Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:53 AM - Re: Re: overvoltage protection clamav-milter version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net (Steve Sampson)
2. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Fw: LVWM and Kilovac contactors (Gilles Thesee)
3. 05:15 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Michel Therrien)
4. 05:22 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (James E. Clark)
5. 06:42 AM - Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld (rd2@evenlink.com)
6. 06:46 AM - Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld (rd2@evenlink.com)
7. 06:53 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (sarg314)
8. 06:54 AM - Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld (Harley)
9. 08:32 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Brian Lloyd)
10. 08:44 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Brian Lloyd)
11. 08:49 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Michel Therrien)
12. 09:22 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
13. 09:46 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Richard Riley)
14. 10:07 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
15. 10:16 AM - Re:SL-30 Intercom (buck)
16. 10:33 AM - Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld (Matt Prather)
17. 11:06 AM - Unsupported Cable Length (Tinne maha)
18. 11:12 AM - Nav/Com Handheld (Charlie Brame)
19. 11:18 AM - Key-Way Washers (Tinne maha)
20. 12:00 PM - Re: Key-Way Washers (Richard E. Tasker)
21. 12:07 PM - Re: Key-Way Washers (Richard Riley)
22. 12:08 PM - Re: Unsupported Cable Length (ljohnson94)
23. 12:18 PM - SL-30 (WRBYARS@aol.com)
24. 12:24 PM - Re: Key-Way Washers (BobsV35B@aol.com)
25. 01:19 PM - Potter&Brumfield (Speedy11@aol.com)
26. 02:11 PM - Re: Key-Way Washers (glaesers)
27. 02:16 PM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Brian Lloyd)
28. 02:28 PM - Fuse question (Neil K Clayton)
29. 02:41 PM - Re: Re: Key-Way Washers (BobsV35B@aol.com)
30. 03:25 PM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
31. 04:58 PM - Peanut gyro FS (Richard Riley)
32. 04:58 PM - AP servo wire selection (Tim Olson)
33. 05:24 PM - Re: AP servo wire selection (John Schroeder)
34. 06:16 PM - Re: KN65A DME (brucem@att.net)
35. 07:02 PM - Re: Re: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com)
36. 07:11 PM - Re: Re: KN65A DME (Wayne Sweet)
37. 07:20 PM - Re: Re: KN65A DME (George Braly)
38. 07:21 PM - Re: Key-Way Washers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
39. 07:32 PM - Re: Re: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com)
40. 07:38 PM - Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 07:41 PM - Re: Unsupported Cable Length (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
42. 07:43 PM - Re: Load Dump mitigation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
43. 07:48 PM - Re: Re: KN65A DME (BobsV35B@aol.com)
44. 08:10 PM - Re: Fuse question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
45. 08:16 PM - Re: Potter&Brumfield (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
46. 08:17 PM - Stereo speaker connection? (jacklockamy)
47. 08:26 PM - Re: Accountability Poster (Kenneth Melvin)
48. 08:26 PM - Re: Stereo speaker connection? (Charlie England)
49. 08:58 PM - Re: Key-Way Washers (Dan Checkoway)
50. 09:41 PM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Ernest Kells)
51. 10:16 PM - DC motor reversing relay schematic (James Redmon)
52. 11:54 PM - Re: DC motor reversing relay schematic (Richard Riley)
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: overvoltage protection clamav-milter |
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <steve@lbho.freeserve.co.uk>
This exchange implies the 'load dump ' report is out. Is this correct? If so
I missed it. Where can I find it?
Thanks, Steve.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: overvoltage protection clamav-milter
version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Neat!
Anybody find a source for small quantities of the 5KP18 yet?
Ken
>>snip
> Revision 11 to the 'Connection will be published this
> spring. It will include a modification to OV protection
> for built-in regulators that will prevent the alternator
> damage noted by Van's customers. A simple addition
> of a solid state transient suppressor to the system
> as described in:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/z13A.pdf
>
> . . . will keep the alternator from killing itself
> even when the switch is cycled at inappropriate times.
>
>
>snip
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Fw: LVWM and Kilovac contactors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Dennis,
Thank you for your message.
> I have a dumb question: why do you have 2 LVWMs? It's my understanding
> that
> those modules are designed to monitor the alternator, not the batteries.
> The
> modules trigger at something like 12.5V - above what a battery puts out,
> but
> below what an alternator delivers. Both LVWMs should tell you exactly the
> same thing - but could the problem you are having be explained if they are
> triggered at slightly different voltages? Just a wild guess - if the aux
> battery is fully charged and not loaded, and the LVWM is set a touch low,
> it
> might not be triggered.
>
You're right, that is what happens sometimes. When the batteries are fully
charged their voltage is somewhere around 13 V. But as soon as the voltage
drops a bit, when the ship's systems are energized, the LVWMs are triggered.
The systems work as expected when powered by a bench supply, or when the
Kilovac contactors are replaced by plain contactors. But I do need the
Kilovacs because my alternator output is limited. And the aux battery LVWM
seems to be the only system to be disturbed by them.
> Your voltmeter seems to be connected to the main bus and the E-bus.
> That's
> OK, but since you have LV warning you don't really need it on the main
> bus -
> I'd connect it (with a 2 position switch) to the two hot busses (main and
> aux) so that you can monitor both battery voltages during alternator out
> operations.
>
It is on the main bus just for reasons of convenience during "normal"
flight. If the alternator quits, what matters to us is the main bus voltage.
When operating on E-bus only, the voltmeter is automatically connected to
the E-bus (and therefore direct to the main battery) through the S2 switch
on the general diagram. A momentary switch near the voltmeter allows the
pilot to monitor the aux battery hot bus voltage at any moment.
I just uploaded the voltmeter diagram at :
http://gilles.thesee.free.fr
> I'm doing a 2 battery 1 alternator system for a Subaru powered RV7A - so
> your architecture has a lot of similarities to mine.
