Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:25 AM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:26 AM - Re: Potter and Brumfield (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: care and feeding of batteries (Brian Lloyd)
4. 08:20 AM - Re: Crimpers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:44 AM - Fuel Capacitance Plates (Chris Fordham)
6. 09:42 AM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Matt Prather)
7. 10:01 AM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Brian Lloyd)
8. 10:55 AM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Jerzy Krasinski)
9. 11:25 AM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Terry Watson)
10. 11:32 AM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Brian Lloyd)
11. 01:06 PM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (Scott Bilinski)
12. 01:57 PM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Brian Lloyd)
13. 02:28 PM - Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates (Matt Prather)
14. 03:00 PM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 03:15 PM - Re: VOR Antenna Challenged (Scott Bilinski)
16. 04:06 PM - Re: Crimpers (Kingsley Hurst)
17. 05:01 PM - Re: SL-40 and 403mc (Geoff Evans)
18. 05:29 PM - Re: Re: SL-40 and 403mc (Brian Lloyd)
19. 05:33 PM - Re: Crimpers (Robert McCallum)
20. 07:51 PM - Slobovia Outernational BBQ 2 day warning (Charlie England)
21. 07:51 PM - KY-97A Wiring (Jerry Isler)
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: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:23 AM 10/13/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>I want to put a VOR antenna on the inside back portion of my RV-8a canopy.
>Dont even know if this will work or not but want to try. Can I use copper
>tape on the inside of the canopy to do this? Also whats with the forward or
>aft bending of the antennas for VOR's?
>This antenna will be used for my hand held Radio/VOR because the supplied
>antenna sucks, only works out to about 20 miles. I can fabricate most
>anything as long as I get the right specs.
I cringe every time I see or hear of someone wanting to
glue stuff to the inside of a perfectly good canopy . . .
but TECHNICALLY, what you propose will function.
Departure from a straight line dipole is more for convenience/
appearances than anything else. You have to test the antenna
at an instrumented antenna range to measure the effects on
performance.
If it were MY hand held, I'd provide a means for connecting
it to the existing COM antenna as a back up to the ship's
regulator com radio -OR- install a dedicated COM antenna for
the hand held . . . and keep polishing that canopy for the
ultimate clarity of vision and aura of craftsmanship.
Bob . . .
---
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: Potter and Brumfield |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:26 PM 10/13/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
>"About 80,000 W31 breakers or their ancestors are flying
> in Bonanzas and Barons."
>
>Thanks Bob. Are the W31s used in the other aircraft used as switches
>or just as CBs with other switches in series?
W31 are a whole lot more expensive than a simple switch. The only
rational thought process for using them would be to eliminate the
need for another breaker on the bus . . . but of course, using
these switches forces you to have two busses - one for the breakers
that don't "switch" and one for the switches that "break"
Are you planning a breaker panel for non-switched functions?
Bob . . .
---
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: care and feeding of batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 11, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> Actually, in my experience, the setting on aircraft VRs is too low to
>> ensure a proper full charge in reasonable time (probably to prevent
>> the
>> battery from self-destructing on a long flight) but too high for a
>> proper float (maintenance) charge. So you are never going to get the
>> battery to accept a full charge in short order. The current will fall
>> off too soon, before the battery is fully charged.
>
> Too low, full charge, reasonable, too high, short order, etc
> all non quantified. Not very helpful if we're trying to get
> a handle on selection, care and feeding of batteries . . .
OK, I posted all this a couple of months back but here is the table for
charge and float voltages recommended by Deka for their AGM batteries
at different temperatures:
Temp. Charge Float Temp.
F Optimum Maximum Optimum Maximum C
120 13.60 13.90 12.80 13.00 49
110 120 13.80 14.10 12.90 13.20 43 49
100 110 13.90 14.20 13.00 13.30 38 43
90 100 14.00 14.30 13.10 13.40 32 38
80 90 14.10 14.40 13.20 13.50 27 32
70 80 14.30 14.60 13.40 13.70 21 27
60 70 14.45 14.75 13.55 13.85 16 21
50 60 14.60 14.90 13.70 14.00 10 16
40 50 14.80 15.10 13.90 14.20 4 10
40 15.10 15.40 14.20 14.50 4
I find that the numbers for AGMs seem to fall into the ranges specified
for flooded cell batteries so I tend to use AGM numbers for FC
batteries too.
