Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:03 AM - Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Ronald J. Parigoris)
2. 01:19 AM - Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Mickey Coggins)
3. 03:43 AM - Nuts, Bolts Battery Terminals (LarryRobertHelming)
4. 05:04 AM - Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Harley)
5. 05:04 AM - Re: Load dump comments (Matt Jurotich)
6. 05:31 AM - Re: Load dump comments (Gary Casey)
7. 10:30 AM - Re: Ideas on Painting Panel (mark manda)
8. 01:05 PM - Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens ()
9. 01:05 PM - Re: Load dump comments (Eric M. Jones)
10. 02:24 PM - Re: Ideas on Painting Panel (Larry McFarland)
11. 03:39 PM - Re: Load dump comments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 03:48 PM - Re: FW: Z13A - Basic question ? Help (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 03:50 PM - Re: Ideas on Painting Panel (Ed Anderson)
14. 03:52 PM - Spike Cathing Diodes (Tinne maha)
15. 04:01 PM - Re: Dynon and IFR (JSMONDAY@aol.com)
16. 04:06 PM - Re: Wire Separations (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 05:24 PM - Fuel Gauge VS PTT (Larry Bowen)
18. 05:38 PM - Re: Dynon and IFR (Dan Checkoway)
19. 05:50 PM - Re: Fuel Gauge VS PTT (earl_schroeder@juno.com)
20. 06:28 PM - Re: Dynon and IFR (Rob Housman)
21. 06:48 PM - Re: KX-125 Problem Solved (Brian Lloyd)
22. 07:01 PM - Re: Ideas on Painting Panel (Dean)
23. 07:03 PM - Re: Crinkle Finish Panel (Speedy11@aol.com)
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: | Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the head
of screw when using ring connectors?
Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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: | Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
> I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
> washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
>
> Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the
head
> of screw when using ring connectors?
>
> Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: | Nuts, Bolts Battery Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Speaking of washers leads me to thinking about nut/bolts for connecting
battery terminals. What is the correct hardware for this to ensure good
connection free of vibration and corrosion? What is the normal maintenance
plan for these parts, should they be replaced annually when a new battery is
installed? Where is a source for buying?
Indiana Larry
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
<mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
> source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
> be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris"
<rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
> >
> > I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth
Phosphor-Bronze
> > washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a
brass bus.
> >
> > Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer
under the head
> > of screw when using ring connectors?
> >
> > Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
> >
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: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Morning, Mickey...
>>McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.<<
I just did a search there... http://www.mcmaster.com/
Entered "bronze washers" in the search box, and the second item listed
was "Phosphor Bronze Internal Tooth Lock Washers (the first was External
Tooth). When I clicked on it, it listed sizes from #2 to 1/2".
Harley Dixon
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>Good questions. I'm also interested in the answers. Also, a
>source for these internal tool phosphor-bronze washers would
>be most welcome. McMaster-Carr does not seem to have them.
>
>Ronald J. Parigoris wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>>
>>I was looking at B+C site and it mentions to use internal tooth Phosphor-Bronze
>>washers under the head of screws to maintain a good connection to a brass bus.
>>
>>Is it recommended and good practice to use a Phosphor-Bronze washer under the
head
>>of screw when using ring connectors?
>>
>>Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
Eric et all
I have a LR3C-14, the B&C external regulator with crowbar. Can Eric's
gentle disconnect device be used in series? Is it necessary? Is it wise?
How would you go about connecting your load dump device with it 1/4-28 stud
that is not visible in the picture on Eric's web site?
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<..Also the alternator and master were turned off before shutting down the
engine.
The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load dump.
Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some circles???
Paul>>
Some of the rentals I used many years ago had the Hobbs meter powered from
the master bus. There may have been some renters that turned off the master
while taxiing in or even (heaven forbid) during flight...who, me? This was
common knowledge at the time, but then later aircraft had the Hobbs powered
live from the battery.
<<In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't just attach
the
alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
>to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
>or should not do this?...Dan Fritz
Just preventing the battery from being disconnected would help, but would
cause it's own problems...Eric M. Jones>>
Mind elaborating on those problems?
Gary Casey
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: Ideas on Painting Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mark manda <mark2nite@yahoo.com>
and I was about to say, the nicest panel I've seen is
a black crinkle finish and the guy used Harley
Davidson factory engine paint avail. at the dealer.
--- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2005 12:42:16 P.M. Central
> Standard Time,
> alexpeterson@earthlink.net writes:
>
> I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's
> I've seen with a flat black
> panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is
> enough glare with other
> junk in the cockpit, why create more?