>
Thank you for your comments. Do feel free to correct my English.
Regards,
Gilles
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien <mtherr@yahoo.com>
I use the intercom built in my SL40 comm. and I am
satisfied with it. Mic Squelch is easilly adjusted
and the VOX works very well. Once you adjust it for a
pair of headsets, you don't really need to touch it
again. The only drawback I can see is that there is
no auxiliary input (like for plugging music in for
example) and the intercom is mono only.
For me, this is not a problem since as a beginner
pilot, the engine gets all my auditive attention and
music is therefore not yet welcome.
Michel
--- Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> Speedy11@aol.com
>
> For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you
> using the intercom built
> into the radio? If so, are you happy with its
> performance? Any drawbacks?
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
__________________________________
Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Works great for what it is ... overall. Lot's of flexibility to adjust in
the "setup" mode.
Not that easy to change when flying along (as compared to just turning the
squelch knob).
If you can, get a stereo intercom (like the DRE-244e and others) and provide
yourself the most options (music input and output, easier to adjust squelch,
pilot isolate, ATC recording (and option)).
I have friends with the SL40 (COMM only) in their C-140 and it is just fine
as it provides the intercom and ability to monitor another frequency (like
the SL-30). We have the SL30 in our RV but with the intercom and would have
it no other way as on those long trips it is nice sometimes to have a few
"tunes" in the background.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> Speedy11@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:43 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the
> intercom built
> into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any
> drawbacks? Is
> volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
> separate intercom?
> Stan Sutterfield
> Tampa
> www.rv-8a.net
>
>
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: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Richard -
-----snip-----------
Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
stay away from?
----snip------------
I was attracted by one of the ad/descriptions saying it can simultaneously
receive 2 frequencies. Which was suspicious, as this would require 2
receivers. As I thought, this turned out to be a continuous flip-flop
feature between 2 selected frequencies (if there is signal on one of them
the receiver locks on that frequency). Not a bad feature at all (actually a
very useful one) - just it was misrepresented by the ads.
I like that it can scan the NAV band in addition to the COM.
Display (LCD) is a bit small for my aging eyes but bearable and has very
good contrast (the contrast of a similar transceiver from Sporty's was not
nearly as good despite polarization, especially in sunlight).
Transmission and reception were very good, tested as the main radio during
emergencies (incl. for turning on the runway lights) or as a NAV aid or
just to feed an additional ATIS signal into the intercom.
It will receive the LOC but without further indication (unlike the
Sporty's, which indicates) - but I wouldn't try shooting a LOC with a
handheld anyway (I am currently working on my instrument rating).
Some vendors sell it with a headset adapter cable (incl. in price; got mine
for about $270-280 I think), others sell the adapter for an additional ~$50.
The 520 comes with a NiCad battery, but (being concerned about the NiCad
memory issues in the future) I got an empty battery case (~$25) and use
rechargeable NiMeHi batteries.
Overall I'd give it high marks for price-to-performance, features etc. ratio.
Rumen
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: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Matt -
> BTW, I got the Sport
> model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
This is probably the COM only model, Sporty's used to sell the NAV-COM for
about 300-320, if I remember correctly.
Rumen
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
I plan to buy an SL-30 very soon, so I tried looking into this. The
feedback on the intercom seems to range from bad to tepid. I asked
John Stark at Stark Avionics who sells a lot of these and and he said
his cutomers love the radio but don't like the intercom. I'm resigned
to getting a separate intercom, probably the pm501 from Precision Eng.
It has a good rep. and is not real expensive.
Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
>into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any drawbacks? Is
>volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
>separate intercom?
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
>
>
>
>
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: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>>This is probably the COM only model,<<
Interestingly enough, the Spruce website lists the JHP-520 Sport model
as a "Nav/Com"....
But, the current price is $289. How long ago did you get it for $220?
And/or is there a discount schedule that we should know about?
Harley Dixon
rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
>Matt -
>
>
>
>>BTW, I got the Sport
>>model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
>>
>>
>
>This is probably the COM only model, Sporty's used to sell the NAV-COM for
>about 300-320, if I remember correctly.
>
>Rumen
>
>
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom
> built
> into the radio?
No.
> If so, are you happy with its performance?
Tried it, didn't like it. (Actually I tried it in the SL-60 but they
appear to be the same but I could be wrong.)
> Any drawbacks?
See below.
> Is volume/squelch easily controlled?
No. You have to go through a menu to change them and I find I need to
change the squelch several times during a flight so it is a pain in the
butt.
> Would you prefer or recommend using a separate intercom?
Yes.
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 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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 2, 2005, at 9:53 AM, sarg314 wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> I plan to buy an SL-30 very soon, so I tried looking into this. The
> feedback on the intercom seems to range from bad to tepid. I asked
> John Stark at Stark Avionics who sells a lot of these and and he said
> his cutomers love the radio but don't like the intercom. I'm resigned
> to getting a separate intercom, probably the pm501 from Precision Eng.
> It has a good rep. and is not real expensive.
This is what I did also. I tried using the intercom in the SL-60 and
finally installed a pm501 from PS Engineering. It is the best 'cheap'
panel-mounted intercom I have used (and I have used a LOT of
intercoms). I even put one in my Comanche to replace the various
sigtronics units I had in there. (I tried two and liked neither.)
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel Therrien <mtherr@yahoo.com>
Assuming the intercom is the same as in the SL40, I
suggest you try it before "resigning". You may keep
panel space ready in case you don't like it. As a
user of it, I am very satisfied with it.
Michel
--- sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314
> <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> I plan to buy an SL-30 very soon, so I tried looking
> into this. The
> feedback on the intercom seems to range from bad to
> tepid. I asked
> John Stark at Stark Avionics who sells a lot of
> these and and he said
> his cutomers love the radio but don't like the
> intercom. I'm resigned
> to getting a separate intercom, probably the pm501
> from Precision Eng.
