Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:27 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Hicks, Wayne)
2. 05:40 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Ken)
3. 06:54 AM - Re: Dynon update (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
4. 07:38 AM - Re: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:08 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:11 AM - Metallic Paint and built in antennas (Bristolsabre@aol.com)
7. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes (Carlos Sa)
8. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (SportAV8R@aol.com)
9. 09:01 AM - (SportAV8R@aol.com)
10. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Joel Jacobs)
11. 09:48 AM - Re: Re: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes (Ken)
12. 10:34 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (Werner Schneider)
13. 10:42 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (BobsV35B@aol.com)
14. 11:02 AM - condenser for aeroflash strobe searched (Werner Schneider)
15. 11:02 AM - Brian (Fergus Kyle)
16. 11:55 AM - Re: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft (William J. Applegate)
17. 01:28 PM - Re: condenser for aeroflash strobe searched (Richard Tasker)
18. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes 0.00 (echristley@nc.rr.com FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received)
19. 02:08 PM - Re: condenser for aeroflash strobe searched (cgalley)
20. 02:18 PM - Magneto noise (Mike Danielle)
21. 03:06 PM - Re: Magneto noise (Matt Prather)
22. 06:14 PM - FAR Sec 91.205 ()
23. 06:17 PM - Re: Magneto noise (Mike Danielle)
24. 07:08 PM - Re: Magneto noise (BobsV35B@aol.com)
25. 07:28 PM - Re: Magneto noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 07:34 PM - Re: Magneto noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 09:02 PM - Re: Re: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery (Rick Fogerson)
28. 10:02 PM - Re: magneto noise (Mike Danielle)
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
As for deer, I now buzz the runway at 50 feet first to scare them away.
Then I circle back and land.
====================
Wayne Hicks
Cozy IV Plans #678
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/waynehicks/index.html
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
The idea was to make the aircraft blend into the light sky instead of
being a dark spot in the sky as seen from the ground. I believe that it
worked but was not practical to implement. Seems like a valid form of
camouflage and I think it was not a color thing so much as an attempt to
brighten the dark spot. I don't have any references though to prove it
isn't all a myth...
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III aircraft wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
>
>>Bombers. Anti-aircraft fire. Being invisible was a
>>good thing at times.
>>The sky if often sunlit, but not always clear. At
>>the rate we lost bombers over Europe, even a small
>>save rate would make any idea worthwhile.
>>
>>
>
> I understand that. What I don't understand is why one would
> want ANY lights showing on the airplane in the daytime irrespective
> of some desire/attempt to make them "invisible" by adjusting color
> temperature on lamps that could never be the right color
> to disappear against a daytime blue sky.
>
> It sounds like a mis-interpretation of some actions or
> facts surrounding some other situation.
>
> 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Gerry, a quick search of the RV-List will reveal some details here.
I have 30 emails from rv'ers who experience this problem. It is my
personal opinion that it is a fleet wide problem. Not installation, not
unique to a device. I know of 6 personally in my home town alone with
this problem. I can readily reproduce it. I was the first to do so. We
have been working different software resolutions. Dynon can now readily
reproduce the problem as well.
These are facts not bashing.
Many is many. And Many is Lots. Numbers? I dunno.
And I am putting one in my Super 8 I am building even though I have been
very frustrated with this issue, and others the device has had like the
EMI problem which can also be reviewed on the RV-List. I don't mind
experimenting with a new device. But the facts should be relayed to the
community about what folks are experiencing.
I cant tell you have many people e-mailed me after the issue broke
saying "hey mine does that", or, "I thought it was just me or my
installation", or "thanks for letting me know I was not crazy"
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gerry
Holland
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dynon update
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland
<gnholland@onetel.com>
Larry Hi
> That is one big disappointment with the problems many are
experiencing
> with the attitude display drifting 10-15 degrees. I just hope someone
does
> not get killed before they decide to make *IT* their priority.
What is the basis for stating 'many'. Who is assembling this vast number
of
complainants as inferred by you above.
Two things:
How many?
Where can they be found registered?
BTW. The Dynon is a non-IFR certified device, well here in Europe at
least.