>
>
> Good Afternoon Alex,
>
> I think it is best if you have the panel painted
> just the way you like it.
>
> Sixty years ago almost all instrument panels were
> flat black.
>
> When I started in the business it was so. When we
> got the first Douglas
> DC-6s, they came from the factory with a flat grey
> color on the panel. Many
> folks thought that glare would be a problem. As the
> years went by, most airlines
> switched away from the flat black. The same is true
> for most spam can
> manufacturers. Boeing entered the glass cockpit era
> with the Boeing 767 and it
> came with a flat beige color panel.
>
> So far, I like the flat beige the best, but who
> knows what will be next.
>
> The only one I really despise is the flat black
> crinkle finish.
>
> Isn't it nice that we can all paint our panels any
> way we want?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
> -
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
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: | Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Time: 11:27:28 AM PST US
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
<<Even experimental aircraft must meet the far requirements appropriate to
flight. I went around and around with FAA and Aero Flash years ago as well
as my Ins
agent. If strobes are required for your flight then they must meet the Fars
for
angle of visibility and intensity. At the time Aero Flash did not. I have no
info that Aero Flash ever increased the output to meet the requirements.
The FAA position is its up to the pilot (not even the owner) to verify that
all required equipment for the flight meets the Fars. Thus its not the DAR's
responsibility when the acft is inspected to verify lighting that is proper
its the builder. Later its who ever is flying the aircraft. The insurance CO
position is if the accident was in any way related to sub standard strobes
your insurance is void. Also at that time the FAA will take
action against you and your pilots license. But there are lots of stories
around about what I am saying is not correct as well as the one that says
carrying a co pilot for part of the flight test
is OK during the first 25-40 hours. Ask the right FAA person and you will
find out there are no cases where passengers of any type are allowed. Dittos
for the strobe intensity. If you can find a commercial strobe with the right
power output its fine for
experimental use. Paul>>
1/09/2005
Hello Paul, I agree with most of your points above, but would like to expand
a bit on the subject of anti collision or strobe lighting approval.
1) Per the FAR's, Sec 91.205 in particular, some equipment on aircraft, even
amateur built experimentals, must be approved.
2) FAR Sec 91.205 (c) (3) (equipment requirements for VFR night flight)
reads: "An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light
system on all U.S. - registered civil aircraft".
3) FAR Sec 1.1 defines approved as follows: "Approved, unless used with
reference to another person, means approved by the Administrator".
4) These three facts raise two issues:
A) Who is going to do the approving of the anticollison light system on an
amateur built experimental aircraft?
B) What process and criteria is that person going to use to do that
approving?
5) I maintain that the person, FAA inspector or DAR, doing the initial
airworthiness inspection of an amateur built experimental aircraft is the
only person authorized by the FAA Administrator to grant that approval in
his name. The approval cannot come from the builder of the aircraft nor any
pilot who may subsequently fly that aircraft.
6) The person doing the initial airworthiness inspection of the aircraft is
guided by his FAA instructions and his training and experience in granting
or not granting airworthiness approval to the aircraft he is inspecting. The
prudent inspector would choose to use the anticollision light criteria
published in FAR Sec 23.1401 by the FAA for use in certifying standard type
certificated aircraft to Part 23 as his criteria for approval, but that
criteria does not specifically apply to amateur built experimental
aircraft.
7) If there is an accident involving an amateur built experimental aircraft
and it can be shown that the anticollision light system contributed to that
accident and that the anticollision light system did not meet FAR Sec.
23.1401 criteria at the time the aircraft was granted its initial
airworthiness inspection then the lawyers will be attempting to assign blame
to everyone, builder, inspector, and pilot, involved depending upon whose
financial interest each lawyer is representing.
8) If there is an accident involving an amateur built experimental aircraft
and it can be shown that the anticollision light system contributed to that
accident and that the anticollision light system met FAR Sec. 23.1401
criteria at the time the aircraft was granted its initial airworthiness
inspection, but did not at the time of the accident then the lawyers will be
attempting to assign blame to the pilot and everyone involved in the
maintenance of the aircraft depending upon whose financial interest each
lawyer is representing.
9) If the pilot can prove that he had the anticollison light system turned
on in 8) above and that it was functioning in a normal manner to his visual
observation it would be difficult to assign blame to him because the light
did not meet some intensity criteria that could only be determined by light
intensity measuring instruments. That difficulty would not stop a lawyer
from attempting to blame the pilot.