> It has a good rep. and is not real expensive.
>
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD, C-GZGQ
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
http://www.zenithair.com/bldrlist/profiles/mthobby
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to squelch
level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super lightweight and small.
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
>
> On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
> >
> > For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom
> > built
> > into the radio?
>
> No.
>
> > If so, are you happy with its performance?
>
> Tried it, didn't like it. (Actually I tried it in the SL-60 but they
> appear to be the same but I could be wrong.)
>
> > Any drawbacks?
>
> See below.
>
> > Is volume/squelch easily controlled?
>
> No. You have to go through a menu to change them and I find I need to
> change the squelch several times during a flight so it is a pain in the
> butt.
>
> > Would you prefer or recommend using a separate intercom?
>
> Yes.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
Built in VOX intercom <EM>IS </EM>FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super lightweight
and small.
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <BRIANL@LLOYD.COM>
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:43 AM, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom
built
into the radio?
No.
If so, are you happy with its performance?
Tried it, didn't like it. (Actually I tried it in the SL-60 but they
appear to be the same but I could be wrong.)
Any drawbacks?
See below.
Is volume/squelch easily controlled?
No. You have to go through a menu to change them and I find I need to
change the sq
uelch several times during a flight so it is a pain in the
butt.
Would you prefer or recommend using a separate intercom?
Yes.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
CRIBE: http://www.matronics.com/subscription
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
At 09:21 AM 1/2/05, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
>
>Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
>squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
>lightweight and small.
Not a bad radio, but the Xcom isn't a nav or glideslope.
do not archive
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
picky, picky ;-)
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley
>
> At 09:21 AM 1/2/05, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> >Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
> >
> >Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> >squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> >lightweight and small.
>
> Not a bad radio, but the Xcom isn't a nav or glideslope.
>
> do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
picky, picky ;-)
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <RICHARD@RILEY.NET>
At 09:21 AM 1/2/05, you wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
lightweight and small.
Not a bad radio, but the Xcom isn't a nav or glideslope.
do not archive
s
>
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "buck" <buckaroo_banzai@the-pentagon.com>
Stan,
I've found the SL-30 intercom to be slightly tolerable when using my Bose
headset
and my copilot is wearing a David Clark headset. However, one of my flying
buddies
insists on bringing along his LightSpeed noise reduction headset and the
SL-30
doesn't work well with that at all. I've not found any squelch or volume
adjustment
that makes the two headsets compatible with the SL-30. There's a lot of
external
noise that gets into the intercom and the VOX can take a long time to
squelch after
speech has stopped.
Your mileage may vary........
Greg
----------------------------------------------
Original Message
From: ""<Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
>into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any
drawbacks? Is
>volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
>separate intercom?
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
>
>
http://www.MyOwnEmail.com
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: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Woops! I misquoted the price - its $229.95. I just bought
this unit - got delivered on 12/23/2004. It includes nav.
Course Deviation Indicator and bearing to/from. Plus duplex
operation - transmit on a com frequency, receive on a nav
frequency.
Link to page...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/nsearch.php?s=11-01093
When you request the quote, it comes in at $229.95.
Several other outfits sell for this price too - Spruce is
price matching.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> Matt -
>
>> BTW, I got the Sport
>> model, because I think it is a better value - $220 from Spruce.
>
> This is probably the COM only model, Sporty's used to sell the NAV-COM
> for about 300-320, if I remember correctly.
>
> Rumen
>
>
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: | Unsupported Cable Length |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Hello List,
I am building a tube and fabric airplane with the battery in the tail:
Currently installing Eric Nelson's (Perihelion Design) Copper Clad Aluminum
Cables, securing the cable to the fuselage structure with wax string &
silicone tape per Bob's shop notes:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
I am tying everywhere the cable & structure cross, which varies from ~6" -
~12" along the line of the cable. There is one stretch, however, where
there is no structure for about 18" -24":
Should I build another cable support here? What is the longest un-supported
length of battery cable recommended?
Thanks,
Grant
Krueger
S-5 Kitfox
w/ O-235, Panel & Firewall Fwd
San Luis
Obispo, CA
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: | Nav/Com Handheld |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
I have an ICOM IC-A-23 hand held nav/com and love it. It came with a
headset/mic adapter and works great with my Lightspeed headset. The
adapter also has a connector for a remote PTT button, but I have not
tried that feature, yet. I get great RT feedback when transmitting using
the Lightspeed boom mic. The A-23 only produces mono to the headset,
while my aircraft intercom produces stereo, but that is about the only
difference between the two.
I installed a second external VHF antenna with the idea of adding a back
up comm radio sometime in the future. However; the hand held proved to
be a cheaper and more flexible option. I rewired the #2 external antenna
to terminate with a BNC connector on my panel and made a three foot
antenna patch cord out of RG-58 with a BNC connector at each end. The
patch cord connects to the hand held and allows me to move the hand held
just about anywhere in the cockpit. I used RG-400 for all of my other
antenna runs, but chose RG-58 for the patch cord because it is
considerably more flexible.
Note: I tried my hookup with a friend's Vertec hand held. Wouldn't
work. The Vertec uses a screw in antenna while ICOM uses BNC antenna
connection.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
> Time: 11:16:57 AM PST US
> From: "Richard Suffoletto"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto"
>
>
> Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
> searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
> find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
> good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
> experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
> stay away from?
>
> Thanks
>
> Richard
>
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: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
I am getting very close to drilling my panel (again).....There is a small
protrusion on keyway washers that prevent toggle switches from rotating in
their mounting holes......The small protrusion locks into a small hole in
the panel.
