Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:03 AM - Re: Dynon and IFR (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
2. 05:31 AM - Re: Nuts, Bolts Battery Terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:32 AM - Re: Spike Cathing Diodes (Ken)
4. 05:33 AM - MB splitter (Glen Matejcek)
5. 05:34 AM - Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 05:50 AM - Re: Spike Cathing Diodes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 06:09 AM - Re: MB splitter (Wayne Sweet)
8. 06:54 AM - Re: Load dump and shutdown procedures (Brian Lloyd)
9. 07:01 AM - Cat-II in Cat-I airplanes (was: Dynon and IFR) (Brian Lloyd)
10. 07:11 AM - Re: MB splitter (Brian Lloyd)
11. 07:17 AM - Zeftronics Regulators? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
12. 07:20 AM - Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Mickey Coggins)
13. 08:20 AM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (Paul Messinger)
14. 09:02 AM - Kx 125 problem (Charles Heathco)
15. 09:06 AM - Heated Pitot Tubes ()
16. 09:06 AM - Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Ronald J. Parigoris)
17. 09:30 AM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 09:48 AM - Re: Aeroflash ()
19. 09:48 AM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (CozyGirrrl@aol.com)
20. 09:50 AM - LED position light package (Bob Kuc)
21. 09:55 AM - Re: Kx 125 problem (Larry Bowen)
22. 09:59 AM - Re: Kx 125 problem (Matt Prather)
23. 10:09 AM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (Malcolm Thomson)
24. 10:18 AM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (B Tomm)
25. 10:18 AM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (James Redmon)
26. 10:53 AM - Re: LED position light package (Jerzy Krasinski)
27. 11:21 AM - LED position light package (Mickey Coggins)
28. 01:04 PM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (CozyGirrrl@aol.com)
29. 01:42 PM - Fw: LED position light package (cgalley)
30. 01:43 PM - Mic talk switch (GEORGE INMAN)
31. 01:50 PM - Re: Mic talk switch (Harley)
32. 02:03 PM - Re: Fw: LED position light package (Matt Prather)
33. 02:10 PM - Re: Fw: LED position light package (cgalley)
34. 02:30 PM - Re: Fw: LED position light package (bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com)
35. 03:29 PM - Re: Modified Z-12 comments (James Redmon)
36. 03:47 PM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (James Redmon)
37. 04:06 PM - Re: LED position light package (Brian Kraut)
38. 04:09 PM - Re: Heated Pitot Tubes (CozyGirrrl@aol.com)
39. 04:46 PM - Re: LED position lights (Eric M. Jones)
40. 05:24 PM - Re: LED position light package (Jerzy Krasinski)
41. 05:31 PM - Re: Re: LED position lights (Matt Prather)
42. 05:42 PM - Cookin bosch relays (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
43. 05:52 PM - Re: MB splitter (Paul McAllister)
44. 06:01 PM - Re: Cookin bosch relays (Matt Prather)
45. 06:14 PM - Re: Cookin bosch relays (Robert McCallum)
46. 06:15 PM - Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
47. 06:40 PM - Re: LED position lights (Eric M. Jones)
48. 06:47 PM - Re: Cookin bosch relays (Eric M. Jones)
49. 07:04 PM - Re: Cookin bosch relays (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
YES.
Approved by a very smart, good looking, knowledgeable FAA/PMA/TSO'd
manufacturer.
ME!
Mike
DO NOT ARCHIVE.
-----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 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: Nuts, Bolts Battery Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:45 AM 1/9/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> 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?
Many new batteries come with hardware for installing terminals
but as long as there is no corrosion on old hardware . . . it can
be reused. If the battery terminals are "hard" (not made
of lead) then clean hardware with recommended installation
torques (see AC43-13) is fine. If the posts are made of lead,
just clean mated surfaces to bright and tighten to recommended
torques for hardware UNLESS there is obvious deformation
(squashing) of the lead. If the lead moves, then stop tightening
as soon as you perceive it. Note what torque produced the deformation
and use that value in the future.
The ideal joint make-up especially for soft posts is to
us a Belleville washer. These are spring disks that you
simply snug up the fastener and then rotate the nut x
turns to compress the washer to about 20% of its full
height. These are commonly used throughout the power
distribution industry to maintain constant pressures
on certain joints in spite of temperature variability
in the mated materials.
I don't have the time right now to research a hardware
combination for using Belleville washers . . . perhaps
someone on the list with some understanding of the
physics involved can crunch the numbers and then
recommend a washer for lead posts along with terminal
sizes (which sets area of the mated connections).
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spike Cathing Diodes |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Grant
The voltage rating is the ability of the diode to exist while it is
doing nothing in this application. Its ability to resist reverse voltage
without doing anything or shorting or failing. Since the operating bus
voltage is around 14 volts, what you have is just fine and a higher
voltage would be of no benefit. Ask again if that doesn't answer your
concern.