OC
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: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't just attach
the alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
>to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
>or should not do this?...Dan Fritz
>Just preventing the battery from being disconnected would help, but would
>cause it's own problems...Eric M. Jones>>
>Mind elaborating on those problems?
Gary,
Being able to disconnect the battery in the event of a crash is viewed as an
important safety item by many. Of course, you and I are not going to crash
so we don't care.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!"
--Clint Eastwood
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: Ideas on Painting Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
I'd say that glare isn't the objectionable
thing seen, but the reflection of a lighter image
in your bubble canopy. When looking up through
the open view of the 601 canopy, my instrument
panel, being a light gray, is sometimes a reflected
distraction that might have been avoided in a darker
panel. If you've not got a wrap-around canopy, you
may not have the reflection to contend with.
Larry McFarland
Do not archive
>> I think it is best if you have the panel painted
>> just the way you like it.
the Boeing 767
>> came with a flat beige color panel.
>> Isn't it nice that we can all paint our panels any
>> way we want?
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
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: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:04 AM 1/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
><mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
>Eric et all
>
>I have a LR3C-14, the B&C external regulator with crowbar. Can Eric's
>gentle disconnect device be used in series? Is it necessary? Is it wise?
Why would you want to? It's not necessary so I guess I would
question the wisdom as well. Problem arise when NO ov protection
is designed into your electrical system. While the risks are
very low, they are not zero and the results are nearly always
unhappy. Crowbar ov protection is but one of a series of
technologies that have come into being since the first
OV protection systems were installed on small aircraft.
The new ones tend to be better than the last one but
there's no value in "upgrading" unless the present system
is troublesome in some manner . . . and two systems in
series only doubles the probability of trouble.
Bob . . .
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: FW: Z13A - Basic question ? Help |
anyone?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
anyone?
At 01:19 PM 1/8/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>
>Using the Z13A diagram for use with a Vans 60 amp int reg. Ordered the
>contactors, etc. from B&C and Todd sent me a S811-1 ID starter contactor
>which apparently does not have provisions for a starter engaged light. It
>has the two large terminals and one small switch terminal. It also costs $40
>as opposed to $26 for a S702-1 which does allow for the starter engaged
>light.
>
>Some confusion on my part. I think that on the Z13A:
>
>The starter contactor would be a S702-1
>The Battery contactor would be a S701-1
>and the OV disconnect is shown as a S701-1
>
>Does this look correct?
>
>Wonder what/why they would have shipped me a S811-1? More costly and fewer
>features? I must be missing something here, what would it be?
Did you order S702-1 or ask for a "kit" . . . the S811-1 is an
STCd contactor that goes into their kits for starters on the
FAA approved starter conversions. I don't think the S811 has
a built in spike suppressor diode either. I'm not sure why
they would substitute it unless they were out of S702-1 contactors
but your perceptions are correct . . . they ARE different in
significant ways not the least of which is price.
Call B&C.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ideas on Painting Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but I had my panel powder
coat a nice deep blue. Very resistant to scratches and had not faded in 7
years. Relatively cheap for what you get, I think mine cost $50. I did
find that the coating was sufficient that I needed to ream some of the paint
away from the lips of the instrument holes to have adequate clearance for
the instrument cases. Most places can match you airframe paint with a powder
coat of the same color/hue.
Ed Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "mark manda" <mark2nite@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ideas on Painting Panel
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: mark manda <mark2nite@yahoo.com>
>
> and I was about to say, the nicest panel I've seen is
> a black crinkle finish and the guy used Harley
> Davidson factory engine paint avail. at the dealer.
>
>
> --- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> > BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/7/2005 12:42:16 P.M. Central
> > Standard Time,
> > alexpeterson@earthlink.net writes:
> >
> > I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's
> > I've seen with a flat black
> > panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is
> > enough glare with other
> > junk in the cockpit, why create more?
> >
> >
> > Good Afternoon Alex,
> >
> > I think it is best if you have the panel painted
> > just the way you like it.
> >
> > Sixty years ago almost all instrument panels were
> > flat black.
> >
> > When I started in the business it was so. When we
> > got the first Douglas
> > DC-6s, they came from the factory with a flat grey
> > color on the panel. Many
> > folks thought that glare would be a problem. As the
> > years went by, most airlines
> > switched away from the flat black. The same is true
> > for most spam can
> > manufacturers. Boeing entered the glass cockpit era
> > with the Boeing 767 and it
> > came with a flat beige color panel.