That doesn't mean it shouldn't work OK but in the same light peddling
information on poor or inadequate performance needs facts too. Can we
have
them other than the one or two RV Builders who have experienced an
'occurrence'.
I'm not challenging you. Would just like facts rather than an
unsubstantiated statement.
I use a Dynon!
Regards
Gerry
Europa 384 G-FIZY
Trigear with Rotax 912 and Arplast CS Prop.
Dynon EFIS, KMD 150, Icom A-200 and SL70 Transponder.
PSS AoA Fitted.
http://www.g-fizy.com
Mobile: +44 7808 402404
WebFax: +44 870 7059985
gnholland@onetel.com
==
==
==
==
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: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes |
0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:40 AM 10/28/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>The idea was to make the aircraft blend into the light sky instead of
>being a dark spot in the sky as seen from the ground. I believe that it
>worked but was not practical to implement. Seems like a valid form of
>camouflage and I think it was not a color thing so much as an attempt to
>brighten the dark spot. I don't have any references though to prove it
>isn't all a myth...
>Ken
Did a netsearch and came up with this tid-bit at
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=3714&c=1
"During WWII there was a camoflage scheme called Yehudi.
(For you younguns, Yehudi is the little guy who turns
on the light when you open the refrigerator door.)
Patrol bombers hunting subs in the North Atlantic could
be seen a long way off. Yehudi hid the bombers in the
background sky light.
It works like this: there was a row of lights along the
leading edge of the wings and around the nose of the plane.
The brightness of the lights was controlled by a rheostat
to match the brightness of the sky. The bomber would blend
into the background and could get a lot closer before being spotted.
So, you drive with your lights on all the time? Does that
include when you are driving out of the sunset? A motorcycle
can disappear completely under those circumstances."
This was the only reference I could find to the technique.
It's pretty fishy . . . an airplane with lots of lights up
front would be a pretty unusual sight . . . wonder how many
lights (wattage and spacing) it would take to get enough
"fill" to make the airplane disappear? As big as those
airplanes were, I'm wondering if they carried enough DC
power generation to power the system. It also begs the
question about color temperature of incandescent lamps.
Adjusting voltage for "brightness" isn't the issue for
making the airplane disappear. There are old lamp catalogs
that show 1000 watt sealed beam lamps for aircraft applications.
30 years ago, our police helicopters carried 1000 watt
spot lights on them . . . while very bright, they still
put out "red" light that would be quite visible against
a daytime-blue sky.
I also have trouble visualizing an array of rheostats
(variable resistors) that would provide the means for
tweaking intensity of the lamps. We have to be talking
about thousands of watts worth of lamps which translates
into big momma rheostats (or lots off little ones)
to control the currents involved.
It's interesting that the writer makes a link between
sky background and ground based surroundings that would
apply to cars and motorcycles. I think all vehicles, ground
and airborne tend to "disappear" when backlighted by the
sun irrespective of the operation of headlights. If anyone
runs across more data on this, I'd like to know about it.
For the moment, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Bob . . .
---
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Report on auto HID lights for |
aircraft
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
At 03:32 PM 10/27/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>It seems like we are talking about two different uses of a landing light:
>One is to provide the ability to judge the altitutude above and sink rate to
>the desired touch down point. For this, a dim, difuse light like you
>suggest seems perfectly adequate.
>
>The other use is to help see and avoid hazards that may exist. For a
>slow moving airplane, a dim relatively dim light probably allows you to
>see hazards soon enough to avoid them. It is my belief (mostly based
>on driving cars), that the faster you go, the more light you need to be
>able to see and avoid hazards.
>
>How is it that you haven't ever had to avoid a runway hazard at night?
>I have had to delay a takeoff roll because of dear that were 500' or
>so down the runway. I am not sure I would have seen these guys
>at night if I had been using a 6V flashlight...
>
>Are we talking about the same thing?
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
I think so. One is faced the same decision whether landing
or taking off and trading off risks with addition of more
effective tools. We're talking about moving hazards . . .
and they can move rather quickly to boot. In the years
I worked accident investigation and analysis for court
testimony, I noted that irrespective of how fast the
vehicle(s) were moving, it's 3-5 seconds from the time
that anyone perceives an accident is about to happen that
the event occurs.