I believe the spikes you are referring to are without the diode in the
circuit. With the diode those spikes are reduced to less than one volt
as when the diode conducts (turns on) the voltage across it is 0.6 volts
nominal in the forward direction. Thus the spike is shorted and
eliminated and never goes to a significant value. The diode is a
unidirectional switch for electricity - a one way valve. When it is on
there is very little pressure or voltage across it.
If you were using the diode in 120 volt ac mains where it blocks 120
volts (rms) 60 times every second (N. America), you'd need a higher
voltage rating.
Ken
Tinne maha wrote:
>--> 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
>
>
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 |
|
0.50 MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi All-
I need some guidance for my antenna configuration. I've checked the archives and
don't find anything relevant. My basic plan is to use gps for enroute and
VOR/loc/gs for terminal ops only. Since the vor etc is for close in work only,
I don't mind some antenna performance degradation, and plan on using an internal
wingtip antenna and a splitter to pull the GS off of the VOR antenna.
My question is, can I reasonably split the MB off of this antenna also, or is
that asking too much?
As ever, TIA for your time and help!
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.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: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:56 AM 1/9/2005 -0500, you 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?
yes . . under the fastener head of any threaded joint.
>Is it recommended to use Tef-Gel on the connection as well?
no . . . but it doesn't hurt. A properly mated joint will
extrude any protectant out of the electrical connection leaving
it surrounding the joint for protection from moisture. Unless
you live on the coast or plan to put your airplane on floats,
adding guckums to the joint has problematical benefit.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Spike Cathing Diodes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:51 PM 1/9/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> 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?
Look at the articles again. The inductive reaction of the load be
it a relay, contactor or alternator field is to generate a large
reversed voltage transient as the magnetic field collapses unrestrained.
The diode sees SYSTEM voltage as a normal reverse voltage component.
Hence, in our 14v airplanes, even the smallest votlage rated device
(50v) would be just fine.
During the transient event, the voltage WOULD go into the hundreds
of volts range if it were not for the forward conduction characteristics
of the diode that limit the excursion to 1 volt or less. This also has
the effect of not allowing current through the inductor to fall instantly
to zero . . . which has some other considerations for relay dropout
times and/or alternator regulation dynamics . . . but thats another
subject.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
You need a separate antenna for a marker beacon since it operates on a
different frequency. A marker antenna looks like a inverted boat. Splitting
NAV and GS is fine, with no degradation in signal, unless you do as I do now
and use a 1 into 4 splitter; I've noted the GS on both OBS's do not lock on
till about 15 nm out on an ILS, where the LOC is out to 20-25nm.
With my old 1 into 2 before upgrade, both would lockon out at 22-25nm.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: MB splitter
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek"
> <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi All-
>
> I need some guidance for my antenna configuration. I've checked the
> archives and don't find anything relevant. My basic plan is to use gps
> for enroute and VOR/loc/gs for terminal ops only. Since the vor etc is
> for close in work only, I don't mind some antenna performance degradation,
> and plan on using an internal wingtip antenna and a splitter to pull the
> GS off of the VOR antenna. My question is, can I reasonably split the MB
> off of this antenna also, or is that asking too much?
>
> As ever, TIA for your time and help!
>
> Glen Matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
>
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 675 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
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: Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 8, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Messinger wrote:
> With all the discussion on load dump ever wondered why now and not 50
> years
> ago?
Yes.
> One reason is then (and now) I have learned and then taught that the
> alternator was turned on only after the engine was started and both the
> battery and the alternator was only turned off AFTER the engine was
> completely stopped.
I thought that was SOP.
> Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter
> was
> checked during runup by turning the alternator off.
I don't see how this causes a load dump. If you remove the field
excitation the output of the alternator ramps to zero as the existing
B-field in the field collapses. No load dump. Do you get a big
overshoot when you turn it back on?
> Also the alternator and
> master were turned off before shutting down the engine.
That strikes me as rather stupid.
> The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load
> dump.
>
> Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some
> circles???
No idea. It certainly isn't what I teach. I teach mixture>mags>master
in an aircraft with an idle-cut-off in the mixture control and
mags>master in one that doesn't.
> The above does not include emergency or failure conditions.
Of course.
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 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: | Cat-II in Cat-I airplanes (was: Dynon and IFR) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 9, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Rob Housman wrote:
> Of course if you intend to shoot Cat II approaches in your Bugsmasher
> Special. . . . . :)
I think you will find that there is an exception that allows Cat-II
approaches in Cat-I equipped aircraft if the normal approach speed is
below 90 kts. You must demonstrate proficiency by flying an approach to
Cat-II minimums. If you do so at one airport then you are authorized to
perform Cat-II approaches to that airport and that airport only in the
aircraft tested and that aircraft only. If you demonstrated proficiency
at performing Cat-II approaches at two different airports then you are
authorized to fly that aircraft to Cat-II minimums at any Cat-II
airport in the US.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Jan 10, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Glen Matejcek wrote:
> I don't mind some antenna performance degradation, and plan on using
> an internal wingtip antenna and a splitter to pull the GS off of the
> VOR antenna. My question is, can I reasonably split the MB off of
> this antenna also, or is that asking too much?