Does one drill the hole for the protrusion all the way through the panel &
mount the washer on the front side of the panel? Or is it practicable to
mount the washer on the back side of the panel & only drill part way through
the panel so as to hide this washer protrusion hole?
I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
Thank You
Again,
Grant
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
The backside will work great if your panel is thick enough and you can
control the depth of the hole correctly.
Dick Tasker
Tinne maha wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>I am getting very close to drilling my panel (again).....There is a small
>protrusion on keyway washers that prevent toggle switches from rotating in
>their mounting holes......The small protrusion locks into a small hole in
>the panel.
>
>Does one drill the hole for the protrusion all the way through the panel &
>mount the washer on the front side of the panel? Or is it practicable to
>mount the washer on the back side of the panel & only drill part way through
>the panel so as to hide this washer protrusion hole?
>
>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
>
> Thank You
>Again,
>
> Grant
>
>
>
>
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: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
At 11:16 AM 1/2/05, you wrote:
>Does one drill the hole for the protrusion all the way through the panel &
>mount the washer on the front side of the panel? Or is it practicable to
>mount the washer on the back side of the panel & only drill part way through
>the panel so as to hide this washer protrusion hole?
>
>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
It depends on a couple of things. Your panel has to be relatively
thick. You have to be VERY careful with your drill from the back side. It
also helps if you file a point on the anti-rotation nib, so it fits the
pointy ended hole a drill leaves.
But it can be done.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Unsupported Cable Length |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ljohnson94" <ljohnson94@cox.net>
Hello Grant,
"Wires and cables are supported by suitable clamps, grommets, or other
devices at intervals of not more than 24 inches, except when contained in
troughs, ducts or conduits."
Page 11-43 of AC43.13-1B. Para 11-96, a.
Regards,
Darrell Johnson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Unsupported Cable Length
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha"
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
> Hello List,
>
> I am building a tube and fabric airplane with the battery in the tail:
> Currently installing Eric Nelson's (Perihelion Design) Copper Clad
Aluminum
> Cables, securing the cable to the fuselage structure with wax string &
> silicone tape per Bob's shop notes:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
>
>
> I am tying everywhere the cable & structure cross, which varies from ~6" -
> ~12" along the line of the cable. There is one stretch, however, where
> there is no structure for about 18" -24":
>
> Should I build another cable support here? What is the longest
un-supported
> length of battery cable recommended?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant
> Krueger
> S-5
Kitfox
> w/ O-235, Panel & Firewall Fwd
> San Luis
> Obispo, CA
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: WRBYARS@aol.com
From: ""<Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
For those of you who are using the SL-30, are you using the intercom built
into the radio? If so, are you happy with its performance? Any drawbacks?
Is volume/squelch easily controlled? Would you prefer or recommend using a
separate intercom?
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
Hi Stan,
I've not used the SL-30, however have an SL-40 and find the intercom to be
satisfactory, and the com to be excellent. It isn't as easy to set squelch as
a knob would be, but when I got it set I didn't have to mess with it again.
I'm using a matched pair of "something com" headsets and they work OK.
Bill
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: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/2/2005 1:19:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
tinnemaha@hotmail.com writes:
I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
Thank You
Again,
Good Afternoon Grant,
I am under the impression that the washer should be on the back of the panel
and I try to have the holes not penetrate the mounting surface. However,
with some thin materials, that just won't work. In that case, I try to mount
the switches such that the keyway will be on the bottom and not as noticeable.
In either case, it is important to determine that the switch positions will
be On, Off or Momentary when you want them to be so.
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: | Potter&Brumfield |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I got some P&B W31 series circuit breakers (they are the ones with switches)
from Steinair and the toggle switch in the breaker is loose in all of them.
It will surely vibrate in an aircraft. Does anyone know if it is normal for
the toggle switch in this breaker to be loose? To clarify, imagine holding a
normal bat switch in your fingers and it moves around in the housing.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
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: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Another way to skin this cat is to make a doubler plate of appropriate
thickness for the keyway tabs and put it behind the panel. The switches
hold it in place. Then your IP only needs the switch holes. It adds a few
ounces but is a lot easier than trying to drill holes only part way through
thin metal.
Dennis Glaeser
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:21 PM, lucky wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
>
> Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> lightweight and small.
I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closest thing to two nav-coms in a
single box I have ever seen.
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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton <harvey4@earthlink.net>
Please enlighten an 'ol mechanical engineer....
When a high current circuit (like a starter) is switched via a relay from a
low current circuit (like a starter switch), there really are two
independent circuits. Do they both need protecting with circuit breakers,
or is the presumption that the low current circuit is safe without fuse
protection?
Thanks
Neil C
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/2/2005 4:12:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
glaesers@wideopenwest.com writes:
Another way to skin this cat is to make a doubler plate of appropriate
thickness for the keyway tabs and put it behind the panel. The switches
hold it in place. Then your IP only needs the switch holes. It adds a few
ounces but is a lot easier than trying to drill holes only part way through
thin metal.
Dennis Glaeser
Great idea Dennis!
I wish I had thought of it.
I will do that in the future.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
sl-40 was what I was thinking of when comparing.
sl-30 looks like a nice radio for the $.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:21 PM, lucky wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
> >
> > Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> > squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> > lightweight and small.
>
> I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
> to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
> VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
> no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closest thing to two nav-coms in a
> single box I have ever seen.
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
sl-40 was what I was thinking of when comparing.
sl-30 looks like a nice radio for the $.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <BRIANL@LLOYD.COM>
On Jan 2, 2005, at 12:21 PM, lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
lightweight and small.
I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closes
t thing to two nav-coms in a
single box I have ever seen.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
Antoine de Saint-Exupry
List.htm
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
I have a spare JET 2.5" AI. It's military, 110v 3ph 400 hz, but I will
include an inverter made for it. $1000. Anyone interested?