Had a guy split the turnout lanes on I435 in front of
me in KC a few weeks ago. He was coming to a stop
in front of trailing traffic at 60+ mph with half
his rear profile hanging out into my lane. I had enough
time to get on the binders. The anti-skid was doing
its job and I didn't loose steering. I steered right
with the sincere hope that nobody was in the lane to
my right and missed the car by perhaps a foot or so.
500 milliseconds less time and/or sliding tires would
have brought us together. I had about 3 seconds to get
the job done and the fact that he still had significant
forward motion on him as I went past made the difference.
Yeah, klieg lights might very well reveal a deer on the
runway 1000 feet away and prompt you to abort a takeoff.
But just because the runway is clear when you begin the
takeoff roll doesn't mean a deer isn't going to get in
the way at some time before you get enough altitude to
clear a deer. Further, if you have 5+ seconds of warning
(gotta see him 350 feet or more away) you have a good
chance to get stopped and/or get airborne to clear.
When one studies all of the circumstances where vehicles
tangle with moving obstructions (deer or other vehicles)
the window of opportunity to avoid the accident is
exceedingly small and almost never involves the ability
to see and perceive hazards more than a few hundred
feet away. Modern automotive headlamps are 55W in the
high beam. I'm always amazed at what they'll show me
looking down the road. Bought one of those rechargeable
searchlights at Wallyworld a few months ago. It's a 6
volt, 4 amp bulb (24 watts) and I'm certain it would
illuminate a deer on the runway a whole lot more than
350 feet away.
I'm not suggesting that folks not install whatever
lights that will mitigate risks for night operations. I
do suggest that hanging lots of watts or lumens
on the wing without evaluating real world operations
against cost of ownership is not very elegant. The
cost of an HID lamp installation is significant and
it has failure modes that are much more difficult to
fix than replacing a lamp.
If dollars are not a concern, one might opt for
dual HID installations to really light up the field
while on short final. On the other hand, one might
find more utility and realize increased safety by installing
some automotive halogens and using the left over
dollars to install a second wing leveler.
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: | Metallic Paint and built in antennas |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bristolsabre@aol.com
I plan to use metallic paint on my composite Mustang replica.
The radio and VOR antennas are inside the verical and horizontal surfaces.
I have heard from other builders that this will work, but none have been able
to tell me if the signal strenght/range is affected.
Anybody have any experience with this?
Tore
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: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Carlos Sa <carlosfsa@yahoo.com>
I saw a documentary a while back (Discovery Channel or TLC) about Camouflage (from
leaves to
stealth technology).
One of the camouflage methods demonstrated was an array of lights mounted on the
side of a tank.
Silhouetted against the (day) sky, the tank was clearly visible from a distance.
Turn the lights
on, it it almost disappeared (if you were looking at the side covered with lights,
of course).
Carlos
do not archive
> Did a netsearch and came up with this tid-bit at
>
> http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=3714&c=1
>
> "During WWII there was a camoflage scheme called Yehudi.
> (For you younguns, Yehudi is the little guy who turns
> on the light when you open the refrigerator door.)
>
> Patrol bombers hunting subs in the North Atlantic could
> be seen a long way off. Yehudi hid the bombers in the
> background sky light.
>
> It works like this: there was a row of lights along the
> leading edge of the wings and around the nose of the plane.
> The brightness of the lights was controlled by a rheostat
> to match the brightness of the sky. The bomber would blend
> into the background and could get a lot closer before being spotted.
>
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
As for deer, I now buzz the runway at 50 feet first to scare them away.
Then I circle back and land.
I use this technique, too. (At least, that's what I'd say to law enforcement personnel
if questioned...) It's great fun, but the deer hardly even look up.
A known deer on the runway is a bona fide problem, like flying into known icing
conditions. Now, ten feet AGL will get their attention, but by the time you
circle back to land, they are often right back at it again.
'Tis a dilemma.
-Stormy
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
IIRC (and since I was the one to bring it up...) I saw it on the History channel
or Discovery; there was actual archival footage.
