Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:48 AM - Re: antenna adapter ? (rd2@evenlink.com)
2. 06:56 AM - Re: Load dump report comment (Paul Messinger)
3. 07:23 AM - Fatwire Super-2-CCA (Eric M. Jones)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: LOAD DUMP report #2 (Paul Messinger)
5. 10:42 AM - Re: KT-71 Transponder (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:42 AM - Re: LOAD DUMP report #2 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 12:13 PM - Re: LOAD DUMP report #2 (Paul Messinger)
8. 05:09 PM - ICOM edge card connector pins (Larry McFarland)
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: antenna adapter ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Thanks Cy.
No, I haven't X-mitted with the antenna disconnected.
The purpose stated was my first thought, but the thing is plugging a 3.5 mm
plug into the jack does not disconnect the antenna to anything in the
panel. I will have to check out the jack.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from qcbccgalley; Date: 12:18 PM 6/6/2004
-0500)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "qcbccgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Hopefully you haven't transmitted with the panel radio disconnected. Your
last statement is the purpose of the antenna box. One can plug in a KX-99
or other handheld and use it to transmit and receive using the same antenna
as your panel radio. I believe that it disconnects the panel radio so you
aren't transmitting into the panel radio with your handheld.
Using an external antenna with your hand held works great.
Cy Galley - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair
Safety Programs Editor - TC
EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: <rd2@evenlink.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: antenna adapter ?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> In a C-172 I inherited an already installed little box that I don't know
> the exact purpose of. It sits on the column near the handheld mike.
> The box looks aftermarket and is labeled as "KX99 Antenna Adapter".
> It has 2 BNC inputs labeled "Radio" and "Antenna" on the back and a 3.5 mm
> jack on the front.
> I thought it's an antenna-interrupt feed to a handheld, but neither
> plugging in a 3.5 mm plug nor unplugging the Radio or Antenna BNC's does
> affect the operation of the panel radios. I haven't yet checked, if the
3.5
> mm jack can be used as an antenna feed to a handheld (got to make up a BNC
> to 3.5 mm cable for the purpose). Any hints as to what that box could be
or
> do?
> Thanks
> Rumen
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump report comment |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Embedded clipped and snipped :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump report comment
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:17 AM 6/6/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
> >
>> Don't think I saw the "first" preliminary . . . the
> report needs to come in two pieces: (1) here's what we did,
> here's what we measured and (2) here's what is recommended based
> upon those measurements.
>
> The first part is the repeatable experiment which is
> subject to critical review taking into consideration the
> test setup, measurement methods and measurement accuracy.
> The second part is also subject to review to gage efficacy
> of the recommendations with respect to meeting design
> goals.
My preliminary reports as posted on this group is not in the above format. I
am taking a component and commenting on preliminary results.
The real report is many pages long and will be posted on another web site
when done along with all the necessary details to support the test results.
> I recommended. I was not aware that you
> had incorporated didoes that were in service during
> battery-only ops. Further, the architecture of the system
> in your project was not one of those illustrated in Appendix Z.
Point taken and I apologized for the confusion however Schottky diodes have
been around in easy to use form for many years.
You have not addressed my needs in any of your "Z" drawings but I have
Bought your 'book' in the past. It was several years ago that I needed to
complete my design. I have an auto engine conversion where there is no
practical way of having a second alternator and the engine needs around 10A
to run the High pressure fuel pumps, IGN and Injection system. This and my
basic aversion to direct battery connections resulted in a somewhat
different approach.
> It was never clear to me in what way you were doing stuff that was so
> different. Tell you what. Let's do a Z-Figure to describe your
> architecture and publish it in Rev 11 along with the supporting
> notes to describe the design goals. The 'Connection was never
> intended to be the gospel according to Bob Nuckolls but rather
> a gathering place for the best we know how to do.
Perhaps some time in the future. but not now as I have way too much to do.
> I don't recall anyone making demands of anybody to do anything. I
> do recall a suggestion that useful conclusions are based on
> data taken in a manner that anyone can repeat the experiment and
> confirm good data and debunk bad data.
"Demand" was not said but it was clear that any testing that was to be taken
seriously needed to be properly done and that is just what I have done.