It should work but my suggestion is to try it and see. Fly it that way
in VFR conditions and make sure everything works the way you expect.
Someone may suggest that the marker beacon works at a completely
different frequency (it does -- 75MHz) and therefore will not work with
a VOR antenna cut for 108-118 MHz. But if you think about it, the
transmitter is outputting 50W into a directional antenna only about
2000' away. Your MB receiver should be able to hear that signal with a
wet noodle as an antenna.
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: | Zeftronics Regulators? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott@cox.net>
I've been lurking here for some time and am surprised to see no mention
of the Zeftronics regulators (alternator controllers). They seem to
offer pretty good features at an attractive price, about 1/2 of the B&C
versions. Perhaps their technology is not up to speed? For example,
the R15V00 Rev A offers low voltage warning, field-ground fault
protection and over-voltage protection, along with a neat visible
trouble-shooting light. I had one on my last airplane for many years
with no problems. Comments?
Andy Elliott
Lycoming owner, Corvair wannabe!
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: | Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Thanks! They list it as "Phosphorous Bronze", which threw me.
Best regards,
Mickey
Harley wrote:
> --> 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?
>>>
>>>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Good points however I was unable to find any FAA or DAR that said their
inspection went beyond the day vfr flight and stated that the general escape
wording used was other flights must be equipped per fars.
Not exact words but 100% said they did not check nor were resopnsible for
proper equipment that might be required in variour phased of flight.
Agree legals will try to get everyone. Porblem is if the equipment does not
meet fars and an accident happens the INS CO will disavow all
responsibility.
Paul
BTW It does look like Aeroflash has finally gotten it together.
I find the 4 flash much better than double for visibility and single sucks.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco" <cheathco@comcast.net>
I followed the recent post re the jumpers and thought i would get oppinion
on my problem. Couple weeks ago after fooling with the Nav a little bit,
then returning from the flight I noticed a growing hiss in my comm as I came
down. Afterpoking around nearly taking the radio out I just happened to turn
the Nav vol control down. and the hiss (white noise) disapeared. It sounded
like having no antena conn. I hooked it to another ant, no change. As long
as I keep the nav vol off Im ok. Could this be something simple or does it
sound like it needs to go to the shop? Charlie heathco Atl.
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: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously 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.....skip..... Rob Housman
1/10/2005
Hello Rob, FAR Part 23, which deals with the airworthiness certification
requirements for type certificated airplanes, also has heated pitot tube
requirements.
FAR Sec 23.1323 (d) reads "If certification for instrument flight rules or
flight in icing conditions is requested, each airspeed system must have a
heated pitot tube or an equivalent means of preventing malfunction due to
icing."
Since Part 23 does not apply to amateur built experimental aircraft that
paragraph is not binding on the amateur builder or the initial airworthiness
inspector. However such inspectors, as representatives of the FAA
Administrator, are given significant powers during the inspection. It would
not surprise me if an inspector of an amateur built experimental airplane
for its initial airworthiness certificate that was equipped in every other
regard for IFR, but did not have a heated pitot tube, would find some way
to "influence" the builder to incorporate a heated pitot tube.
How strongly an inspector feels about this issue would be dependent upon the
individual inspector.
OC
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: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Thanks Bob
"unless live on the coast or plan to put your airplane on floats, adding guckums
to the
joint has problematical benefit"
What problematical benefit?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/2005 11:06:41 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
Hello Rob, FAR Part 23, which deals with the airworthiness certification
requirements for type certificated airplanes, also has heated pitot tube
requirements.
Good Morning OC,
I think it is appropriate that we remember that not all certificated
airplanes that are legal for IFR flight must have a heated pitot tube.
The original model 35 Bonanzas came from the Beech factory with a Beech
developed pitot tube that was said to be ice resistant, but that was not heated.
Most of the Piper TriPacers after 1953 came from the factory equipped for
legal IFR flight and did not have any pitot heat.
Those airplanes, and many of the same era, are still legal to be flown IFR
without pitot heat.
As to the advisability of doing so, that is still, as I think it should be,
the choice of the operator.
As one anecdotal comment, I flew a lot of IFR in both the early Bonanzas and
the early TriPacers.
I found that the pitot would ice up in the TriPacer at the very first sign
of any ice at all. The Bonanza didn't lose the airspeed until the wings had a
half inch or so of ice.
