. My meter does have an
"analog"
> scale along the bottom of the display that responds very quickly, and it
did
> go off-scale the instant the switch is first turned on indicating over 10a
on
> start. This was also confirmed (If I did it correctly) by the min/max
function
> that records for 100 msec. which indicated "OL" or "out of range" for the
> instrument. This confirms Bob's statement about inrush current. Below
are my
> readings, as best as I could tell while watching altimeter, airspeed, MM,
and an
> occasional glance for traffic (darn, no dang "required crew member"!)
This
> is all done with 10 amp fuse installed.
>
> On the ground, engine off- cycled flaps repeatedly in both directions
trying
> to get a failure. Even held switch after full travel many times for as
much
> as 5 seconds with motor freewheeling, no failure, up or down.
>
> Traveling Down: .8a
> Freewheeling Down: 1.9a
> Traveling Up: .9a
> Freewheeling Up: 1.7a
>
> (anyone know if this would indicate that the motion actuator has a a
friction
> clutch in it?)
>
> Same values with engine running (LVWM off) at idle.
>
> Tested again at runup (1700 rpm) and Down required .9 indicating harder
work
> against propwash. Up netted .8 for same reason- looks like we're getting
good
> data...
>
> Climbed to 3000', trimmed for 100 mph indicated. Naturally these readings
> are dynamic as the flaps change angle and airspeed falls, and the meter
display
> lags a little, but after repeated attempts, the values are as close as I
could
> get them by timing the extension/retraction - I'd release the switch while
> watching the meter and verify flap had stopped at proper position- if not,
I'd
> re-do it. (again, no extra crewman!)
>
> Traveling Down at 20 degrees: 2.0a
> Traveling Up at 20 degrees: .7a
>
> Trimmed for 90 mph.
>
> Traveling Down at 40 degrees: 3.4a
> Traveling Up at 40 degrees: .7a
>
> Switch held in Up position with flaps Up in flight (motor freewheeling)
1.3a
> (don't know why this is different than when sitting on ground)
>
> One interesting thing I did notice was that when fully extending the flaps
at
> 80-90mph to the point that the motor was freewheeling, or about 43 degrees
on
> my plane, the current would rise continuously until the end of travel,
going
> just over 5a at full extension, then as the motor began to freewheel, the
> current dropped to 1.2 until I released the switch- not sure how the
actuator is
> constructed, but the air load is obviously not held by motor power
alone...
>
> Flaps performed flawlessly throughout this regimen, as did the rest of the
> plane (omigawd what an awesome machine! - can you tell I like it?!) Now
here's
> the clincher. I had a little time to kill before dark and did some T&G's.
The
> first was pretty darn acceptable, flaps raised before taking off again and
> extended normally on approach. On the second T&G I let the bottom fall
out a
> few feet up and got a bounce. Again raised the flaps before taking off,
all is
> normal. On downwind I hit the flap switch at 100 mph and NOTHING! Fuse
blown
> again! Same as both times before. Open for all ideas at this point!
>
> Mark Phillips - N51PW - ONLY 1.9 HOURS TIL I GET OUT OF MY CAGE!!!!! 8-)
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
To everyone:
I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was
wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on the
inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, where
the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish.
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
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: Pass during flight test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Yes I have read that AC and the Local FAA flight standards office said such
permission was extremely unlikely to be allowed (never done here per the
rep) as they see no reason why audio and/or video cameras will not do a
better job etc etc. You would need to justify why other recording methods
cannot be used and also that the measurements must be made during the
initial testing phase. Cost is not generally a valid reason for a second
person.
But your point is well taken. However you will need a specific written
exception as AC 20-27F states.
In addition permission from your insurance Co will also be needed (assuming
you have insurance) as normally more than one in the fly off phase will
invalidate your insurance even if you have FAA approval.
Thus its possible in theory to get both written permission and insurance Co
permission for a second person for a specific flight test.
The FAA's general position as told to me is they have never given permission
and see no need to do so for SEL experimental acft during initial flight
test period.