>> Did you see the voltage-vs-temperature charge and float tables I
>> posted
>> for Deka's AGM and Gel-Cell batteries? It makes for interesting
>> reading. Given that the chemistry for AGMs is very much like that
>> flooded-cell batteries you can get an idea from that.
>
> There are as many "optimized" charging philosophies as their
> are manufacturers of batteries . . . Every manufacturer's
> published data on battery performance is based on laboratory
> tests and assumes optimized charging conditions. We can
> try real hard to optimize those conditions in the field
> but at some point, return on investment just isn't there
> any more. You spend more $time$ caring for the battery
> than it's worth.
That may be so. Today it is very easy to optimize the three-stage
charging regimen (constant-current, constant-voltage at the charge
voltage, step down to constant voltage at the float voltage when the
battery is charged) for batteries based on temperature. Three-stage
charge regulators for alternators that include temperature compensation
are pretty darned cheap. Some even include alternator load sensing or
alternator temperature sensing to prevent large loads from exceeding
the capacity of the alternator. And all at a fraction of the cost of
the B&C LR-3x.
>>> If one has the patience, motivation, budget -AND-
>>> a friendly microprocessor, it's easy to pamper the
>>> airplane's battery. It gets down to return-on-investment
>>> decisions that ask the question, "How much $time$ does
>>> it take to increase a battery's service life by say
>>> 10 percent?" I'm trying to answer that question for
>>> RAC right now. As you might guess, there's no real
>>> field data from which one might draw a conclusion.
>>
>> I think you need to look in the Marine and RV markets where they abuse
>> the hell out of their batteries.
>
> Yes, but those are ALL deep cycle applications. Most battery
> manufacturer's offer variations on a theme for optimizing
> batteries intended for deep cycle motive power and/or general
> utility sources.
That is true. We usually don't pull much out of our starting batteries
before putting it back. But the proliferation of sealed batteries
makes it much more likely that we will damage the batteries by
overcharging if the charge controller does not step down to the proper
float voltage.
The only point I am making in all of this is that, with a single charge
voltage setting, even if temperature compensated, if you set the charge
voltage high enough to push juice back into the battery, you are going
to be overcharging that battery once it is fully charged. Once the
battery is fully charged, keeping the voltage above the float voltage
will stress the battery. Given the very poor and very consistent
experience I have had with AGM batteries failing in aircraft with one
voltage setting, I believe this to be a common problem in aircraft.
>> Good point. It does need to be made automatic. On my boat I have
>> solved the problem with an energy monitor that keeps track of the AH I
>> have pulled out of the battery and also controls the alternator
>> controller to temperature compensate the charge process and to shift
>> from charge to float when the battery is full. OTOH, my battery bank
>> there costs $1500 so keeping it alive for 5+ years means real money in
>> my pocket.
>
> Most battery manufacturers state that their products will
> sustain 100 or so deep cycles and still maintain 80% of their
> original capacity . . . in the laboratory at least. Some
> advertise more, some a little less. Bottom line is that
> any battery is life limited by the number of watt-seconds of
> energy exchanged.
I agree.
> Vehicular batteries are called upon to deliver perhaps
> 2% to crank a piston engine and 10% to start a turbine.
> Further, for automobiles, the battery's capacity is not
> a driving issue either. It's not unreasonable to expect
> lots of years of service as long as you don't have dual
> a/c blower motors that are constantly pecking away at
> battery charge while stopped at a light.
Right. But I still hold that batteries need not fail in 18 months if
properly treated.
>> OTOH, there is no reason that a properly cared-for battery shouldn't
>> provide 90% capacity at 5 years. If viewed that way the extra
>> complexity starts to look like break-even. Hey, guys are buying the
>> Unison/Slick electronic magneto system.
>
> Again, not enough data to support the premise. I have
> "properly cared for" batteries in my shop that are well
> over 5 years old. They're deep cycle batteries used in
> instrumentation systems. Each one has been used to about
> 50% capacity perhaps a dozen times. They sit on Battery
> Tenders the rest of the time. If those batteries
> were in constant use . . . say discharged to 50% twice a
> week . . . I can guarantee that they'd be sent to the
> recycling pile a couple of years ago.