-BB
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Joel Jacobs" <jj@sdf.lonestar.org>
Bright lights will cause the deer to freeze - ever heard the phrase "like
deer in the headlights"? Just turn your landing light off for a few seconds
on final and the deer will hightail it off the runway...
Joel
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: <SportAV8R@aol.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> As for deer, I now buzz the runway at 50 feet first to scare them away.
> Then I circle back and land.
>
> I use this technique, too. (At least, that's what I'd say to law
enforcement personnel if questioned...) It's great fun, but the deer
hardly even look up. A known deer on the runway is a bona fide problem,
like flying into known icing conditions. Now, ten feet AGL will get their
attention, but by the time you circle back to land, they are often right
back at it again.
>
> 'Tis a dilemma.
>
> -Stormy
>
>
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 |
|
0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received": contains.a.forged.HELO@matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes |
0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO
clamav-milter version 0.80c
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
The third paragraph at
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project389.html says 10
sealed beams.
Further down it talks about electochromatic panels but I think the age
of radar etc has likely ended most research into this.
Ken
>snip
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
>. Now, ten feet AGL will get their attention, but by the time you circle
back to land, they are often right back at it again.
>
Before I had my license I was on a sightseeing in Newzealand, the strip
covered with sheep's when coming back. The pilot made a fast low pass from
one direction, pulled up made a kind of wingover and landed the other
direction, no time for the sheep's to come back, a lot of fun for me a shock
for the girls on the back seats!
Werner
do not archive
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/28/2004 12:36:08 PM Central Standard Time,
glastar@gmx.net writes:
Before I had my license I was on a sightseeing in Newzealand, the strip
covered with sheep's when coming back. The pilot made a fast low pass from
one direction, pulled up made a kind of wingover and landed the other
direction, no time for the sheep's to come back, a lot of fun for me a shock
for the girls on the back seats!
Werner
Good Afternoon Werner,
Back in 1950, I was flying a Bamboo Bomber on charters to northern
Wisconsin.
It was my first real, full time, job as an aviator. The boss checked me out
on late evening arrivals at the northern airports. The standard approach
was a low pass downwind followed by that quick tear drop reversal to get on the
ground before the deer got back on the runway.
What a blast for the brand new guy on the block!
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: | condenser for aeroflash strobe searched |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
I need the investigation capabilities of the list once more!
One of my Aeroflash strobe units Part NO. Power Supply: 152-0007 12V Single
Flash just gave up with a leaking Elco
The problem is, the label is no longer readable, it could be a 0 or an U
Elco: United Chemi-Con 180(0)F or (U)F 350VDC 85C
the second problem is that this was a custom made elco for Aeroflash with a
low diameter to fit into the housing.
Did anybody replace such a condenser in an Aeroflash unit and where did you
get the replacement part?
Many thanks for your help
Werner
Gruss
Rolf
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
"Besides, I am having a bad day and felt like being a curmudgeon.
Sorry. I shouldn't talk to people when I get this way."
Don't say that!
How dull this list would be if we were all the same...............?
Ferg
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: Report on auto HID lights for aircraft |
clamav-milter version 0.80c on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William J. Applegate" <bigapple@gct21.net>
Hi All,
The info that I remember on this was that it was a very promising
concept but, radar made it a non factor when it came onboard during WW II,
Bill Applegate
Ken wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>The idea was to make the aircraft blend into the light sky instead of
>being a dark spot in the sky as seen from the ground. I believe that it
>worked but was not practical to implement. Seems like a valid form of
>camouflage and I think it was not a color thing so much as an attempt to
>brighten the dark spot. I don't have any references though to prove it
>isn't all a myth...
>Ken
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III aircraft wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
aircraft
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bombers. Anti-aircraft fire. Being invisible was a
>>>good thing at times.
>>>The sky if often sunlit, but not always clear. At
>>>the rate we lost bombers over Europe, even a small
>>>save rate would make any idea worthwhile.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I understand that. What I don't understand is why one would
>> want ANY lights showing on the airplane in the daytime irrespective
>> of some desire/attempt to make them "invisible" by adjusting color
>> temperature on lamps that could never be the right color
>> to disappear against a daytime blue sky.