Personally I use a video camera mounted to view the panel and the audio tied
into the intercom.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Flap motor overload?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
<terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> Here's what Advisory Circular 20-27F, Certification and Operation of
Amateur
> Built Aircraft says about it taking someone along during the flight test
> period:
>
> 13. PHASE 1 FLIGHT TESTING.
> e. Restrictions
> (1) Carrying Passengers. You may not carry passengers while you are
> restricted to the flight test area or during any portion of your Phase I
> flight test program. We suggest you use a tape or video recorder for
> recording readings and other similar tasks. If you need an additional
> crewmember for a particular flight test, specify that in your application
> program letter for the airworthiness certificate. We will list this need
in
> your operating limitations.
> (2) Flight Instruction. You may not receive flight instruction during
your
> flight test.
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" <rlee468@comcast.net>
A couple of us older guys without perfect hearing (high range) have had to return
ANR headsets because we couldn't hear well on them. The problem is the audio
is very bass and little treble, kind of like the person on the other end is
on a distant speaker phone. We hear ok on standard headsets but wanted the ANR
to preserve our hearing. The question is, is this normal or have we each gotten
bad brands?
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ANR headsets |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I used the "headsets inc." ANR conversion kit for my flightcom
cheapies. The modules that are included replace the speakers
(transducers) in each ear cup. The sound quality with this
kit is far better and more intelligible than was the original
(admittadly, cheap) setup. I don't see any reason why an ANR
system would change the tonal balance of sounds being
reproduced.
Matt-
VE N34RD
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" <rlee468@comcast.net>
>
> A couple of us older guys without perfect hearing (high range) have had
> to return ANR headsets because we couldn't hear well on them. The
> problem is the audio is very bass and little treble, kind of like the
> person on the other end is on a distant speaker phone. We hear ok on
> standard headsets but wanted the ANR to preserve our hearing. The
> question is, is this normal or have we each gotten bad brands?
>
>
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: metalic paint |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic above
on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the bottom).
Randy
F1 Rocket
http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
>
> To everyone:
>
> I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was
> wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on the
> inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side, where
> the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
>
> Lancair ES
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>>There is no good reason why
you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing
sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is
a rudimentary technique of circuit design.<<
Amen.
---
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: metalic paint |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Randy
My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass. I am
assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane and
paint.?
Thanks
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
>
> My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic
above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the
bottom).
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
<ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> >
> >
> > To everyone:
> >
> > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was
> > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on
the
> > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side,
where
> > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ron Raby
> >
> > Lancair ES
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: Two alternators-using total rated combined output |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Phil, thanks - I like that - is intuitively simple and sound.
Are you building at DW Hooks Airport or at home? I'm over in Nederland (by
Beaumont) and go to Houston frequently.
David
409-722-7259
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Birkelbach" <phil@petrasoft.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Two alternators-using total rated combined
output
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Phil Birkelbach"
<phil@petrasoft.net>
>
>
> > - What is the "simplest" way to a) have the two identical
regulators
> > and alternators each share roughly 1/2 of the load, whatever it is, or,
b)
> > allow 1 alternator to go up to its rated output and then have any
> subsequent
> > increase in load be picked up by the other alternator? Are there other
> > "approaches" to this?
> >
> > David Carter
>
> The simplest way would be to simply split the loads. Have two electrical
> systems. Put Comm 1 on buss 1 and Comm 2 on buss 2, put the taxi light on
> one side the landing light on the other. Two smaller batteries and a
> crossover contactor for starting, and for single alternator operations.
Put
> a load meter on each one so you know what is going on and you've got it.
> This also builds in a level of redundancy. I think Bob has a 2
alternator,
> 2 battery system in the Z diagrams somewhere.
>
> There are probably some voltage regulators out there that can handle the
> load sharing but I doubt that any of it would be 'simple'.
>
> Godspeed,
>
> Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
> RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Baffles / Cowling
> http://www.myrv7.com
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
When we planned our metallic paint job, we had the same worries. We
talked to Lancair and they said it was no problem, they have seen many
planes with metallic paint and it was no issue.
Jeff Hildebrand
Lancair ES
http://lancair.northstartraffic.ca
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Raby
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
<ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Randy
My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass.