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | AP servo wire selection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Hi all,
Just wrapping up my RV-10 wings and want to quick buy the necessary
wires for the wings. I was going to call SteinAir, since I've heard
of them before. Any other suggestions are appreciated.
My big question is I want to finish wiring my TruTrak digital AP
and need to pull 7 wires to the servo. 2 power wires at #20,
and the rest (5 more) can be #20-#24. What have others chosen
for these harnesses....multi-wire shielded, or just running separate
strands in a bundle? I'd like to just throw in an order for
something like 50' which should cover doing both servos.
Thanks for any guidance you can give.
Tim
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AP servo wire selection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
B&C also sells colored wire. We got ours from Wiremasters, but they have a
100 ft min. per color. However, their prices are the best by far so it may
be a wash wi/r to Steinair or B&C. Some other RV-10 builder may want to
wire his servos and you could sell the leftover from a 100 ft spool. We
did our trim servos (pitch & yaw) in colored wire, as well as the two Tru
Trak servos. We also used red (and a bit of yellow) for power wires and
black for grounds wherever we could, or to match some of the gear we
bought that had yellow for power. Neither TRu Trak or RC Allen call for
shielded wire, so we made our own wire harnesses and tied them wi/ waxed
flat lacing.
Hope this is of some help.
John
> Just wrapping up my RV-10 wings and want to quick buy the necessary
> wires for the wings. I was going to call SteinAir, since I've heard
> of them before. Any other suggestions are appreciated.
>
> My big question is I want to finish wiring my TruTrak digital AP
> and need to pull 7 wires to the servo. 2 power wires at #20,
> and the rest (5 more) can be #20-#24. What have others chosen
> for these harnesses....multi-wire shielded, or just running separate
> strands in a bundle? I'd like to just throw in an order for
> something like 50' which should cover doing both servos.
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
0.01 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look like IP addresses
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
Hello Old Bob,
Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the WAAS approval,
the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation system as you argue,
although I have not seen this from any offcial source. So one may file
to a destination and an alternate airport that both have only GPS approaches.
But should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules revert
back to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based navigation
capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Regards, Bruce
> Time: 06:47:44 PM PST US
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brucem@att.net writes:
>
> As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite the
> WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR 91.205(d)(2)
>
> still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground
> facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your Garmin
> 480.
>
>
> Good Evening Bruce,
>
> Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread, but
> I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
>
> The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
> utilize required ground based equipment.
>
> Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
> there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
>
> The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
> be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
> It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
>
> No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else, has
> to be on board.
>
> Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
> but those capabilities are not required.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
<!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
<!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
Hello Old Bob,
Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the WAAS approval,
the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation system as you argue,
although I have not seen this from any offcial source. So one may file to
a destination and an alternate airport that both have only GPS approaches. But
should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules revert back
to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based navigation
capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Regards, Bruce
Time: 06:47:44 PM PST US
From: BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem@att.net writes:
As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite the
WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR 91.205(d)(2)
still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your Garmin
480.
Good Evening Bruce,
Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread, but
I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
utilize required ground based equipment.
Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to
be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else, has
to be on board.
Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
but those capabilities are not required.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Gro
ve, IL 60516
630 985-8502
<!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/2/2005 8:17:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem@att.net writes:
But should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules
revert back to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based
navigation capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Good Evening Bruce,
I do not believe that is the case.
The 480 is approved as standalone just as is an ADF or a VOR. I don't know
of any airway in the lower 48 where you could go with just an ADF, but if
there is one, you could legally fly a trip following that route with nothing
more than the ADF and communication capability.
The same thing goes for operations with a single VOR. If it fails, there is
no requirement for a backup as it is "sole source" approved.
It is also true for the 480 GPS. It is "sole source" approved and no backup
is required.
If you lost just the WAAS, but still had the basic GPS capability, I suppose
you could use it under your emergency authority, but there is no requirement
that you be able to navigate in any manner following the failure of any
"sole source" navigation equipment!
The earlier GPSs are all approved only as supplementary navigation equipment
under TSO C129 and require that another means of navigation be available
should the GPS in the airplane or the GPS system itself fail.
As just an academic exercise, I have often considered that an alternate
means of navigation for the 129 GPSs could be VFR in some parts of the country
and under some weather conditions, though I think the FAA considers that a VOR
capability is what should be used in the lower forty eight. In any case, what
that back up device needs to be is not spelled out in the FARs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
No, the ground based VOR/NDB are only needed if it's a GPS overlay. There
are hundreds (thousands??) of GPS only approaches where no other NAV
approaches have ever been approved. I have shot two at different airports in
my area on flights of less than 45 minutes. Dig out your Jepps or whatever
and spend 3 minutes flipping through the plates and you will find dozens. I
can file IFR and fly without ever turning on the VOR on a 500 mn flight with
an approach at the destination down to 400 - 500' MDA. Obviously the GPS
must be approach approved and in an experimental that is not a big deal
(MONEY!!!).
Don't know where this idea of GPS's being some sort of backup has come from.
Haven't you ever file DIRECT and were issued such a routing?? That requires
GPS and obviously a VOR or NDB is of no help, unless you happen to chose a
direct routing along an airway.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: <brucem@att.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
>
> Hello Old Bob,
>
> Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the
> WAAS approval, the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation
> system as you argue, although I have not seen this from any offcial
> source. So one may file to a destination and an alternate airport that
> both have only GPS approaches. But should the WAAS correction fail or not
> be received, then the rules revert back to the first generation GPS use in
> IFR and require ground based navigation capability at the alternate. No
> WAAS and no VOR, no go!
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
>
>> Time: 06:47:44 PM PST US
>> From: BobsV35B@aol.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>> brucem@att.net writes:
>>
>> As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite the
>> WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR
>> 91.205(d)(2)
>>
>> still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground
>> facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your
>> Garmin
>> 480.
