Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:03 AM - 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit (thomas a. sargent)
2. 04:21 AM - Batterys (PGLong@aol.com)
3. 05:07 AM - Batterys (hausding, sid)
4. 06:31 AM - Re: Batterys (Paul Messinger)
5. 06:31 AM - Re: 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit (Walter Tondu)
6. 06:31 AM - Weight of RG-142 (Fergus Kyle)
7. 07:49 AM - Re: Batterys Cost (Scott & Leere' Aldrich)
8. 08:09 AM - Re: 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
9. 09:00 AM - ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage 25Amp PowerSupply? (Matt Jurotich)
10. 09:00 AM - Re: Batterys (Mickey Coggins)
11. 09:13 AM - Re: Weight of RG-142 (Eric M. Jones)
12. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: Weight of RG142 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 10:13 AM - Weight of RG142 ()
14. 10:35 AM - Re: ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage 25Amp (Charlie England)
15. 10:40 AM - Re: Weight of RG142 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 11:59 AM - Re: Weight of RG142 (richard@riley.net)
17. 02:50 PM - Re: ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage 25Amp PowerSupply? (William Slaughter)
18. 05:46 PM - Bob - Single Ground question ?? (David Schaefer)
19. 07:19 PM - Re: Batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 08:25 PM - Re: ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 10:24 PM - Re: Batteries (Mickey Coggins)
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: | 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
OOps! Posted to the wrong list. I'll try to improve my aim.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent"
<sarg314@earthlink.net>
>I have a 6A quick build. In the QB kit the main gear weldment comes
>pre-drilled AND the fuselage has been pre-drilled. The problem is the
>holes in the two parts don't line up very well.
Thanks,
---
Tom Sargent, RV-6A QB
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: PGLong@aol.com
A friend of mine that builds aerobatic aircraft for a living. He uses IO-540
Lycomings and Powersonic 17 AH batteries with great success. On occasion he
may use two of these batteries.
Pat Long
PGLong@aol.com
N120PL
RV4 Waiting for the DAR
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "hausding, sid" <sidh@charter.net>
Pat, just come out and say the name..........Staudacher! :-)
Sid
Alpena, Mi
N204S
--------------------------------do not archive
A friend of mine that builds aerobatic aircraft for a living. He uses IO-540
Lycomings and Powersonic 17 AH batteries with great success. On occasion he
may use two of these batteries.
Pat Long
PGLong@aol.com
N120PL
RV4 Waiting for the DAR
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The PC680 is a vary different battery that the lower cost Panasonic (etc
brand) 17AH battery. About the only thing the two have in common are similar
AH ratings.
The PC680 is designed to have much higher cranking amps, longer life, no
need for standby chargers, hundreds of very deep discharge cycles and true
multi year life.
The real world cost (including shipping) is typically only double the lower
cost Panasonic or equivalent ($100 vs. $50 delivered). Sure it depends on
where you live.
After spending so much ( $$ ) on your aircraft I wonder why so many on this
list seem to want to go to the lowest cost battery available when the best
is so little more.
Just based on specifications the PC680 is double the cranking power of the
batteries used on most of the "Spam can" fleet up to and including the O540
etc engines.
Given the multi year life, they are actually the same cost if you replace
them every other year and more likely there is no need to replace them that
frequently. Then there is the advantage of no need for standby chargers. I
had a couple of them that were left over the winter and needed less than
1/2AH to top off after 6 months. BTW these batteries are not 2 1/2 years old
and still load test to 95% of original capacity.
Simple, no brainer, low cost, load testing is possible and I sure dislike
replacing batteries just because its a "good idea". On the other hand, I
would not fly with the lowest cost batteries in an electrically dependent
aircraft.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Batterys
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
<james@nextupventures.com>
>
> The **Odessey PC680" <sp??> (17AH) turns O-320's and O-360's with no
> problem. Thus I suspect that an O-200 can be handled.