>>
>> It sounds like a mis-interpretation of some actions or
>> facts surrounding some other situation.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: condenser for aeroflash strobe searched |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
It would be 180 uF, but I can't help you with anything else unfortunately.
Dick Tasker
Werner Schneider wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
>
>I need the investigation capabilities of the list once more!
>
>One of my Aeroflash strobe units Part NO. Power Supply: 152-0007 12V Single
>Flash just gave up with a leaking Elco
>
>The problem is, the label is no longer readable, it could be a 0 or an U
>
>Elco: United Chemi-Con 180(0)F or (U)F 350VDC 85C
>
>the second problem is that this was a custom made elco for Aeroflash with a
>low diameter to fit into the housing.
>
>Did anybody replace such a condenser in an Aeroflash unit and where did you
>get the replacement part?
>
>Many thanks for your help
>
>Werner
>
>Gruss
>Rolf
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
| From: | "echristley@nc.rr.com FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received": contains.a.forged.HELO.clamav-milter.version.0.80c.on.juliet.albedo.net@matronics.com |
| Subject: | Re: Disappearing Motorcycles and Airplanes 0.00 |
FORGED_RCVD_HELO Received: contains a forged HELO clamav-milter version
0.80c on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com FORGED_RCVD_HELO
Received: contains a forged HELO clamav-milter version 0.80c on juliet.albedo.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Disappearing
Motorcycles and Airplanes 0.00 FORGED_RCVD_HELO
Received: contains a forged HELO clamav-milter
version 0.80c on juliet.albedo.net
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
<klehman@albedo.net>
>
> The third paragraph at
>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project389.html
> says 10
> sealed beams.
> Further down it talks about electochromatic panels
but I think the
> age
> of radar etc has likely ended most research into this.
> Ken
>
> >snip
>
>
Also, a few more points.
The sky is redder in the mornings and evenings.
The eye is more sensitive to light intensity vs
color. Much easier to pick out a dark spot, vs an
orangish smudge.
The technique had only limited success since it only
worked moderately in specific conditions, and as
stated has been eclipsed by radar. If it worked,
the military would definitely be using in today.
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: condenser for aeroflash strobe searched |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
It is 180 Micro farad capacitor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: condenser for aeroflash strobe searched
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker
<retasker@optonline.net>
>
> It would be 180 uF, but I can't help you with anything else unfortunately.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Werner Schneider wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider"
<glastar@gmx.net>
> >
> >I need the investigation capabilities of the list once more!
> >
> >One of my Aeroflash strobe units Part NO. Power Supply: 152-0007 12V
Single
> >Flash just gave up with a leaking Elco
> >
> >The problem is, the label is no longer readable, it could be a 0 or an U
> >
> >Elco: United Chemi-Con 180(0)F or (U)F 350VDC 85C
> >
> >the second problem is that this was a custom made elco for Aeroflash with
a
> >low diameter to fit into the housing.
> >
> >Did anybody replace such a condenser in an Aeroflash unit and where did
you
> >get the replacement part?
> >
> >Many thanks for your help
> >
> >Werner
> >
> >Gruss
> >Rolf
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Danielle" <mikeda@cascadeaccess.com>
AAARRRRGGGGHHHH! Frustration is rampant here. I own a Great Lakes replica powered
by a Ranger engine. Very simple electrical system with only nav lights and
an ICOM A-200 radio. I've got very loud magneto noise which cannot be overcome
with the radio's squelch. The noise can be totally eliminated by turning
off the left magneto. This has been a long standing problem. I've changed my
antenna to one of AAE's dipole designs. (no ground plane required) I've had
my magnetos overhauled recently and the full shielded modifications installed.
All plug wires are shielded as are the p leads. The p lead shields are grounded
at the magnetos. At the panel, the p lead shields are gounded at the
common ground.
Here's my question for you Bob. In your appendix "Z" figure z-26 you show the
p lead shields jointly grounded to the left mag switch. The right mag switch
is independently grounded. Your notes to this figure state that the shields should
not be attached to any form of ground at the panel. My shields just go
to the same common ground that both mag switches share. Is this a likely cause
of my noise problem?
Lastly, you've mentioned in several of your replies that many noise problems have
been eliminated by removing the p lead shield grounding at the panel entirely.