I am
assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane
and
paint.?
Thanks
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
>
> My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue
metallic
above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the
bottom).
>
> Randy
> F1 Rocket
> http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
<ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> >
> >
> > To everyone:
> >
> > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was
> > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have
mounted on
the
> > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the
side,
where
> > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Ron Raby
> >
> > Lancair ES
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
==
==
==
==
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: metalic paint |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
Yes. Sorry I missed the distinction on your question.
Randy
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
> Randy
>
> My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass. I am
> assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane and
> paint.?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
> >
> > My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue metallic
> above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the
> bottom).
> >
> > Randy
> > F1 Rocket
> > http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
> <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > To everyone:
> > >
> > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was
> > > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have mounted on
> the
> > > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the side,
> where
> > > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ron Raby
> > >
> > > Lancair ES
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/04 10:11:33 AM Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
> If you are having a fuse problem because of a temporary surge, wouldn't a
> slo-blow fuse be in order?
It has only happened when least loaded- still suspect a short, somehow
related to harder than normal landings each time- will have to pull floorboards
to
inspect all wiring, but this still doesn't explain why the flaps get all the
way up, and then when I need them again find the fuse is blown. For all I know,
they "could" be blowing when I first touch the switch after power ruduction
on downwind- (see note on Lancair at bottom)
>> Is the fuse cartridge a SLO-BLOW or a standard link type?
ATC fuse in B&C fuseblock
A Lancair driver here says he was popping breakers when his engine (Engineair
V-8) was idling due to alternator turning very slowly (normal operating rpm
for this monster is WAY above 2700!) and voltage was very low from other loads-
"less volts=more current"(?) Suggested that raising flaps with engine idling
(voltage low) would make current go up resulting in blow, but I never noticed
a LV alert from the EIS or LVWM- anyone else heard this theory? It doesn't
sit well with my prior agreements with Mr. Ohm...
I think the next step is to rig a test lamp to the fuseblock output faston so
I know exactly WHEN the little wire goes "poof!"
Mark
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
still doesn't explain why the flaps get all the
> way up, and then when I need them again find the fuse is blown.
Could there be some problem with the up limit on the flaps when under load?
The stop microswitch relative to the flaps could be positioned differently
in the air and on the ground.
Dan Branstrom
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
teries
| Subject: | Essential bus alternate feed from two bat |
teries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken Harrill <KHarrill@osa.state.sc.us>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net> batteries
>During start I thought I would use the main battery for cranking engine,
>the aux battery for powering the electronic ignition (to avoid any
>possibility of kick back in the event main battery voltage drops below
>min required for electronic ignition).
???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer
of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified
by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps
it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building
airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding,
I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the manufacturers
of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's
design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds
long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why
you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing
sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is
a rudimentary technique of circuit design.
Bob,
This may be a legitimate "worry". I spent quite a bit of time and energy
attempting to resolve the starting problems with my LSE ignition system. I
have a permanent magnet Lycoming starter, a 17 AH battery, and I start the
engine on the electronic ignition only. My engine would only start when I
released the starter button. It always started, but it left me with an
uneasy feeling that sometime, far away from home, it may not. The voltage
(measured at the ignition module) drops to around 8 volts with the starter
engaged, and the LSE does not fire at that voltage, regardless of what
Klause claims. I resolved the problem for now by switching to an Odyssey
battery, which does not produce quite as much voltage drop. A better
solution is a B & C starter that draws less current, but that cost $$$. If
I were building an airplane with two batteries, I would certainly consider
starting on one and powering the electronic ignition from the other.
Ken Harrill
RV-6, 300 hours
Message 26
| 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: Two alternators-using total rated combined output |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/04 12:04:52 PM Central Standard Time,
phil@petrasoft.net writes:
The simplest way would be to simply split the loads. Have two electrical
systems. Put Comm 1 on buss 1 and Comm 2 on buss 2, put the taxi light on
one side the landing light on the other. Two smaller batteries and a
crossover contactor for starting, and for single alternator operations. Put
a load meter on each one so you know what is going on and you've got it.