>
> James
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: 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 05/15 9:48, thomas a. sargent wrote:
> I have a 6A quick build. In the QB kit the main gear weldment comes
> pre-drilled AND the fuselage has been pre-drilled. The problem is the
> holes in the two parts don't line up very well.
>
> How can this be, you say, wasn't it all drilled in place in the fuselage
> to start with? Apparently not. Bruce at vans tells me that they drill
> the gear weldment to the spar, but they don't match drill it to the
> fuselage. They drill those holes in the weldment on the bench somehow.
>
> The holes in the gear weldment that lie along the wing spar, look like
> they match the spar pretty well. But the group of 4 that penetrate the
> fuselage just forward of the spar appear to be off by at least 1/8"
> upward. My theory at the moment is that the forward piece that screws
> to the side of the fuselage (those 2 holes line up rather well) is
> actually about 1/8" too low. That raises the whole outboard end of the
> weldment 1/8".
>
> I gather many QB builders have similar problems with the gear weldment.
> What have other people done about it?
I had the exact same problem with my 7A. I have a QB wings and SB fuselage.
I tried all day to get that damn thing to fit. Called Vans the following
monday. Their suggestion started off like this, "get the hydraulic jack
from your car, ..." I was flabergasted. No can do.
I ordered a new one from Vans, not cheap. Fit like a glove. Apparently
they are welded in a jig. Vans indicates that if it's removed from
the jig before it cools it may have a tencancy to "slip" a bit. BS.
They wouldn't take the original in trade. Now I have a weird looking
paperweight.
I've detailed the issues on my site.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.tondu.com/rv7
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: | Weight of RG-142 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"(This simple example does not include the increased value in having an
airplane that goes a little faster, etc.)
(I would like aeroelectric listers opinions on this!).
So in summary I really don't know. If the cable costs even nearly the same,
certainly get the better and lighter cable. But there are certainly other
factors---"
Eric,
Your arguments are cogent, but I think too complex for the
prupose. Having helped rebuild a Yale, Stearman and several other WW II
aircraft, and in midst of building a Europa, I would say the most vital
statistic for a aircraft destined to fly for 30 years privately - is the
reliability factor.
The last thing I want to do ever again is re-route coax. It's
never out in the open but snaking from one compartment to next, trying to
get outside to an antenna. It is ALWAYS bent too tight for the corners to
remain central (creeping core which changes impedance) and one needs to know
it will be sustained through the ravages of temp and humidity over the
years. The connectors are usually poorly attached and protected, and often
must be connected in the darkest reaches of the vehicle.
For me, weight ain't even "in it". Do it once properly and
forget it.
Ferg
Europa A064
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott & Leere' Aldrich" <flynski@mwutah.com>
>The real world cost (including shipping) is typically only double the lower
>cost Panasonic or equivalent ($100 vs. $50 delivered). Sure it depends on
>where you live.
>Paul
Ebay search for pc 680, you will find Odyssey world $53.50 plus flat rate
$12 shipping anywhere in US.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=790221845
6&category=34284
----- Original Message -----
From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Batterys
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark"
<james@nextupventures.com>
>
> The **Odessey PC680" <sp??> (17AH) turns O-320's and O-360's with no
> problem. Thus I suspect that an O-200 can be handled.
>
> James
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin@valkyrie.net>
Tom, I must have got lucky on my 6A-QB as they lined up great..... but I
have heard that isn't the norm.
Tom in Ohio
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 6A gear weldment fit in a QB kit
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent"
<sarg314@earthlink.net>
>
> I have a 6A quick build. In the QB kit the main gear weldment comes
> pre-drilled AND the fuselage has been pre-drilled. The problem is the
> holes in the two parts don't line up very well.
>
> How can this be, you say, wasn't it all drilled in place in the fuselage
> to start with? Apparently not. Bruce at vans tells me that they drill
> the gear weldment to the spar, but they don't match drill it to the
> fuselage. They drill those holes in the weldment on the bench somehow.