Is this a better way to go?
Thanks
Long Lurking Mike
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Mike,
This is a pretty common problem... You can look in the archives to
see other similar questions. More comments/questions embedded
below...
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Danielle"
> <mikeda@cascadeaccess.com>
>
> AAARRRRGGGGHHHH! Frustration is rampant here. I own a Great Lakes
> replica powered by a Ranger engine. Very simple electrical system with
> only nav lights and an ICOM A-200 radio. I've got very loud magneto
> noise which cannot be overcome with the radio's squelch. The noise can
> be totally eliminated by turning off the left magneto. This has been a
> long standing problem. I've changed my antenna to one of AAE's dipole
> designs. (no ground plane required) I've had my magnetos overhauled
> recently and the full shielded modifications installed. All plug wires
> are shielded as are the p leads. The p lead shields are grounded at the
> magnetos. At the panel, the p lead shields are gounded at the common
> ground.
>
I assume you mean that the p-lead shields are connected to the
magneto bodies, and nowhere else (on the engine end)?
What did they replace (if anything) during the overhaul? Did they get
new cap's/condensors?
It's interesting to me that only turning off the left mag alleviates the
problem. Is there any chance that you have a 'hot' mag? Will the
engine continue to run with both mag switches turned off?
> Here's my question for you Bob. In your appendix "Z" figure z-26 you
> show the p lead shields jointly grounded to the left mag switch. The
> right mag switch is independently grounded. Your notes to this figure
> state that the shields should not be attached to any form of ground at
> the panel. My shields just go to the same common ground that both mag
> switches share. Is this a likely cause of my noise problem?
>
Typically, its best if the switch end of the p-lead circuit is floating -
the noise
induced on the p-lead shield by the running magneto can be 'injected' into
the ground path for other components by conduction. If the shield is only
connected to ground at the mag, then the only method to propagate noise
is by radiation - much less likely to cause problems - esp since the shielded
wire is coax. Having the shields connected to each other at the switches
probably won't cause any issues, but by the same token it serves no useful
purpose.
I think it would be better if people stopped thinking about grounding the
mag to turn it off. Instead, we should decide that each mag requires two
wires to control it. To turn the mag on, the two wires should be
disconnected
from each other, and to turn it off, they should be connected. This whole
grounding it has caused more headaches for more people than I care to
think about..
> Lastly, you've mentioned in several of your replies that many noise
> problems have been eliminated by removing the p lead shield grounding at
> the panel entirely. Is this a better way to go?
>
Probably.
> Thanks
> Long Lurking Mike
>
>
In my plastic airplane, even after I did what was described above, I still
ended up with a fairly large amount of radiated noise - even with the p-lead
and shield completely disconnected from the magneto. I installed a lonestar
mag filter cap (for Bendix mags only, I think), which significantly
reduced the
noise.
Regards,
Matt-
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
<<We do not have a "standard category U.S. airworthiness certificate", so
FAR 14.91.205 Does not apply to OBAM. The section is quoted from
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/janqtr/14cfr91.205.htm
91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S.
airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard
category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft
contains the instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved
equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and
items of equipment are in operable condition. Eric the Lawyer>>
10/28/2004
Hello Eric the lawyer, You have reached an erroneous conclusion based on incomplete
information. Please let me explain the situation to you.
You are correct in that amateur built experimental aircraft (OBAM if you will)
are issued special category airworthiness certificates and that FAR Sec 91.205
reads as you have written.
An integral part of the special airworthiness certificate of each amateur built
experimental aircraft is a set of Operating Limitations about four pages long.
The wording in these Operating Limitations comes from FAA Order 8130.2D AIRWORTHINESS
CERTIFICATION OF AIRCRAFT AND RELATED PRODUCTS and is specific to each
individual amateur built experimental aircraft being certified.
Some of the wording is standard and is included in each and every set of Operating
Limitations. Here are some standard wording quotes extracted from a recently
issued set of Operating Limitations:
QUOTE: In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of Part 91 and all additional limitation
herein prescribed under the provisions of Part 91.3 (e). The operating limitations
are a part of the Form 8130-7, special airworthiness certificate, and
are to be carried in the aircraft at all times and be available to the pilot
in command of the aircraft. UNQUOTE
QUOTE: Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records. UNQUOTE
It is incorrect to state that FAR Sec 91.205 does not apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft. It does.