BTW I totally agree with the need to do proper testing, its just needing to
preovide detailed documentation that is a pain.
I did all the testing I needed for my design years ago but as i was the only
one who needed the results, I did not document the results such that a non
believer could be convinced.
>
> Take your time with the report . . . experience with 200,000+
> airplanes over the past 55 or so years suggests that nobody's
> airplane is going to come spiraling out of the sky shedding
> parts and trailing smoke because of a load-dump event.
No but I have tested and demonstrated that under specific conditions you can
get total unrecoverable electrical power failure from one component's
failure. Extreme case; I had though so but not so sure now. Rare and very
unlikely very much so. However I would not want to chance it. This case will
be discussed later. For one thing I will not discuss anything until My peer
and I have a tested solution to what we see as a needed change.
Paul
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: | Fatwire Super-2-CCA |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Bob,
You should have a piece of this and I would welcome your testing it.
A couple of things: I had hoped the cable with insulation would come it at
under 3 oz/ft, but it is 3.08 oz/ft. But this is still far below the
lightest possible AWG 2 copper cable. On the other hand, quite remarkably,
the resistance came in MUCH lower than expected, at 0.134 milliohms per foot
*. Copper AWG 2 is 0.156 milliohms per foot. Even SILVER AWG 2 is 0.144
milliohm per foot.
We studied insulations for the wire. Some insulation would have made the
wire unaffordable. Other types were unsuitable for various reasons. In the
end only PVC made sense. I think it's time to say that PVC insulation is not
the same stuff they made in the 1950's and is superior in all the
characteristics that make good insulation. All the wiring in your house is
insulated with PVC. This insulation is rated VW-1 but is actually
self-extinguishing in the thickness used on the cable. It's environmentally
friendly and very good stuff.
We'll see how this goes.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
*The manufacturer measured a single strand and calculated up to the full
bundle, I performed the actual voltage drop/current measurement. The results
are the same within the measurement error. Physics is physics but a small
change in core-clad ratio or aluminum purity is probably responsible for
this.
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: LOAD DUMP report #2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
First I was not questioning the contents of DO-160, just trying to take 20+
pages and cut it down to something the masses could easily read and see.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LOAD DUMP report #2
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 08:46 PM 6/6/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
> >
> >Here are the filtered out parts of DO-160 that apply to 14V systems.
> >
> > F: Voltage spike
> >
> > 41.4V peak with a 50 ohm source impediance
> > Pulse Rise time 2 micro sec max and total pulse is 10 micro second
> >minimum.
>
> I believe you're quoting Section 17 here where the 2/10 uSec
> spike from a 50-ohm source is 600 volts open circuit for category
> A in 28 volt systems . . . and 1/2 that value or 300 volts open
> circuit for 14 volt systems.
First Page 17-2 specifically specified cat B 2 x line voltage ac or dc or
200 which ever is less. Thus I do not see how you get 300V out of 2x times
13.8v
I do not see how any cat other than B applies to experimental aircraft
builders. I am not addressing what major avionics mfgrs might need to comply
with. However If we as a builder make and install some simple piece of
electrical equipment we need to at least be aware of what it might need to
be designed for.
Its not so much the total energy its the rise time that passes right thru
many caps. I recall comments last year about the use of a 10mfd electrolytic
which may or may not do the job. Its common industry practice to have a
10mfd bulk cap and also a 0.1 cap to supress noise in the frequency range of
the subject spike. Early IC designs specified this in great detail as their
parts could fail with just the bulk cap. Later designs in some cases
included internal protection so external caps were not needed.
>
> This turns out to be a rather low energy pulse. I built the spike
> generator about 25 years ago and used it one time on a certification
> program. Seems that a 10 uf tantalum capacitor across the input supply
> voltage to the unit under test completely wiped out the effects of
this
> stress.
> After whipping the dragon in the first test, it didn't seem useful
> to test again after a stock solution was deduced. That pulse generator
> might still be laying around out at Electromech . . . if you want it
> I'll see if I can pry it out of the dust.
No Thanks its just something not around most shops. I am in the process of
building one. Energy is relative, normal pulse generators do not address
anything close.
Again I see no cat Z applicability to our systems.