>
> The holes in the gear weldment that lie along the wing spar, look like
> they match the spar pretty well. But the group of 4 that penetrate the
> fuselage just forward of the spar appear to be off by at least 1/8"
> upward. My theory at the moment is that the forward piece that screws
> to the side of the fuselage (those 2 holes line up rather well) is
> actually about 1/8" too low. That raises the whole outboard end of the
> weldment 1/8".
>
> I gather many QB builders have similar problems with the gear weldment.
> What have other people done about it?
>
> Thanks,
> ---
> Tom Sargent, RV-6A QB
>
>
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: | ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage 25Amp PowerSupply? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
Folks
Anybody with experience with Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adjustable Voltage
25Amp Power or Pyramid products in general?
http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=pyrps26kx&store=&catid=4071
This sounds like what I really want for bench testing my new panel. The
only alternative being seriously considered is a a much lower output
variable supply in parallel with a usable for bench testing battery.
Thanks in aadvance
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
I have not any research on RG batteries, but I was under
the impression that they have pretty much the same
specifications and ratings. What kind of things can
we use to tell them apart, besides the price?
Thanks,
Mickey
>The PC680 is a vary different battery that the lower cost Panasonic (etc
>brand) 17AH battery. About the only thing the two have in common are similar
>AH ratings.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: Weight of RG-142 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Ferg,
I appreciate your wisdom and advice.
My interest in this is more to sell product than build an airplane. (Hey,
I'm broke, but building a Glastar).
RG142 has a steel center conductor so that it can be strung between poles
and run up antenna towers. Not very useful in an airplane. Furthermore the
bend radius of the wire I am researching is much smaller than standard
RG142.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
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: Weight of RG142 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>The wire I have found is 0.24 ounces per foot (35% of the weight of standard
>RG142). Furthermore it has improved characteristics--50% better VSWR, 22%
>lower insertion loss, reduce phase and attenuation drift, etc. Making even
>much lighter cable is quite possible.
>
>The real question is what is losing a pound worth? Here's my rough estimate:
>
>Lets say your aircraft is worth $100,000 and weighs 2,000 pounds. Does this
>mean your airplane is worth $50/pound? Maybe.
>
>A better way to estimate the savings is to look at the total operating cost
>for the life of the aircraft. In this case lets imagine the aircraft will
>go 10,000 hours and costs $75 per hour to fly. Thats $750,000. At the end
>of this time we assume the aircraft will be valueless. So thats
>$750,000/2000 pounds; or $350/pound.
>
>Lets apply the reasonableness test to this: Does $350/pound mean that your
>old tin barf-bird sitting on the ramp is worth $350/pound? No. This figure
>says that the cost of moving a pound of airplane all over the sky for 10,000
>hours (50 years at 200 hours per year for example) is $350. Thats perfectly
>reasonable.
>
>So how much should you pay to avoid the $350/pound expense? If you invested
>$35 compounded annually at 8% return with an inflation rate of 3.1%, you
>would have the $350 in 50 years. So the answer could be $35.
>
>(This simple example does not include the increased value in having an
>airplane that goes a little faster, etc.)
>
>(I would like aeroelectric listers opinions on this!).
>
>So in summary I really don't know. If the cable costs even nearly the same,
>certainly get the better and lighter cable.
>But there are certainly other factors---
>
>A couple weeks ago there was a lister who thought my Super-2-CCA copper clad
>aluminum FatWire (available in two weeks) was too expensive for the weight
>saved. I honestly don't know how best to calculate such a thing. I once flew
>from Van Nuys, Ca to Winslow, Az in a Cessna150 and landed with a pound of
>usable fuel remaining. I would have paid plenty for that pound of fuel
>instead of a extra pound of wire.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
Excellent points. I can reinforce those ideas with the following
anecdotes from my own experience. In 1964 when I was a tech writer
for Cessna, a number commonly circulated around the
engineering department suggested "For every pound of emptly weight
added to our airplanes, it will cost the owner(s) of that airplane
$100 to buy the pound of stuff, maintain it, and purchase fuel
to carry it around over the lifetime of the airplane.