> >
> > So far, I like the flat beige the best, but who
> > knows what will be next.
> >
> > The only one I really despise is the flat black
> > crinkle finish.
> >
> > Isn't it nice that we can all paint our panels any
> > way we want?
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8502
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Contributions
> > any other
> > Forums.
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
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: | Spike Cathing Diodes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
The recent short thread on spike catching diodes caught my attention, so I
printed the two links Bob Knuckolls posted in reply. Reading them has
spawned a seemingly dumb question, but, once again, I'm not comfortable NOT
asking:
A while back I got two premanufactured diodes from Van's that are made just
for this purpose (Yellow for master relay & blue for starter relay).
Yesterday I read in the instructions that they are 100 Volt diodes.
However, Bob's test results indicated spikes on the order of 300 Volts.
Should I throw the premanufactured ones out & get 300 or 400 volt diodes?
Seems an inescapable conclusion, but am I misunderstanding something?
Thanks In Advance,
Grant Krueger
PS: The recommendations for the list say not to make separate posts just to
say Thank You, so I'll include it here: It is a slow process for me (& I
have a long ways to go), but having this list (and especially the guidance &
patience of Bob Knuckolls) has been, by far, the most valuable resource to
gaining a better understanding (NOT just the 'how', but the 'why') of how
aircraft electrical systems work. Were it not for the list, I almost
certainly would have dumped this project a long time ago. THANK YOU ALL,
but especially to Bob & Matt.
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: Dynon and IFR |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JSMONDAY@aol.com
Does anyone have a Dynon EFIS with out an artificial horizon or DG (vacuum
or electric) and has their experimental plane approved for IFR use? (I know I
will need a heated Pitot tube)
Thanks,
John Monday
KR2S Laguna Beach, CA
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: Wire Separations |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:09 AM 1/7/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have several wire/cable runs that will need to run under the baggage and
>seat floors in an RV-7. So far I have:
>
>Flap Motor
>Strobe cables to power supply
>Strobe power supply power from main bus
>Tail Nav Light power
>Pitch Trim (RAC) cable bundle
>Pitch Servo (TruTrak autopilot)
>Transponder Antenna RG-400
>
>What can I bundle together? The only constraint I know of is a possible
>separation of the autopilot servo wires from the strobe cabling. I would
>like to divide these into two bundles with XPNDR coax and Autopilot in one,
>then the other in the second bundle.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jim
You can bundle all of these together. All of these wires
(with the exception of the locally grounded strobe) are
not particularly vulnerable to nor to they generate magnetic
noises that couple into adjacent wires. Run them all together
and in the unlikely event that you have some strobe interference
then you can add a filter at the strobe or run a separate ground
for the strobe in the same bundle with the rest of the wires.
If you want to improve on the probability of a quiet system
in the first try, run strobe power AND grounds in the same
bundles and ground the strobe at the single point ground
on the firewall.
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: | Fuel Gauge VS PTT |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
I have a EI capacitance fuel gauge in my RV-8. Recently I noticed that the
indicators lights for the right side read empty when I key the PTT switch.
When I'm done transmitting, it returns to an accurate value. Cool, eh? Is
this likely a ground issue? When first powered on, the gauge does a self
test and will show OPEN if there is a ground issue, but mine passes the self
test. Has anyone else seen this?
Thanks,
-
Larry Bowen, RV-8 53.2 hours
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynon and IFR |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
John,
You've described my panel. But...unless you have ancient operating
limitations, you don't need specific "approval" for IFR. Part 91 IFR
equipment conformance constitutes eligibility, at least according to my op
lims. What do your op lims say about IFR?
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <JSMONDAY@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon and IFR
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JSMONDAY@aol.com
>
> Does anyone have a Dynon EFIS with out an artificial horizon or DG (vacuum
> or electric) and has their experimental plane approved for IFR use? (I
know I
> will need a heated Pitot tube)
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Monday
> KR2S Laguna Beach, CA
>
>
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: Fuel Gauge VS PTT |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "earl_schroeder@juno.com" <earl_schroeder@juno.com>
-- "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com> wrote:
>I have a EI capacitance fuel gauge in my RV-8. Recently I noticed >that the
>indicators lights for the right side read empty when I key the PTT >switch.
>When I'm done transmitting, it returns to an accurate value.