>
> 100 deep discharge cycles spread over 5 years is 20 cycles
> per year. One every two weeks. How often do you pull your
> batteries down to less than 50% charge?
On my boat? My normal daily cycle is about 25%-30% discharge. Every
couple of months I pull them down to about 70% discharge to check that
they are still delivering normal capacity. Deka claims that I should
see 600 cycles to 80% discharge and 2100 cycles at 25% discharge. So I
should still see something close to a 5 year life at these rates.
>> It shouldn't be all that difficult. Three-stage charge regulators for
>> the marine and RV markets are less expensive then the B&C VR by a long
>> way. Some even include current and/or temperature sensing to limit
>> the
>> output of the alternator to a safe level.
>
> Keep in mind that the B&C "regulator" is an alternator
> control system. It includes ov protection and low voltage warning.
> This works out to three gizmos in one box for $75/gizmo. Yeah,
> if the only task was to regulate the voltage based on some
> scheme designed to enhance battery life, we could produce such
> a device for a whole lot less than $225.
And the three-stage regulators are a charge control system. What's in
a name? OTOH, once you put in the microprocessor you can combine some
of the functions to reduce parts count.
>> Just change the battery every year ...
>
> That's essentially what happens. Most operators are getting
> 500 hours out of a battery before it drops below 80% . . . about
> a year.
>
> Batteries are more like house plants than fuel pumps. Most
> mechanical
> devices are life limited on real usage. Batteries are sensitive
> to discharge, charge and storage variables that make it difficult
> to compare performance between brands, styles and sizes of
> battery.
> No two batteries are treated the same way.
It all depends on what you want. As the man says, "you pays yer money
and you takes yer choice."
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Didn't know they had a new tool. I presume that it comes packaged
with some kind of instructions that make note of proper terminal positioning
in the un-symetical dies.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to get Todd to send me one to look at.
Bob . . .
At 11:59 PM 10/13/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>
>
>An interesting aside to Bob's notes and descriptions of the crimpers
>supplied by B&C as referenced in the link below. Bob's references to the
>B&C crimpers say that the two sides of the dies are the same and it
>matters not which way the terminals go into the tool. I took delivery
>of an RCT-1 crimp tool from B&C last week and in the tool supplied to
>me, the two sides of the die are NOT the same. The side of the tool
>intended for the insulation grip has a diamond shape to it while the
>wire attachment side has an oval shape. The results obtained with this
>tool as currently supplied by B&C are almost identical to the $high$
>tool shown in Bob's article below. The end view from the insulation grip
>end has a nicely formed diamond pattern just as shown in Bob's
>photograph depicting the results with the $high$ tool. It may be that
>the "el-cheapo" manufacturers are catching on and copying more detail
>from the $high$ tools than in the past.
>
>Bob McC
---
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: | Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Fordham" <consult@island.net>
Hi
I'm presently building fuel tanks for a Harmon Rocket, the space between the
ribs in the tank where I attach the capacitance plates is greater than for the
RV-4 tanks which the capacitance unit was designed for. If I remember rightly
capacitance value is a function of dielectric and distance between plates, would
that extra distance (6 inches or so) have much of an impact on the instument
reading? Any thoughts much appreciated.
Chris
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: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Chris,
What you said is correct - distance between the plates is one of the
factors determining capacitance - the others being plate area and
dielectric properties of the insulator seperating the plates.
Correct my if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that there are two probes,
wired in parallel in each RV-4 wing - one at the inner rib and one at the
outer rib. Each probe consists of a plate mounted on the end rib using
insulating spacers. If so, the distance between the inner rib and the outer
rib will have no impact on the function of the circuit. The critical
dimension
is how far from the plate is mounted from the end rib.
Having a probe at each end of the tank just gives you the capability to
measure the fuel level more accurately at both nearly empty and nearly
full - the dihedral of the wing means that the inboard probe is fully
submerged
until a fair amount of gas is burned off, and the outboard probe reads fully
dry even with a usable amount of fuel still in the tank. Having two probes
in parallel also doubles the effective capacitance - probably makes the
circuit more robust.