>
> >The 50 ohm source impedance means that if you have a 50 ohm resistor
across
> >the spike the voltage across the resistor is cut in 1/2. Well 1/2 is
still
> >large and that assumes you have a input impedance of 50 ohms or less at
the
> >50-100 MHZ spike fundamental rise frequency. Not all that easy to do.
>
> The 50-ohm source impedance applies only to Section 17 spikes
> which are intended to mimic un-bridled inductive components
> like contactors and is very low energy, easy to deal with
> as described elsewhere.
Which are around in mass if the diode supressor fails open for any reason
including mechanical.
> >I have left out the battery system voltages during starting as its really
a
> >case by case issue.
I left it out as there are many electronic ign/fuel systems that need better
voltage standards to operate and this is where the use of an isolated
battery has been discussed. Not every one has electronic engine controls and
the needs of the varous products are differrent. Thus there is NOT one size
fits all.
> Finally, I'd point out Figure 16-1 AC voltage modulation on the DC
power
> (alternator ripple) that quite often trips up the neophyte designer.
I agree and that is addressed and measured in the testing performed.
>
>
> >The above is a fast look as there are lots of pages to review plus my
typos
> >and missing item. The final report will be carefully reviewed for
> >completeness and accuracy.
>
>
> I'm wondering how much of DO-160 you're stirring into the
> pot for picking a suitable component to stand off the load
> dump-event on a 60A alternator. Load-dump stresses are
> bounded by abnormal surge requirements of 16.5.4.4
First I am not trying to sturr anything, just informing in simple terms
something that is often quoted as a 'tablet from on high'.
Second the above paragraph fails to cover what the real load dump is as
measured in my testing. (for 14V systems it specifies 30V for 100ms.)
Also who is to say that a 60V 50 ms pulse is less or more damaging?? Is it
the V; or the duration; or the total energy?? Well it depends on the design
to some extent. In the case of my suggested (load dump) solution I am
concerned with the total energy as that converts into device junction
heating which seems to be the design driver. Peak V and current are not a
concern.
AS for picking a part I am concerned about all of the above and in most
cases there is a simple solution.
I do appreciate your comments!
Paul
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: KT-71 Transponder |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:28 PM 6/2/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James J. Varney" <jvarney@vfpi.com>
>
>Hey all.
>
>I picked up a KT-71 transponder with no rack/connector. From what I can
>figure out from info available, this transponder will fit in the rack
>and connector for the KT-76a so I found one and bought it. I looked at
>the connector pin-out diagrams on Bob's site and the KT-71 is not
>listed. Does anybody happen to know if the KT-76a pin-outs are the same?
>or, does anybody happen to have the correct wiring diagram for this
>setup? It will be connected to an ACK-A30 Encoder.
>
>I thank you in advance.
Wiring for the KT-71 is not in my data base. Sorry I can't
help there.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOAD DUMP report #2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:43 AM 6/7/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>First I was not questioning the contents of DO-160, just trying to take 20+
>pages and cut it down to something the masses could easily read and see.
Understand. I posted a similar document a couple of years ago . . .
<snip>
> >
> > I believe you're quoting Section 17 here where the 2/10 uSec
> > spike from a 50-ohm source is 600 volts open circuit for category
> > A in 28 volt systems . . . and 1/2 that value or 300 volts open
> > circuit for 14 volt systems.
>
>First Page 17-2 specifically specified cat B 2 x line voltage ac or dc or
>200 which ever is less. Thus I do not see how you get 300V out of 2x times
>13.8v
>
>I do not see how any cat other than B applies to experimental aircraft
>builders. I am not addressing what major avionics mfgrs might need to comply
>with. However If we as a builder make and install some simple piece of
>electrical equipment we need to at least be aware of what it might need to
>be designed for.
Category B, nor any other category "applies" to experimental
(or any specific class of certified ships for that matter). The
selection of applicable category is between the manufacturer and
the FAA on a case by case basis for certified ships and between the
manufacturer and the customer for OBAM aircraft. Selection of category
Z (600v/300v) for all of my designs is based on spikes that have been
observed to exist on very ordinary components under ordinary circumstances
See -300v spike illustrated in first figure of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
Category Z is a non-issue if one simply installs a modern tantalum
bypass capacitor across the 14v line. So whether one chooses to design
to Category B or category Z is a no-brainer. Put the cap on and
everybody is happy.