OC
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Danielle" <mikeda@cascadeaccess.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto noise
> I assume you mean that the p-lead shields are connected to the
> magneto bodies, and nowhere else (on the engine end)?
That is correct. The shield is attached to integral fittings at the p lead
connection
>
> What did they replace (if anything) during the overhaul? Did they get
> new cap's/condensors?
Coils, points, condenser, caps - the works.
>
> It's interesting to me that only turning off the left mag alleviates the
> problem. Is there any chance that you have a 'hot' mag? Will the
> engine continue to run with both mag switches turned off?
No, everything works as it should.
>
>
> Typically, its best if the switch end of the p-lead circuit is floating -
> the noise
> induced on the p-lead shield by the running magneto can be 'injected' into
> the ground path for other components by conduction. If the shield is only
> connected to ground at the mag, then the only method to propagate noise
> is by radiation - much less likely to cause problems - esp since the
shielded
> wire is coax. Having the shields connected to each other at the switches
> probably won't cause any issues, but by the same token it serves no useful
> purpose.
>
Well, that makes sense. But Bob's appendix z, figure z-26 recommends
grounding both shields to the mag switch ground. I guess I'm confused about
the intent of that circuit.
I will proceed from here by just grounding the p lead shields at the mags
and leave the panel end "floating" as you described. I've no idea why the
left mag makes a racket while the other, wired identically, is nice and
quiet. I'll get this done on Sunday and report back. Thanks for the input.
Mike
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 10/28/2004 8:19:17 PM Central Standard Time,
mikeda@CASCADEACCESS.COM writes:
I will proceed from here by just grounding the p lead shields at the mags
and leave the panel end "floating" as you described. I've no idea why the
left mag makes a racket while the other, wired identically, is nice and
quiet. I'll get this done on Sunday and report back. Thanks for the input.
Good Evening Mike,
You are missing the most important point. You don't want the switch end of
the shield to float in the normal sense of such things as you would a shield
for a strobe wire. What you want is to use the shield as the ground to shut
down the mags. Don't ground it or the mag switches at the point where the
switches are mounted. Keep everything isolated from all grounds except the
shields where they ground to the mag.
You should just use the shield to complete grounding of the P lead to the
magneto.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:05 PM 10/28/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Danielle"
><mikeda@cascadeaccess.com>
>
>AAARRRRGGGGHHHH! Frustration is rampant here. I own a Great Lakes
>replica powered by a Ranger engine. Very simple electrical system with
>only nav lights and an ICOM A-200 radio. I've got very loud magneto noise
>which cannot be overcome with the radio's squelch. The noise can be
>totally eliminated by turning off the left magneto. This has been a long
>standing problem. I've changed my antenna to one of AAE's dipole
>designs. (no ground plane required) I've had my magnetos overhauled
>recently and the full shielded modifications installed. All plug wires
>are shielded as are the p leads. The p lead shields are grounded at the
>magnetos. At the panel, the p lead shields are gounded at the common ground.
>
>Here's my question for you Bob. In your appendix "Z" figure z-26 you show
>the p lead shields jointly grounded to the left mag switch. The right mag
>switch is independently grounded. Your notes to this figure state that
>the shields should not be attached to any form of ground at the panel. My
>shields just go to the same common ground that both mag switches
>share. Is this a likely cause of my noise problem?
>
>Lastly, you've mentioned in several of your replies that many noise
>problems have been eliminated by removing the p lead shield grounding at
>the panel entirely. Is this a better way to go?
This works . . . sometimes. First, disconnect the p-leads at both
mags and run the engine (I presume you can shut the engine down
by shutting off the fuel). If the noise is still there, then you're
looking for something besides p-lead noise. If the noise
goes away, then try wiring as described the 'Connection. If you
have the classic keyswitch, see figure Z-26. If you're using toggles,
see figure z-12 for an exemplar magneto wiring. The suggestion is
to NOT ground the p-lead shield at the cockpit end . . . only the
engine end. Use the p-lead shield to PROVIDE ground for the switch
at the cockpit end. More than one radio noise problem has been solved
with this technique.