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Matt Prather
C150 N714BK, VE N34RD
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Fordham"
> <consult@island.net>
>
> Hi
> I'm presently building fuel tanks for a Harmon Rocket, the space
> between the ribs in the tank where I attach the capacitance plates is
> greater than for the RV-4 tanks which the capacitance unit was
> designed for. If I remember rightly capacitance value is a function of
> dielectric and distance between plates, would that extra distance (6
> inches or so) have much of an impact on the instument reading? Any
> thoughts much appreciated.
> Chris
>
>
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: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 14, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Chris Fordham wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Fordham"
> <consult@island.net>
>
> Hi
> I'm presently building fuel tanks for a Harmon Rocket, the space
> between the ribs in the tank where I attach the capacitance plates is
> greater than for the RV-4 tanks which the capacitance unit was
> designed for. If I remember rightly capacitance value is a function of
> dielectric and distance between plates, would that extra distance (6
> inches or so) have much of an impact on the instument reading? Any
> thoughts much appreciated.
Try making the plates longer and narrower so that they have the same
spacing and surface area.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski@provalue.net>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
>On Oct 14, 2004, at 11:40 AM, Chris Fordham wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Fordham"
>><consult@island.net>
>>
>>Hi
>> I'm presently building fuel tanks for a Harmon Rocket, the space
>>between the ribs in the tank where I attach the capacitance plates is
>>greater than for the RV-4 tanks which the capacitance unit was
>>designed for. If I remember rightly capacitance value is a function of
>>dielectric and distance between plates, would that extra distance (6
>>inches or so) have much of an impact on the instument reading? Any
>>thoughts much appreciated.
>>
>>
>
>Try making the plates longer and narrower so that they have the same
>spacing and surface area.
>
>Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
>brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
>+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
>citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
>
>
>
>
The capacitance is proportional to the surface area and inverse
proportional to the distance between the plates.. It does not matter
directly how many inches are added to the distance. What matters is how
many % is the increase of the distance. But if your plates have the same
surface to distance ratio as in the original, the capacitance will be
the same..
Jerzy
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: | Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
You are going to calibrate the fuel level indicators as one of the last
steps before the first flight, so it would seem to me that the size and
distance between the plates will be compensated for in the calibration
process.
Terry
RV-8A with capacitance gauges, wiring
>
The capacitance is proportional to the surface area and inverse
proportional to the distance between the plates.. It does not matter
directly how many inches are added to the distance. What matters is how
many % is the increase of the distance. But if your plates have the same
surface to distance ratio as in the original, the capacitance will be
the same..
Jerzy
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 14, 2004, at 1:55 PM, Jerzy Krasinski wrote:
>> Try making the plates longer and narrower so that they have the same
>> spacing and surface area.
> The capacitance is proportional to the surface area and inverse
> proportional to the distance between the plates.. It does not matter
> directly how many inches are added to the distance. What matters is how
> many % is the increase of the distance. But if your plates have the
> same
> surface to distance ratio as in the original, the capacitance will be
> the same..
That was my point and the reason for saying that the surface area and
spacing should be the same. That would eliminate the need to
re-calibrate the indicator.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
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: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Oh no, gluing nothing to the canopy. I would be using copper tape. The hand
held works great in COM mode its the VOR that has no distance.
At 08:23 AM 10/14/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 10:23 AM 10/13/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> >I want to put a VOR antenna on the inside back portion of my RV-8a canopy.
> >Dont even know if this will work or not but want to try. Can I use copper
> >tape on the inside of the canopy to do this? Also whats with the forward or
> >aft bending of the antennas for VOR's?
> >This antenna will be used for my hand held Radio/VOR because the supplied
> >antenna sucks, only works out to about 20 miles. I can fabricate most
> >anything as long as I get the right specs.
>
> I cringe every time I see or hear of someone wanting to
> glue stuff to the inside of a perfectly good canopy . . .
> but TECHNICALLY, what you propose will function.
>
> Departure from a straight line dipole is more for convenience/
> appearances than anything else. You have to test the antenna
> at an instrumented antenna range to measure the effects on
> performance.