>Its not so much the total energy its the rise time that passes right thru
>many caps. I recall comments last year about the use of a 10mfd electrolytic
>which may or may not do the job. Its common industry practice to have a
>10mfd bulk cap and also a 0.1 cap to supress noise in the frequency range of
>the subject spike. Early IC designs specified this in great detail as their
>parts could fail with just the bulk cap. Later designs in some cases
>included internal protection so external caps were not needed.
You're talking about much stiffer spikes than those generated by
energy dumps from contactor coils. The spike generator has both a 50
ohm source impedance -AND- considerable inductance (hence the
2 uSec rise time). My first experience with this test showed
that the most plain vanilla tantalum would wash out the spike
delivered by the generator we constructed.
> >
> > This turns out to be a rather low energy pulse. I built the spike
> > generator about 25 years ago and used it one time on a certification
> > program. Seems that a 10 uf tantalum capacitor across the input supply
> > voltage to the unit under test completely wiped out the effects of
>this
> > stress.
> > After whipping the dragon in the first test, it didn't seem useful
> > to test again after a stock solution was deduced. That pulse generator
> > might still be laying around out at Electromech . . . if you want it
> > I'll see if I can pry it out of the dust.
>
>
>No Thanks its just something not around most shops. I am in the process of
>building one. Energy is relative, normal pulse generators do not address
>anything close.
>
>Again I see no cat Z applicability to our systems.
You can build to category B if you wish but I think your
repeat of my experiment will show that category Z compliance
is so easy that there's no reason not to embrace it.
> >
> > >The 50 ohm source impedance means that if you have a 50 ohm resistor
>across
> > >the spike the voltage across the resistor is cut in 1/2. Well 1/2 is
>still
> > >large and that assumes you have a input impedance of 50 ohms or less at
>the
> > >50-100 MHZ spike fundamental rise frequency. Not all that easy to do.
> >
> > The 50-ohm source impedance applies only to Section 17 spikes
> > which are intended to mimic un-bridled inductive components
> > like contactors and is very low energy, easy to deal with
> > as described elsewhere.
>
>Which are around in mass if the diode supressor fails open for any reason
>including mechanical.
>
> > >I have left out the battery system voltages during starting as its really
>a
> > >case by case issue.
>
>I left it out as there are many electronic ign/fuel systems that need better
>voltage standards to operate and this is where the use of an isolated
>battery has been discussed. Not every one has electronic engine controls and
>the needs of the varous products are differrent. Thus there is NOT one size
>fits all.
Of course not. DO-160 is not a requirement but a guide. Even big
boys like Unisom and Aerosance decided to ignore and/or remain ignorant
of what the document suggests and why. Further, somebody within the
FAA decided to bless their decisions. I'm suggesting that WE can
do better . . . MUCH better.
> > Finally, I'd point out Figure 16-1 AC voltage modulation on the DC
>power
> > (alternator ripple) that quite often trips up the neophyte designer.
>
>I agree and that is addressed and measured in the testing performed.
> >
> >
> > >The above is a fast look as there are lots of pages to review plus my
>typos
> > >and missing item. The final report will be carefully reviewed for
> > >completeness and accuracy.
> >
> >
> > I'm wondering how much of DO-160 you're stirring into the
> > pot for picking a suitable component to stand off the load
> > dump-event on a 60A alternator. Load-dump stresses are
> > bounded by abnormal surge requirements of 16.5.4.4
>
>First I am not trying to sturr anything, just informing in simple terms
>something that is often quoted as a 'tablet from on high'.
Don't know of any regulatory "tablets" worth the stone
they're carved out of. DO-160 is a guide which the tablet
carvers are fond of citing . . . but for the moment, the
OBAM community is free to embrace or reject all or any part
of it. Except for lightning, sand-dust, and fungus testing,
most of DO-160 is not difficult to do. It's not a 100% guarantee
that there won't be problems . . . but in my experience, it's
covered me 99.9% of the time for about 30 years.
>Second the above paragraph fails to cover what the real load dump is as
>measured in my testing. (for 14V systems it specifies 30V for 100ms.)