When I worked at Lear on the Gates-Piaggio GP-180 program, I asked
my management how much bonus I could offer my suppliers for weight
reduction. That got me a bunch of surprise looks. "Shucks Nuckolls,
beat 'em up for every ounce you can get . . . but why should we
offer a 'bonus'? I told them about my experience at Cessna. They
went off into a huddle and a few days later came back with a figure
of $300. I was skeptical that it was truly that low . . . but it
did mark a milestone in the way my management thought about the
economics of designing, building and operating our products. The
fact that they would offer ANY substantial number in dollars for
weight reduction was pretty cool.
A few days ago, I meet one of RAC's higher engineering management
folks in the Denver airport. He had been visiting kids in the Denver
area and I was coming back from a consulting trip in Idaho. I bemoaned
the state of an important system in one of our products that was
too complicated (astounding parts count), too heavy (about 50-60
pounds), terrible service history (been in the #1 trouble reports
slot on the airplane since day-one), and about 1.5 to 2x more expensive
than more attractive options. I proposed RAC consider of a system
that was at least 50 pounds lighter with a demonstrated
zero faults performance record for many hours on a flight test
aircraft.
I asked him what it was worth for weight reduction on this
airplane? He didn't think long before he came up with the number
of $2,000 per pound. I then described my proposal for replacing
the system and suggested that if we could carve 50 pounds out,
1/3 to 1/2 the cost of hardware, 95% of the installation
labor and offer system with an impeccable track record then
at $100,000 savings to the customer (in ADDITION to good will
generated by eliminating a troublesome system), that changing
over to the new system was essentially "free" . . . yes, there
are some up-front costs on the order of a $million but this
would amortize out VERY quickly.
He didn't argue with me. The discussion went to other topics
but it will be interesting to see what his reaction and support
is when I bring this solution up in an upcoming meeting.
Eric's observations are accurate and right on point. There
are economies of operation, financing, fabrication and
parts selection that can argue most energetically with
each other. During Voyager's design and construction
phases we were told that it takes 5# of fuel to carry
1# of airplane around the world. This means that every
pound of empty weight jacks up take off weight by 6 pounds.
Here the economies of operation held sway and every effort
was made to carve grams out of the airplane sometimes at
great expense on an airplane that had a lifetime of a
few hundred hours! Each of you needs to make
your own decisions as to which economy drives
various decisions for purchase and assembly of parts. I've
oft used the term "cost of ownership" in discussions where
the long term benefit from a larger investment up front
pays off. I've also championed the notion of parts-count-reduction
where the economies of reliability are perceived as most
important. If one can bring multiple benefits to bear
(lower parts count, lower weight, lower cost of ownership)
while improving performance . . . then I'll suggest this
is the very ESSENCE of the OBAM aircraft fabrication philosophy
that will never be fully realized in the certified world.
While OBAM aircraft have published gross weight limits, I
think we can agree that those limits can be pushed under
certain conditions (cool air, c.g. well inside limits,
etc) and certain times when they cannot. It seems that
spending lots of time and dollars on weight reduction for
weight reduction's sake may not be the same overpowering
economy in OBAM aircraft that it is in certified ships.