>>
>>
>> Good Evening Bruce,
>>
>> Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread,
>> but
>> I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
>>
>> The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
>> utilize required ground based equipment.
>>
>> Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
>> there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
>>
>> The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
>> to
>> be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be
>> used.
>> It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
>>
>> No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else,
>> has
>> to be on board.
>>
>> Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
>> but those capabilities are not required.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>> AKA
>> Bob Siegfried
>> Ancient Aviator
>> Stearman N3977A
>> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>> 630 985-8502
>>
>>
>
> <!-- BEGIN WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
>
> <!-- WEBMAIL STATIONERY noneset -->
>
>
> Hello Old Bob,
>
>
> Always a pleasure to read your considered comments. As I understand the
> WAAS approval, the GNS 480 may be used as a "sole source" navigation
> system as you argue, although I have not seen this from any offcial
> source. So one may file to a destination and an alternate airport that
> both have only GPS approaches. But should the WAAS correction fail or not
> be received, then the rules revert back to the first generation GPS use in
> IFR and require ground based navigation capability at the alternate. No
> WAAS and no VOR, no go!
>
>
> Regards, Bruce
>
>
> Time: 06:47:44 PM PST US
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 12/26/2004 7:27:23 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> brucem@att.net writes:
>
> As practical matter we will have both kinds in our airplanes. Despite the
> WAAS capable GPS's legality as the primary navigation device, FAR
> 91.205(d)(2)
>
> still requires: "....navigation equipment appropriate to the ground
> facilities to be used." So a VOR receiver or ADF has to back up your
> Garmin
> 480.
>
>
> Good Evening Bruce,
>
> Been gone for a week or so. Consequently I am way behind on this thread,
> but
> I feel compelled to comment on this last point.
>
>
> The FAR you reference requires that you must have equipment available to
> utilize required ground based equipment.
>
> Since the 480 is authorized as standalone navigation using only the GPS,
> there is no requirement for any ground based equipment at all.
>
> The statement: "navigation equipment appropriate to the ground facilities
> to
> be used" only applies to cases where ground based equipment is to be used.
> It does not say that you can't navigate without it.
>
> No ground based equipment required means that no VOR, or anything else,
> has
> to be on board.
>
> Highly unlikely to occur since the 480 has VHF navigational capabilities,
> but those capabilities are not required.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Gro
> ve, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
> <!-- END WEBMAIL STATIONERY -->
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 660 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Bob,
There is a LF route across the Gulf of Mexico for your amusement in flying solely
by reference to ADF.
At least there was a couple of years ago.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: KN65A DME
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/2/2005 8:17:17 P.M. Central Standard Time,
brucem@att.net writes:
But should the WAAS correction fail or not be received, then the rules
revert back to the first generation GPS use in IFR and require ground based
navigation capability at the alternate. No WAAS and no VOR, no go!
Good Evening Bruce,
I do not believe that is the case.
The 480 is approved as standalone just as is an ADF or a VOR. I don't know
of any airway in the lower 48 where you could go with just an ADF, but if
there is one, you could legally fly a trip following that route with nothing
more than the ADF and communication capability.
The same thing goes for operations with a single VOR. If it fails, there is
no requirement for a backup as it is "sole source" approved.
It is also true for the 480 GPS. It is "sole source" approved and no backup
is required.
If you lost just the WAAS, but still had the basic GPS capability, I suppose
you could use it under your emergency authority, but there is no requirement
that you be able to navigate in any manner following the failure of any
"sole source" navigation equipment!
The earlier GPSs are all approved only as supplementary navigation equipment
under TSO C129 and require that another means of navigation be available
should the GPS in the airplane or the GPS system itself fail.
As just an academic exercise, I have often considered that an alternate
means of navigation for the 129 GPSs could be VFR in some parts of the country
and under some weather conditions, though I think the FAA considers that a VOR
capability is what should be used in the lower forty eight. In any case, what
that back up device needs to be is not spelled out in the FARs.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
---
---
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:24 PM 1/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
>In a message dated 1/2/2005 1:19:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>tinnemaha@hotmail.com writes:
>
>I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
>best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
I always put them on the back side. If your switch panel includes
an engraved overlay, then holes in the panel for the tabs can go
all the way through . . . and tabs on washers sanded to insure they
are flush or under flush to the panel surface. Others have suggested
a rear overlay of sheet metal but I prefer the engraved overlay for
switch labeling that covers the tab holes in the panel.
Bob . . .
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/2/2005 9:11:51 P.M. Central Standard Time,
w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
Don't know where this idea of GPS's being some sort of backup has come from.
Haven't you ever file DIRECT and were issued such a routing?? That requires
GPS and obviously a VOR or NDB is of no help, unless you happen to chose a
direct routing along an airway.
Wayne
Good Evening Wayne,
I am very glad to see that you are using your GPS to get around the country
efficiently, but I do think a bit of clarification is needed as to just what
is legal and what is not.
Any early generation GPS that has been IFR approved under the guidelines of
TSO C129 is authorized as supplementary navigation equipment only. That
information can be found by reading TSO C129 or studying the pertinent section
of
the AIM.
That does not mean that the underlying approach has to be available for
shooting a GPS overlay approach based on an NDB or VOR approach. All that is
required is that another means of navigation be available for use should the GPS
fail or go out of service. You do not have to be able to continue the
approach, just be able to go somewhere else via that other source of navigation.
You can execute any GPS approach, including an overlay approach, without any
ground facilities being available at that particular airport.
You can file for and be given a direct course to anywhere at the discretion
of the controller responsible for the area in question.
One method of navigation is to use a GPS. Another acceptable device is an
IFR approved LORAN. Another is a VOR/DME based RNAV unit such as the KNS-80.