Good Afternoon Phil,
For What It Is Worth, that is the method used by Beechcraft on the very first
few Twin Beechcrafts built in the middle thirties. The only exception is that
they did not normally tie the batteries together for starting. Each side was
left separated.
There really is very little new under the sun.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 27
| 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: Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 2/24/04 1:41:46 PM Central Standard Time,
danbranstrom@verizon.net writes:
> Could there be some problem with the up limit on the flaps when under load?
There is no switch, either end of travel- the device has a specific stroke
length and is designed to freewheel at each end.
Mark - do not archive
Message 28
| 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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Bob said:
???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer
of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified
by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps
it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building
airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding,
I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the
manufacturers
of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's
design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds
long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why
you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing
sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is
a rudimentary technique of circuit design.
Yes it is. I guess this somewhat "rare" problem is occurring due to the
high inrush current that some of the super light starter motors can
draw. Skytec sees the problem on a regular basis in the return of their
units for repair following a kickback. As I mention earlier, if the
conditions are right, i.e., its cold, battery a bit weak or old or both,
and you some how find yourself with less than minimum volts to power the
EI, you may have an expensive repair on your hands. A second battery is
just one way to avoid it.
Dual, rotated batteries implies two batteries of the same
size. My personal favorite is the 17 a.h. VSLA/RG battery
at 15 or so pounds. If you're willing to carry a 15# "penalty"
for the value of improved battery performance, perhaps this
no big deal. You'll have a wealth of capacity aboard that
would allow you to close both battery contactors should
you find that the main battery is over-taxed during alternator
out ops.
I have dual Odyssey 680s 17 ah at 15# each. Most Rockets are a bit nose
heavy so an extra 5# of battery (in the rear) above the designed wt and
balance figure should be a wash between loss of payload and lighter
nose. Since battery power is my only electrical backup and with the
kickback concern and the plan for annual replacement of a battery, it
just all added up to having two identical batteries. Plenty of juice
during alt. out ops.
Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for
e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking
through the requirement for dual batteries . . .
Another solution may be to keep the main batt powering everything it
normally powers with alternator operating, and have the Aux batt for use
when the main batt voltage drops below a certain point. At that point
just select alternate feed of the essential bus to extend your time you
have to find a suitable field. Which sounds like a better way to go?
Your wife may wish that the airplane had 15# more payload
to bring home souvenirs of that trip to the Bahamas.
Perhaps if she dropped 15#s she could bring more souvenirs back, just
kidding honey.
Thanks Bob,
Jim. . .
==
==
==
==
Message 29
| 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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two |
batteries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
batteries
> Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for
> e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking
> through the requirement for dual batteries . . .
Wow - this is interesting. I seem to have inferred from all
your previous posts and the book that for people with
electrically dependent engines (ignition/fuel pump) like
auto conversions that two batteries were a "must".
I guess this may be a case of choosing between "don't put
all your eggs in one basket" vs. "put all your eggs in
one basket - and watch that basket!"
Do I understand correctly that you would not consider
someone an idiot to fly an auto conversion with only
one alternator and one battery?
Thanks for sharing your wisdom!
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
Message 30
| 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: | Garmin 430 install manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
If you don't find it I can email you a copy.
David
RV6-A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
W. Skiba
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba"
<jskiba@icosa.net>
I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual
for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there
site, Anybody know where I can download this ??
Thanks
Jeff.
Message 31
| 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: Dual fuel pumps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: czechsix@juno.com
Hi Bob,
Just an FYI for you or anyone else out there considering one of the "Bendix thump-thump"
pumps....I believe you're referring to the "beer can" cylindrical pumps
found on lots of Piper/other spam cans. These used to be Bendix but were
bought by Facet years ago, and Facet still produces them, but the newer models
now use solid-state triggering to control the solenoid for pumping action. This
replaces the points that the older ones used and should prove to be much more
reliable (not that they were bad to begin with)...Facet told me the design
life for the newer ones is over 5000 hours. If you want to make sure you're
getting one with solid-state triggering, you can tell by the "E" at the end of
the part number. I'm using the #40007E, which is identical to the pump you find
on your typical Piper Cherokee (#478360) except that 1) it has the solid state
triggering device instead of points and 2) it has 1/4" pipe thread for the
inlet/outlet fittings instead of 1/8" like the Pipe
rs use. If you need the 1/8" pipe thread fittings, and want the solid state triggering,
just get the #478360E model.