I'll join Eric in offering the notion that the simple-ideas
underlying the really elegant decision are easily obscured by
a lot of ol' pilot's tales and hangar wisdom. Bringing
questions out to the List is the best place to filter
the various ideas in search of the elegant solution.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
<<....skip.....The wire I have found is 0.24 ounces per foot (35% of the weight
of standard RG142). Furthermore it has improved characteristics--50% better VSWR,
22% lower insertion loss, reduce phase and attenuation drift, etc.....skip....>>
5/16/2004
Hello Eric, Can you please share with us the identity, source, and cost of this
wire? Thanks. OC
PS: I found your weight analysis benefit very interesting. Please let me add another
sort-of-weight benefit consideration. The situation involved an airplane
ditching and subsequent rescue at sea within hours. In debriefing the survivors
one spoke of the desperate level of thirst that he experienced shortly after
being free of the ditched aircraft. He described the thirst as almost totally
mentally debilitating and leaving his mouth and throat so dry that he was unable
to transmit over his portable survival radio. He vowed that he would never
again fly in an airplane unless he had at least a pint of water personally available.
A pint of water weighs one pound. What is that pound worth?
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: ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage 25Amp |
PowerSupply?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Matt Jurotich wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>Folks
>
>Anybody with experience with Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adjustable Voltage
>25Amp Power or Pyramid products in general?
>
>http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=pyrps26kx&store=&catid=4071
>
>This sounds like what I really want for bench testing my new panel. The
>only alternative being seriously considered is a a much lower output
>variable supply in parallel with a usable for bench testing battery.
>
>Thanks in aadvance
>
>Matthew M. Jurotich
>
>NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
>JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
>
>m/c : 443
>e-mail mailto: mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov
>phone : 301-286-5919
>fax : 301-286-7021
>
>JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
>
Since you work for NASA, I'm sure you've heard the old urban legend
about 0-G writing instruments for NASA & the Soviets.
As a corollary, you can buy a 12 V jump start pack from Harbor Freight,
WalMart, etc. for under $50 & it will have uses outside of & beyond your
a/c project.
The only thing you might need adjustable voltage for is checking a
low-voltage warning circuit. You can get that by just letting the
battery in the jump start pack run down the trip voltage of the detector.
'Better is the enemy of good enough.'
Charlie
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: Weight of RG142 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>PS: I found your weight analysis benefit very interesting. Please let me
>add another sort-of-weight benefit consideration. The situation involved
>an airplane ditching and subsequent rescue at sea within hours. In
>debriefing the survivors one spoke of the desperate level of thirst that
>he experienced shortly after being free of the ditched aircraft. He
>described the thirst as almost totally mentally debilitating and leaving
>his mouth and throat so dry that he was unable to transmit over his
>portable survival radio. He vowed that he would never again fly in an
>airplane unless he had at least a pint of water personally available. A
>pint of water weighs one pound. What is that pound worth?
Aha! The economics of survival. Economics has been
often described as the study of scarce resources for
which there are multiple uses. Economics isn't just about
dollars.
Bob . . .
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: Weight of RG142 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
At 10:37 AM 5/16/04, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >PS: I found your weight analysis benefit very interesting. Please let me
> >add another sort-of-weight benefit consideration. The situation involved
> >an airplane ditching and subsequent rescue at sea within hours. In
> >debriefing the survivors one spoke of the desperate level of thirst that
> >he experienced shortly after being free of the ditched aircraft. He
> >described the thirst as almost totally mentally debilitating and leaving
> >his mouth and throat so dry that he was unable to transmit over his
> >portable survival radio. He vowed that he would never again fly in an
> >airplane unless he had at least a pint of water personally available. A
> >pint of water weighs one pound. What is that pound worth?
>
> Aha! The economics of survival. Economics has been
> often described as the study of scarce resources for
> which there are multiple uses. Economics isn't just about
> dollars.
Last week I was at a technology expo for my Very Large Aerospace
Company. They had a wonderful materials display. Thinwall titanium
casting, additive titanium, laser fusing. They had a nose gear strut for a
777 made of silicon carbide fibers in a titanium matrix. They said it save
weight at about $1000/lb. At that price, it was worth it to them.
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: | ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage 25Amp PowerSupply? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
I have a PS-26KX that has been working well. I've owned it about a year,
and it has experienced a very low duty cycle, but it seems to be well
made, and judging by the weight, must have a healthy size transformer.
No complaints.