There are also many FMS units that use other approved methods for off airway
flight. Beyond that you can use ded reckoning if the controller agrees.
Many possibilities for direct flight.
Unlike all previous GPS units, the 480 is approved under TSO C146 (I think
that is correct, but don't hold me to the precise number). It allows for "sole
source" GPS navigation.
No supplementary navigation equipment need be on board.
To my knowledge, the 480 is the only GA GPS so approved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com Handheld |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:40 AM 1/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
>Richard -
>
>-----snip-----------
>Im in the market for a new hand held nav/com transceiver. Ive
>searched the archives and learned a few things. However, I could not
>find anything on the JRC JHP-520 Nav/Com. It seems to have a lot of
>good features and comes at a reasonable price. Does anyone have any
>experience with this unit? Or comments on units I should absolutely
>stay away from?
>----snip------------
>
>I was attracted by one of the ad/descriptions saying it can simultaneously
>receive 2 frequencies. Which was suspicious, as this would require 2
>receivers. As I thought, this turned out to be a continuous flip-flop
>feature between 2 selected frequencies (if there is signal on one of them
>the receiver locks on that frequency). Not a bad feature at all (actually a
>very useful one) - just it was misrepresented by the ads.
>I like that it can scan the NAV band in addition to the COM.
>Display (LCD) is a bit small for my aging eyes but bearable and has very
>good contrast (the contrast of a similar transceiver from Sporty's was not
>nearly as good despite polarization, especially in sunlight).
>Transmission and reception were very good, tested as the main radio during
>emergencies (incl. for turning on the runway lights) or as a NAV aid or
>just to feed an additional ATIS signal into the intercom.
>It will receive the LOC but without further indication (unlike the
>Sporty's, which indicates) - but I wouldn't try shooting a LOC with a
>handheld anyway (I am currently working on my instrument rating).
>Some vendors sell it with a headset adapter cable (incl. in price; got mine
>for about $270-280 I think), others sell the adapter for an additional ~$50.
>The 520 comes with a NiCad battery, but (being concerned about the NiCad
>memory issues in the future) I got an empty battery case (~$25) and use
>rechargeable NiMeHi batteries.
>Overall I'd give it high marks for price-to-performance, features etc. ratio.
I've had a JHP520 for several years and found it to be a good
value. Dealer net qty of one is $239. There's one on Ebay right
now with a buy-it-now price of $250 . . . pretty good deal
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=4515899989&category=90979&sspagename=WDVW
Bob . . .
Message 41
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Unsupported Cable Length |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:04 AM 1/2/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
>Hello List,
>
>I am building a tube and fabric airplane with the battery in the tail:
>Currently installing Eric Nelson's (Perihelion Design) Copper Clad Aluminum
>Cables, securing the cable to the fuselage structure with wax string &
>silicone tape per Bob's shop notes:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/cable_lace/cable_lace.html
>
>
>I am tying everywhere the cable & structure cross, which varies from ~6" -
>~12" along the line of the cable. There is one stretch, however, where
>there is no structure for about 18" -24":
>
>Should I build another cable support here? What is the longest un-supported
>length of battery cable recommended?
Is this for one or two strands of wire? That's a pretty long jump. I think
I'd run an aluminum angle along the run to support the middle of the span.
You could fold it out of sheet metal or use thin aluminum extrusion.
Bob . . .
Message 42
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load Dump mitigation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:52 PM 1/2/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
><steve@lbho.freeserve.co.uk>
>
>This exchange implies the 'load dump ' report is out. Is this correct? If so
>I missed it. Where can I find it?
No. Paul's report is not yet published. He gave me enough
verbal information to make a conservative selection for
a part. I'm buying an alternator test-stand and will be
able to duplicate/confirm/refine this selection but with
what we know to date, there's no big rush. The 5KP18 is
a VERY robust component to the task and the price is certainly
right.
Bob . . .
Message 43
| 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: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/2/2005 9:21:30 P.M. Central Standard Time,
gwbraly@gami.com writes:
Bob,
There is a LF route across the Gulf of Mexico for your amusement in flying
solely by reference to ADF.
At least there was a couple of years ago.
Regards, George
Good Evening George,
I do remember that route, but the current charts no longer show the
appropriate beacons on either end nor do they show any airway other than the ones
based on the VORs.
I have flown the New Orleans to Tampa route in my Bonanza many years ago,
but I think it was after the GPS became available. I also flew it often in my
previous life, but I usually had an INS available to back up the ADFs.
I am still looking for a lower forty-eight LF route though!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 44
| 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: Fuse question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:26 PM 1/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton
><harvey4@earthlink.net>
>
>Please enlighten an 'ol mechanical engineer....
>
>When a high current circuit (like a starter) is switched via a relay from a
>low current circuit (like a starter switch), there really are two
>independent circuits. Do they both need protecting with circuit breakers,
>or is the presumption that the low current circuit is safe without fuse
>protection?
I'm not visualizing your question well. If you study the
Z-figures in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev10/z10.pdf
. . . you'll see that the LOW current side (contactor coil
and start switch) is consistently protected while the high
current side (starter feed) is not.
This is concurrent with both practice and experience with
small aircraft for about 90 years and generally follows the
advice of FAR23 where we read:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
Message 45
| 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&Brumfield |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:17 PM 1/2/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
>I got some P&B W31 series circuit breakers (they are the ones with switches)
>from Steinair and the toggle switch in the breaker is loose in all of them.
>It will surely vibrate in an aircraft. Does anyone know if it is normal for
>the toggle switch in this breaker to be loose? To clarify, imagine holding a
>normal bat switch in your fingers and it moves around in the housing.