>Also who is to say that a 60V 50 ms pulse is less or more damaging?? Is it
>the V; or the duration; or the total energy?? Well it depends on the design
>to some extent. In the case of my suggested (load dump) solution I am
>concerned with the total energy as that converts into device junction
>heating which seems to be the design driver. Peak V and current are not a
>concern.
I would have predicted this. Tablet carvers are fond of tossing
numbers around as if they understood what they mean. Note that
except for radiated and conducted emissions, DO-160 is silent
on limiting antagonistic stresses. Actually, Mil-Std-704 speaks
to characteristics of power generation equipment. This is where
the tablet-carvers dropped the ball in applying DO-160 to
alternator installations (all they decided to look at was
conducted and radiated emissions - nobody picked up on the
fact that alternators had another capability for mischief).
Embracing DO-160 test parameters for alternators INFERS that we'll
install alternator systems that do not exceed the DO-160 values to
which potential victims are tested. Hence, except where
specific energy requirements were spelled out in Section 17
spike testing, all others speak only to voltage and duration.
It's up to us as responsible designers to see that any
prophylactic measures applied to an alternator are selected
with a goal of not exceeding limits of some category of
DO-160 qualified victim.
That's why we need to go test alternators as antagonists
to measure energy of the load dump transient and craft designs that
keep stresses inside safety margins suggested by the category
of victims crafted under DO-160.
>AS for picking a part I am concerned about all of the above and in most
>cases there is a simple solution.
Hear, hear!
>I do appreciate your comments!
My pleasure sir.
Bob . . .
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: LOAD DUMP report #2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LOAD DUMP report #2
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 07:43 AM 6/7/2004 -0700, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
> >
> >First I was not questioning the contents of DO-160, just trying to take
20+
> >pages and cut it down to something the masses could easily read and see.
>
> Understand. I posted a similar document a couple of years ago . . .
> Category B, nor any other category "applies" to experimental
> (or any specific class of certified ships for that matter). The
> selection of applicable category is between the manufacturer and
> the FAA on a case by case basis for certified ships and between the
> manufacturer and the customer for OBAM aircraft. Selection of category
> Z (600v/300v) for all of my designs is based on spikes that have been
> observed to exist on very ordinary components under ordinary
circumstances
>
> See -300v spike illustrated in first figure of
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
>
Yes but what you are showing is the Negative spike from the inductor. Part
of my test series on the exact contactors I used includes similar waveforms.
Caps act differently with the polarity of the spike so in theory both
polarities need to be looked at.
However DO-160 specifies a positive going spike and sadly an incomplete
spike specification other than the peak. A max rise time with no minimum as
well as a minimum duration with no maximum is in my opinion inadequate.
Never would have got past review in aerospace at least where I worked.
> You're talking about much stiffer spikes than those generated by
> energy dumps from contactor coils. The spike generator has both a 50
> ohm source impedance -AND- considerable inductance (hence the
> 2 uSec rise time). My first experience with this test showed
> that the most plain vanilla tantalum would wash out the spike
> delivered by the generator we constructed.
First it was the likes of National semi not me discussing the need for
multiple types of bypass caps and second I have seen spikes on my test setup
from contact action where the coils were properly supressed.
In aerospace we always had R/C contact arc supressors across every contact.
I used to see them in the major dist catalogs but not lately.
Regardless, spike catcher diodes are needed in my opinion and your point is
taken. I always considered them a requirement. They do delay the opening of
the contactors I used by a great deal however.
Paul
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: | ICOM edge card connector pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
Thanks very much for the recent assist,
After an advised search, the pins and Molex connector used in the
A200 radio were found and ordered from Mouser.com The plan is to do
a complete reinstall of these in the radio case mount.
I've spent about several hours getting the fit and expansion of these little flex-nose
connectors just right for good contact, but just a little vibration of the wire
at the pin causes erratic loud or low volume. Doubling ground-contact
opposites on the edge card is likely as much for contact redundancy as electron
capacity
because only half each seems to work most of the time. So it's not good enough
for taxi in my airspace.
If anyone's a better idea, I'd like to hear about it and continue on to first flight.
Thanks again,
Larry McFarland - 601HDS @ www.macsmachine.com
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! --
|