William Slaughter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Jurotich
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage
25Amp PowerSupply?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
--> <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
Folks
Anybody with experience with Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adjustable
Voltage
25Amp Power or Pyramid products in general?
http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=pyrps26kx&store=&catid=4071
This sounds like what I really want for bench testing my new panel. The
only alternative being seriously considered is a a much lower output
variable supply in parallel with a usable for bench testing battery.
Thanks in aadvance
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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: | Bob - Single Ground question ?? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Schaefer" <dschaefer1@kc.rr.com>
Bob ..
I need your thoughts on a problem I've run up against. I've followed your
single ground specifications to a tee. All my grounds are run to the single
B&C ground block.
However, I have an issue. I have a 'pre-made' harness with 8 power and 8
ground connections all on very short 6" leads coming out of the main cable
bundle which is about 4' long. All had ring terminals on them. I've cut
off the power side ring terminals and replaced them with fast-ons to connect
to my B&C fuse block.
However, I can't decide what to do with the ground side.
#1 Do I cut off the ring terminals and splice longer wires (3') onto the
leads to get back across the plane to the ground block (3' away)?
#2 Do I put the ring terminals on a single bolt and run one larger wire back
to the ground block?
#3 Do I put a couple of bolt-studs by the fuse blocks and ground the ring
terminals to the firewall at the local site?
Will the splices 'degrade' the ground?
I'll look forward to your input.
Regards
DWS
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:56 PM 5/16/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Hi,
>
>I have not any research on RG batteries, but I was under
>the impression that they have pretty much the same
>specifications and ratings. What kind of things can
>we use to tell them apart, besides the price?
Their ratings are what they are . . . if you want to compare
the nitty-gritty details of one battery against another, then
download the data sheets for each battery from the manufacturer.
Keep in mind that "ratings" generally don't say much about
service life . . . particularly with respect to how you want
to use the battery (crank an engine a couple dozen times a year,
fly perhaps 50 hours out of a total of 8670 hours/year. The
battery sits unattended for 8720 hours per year in a variety
of environmental conditions which MAY include the occasional
total discharge for having left something turned on.
There's just no way any manufacturer can sign up to
this task with certainty nor can he compare his product
with anyone else's product with accuracy. Therefore, one
must resort to marketing hype in an attempt to distinguish
his product from the competitors. If you want to get 100%
out of an expensive battery, then be prepared to do periodic
capacity tests and discard the battery when cap test falls
below your e-bus operations requirements (this too can be a huge
variable). You may find that the added labor and tools to squeeze
an expensive battery dry costs more than buying the cheapest
battery you can find and replacing it every year.
This goes directly to the thread I responded to earlier about
the economics of weight savings, etc. etc. Here we're talking
the economics of maintenance to maintain reliability. I
suggest the cost of ownership for the lower cost, "disposable"
battery is ultimately less than squeezing every last drop
from a $high$ battery.
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: ? Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adj Voltage |
25Amp PowerSupply?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
25Amp PowerSupply?
At 11:55 AM 5/16/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
><mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>Folks
>
>Anybody with experience with Pyramid PS-26KX Regulated Adjustable Voltage
>25Amp Power or Pyramid products in general?
>
>http://www.etronics.com/product.asp?stk_code=pyrps26kx&store=&catid=4071
>
>This sounds like what I really want for bench testing my new panel. The
>only alternative being seriously considered is a a much lower output
>variable supply in parallel with a usable for bench testing battery.
>
>Thanks in aadvance
>
>Matthew M. Jurotich
This has the right specs. I'd think it was a good value for
the task.
Bob . . .
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: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
That's kind of what I thought too. I'll just swap one
of my batteries out each year. Sort of like the info
you gave in this article:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/AA_Bat_Test.pdf
Thanks,
Mickey
> ... I
> suggest the cost of ownership for the lower cost, "disposable"
> battery is ultimately less than squeezing every last drop
> from a $high$ battery.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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! --
|