>Stan Sutterfield
>Tampa
>www.rv-8a.net
These are not the most robust of mechanisms due to their
mechanical complexity of combining switch and breaker
functions. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/W31_1.jpg
I personally don't like them and don't recommend them in
new designs. Having said that, know also that these have been
used in LARGE quantities on Bonanzas and Barons for decades
and have been 'relatively' free of trouble . . . There are some
issues currently being discussed involving breakage of the
upper soft-wire flexible conductor after lots of years
in service. On high current systems (landing lights, pitot
heat, etc) this may cause spring in upper left corner to
overheat and make bad smells in cockpit. Likelihood of
OBAM aircraft having this problem is pretty remote.
In a nutshell, if these critters float your boat . . . row on.
Bob . . .
Message 46
| 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: | Stereo speaker connection? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
Can the LT and RT speakers (+) of an automovtive stereo be connected together without
damaging the stereo?
I'd like to use the amplified outputs of a Sony stereo to a mono-intercom system.
Currently the speaker outputs are coming off the pre-amp jacks without much
boost (volume).
TIA,
Jack
Message 47
| 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: Accountability Poster |
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com.0.26.UPPERCASE_25_50.message.body.is.25-50%uppercase
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
Hi Jopie! Since this came to my address (I have forwarded it to Lil's), I
will give you my immediate reaction, even if unsolicited. If I were to
receive that communication, I would feel uncomfortable at the rather
bureaucratic and demanding connotation of "accountability", and would tend
to shy away from the idea. Maybe the addition of "personal" to "personal
accountability" might tone it down a bit. My suggestion would be for
something like:
Measure Your Success
Would you like to ring in the New Year with support .... etc
If so, please sign up for this "measure your success" program at the front
desk.
Forgive me for putting my oar in, and recognize that I am very
anti-authoritarian in my responses.
Love,
Ken
_____
From: jopie [mailto:jopie@curvesatbethany.com]
Subject: Accountability Poster
Hi Lil,
Well here goes.
ACCOUNTABILITY
WOULD YOU LIKE TO RING IN THE NEW YEAR WITH SUPPORT FROM CURVES
STAFF?
TO WEIGH YOU ON A WEEKLY BASIS?
IF SO, PLEASE SIGN UP FOR THIS "ACCOUNTABILITY WEIGH IN" AT THE
FRONT DESK.
THANKS CALL ME IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE AT THIS TIME.
LOVE JOPIE
Message 48
| 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: Stereo speaker connection? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
jacklockamy wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
>
>Can the LT and RT speakers (+) of an automovtive stereo be connected together
without damaging the stereo?
>
>I'd like to use the amplified outputs of a Sony stereo to a mono-intercom system.
Currently the speaker outputs are coming off the pre-amp jacks without much
boost (volume).
>
>TIA,
>Jack
>
short answer: no
less short answer: what you want can be accomplished. If you don't get a
complete answer tonight, email me tomorrow for a complete answer.
(it's bedtime)
Charlie
Message 49
| 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: Key-Way Washers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
FWIW, here's an easy, clean way to use anti-rotation washers on the back of
the panel without having to drill the little holes in the panel (ugly). See
the photos about 1/3 way down this page:
http://www.rvproject.com/20030615.html
It's a small piece of .063" aluminum that has the anti-rotation holes in it.
It gets sandwiched behind the panel, between the panel and switches.
Anti-rotation washers penetrate the little holes in the little strip but
don't have to penetrate the panel.
Hope this helps,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Key-Way Washers
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/2/2005 1:19:10 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> tinnemaha@hotmail.com writes:
>
> I strongly suspect mounting the washer on the front side of the panel is
> best, but am wondering if anyone has tried putting them on the back side.
>
> Thank You
> Again,
>
>
> Good Afternoon Grant,
>
> I am under the impression that the washer should be on the back of the
panel
> and I try to have the holes not penetrate the mounting surface. However,
> with some thin materials, that just won't work. In that case, I try to
mount
> the switches such that the keyway will be on the bottom and not as
noticeable.
> In either case, it is important to determine that the switch positions
will
> be On, Off or Momentary when you want them to be so.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
Message 50
| 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-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells@sympatico.ca>
> > Sell your sl-30 and get an XCOM760. Same price range I think.
> >
> > Built in VOX intercom IS FULLY functional and it's immediate to get to
> > squelch level/volumes. Dual watch is also slick. Plus it's super
> > lightweight and small.
>
> I don't believe the XCOM760 is a full nav-com. The SL-30, in addition
> to its dual-frequency receive feature on the com, will also track two
> VORs or a VOR and the LOC/ILS simultaneously, a feature I have seen on
> no other nav-com. The SL-30 is the closest thing to two nav-coms in a
> single box I have ever seen.
I have the ICOM/760 - without a separate intercom. It has no NAV feature.
For that I plan to use a PDA with AnywhereMAP and a GPS (Bluetooth). I
will carry a portable ICOM A23 for portable backup using the 12V receptacle.
If I lose the electricals or any instrument I will have the A23 on a full
battery for either or both NAV and COM. That way I don't lose all panel
mounted Navs and Comms at once. Seems sound for my mission - VFR only.
Message 51
| 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: | DC motor reversing relay schematic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn limit
switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not already in the
diagram. ;-)
This is for a high current linear actuator application.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
Message 52
| 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: DC motor reversing relay schematic |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
James, if you can wait a few weeks I'm having an IC board with an LMD18200
H-bridge motor controller made up. It's good for 3 amps continuous, 6 amps
peak. I'll be using it for a landing brake too.
At 10:15 PM 1/2/05, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
>
>Can someone point me to a schematic for a DC motor circuit reversing
>polarity using a SPDT switch and two relays. I'll also be using up/dn limit
>switches but I think I can figure out where they fit if not already in the
>diagram. ;-)
>
>This is for a high current linear actuator application.
>
>James Redmon
>Berkut #013 N97TX
>http://www.berkut13.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! --
|