In case anyone wonders, the reason I used this type of pump on my RV-8A instead
of the little square one Vans recommends (I believe it's #40108) is because I
put it in the wing root, and the shape of the "beer can" pump and its inlet/outlet
locations seemed to fit better in the space available. I also like that
it has a 74 micron inlet filter screen that is pretty easy to remove and clean
periodically, whereas the square pump Vans uses does not have this feature.
FWIW, YMMV, etc. et al.
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A N2D firewall forward stuff...
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual fuel pumps
<snip>
The Facet pumps, unlike their Bendix thump-thump ancestors
are all solid state for controlling solenoid current
and have very simple mechanical designs.
<snip>
Bob . . .
Message 32
| 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: Electric fuel pump circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
Bob,
I'm sorry I was not clear. I have a mechanical pump as well.
Charlie
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 12:45 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaskuss@bellsouth.net>
>>
>>Bob & Listers,
>> I am currently modifying your Z-11 drawing for my specific RV-8A. I
>> recall that you recently recommended the use of relays for circuits
>> drawing over 5 amps. My Airflow Performance electric fuel pump draws
>> about 5 - 6 amps in rush. Once running, it draws 3.5 to 4 amps. Do I need
>> a relay on this circuit? Would you recommend installing this circuit on
>> the main, endurance or battery bus? I have an engine with 1 magneto and 1
>> Jeff Rose electronic ignition.
>
> Does your fuel pump run all the time or is it a backup for
> an engine driven pump?
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
Message 33
| 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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "GMC" <gmcnutt@uniserve.com>
And of course there is always a simple solution like using toggle switches
for the ignition and letting the engine turn over two blades before turning
the ignition on! SOP for my 6-A.
George in Langley
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Stone
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Essential bus alternate feed from two
batteries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Bob said:
???? Is it the stated policy/recommendation by the manufacturer
of the ignition system that you do this? I'm increasingly mystified
by what I perceive as an upsurge in worries about this. Perhaps
it's just that the economy is improving and more folks are building
airplanes with electronic ignition. Market forces notwithstanding,
I'm wondering if the risk is real and whether or not the
manufacturers
of these products are acknowledging a shortcoming in their product's
design. The low voltage event during cranking is tens of milliseconds
long as the starter motor spins up. There is no good reason why
you as the user should have to be concerned about this. Designing
sensitivity to this phenomenon out of the ignition system is
a rudimentary technique of circuit design.
Yes it is. I guess this somewhat "rare" problem is occurring due to the
high inrush current that some of the super light starter motors can
draw. Skytec sees the problem on a regular basis in the return of their
units for repair following a kickback. As I mention earlier, if the
conditions are right, i.e., its cold, battery a bit weak or old or both,
and you some how find yourself with less than minimum volts to power the
EI, you may have an expensive repair on your hands. A second battery is
just one way to avoid it.
Dual, rotated batteries implies two batteries of the same
size. My personal favorite is the 17 a.h. VSLA/RG battery
at 15 or so pounds. If you're willing to carry a 15# "penalty"
for the value of improved battery performance, perhaps this
no big deal. You'll have a wealth of capacity aboard that
would allow you to close both battery contactors should
you find that the main battery is over-taxed during alternator
out ops.
I have dual Odyssey 680s 17 ah at 15# each. Most Rockets are a bit nose
heavy so an extra 5# of battery (in the rear) above the designed wt and
balance figure should be a wash between loss of payload and lighter
nose. Since battery power is my only electrical backup and with the
kickback concern and the plan for annual replacement of a battery, it
just all added up to having two identical batteries. Plenty of juice
during alt. out ops.
Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for
e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking
through the requirement for dual batteries . . .