Bob . . .
---
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Magneto noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> > Typically, its best if the switch end of the p-lead circuit is floating -
> > the noise
> > induced on the p-lead shield by the running magneto can be 'injected' into
> > the ground path for other components by conduction. If the shield is only
> > connected to ground at the mag, then the only method to propagate noise
> > is by radiation - much less likely to cause problems - esp since the
> > shielded wire is coax. Having the shields connected to each other at
> the switches
> > probably won't cause any issues, but by the same token it serves no useful
> > purpose.
> >
>Well, that makes sense. But Bob's appendix z, figure z-26 recommends
>grounding both shields to the mag switch ground. I guess I'm confused about
>the intent of that circuit.
>
>I will proceed from here by just grounding the p lead shields at the mags
>and leave the panel end "floating" as you described. I've no idea why the
>left mag makes a racket while the other, wired identically, is nice and
>quiet. I'll get this done on Sunday and report back. Thanks for the input.
Most people are unaware of what the GRD terminals do in a keyswitch.
See the switching function matrix on Figure Z-26. There are two
GRD terminals and they connect to other terminals on the switch
at various times during switch rotation and they're not even connected
to each other unless you're in the START position. Further, GRD terminals
do not connect to the switch frame and therefore do not get "grounded" to
the airframe through the mounting.
Bob . . .
---
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
For those who don't have to have color but still have all the navigational
capabilities, the skymap II is worth considering. It does not have the
internal battery problem to deal with, has rechargeble battery backup if you
lose your electrical, weighs about 1/2 and is 1/2 the depth of the III so it
can be mounted on the front of the panel, and requires only 20% of the watts
of the III. Also, the price is only $875 Vs $2100 at Vans. I'm going with
the II for the above reasons and spend the $1200 bucks on something else.
Rick Fogerson
RV3 90%
Boise, ID
From: "kurt schrader" <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bendix King Skyforce IIIC GPS battery
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: kurt schrader
> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
>
> Thanks Chuck,
>
> This is just what I need. I am in ABQ this week, so
> I'll order one when I get home and have this thing up
> and running over $100 cheaper.
>
> I appreciate all the responces,
>
> Kurt S. KitFox S-5/NSI turbo
>
> --- Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Chuck
>> Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>>
>> For all the DIYs. The disassembly is not difficult
>> but as you work your way
>> down through the board levels, just remove the
>> screws and clips as you go.
>> The battery leads are soldered directly onto the
>> board. Use a solder-sucker
>> to desolder the pigtail joints. Put the new battery
>> pigtails in place,
>> soldered it (not too many close-by components to be
>> heat damaged) and
>> reassemble. Plug in, turn on and allow internal
>> battery to charge up.
>>
>> Cycle unit off/on. The database will likely be
>> corrupted (it's probably a
>> Political Database). If the memory is corrupted, go
>> into SETUP and clear
>> memory. The code to clear memory is either 3-3-3-3
>> or 1-2-3-4. When the
>> memory is cleared, your pin number is reset to
>> 1-2-3-4. You will lose all
>> your saved flight plans and/or waypoints, but that's
>> not the end of the
>> world!
>>
>> Kurt, an external battery may get disconnected, or
>> not charged; each time
>> resulting in loss of your memory and corrupted
>> database. Replacing the
>> internal battery is a once-every-5-year project and
>> takes less than an
>> hour...2 hours for the dexterity-challenged. Not a
>> big deal.
>>
>> As to the battery itself, the McMaster-Carr P/N is
>> 6951K999 and the
>> description is "disposable lithium battery Hawker
>> Entercell 3.7V TO6/8AA TCL
>> with one wire pigtail each end." Price was $13.46
>> with $3.45 shipping.
>>
>> Chuck
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | re: magneto noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Danielle" <mikeda@cascadeaccess.com>
Thanks to both Bobs for the help with the mag noise problem. I understand the
circuitry now and will re-wire the mags this Sunday.
cheers,
Mike
NC31GL
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! --
|