>
> If it were MY hand held, I'd provide a means for connecting
> it to the existing COM antenna as a back up to the ship's
> regulator com radio -OR- install a dedicated COM antenna for
> the hand held . . . and keep polishing that canopy for the
> ultimate clarity of vision and aura of craftsmanship.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>---
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 14, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
> <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
> You are going to calibrate the fuel level indicators as one of the last
> steps before the first flight, so it would seem to me that the size and
> distance between the plates will be compensated for in the calibration
> process.
But if you change the capacitance of the sender you might end up with a
value outside the calibration range of the instrument.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Capacitance Plates |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
I don't think the change between the RV4 tank and the Rocket tank will
change the capacitance of the system. The capacitance between the
two probes, which is what I think the question was about, is immeasurably
small compared to the capacitance created by the probe's proximity to
the tank wall... Am I all wet in my understanding of the system?
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Oct 14, 2004, at 2:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
>> <terry@tcwatson.com>
>>
>> You are going to calibrate the fuel level indicators as one of the
>> last steps before the first flight, so it would seem to me that the
>> size and distance between the plates will be compensated for in the
>> calibration process.
>
> But if you change the capacitance of the sender you might end up with a
> value outside the calibration range of the instrument.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> Antoine de Saint-Exupry
>
>
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: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:05 PM 10/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
>
>Oh no, gluing nothing to the canopy. I would be using copper tape. The hand
>held works great in COM mode its the VOR that has no distance.
Is this with the rubber duck or an external antenna? ANY
external antenna will do wonders for performance. I wouldn't
look for VOR performance to begin to approach that of a
panel mounted radio. Keep in mind to that VOR stations come
in at least two, perhaps three flavors for power output.
Do you carry a hand held gps? If so, why worry about VOR
performance? If not, why not? Found a whole pot full of
the Magellan GPS 315 on Ebay.
http://search.ebay.com/magellan-gps-315
I carry two of these. Haven't turned a VOR on in almost
10 years except to see if the VOR function in my hand-held
works okay close in. I could shoot a VOR approach with it
in a pinch if I had to but I'd be a lot more comfortable
with the $100 GPS receivers.
Bob . . .
---
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: VOR Antenna Challenged |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski <bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
Good point, I have 2 GPS's,the chance of them both going out is next to
nil. I think I will move on to other items that need work.
Thanks for your input.
At 05:00 PM 10/14/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 01:05 PM 10/14/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski
> ><bilinski@kyocera-wireless.com>
> >
> >Oh no, gluing nothing to the canopy. I would be using copper tape. The hand
> >held works great in COM mode its the VOR that has no distance.
>
> Is this with the rubber duck or an external antenna? ANY
> external antenna will do wonders for performance. I wouldn't
> look for VOR performance to begin to approach that of a
> panel mounted radio. Keep in mind to that VOR stations come
> in at least two, perhaps three flavors for power output.
>
> Do you carry a hand held gps? If so, why worry about VOR
> performance? If not, why not? Found a whole pot full of
> the Magellan GPS 315 on Ebay.
>
> http://search.ebay.com/magellan-gps-315
>
> I carry two of these. Haven't turned a VOR on in almost
> 10 years except to see if the VOR function in my hand-held
> works okay close in. I could shoot a VOR approach with it
> in a pinch if I had to but I'd be a lot more comfortable
> with the $100 GPS receivers.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>---
>
>
Scott Bilinski
Eng dept 305
Phone (858) 657-2536
Pager (858) 502-5190
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>Didn't know they had a new tool. I presume that it comes packaged
>with some kind of instructions that make note of proper terminal
positioning
>in the un-symetical dies.
>Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to get Todd to send me one to look
at.
>Bob . . .
Bob,
Would appreciate hearing what you think of this tool please. I will be
sending an order off to B&C shortly of which this tool will more than
likely be a part.
Thank you in anticipation
Kingsley Hurst
Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
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: SL-40 and 403mc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
>>>>>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
Tie the grounds together at the radio. The intercom ground will tie to
The SL-40's audio ground, mic ground, and power ground.
<<<<<
Well, I checked the pins on the SL-40, and they're not all the same ground.
The SL-40's audio ground (pin 13) and power ground (pin 9) appear to be
connected together, as is the chassis.
However, the mic ground (pin 7) is NOT connected to the above-mentioned
grounds. There is a 100 ohm resistance between the mic ground (pin 7) and any
of the other grounds on the SL-40.