Another solution may be to keep the main batt powering everything it
normally powers with alternator operating, and have the Aux batt for use
when the main batt voltage drops below a certain point. At that point
just select alternate feed of the essential bus to extend your time you
have to find a suitable field. Which sounds like a better way to go?
Your wife may wish that the airplane had 15# more payload
to bring home souvenirs of that trip to the Bahamas.
Perhaps if she dropped 15#s she could bring more souvenirs back, just
kidding honey.
Thanks Bob,
Jim. . .
==
==
==
==
Message 34
| 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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two |
batteries
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
batteries
At 12:07 AM 2/25/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch> batteries
>
>
> > Obviously, you could use a 2-10 to tap either battery for
> > e-bus support . . . but I think there is value in thinking
> > through the requirement for dual batteries . . .
>
>
>Wow - this is interesting. I seem to have inferred from all
>your previous posts and the book that for people with
>electrically dependent engines (ignition/fuel pump) like
>auto conversions that two batteries were a "must".
He said he has one mag and one electronic ignition.
The fact that one ignition is supported by a well
maintained battery and works in concert with a
mechanically driven ignition system seems to provide
a high degree of risk mitigation for his engine which
is therefore, NOT electrically dependent.
His question was predicated on assumptions that
(1) there is value in having a second battery to
accommodate an ignition system that may not be designed
to live in the real world and (2) if there are two
batteries (of equal size due to adoption of the new-
main-battery-yearly rotation philosophy) that perhaps
there was value in being able to tap the second battery
for endurance-bus power during alternator-out operations.
I reasoned that his battery selection choices
now included a consideration of going to two smaller
(and more expensive/difficult to find) batteries
capable of cranking the engine whereupon he would
also consider the combined capacity of two batteries
for e-bus support. If he stayed with the cheap and popular
17 a.h. battery, then there was a pretty good weight
penalty to pay for the price of supporting a less-than-
alternator-out battery capacity would be huge . . . and
his question properly considered the wisdom/utility of
tapping this extra reserve for e-bus support.
>I guess this may be a case of choosing between "don't put
>all your eggs in one basket" vs. "put all your eggs in
>one basket - and watch that basket!"
>
>Do I understand correctly that you would not consider
>someone an idiot to fly an auto conversion with only
>one alternator and one battery?
I'm certainly not qualified to assess anyone's
mental competency based on the degree of risk
mitigation they choose to fly with. I've seen
William Wynne's Corvair engine conversion presentations
at fly-ins. He's flown this engine in several
configurations with a single alternator, single battery,
single Kettering (stock) ignition system for what
is most certainly an electrically dependent engine.
See http://www.flycorvair.com
But with a single ignition system (that delivers
a high degree of reliability and service life with
reasonable attention to installation and maintenance)
there seems to be little added value by having more
than one, well maintained battery to power it.
He offers compelling reasoning to support that
philosophy.
However, if anyone really wants dual ignition systems,
he'll show you where to drill and tap the heads and
how to strap on some more hardware. When a second
system is added, one has to assess the value in
adding a second battery too . . . and this hasn't
even touched on fuel delivery considerations.
Every component added to offset the deleterious
effects of failure of other components comes at
a price of increased weight, complexity (increases
chances of pilot/mechanic error), cost of ownership
and potential DECREASE in overall reliability due
to unforeseen failure modes. The original post in
this thread was considering the value and technique
for making the best of a picky ignition system
and taping all the resources it forced onto the
design . . . reliability wasn't a concern.
Some people think I'm an idiot for climbing into
a light aircraft with the intent to transport
myself to someplace else . . . but what do they know?
Bob . . .
Message 35
| 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: ANR headsets |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lowell Fitt" <lcfitt@inreach.com>
I use the headset from DRE. They seem to boost highs while the ANR feature
is on, but also seem to attenuate the high frequencies when turned off. But
consider that I wear hearing aids and they are programmable digital models.
One feature they have that I use routinely while flying is to turn them to
program 3 which turns off the microphones and turns on an inductance coil in
the hearing aid that then will receive the magnetic signal from the headset.