My home made Capacitance gauges do the same thing. So far, I've just accepted
it and found that I don't even notice it anymore. Back when I was working at
GE, we noticed our cap level systems(on liquid level storage tanks) would bounce
if a two way radio was keyed near the Cap transmitting device. I may try to
fix it but it is WAY down on my list. Earl
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: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
I can't address the Dynon question (however, I am definitely interested in
the answer) but (and I'm not advocating flying in icing conditions with
inadequate equipment) I can tell you that the heated pitot tube requirement
is listed ONLY in . . . .
Part 91 GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Appendix A--Category II Operations: Manual, Instruments, Equipment, and
Maintenance
Sec. A91.2
2. Required Instruments and Equipment.
The instruments and equipment listed in this section must be installed in
each aircraft operated in a Category II operation. This section does not
require duplication of instruments and equipment required by Sec. 91.205 or
any other provisions of this chapter.
<snip>
(10) For Category II operations with decision heights below 150 feet either
a marker beacon receiver providing aural and visual indications of the inner
marker or a radio altimeter.
(b) Group II. (1) Warning systems for immediate detection by the pilot of
system faults in items (1), (4), (5), and (9) of Group I and, if installed
for use in Category III operations, the radio altimeter and autothrottle
system.
(2) Dual controls.
(3) An externally vented static pressure system with an alternate static
pressure source.
(4) A windshield wiper or equivalent means of providing adequate cockpit
visibility for a safe visual transition by either pilot to touchdown and
rollout.
(5) A heat source for each airspeed system pitot tube installed or an
equivalent means of preventing malfunctioning due to icing of the pitot
system.
Source:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/D32161
D5DEDD635A86256DC000527BAA?OpenDocument&Highlight=pitot
Of course if you intend to shoot Cat II approaches in your Bugsmasher
Special. . . . . :)
An on-line search of the FARs finds no other reference to heated pitot tube
except that shown above in Part 91, and the other parts don't apply to OBAM
aircraft.
A search of Sec. 91.205 does not even find the word "pitot."
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
JSMONDAY@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon and IFR
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JSMONDAY@aol.com
Does anyone have a Dynon EFIS with out an artificial horizon or DG (vacuum
or electric) and has their experimental plane approved for IFR use? (I know
I
will need a heated Pitot tube)
Thanks,
John Monday
KR2S Laguna Beach, CA
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: KX-125 Problem Solved |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 7, 2005, at 12:28 PM, Nightingale Michael wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Nightingale Michael"
> <NightingaleMichaelV@JohnDeere.com>
>
>
> A couple listers recommended we check to make sure there was a jumper
>> between Pins H and J. Sure enough.... no jumper! The builder/owner
>> had
>> indeed overlooked the jumper when he wired/installed the harness.
>
>
> This jumper is between VOR/LOC in & VOR/LOC out. It then must go to
> remote devices.
Not necessarily. It is there so you can get at the composite signal or
provide another signal to the VOR/LOC converter. (No, I can't think of
why you would really want do this but someone might.)
> Was flag at the VOR/LOC CDI in the center of the KX125 or in a remote
> CDI? I'm running a KX125 as a stand alone, is the jumpper still
> needed?
Probably. The two pins are probably the composite VOR signal output
from the receiver and the input to the VOR/LOC converter. If there is
no jumper there is no VOR operation.
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 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: Ideas on Painting Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dean" <dvanwinkle@royell.net>
Alex
Years ago, I was taking night Instrument Dual in a Cessna 172 with an all
black instrument panel. The nighttime visual image sensation that I
experienced, I think was best described by a writer in a major aviation
magazine of that time. His description of the image (IIRC) was that of
"numerous small white objects floating in a sea of black". I have always
preferred a lighter colored panel so that each instrument image has a stand
alone effect, especially at night. I certainly will not criticize your
choice of black when you are happy with it. It is great that we have the
freedom to make those choices. Just my $ .02.
Dean Van Winkle Retired Aeronautical Engineer
RV-9A Fuselage/Finish
----- Original Message ----- > > >
> >> > > alexpeterson@earthlink.net writes:
> > >
> > > I'm curious, why do I have one of the only RV's
> > > I've seen with a flat black
> > > panel? I wouldn't consider anything else. There is
> > > enough glare with other
> > > junk in the cockpit, why create more?
> > >> > >> > >
> > >
> > > -> > __________________________________>
>
>
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: Crinkle Finish Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Ha. I'm with you on the crinkle finish, Old Bob. I wouldn't have that
finish on my panel for any reason.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:14:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Just a question, have you ever owned an airplane with a panel that had
crinkle paint?
I hate that finish!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
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! --
|