So do I really want to tie all the SL-40 grounds together since they don't
appear to be the same?
Incidentally, on the 403mc, the mic return (pin 13) and the ground (pin 1)
appear to be connected together inside the intercom, as there is no
resistance between the two.
The oddball here seems to be the mic ground (pin 7) on the SL-40.
Unfortunately, Garmin AT was *no* help at all.
-Geoff
_______________________________
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SL-40 and 403mc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 14, 2004, at 8:01 PM, Geoff Evans wrote:
> Tie the grounds together at the radio. The intercom ground will tie to
> The SL-40's audio ground, mic ground, and power ground.
> <<<<<
>
> Well, I checked the pins on the SL-40, and they're not all the same
> ground.
> The SL-40's audio ground (pin 13) and power ground (pin 9) appear to be
> connected together, as is the chassis.
>
> However, the mic ground (pin 7) is NOT connected to the above-mentioned
> grounds. There is a 100 ohm resistance between the mic ground (pin 7)
> and any
> of the other grounds on the SL-40.
>
> So do I really want to tie all the SL-40 grounds together since they
> don't
> appear to be the same?
Yes. You have to do that because the intercom does not have an
isolated ground for the mic circuit.
The purpose of the 100 ohm resistor in the mic ground is to limit
ground loop currents and its effect on the relatively low mic signal
level. I knew that your mic ground wasn't going to be isolated so that
is why I suggested that you terminate your intercom grounds right at
the radio rather than at the central ground for the aircraft. Also,
isolating your headphone and mic jacks helps as well. Your ground
reference for all your audio signals is the SL-40. This is safe and
should result in a low-noise installation.
> Incidentally, on the 403mc, the mic return (pin 13) and the ground
> (pin 1)
> appear to be connected together inside the intercom, as there is no
> resistance between the two.
Right. I surmised that.
> The oddball here seems to be the mic ground (pin 7) on the SL-40.
It isn't all that odd. It makes a great deal of sense but then, the
folks at Apollo/UPSAT always seemed to have good hardware engineering,
unlike Garmin. I guess the new saying is, "If you can't whip 'em, buy
'em." If it works for Microsoft, why not Garmin?
>
> Unfortunately, Garmin AT was *no* help at all.
Surprise!
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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 McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Hi Bob;
No, actually just a cardboard and plastic "blister pack". There is a
note on the back describing the various different models available and
what the various dies fit, but no explanation of any difference side to
side. Looks exactly like the photo on the web site and in your articles.
There is still no adjustment for varying insulation thickness but still
seems a step in the right direction. Another interesting observation;
the larger yellow opening is toward the tip, while the smaller red
opening is toward the pivot, which would seem to be reversed from what
the physics of the forces able to be developed would dictate. The
difference is probably too small to matter, but just the same it seemed
odd. (The jaws are reversible in the frame so this could easily be
corrected)
Bob McC
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>Didn't know they had a new tool. I presume that it comes packaged
>with some kind of instructions that make note of proper terminal positioning
>in the un-symetical dies.
>
>Thanks for the heads-up. I'll have to get Todd to send me one to look at.
>
>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: | Slobovia Outernational BBQ 2 day warning |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
We hope to see you here at Slobovia Outernational Saturday morning to
eat BBQ & talk airplanes. We expect to have a good turnout of homebuilts
& classics, with some alternative engines in the mix.
Info on Slobovia (MS71) can be found at
http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71 or you can email me direct for
driving directions.
Charlie
flying RV-4; RV-7 wings
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: "Jerry Isler" <jlisler@alltel.net>
In studying the pin out / wiring diagram for a King KY-97A Comm radio I am
confused about the power connections to the radio. Pins R and 14 go to the
aircraft power via a 10 amp breaker and is simple enough. However pins P and
13 are switched aircraft power and pins M and 11 are 13.75V power. A note
says the following: " Switched A/C power, pins P and 13 and 13.75V power
pins M and 11 must be jumpered together with #20 AWG minimum." Am I correct
to assume that the switched A/C power is coming out of the radio on pins P
and 13 and is the 13.75V source for pins M and 11?
Note: A pin out diagram for the KY-97A is on Electric Bob's web site.
Thanks,
Jerry Isler
Donalsonville, GA
RV-4 # 1070
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! --
|