This feature was designed for telephone use, which I haven't yet learned to
master.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Lee" <rlee468@comcast.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ANR headsets
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Lee" <rlee468@comcast.net>
>
> A couple of us older guys without perfect hearing (high range) have had to
return ANR headsets because we couldn't hear well on them. The problem is
the audio is very bass and little treble, kind of like the person on the
other end is on a distant speaker phone. We hear ok on standard headsets
but wanted the ANR to preserve our hearing. The question is, is this normal
or have we each gotten bad brands?
>
>
Message 36
| 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: | Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> Wow - this is interesting. I seem to have inferred from all
> your previous posts and the book that for people with
> electrically dependent engines (ignition/fuel pump) like
> auto conversions that two batteries were a "must".
Yes, I've been finding this interesting too. Now I think of it, I'd like to
be able to power my ebus (EFI, Fuel pumps, Injectors, Coils) from either
battery. Is there a wiring diagram that covers this?
John Slade
Cozy IV
Message 37
| 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: | Flap motors and Fuel pumps |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Martin" <niceez@cableone.net>
All,
I ran across something in the hanger that may Save $$$ for someone in our
group. After a week they go on Ebay.
2 - SKF 24v Linear actuators (Flap Motors) and one FL2 Limit Switch and
Controlling Unit.
2 - High pressure Weldon Fuel Pumps for Fuel Injected engines. P/N 8163-B.
Minimum flow of 35 GPH @ 21 PSI.
Everything is brand new and never used. I have jpeg pictures of the units
or you can look in the ACS catalog page 173 for the actuators, switch and
page 235 for the Weldon Pumps to get an idea of what they are.
These were spares back when I was building Lancairs and I forgot about them.
They can be used on any aircraft.
I would be willing to let them go at 50% of the ACS price. ACS does not list
the 8163-B. Contact me directly for information - niceez@cableone.net
Do not archive
Message 38
| 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: metalic paint |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
thanks
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hildebrand" <jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Hildebrand"
<jhildebrand@crownequip.com>
>
> When we planned our metallic paint job, we had the same worries. We
> talked to Lancair and they said it was no problem, they have seen many
> planes with metallic paint and it was no issue.
>
> Jeff Hildebrand
> Lancair ES
> http://lancair.northstartraffic.ca
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
> Raby
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
> <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>
> Randy
>
> My antenna's are mounted on the inside shooting through the fiberglass.
> I am
> assuming on an RV6 that the antenna's are on the outside of the plane
> and
> paint.?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <F1Rocket@comcast.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: metalic paint
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: F1Rocket@comcast.net
> >
> > My RV-6 has dark blue metallic on the bottom with a lighter blue
> metallic
> above on white. No problems at all with any of the antennas (all on the
> bottom).
> >
> > Randy
> > F1 Rocket
> > http://f1rocket.home.comcast.net/
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
> <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > To everyone:
> > >
> > > I am planning a blue metalic finish on the bottom of my plane. I was
> > > wondering if this will have an effect on the antenna's I have
> mounted on
> the
> > > inside? transponder, Nav and I have a com antenna mounted on the
> side,
> where
> > > the #s are. The N #s are also the blue metalic finish.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Ron Raby
> > >
> > > Lancair ES
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
Message 39
| 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: Essential bus alternate feed from two batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Branstrom" <danbranstrom@verizon.net>
> I'm certainly not qualified to assess anyone's
> mental competency based on the degree of risk
> mitigation they choose to fly with. I've seen
> William Wynne's Corvair engine conversion presentations
> at fly-ins. He's flown this engine in several
> configurations with a single alternator, single battery,
> single Kettering (stock) ignition system for what
> is most certainly an electrically dependent engine.
>
> See http://www.flycorvair.com
>
> But with a single ignition system (that delivers
> a high degree of reliability and service life with
> reasonable attention to installation and maintenance)
> there seems to be little added value by having more
> than one, well maintained battery to power it.
> He offers compelling reasoning to support that
> philosophy.
>
I just went to William Wynne's Corvair College about a month ago. Risk
management is a large part of his philosophy. He now advocates an ignition
system with dual points going to dual coils with a coil switcher. (All are
high quality parts, and the coils and coil switcher are kept cool and away
from the engine). He also does not advocate flying a Corvair under IFR
conditions. For that, he says, go with a certified engine. The failure
mode of the points is that they gradually lose their effectiveness, giving
fair warning with hard starting.
Ironically, there are people who don't like having a system with points, but
prefer mags. As I understand it, mags have points.
Because he is using a Corvair engine in a direct drive configuration and low
rpm, he says the points will last a long time. (He is specific that only
standard points that have a phenolic - not plastic- rubbing block are to be
used. The springs on the competition points are too stiff and unnecessary
at a max of around 3300 rpm). One person flying a Corvair (with a single
point system), changed the points at the 25 hour mark, and noticed that
there was no wear. Since then, he's got something like 800 hours on the
same set of points. He performs regular maintenance on them, and has been
inspecting and dressing, and re-gapping them as necessary. William is not
advocating that, just illustrating how long-lived points can be with proper
care.
William claims that since he's never seen lead fouling of the plugs on a
Corvair airplane powerplant, he now uses a single plug per cylinder. (The
engine was designed when high lead, high octane gasoline were common).
The thing that impresses me about William is that if he advocates something,
he's either flown it, run it on a test stand, or closely monitored someone
else's use of it. For example, he has found by experimentation that the
9.25:1 heads are actually less prone to detonation than the 8.25:1 heads.
The reason? The quench area of the 9.25:1 heads is much larger, and
produces much more swirling of the mixture during compression.
Dan Branstrom
Do not archive.
Message 40
| 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: | Flap motor testing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Comments below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Benford2@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:42 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>
> It will never blow another fuse... <g>. Jus kiddin.. Your
Another **out of the box** thing to look at is if there is any wire anywhere
in the circuit that may be "exposed". If so, the "bounce" could have made it
move just enough to short whe power was applied. If this was the case it
would have nothing to do with your load and would probably always work on
the ground.
> extensive testing is
> what homebuilding is all about, If it worked every time, woman
> and children
> would be constructing these things. My best guess would be the
Ben I must assume you are kidding with the comment (looking for the
smileys), but just in case, there **ARE** women constructing these things
... and doing a mighty fine job of it.
I hear that there are some young people that some of *would* call childern
that are about building as well.
James
Message 41
| 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: | Garmin 430, where to purchase |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Colt Seavers" <rv7maker@hotmail.com>
Listers,
Where is the best place to purchase a garmin 430? Local avionics shop,
internet shop, mail order? Are there any warrantee issues to contend with
if you install it yourself?
-Ross Schlotthauer
www.experimentalair.com
RV-7 finishing
>From: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual
>Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:17:37 -0600
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
><dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
>
>If you don't find it I can email you a copy.
>
>David
>RV6-A
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
>W. Skiba
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba"
><jskiba@icosa.net>
>
>I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual
>for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there
>site, Anybody know where I can download this ??
>
>Thanks
>Jeff.
>
>
Message 42
| 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 430, where to purchase |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
If you buy it from an avionics shop they are required by their dealership
agreement to install it in your airplane.
If you want to install it yourself, you have to buy it from a private
party. Then there's as much warrantee on it as there is warrantee left
since it was new - maybe a lot, maybe none.
At 09:43 PM 2/24/04 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Colt Seavers" <rv7maker@hotmail.com>
>
>Listers,
>
>Where is the best place to purchase a garmin 430? Local avionics shop,
>internet shop, mail order? Are there any warrantee issues to contend with
>if you install it yourself?
>
>-Ross Schlotthauer
>www.experimentalair.com
>RV-7 finishing
>
>
> >From: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
> >Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual
> >Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:17:37 -0600
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer"
> ><dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
> >
> >If you don't find it I can email you a copy.
> >
> >David
> >RV6-A
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
> >W. Skiba
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 430 install manual
> >
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffrey W. Skiba"
> ><jskiba@icosa.net>
> >
> >I seem to remember that there was somewhere to download the install manual
> >for garmin products in particular the 430? But I can not find it on there
> >site, Anybody know where I can download this ??
> >
> >Thanks
> >Jeff.
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|