Nether airplane presented any particular problem to maintaining adequate
attitude control after the loss of the airspeed by using other available
equipment.
While I encourage the use of pitot heat in any airplane that is planned to
be heavily operated in icing conditions, I don't think it should be a mandatory
item of equipment for an airplane to be flown IFR.
Most IFR is not done in icing conditions.
There is valid reasoning that says using pitot heat, if available, may help
reduce the amount of moisture that gets into the pitot system, but many
airplanes have flown many hours in heavy precipitation without pitot heat.
On those rare occasions when a little ice is encountered when not planned, a
small stable airplane like a Pacer is no problem at all. An RV or a Lancair
would probably be a bit more difficult to handle, but it should be just
another of those decisions that are made by the operator, not one that is forced
upon us by regulation.
Just my comments!
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
Subject: Aeroflash
>I saw your post on Aero-Electric group. This same "aeroflash" issue came
>up
> in the Cozy canard group.
>
> Per the FARs, you need to have an anti-collision light, but it need not be
> strobe lights. It can be a red beacon. But, but, but....if you have
> strobe
> lights installed, you MUST use them at night. You're not penalized if you
> don't have them, but you are penalized if you have them and don't use
> them.
> Paradox, huh?
>
> The aeroflash units were originally intended to be a replacement unit for
> older Cessnas. As yes, they unfortunately do not "meet" the FAA's
> latest/greatest lighting specs. Why they continue to sell to homebuilders
> without telling us that is beyond me. Wayne Hicks Cozy IV Plans #678
1/10/2005
Hello Wayne, Thanks for your input. I agree, an anticollision light system
can consist of either a rotating beacon or strobe light system and the
anticollision light system must be an approved system in order for it to be
installed on type certificated aircraft. See FAR Sec. 91.205 (c) (3) for
details.
Can I provide some clarification regarding use of anticollision lights?
FAR Sec 91.209 (b) on aircraft lights reads as follows: "No person may:
Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system,
unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision
lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that,
because of operation conditions, it woud be in the interest of safety to
turn the lights off."
Three clarification points, if I may:
1) The requirement to have the anticollision lights on is the same in the
day time as it is at night.
2) Turning the anticollision system lights off while in IMC to avoid
disorienting reflections from the flashes would be considered an acceptable
and normal practice.
3) Approved anti collision light systems are required by FAR Sec. 91.205 (c)
(3) for amateur built experimental aircraft as well as for type
certificated aircraft. But since there are no certification criteria
published for amateur built experimental aircraft there is some gray area as
to who will do the approving of anticollision light systems for amateur
built aircraft and what criteria that person will use in his approval
process. See my posting of 1/09/2005 on this issue.
OC
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: Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the one
straight one we found was 24v.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: | LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
Does anyone have any experience with these LED position ligths with
replaceable strobes. Their web site is https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/
. There is a technical pdf doc on their web site that they use to explain
how their LED system meets the FAR's requirement. However, not being of an
electrical background, I have no way of proving that what they state is
valid or not. I was looking at their LED-002 product specifically, and with
their package with strobes and powerpack it seems kind of attactive.
Wick also resells the package, but then that does not mean that it is still
a viable option.
Bob
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Reminds me of an option on my SL30, which may or may not apply to the
kx125. Anyway, on the SL30 you can set it up so that the two audios, comm
and nav, mix. Once I realized this I set my nav mix setting (probably
called something else in the manual) zero, and my noise went away.
-
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Charles Heathco said:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> I followed the recent post re the jumpers and thought i would get oppinion
> on my problem. Couple weeks ago after fooling with the Nav a little bit,
> then returning from the flight I noticed a growing hiss in my comm as I
> came
> down. Afterpoking around nearly taking the radio out I just happened to
> turn
> the Nav vol control down. and the hiss (white noise) disapeared. It
> sounded
> like having no antena conn. I hooked it to another ant, no change. As long
> as I keep the nav vol off Im ok. Could this be something simple or does it
> sound like it needs to go to the shop? Charlie heathco Atl.
>
>
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: Kx 125 problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Have you checked for the hiss when you have the NAV tuned to a
frequency that allows for good reception of a local VOR transmitter?
With the NAV volume control turned up, you should here the VOR
station transmitted in Morse code. If the NAV isn't actually receiving
a VOR signal, it is normal to here static when the NAV volume is
turned up. Does that make sense?
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Charles Heathco"
> <cheathco@comcast.net>
>
> I followed the recent post re the jumpers and thought i would get
> oppinion on my problem. Couple weeks ago after fooling with the Nav a
> little bit, then returning from the flight I noticed a growing hiss in
> my comm as I came down. Afterpoking around nearly taking the radio out
> I just happened to turn the Nav vol control down. and the hiss (white
> noise) disapeared. It sounded like having no antena conn. I hooked it
> to another ant, no change. As long as I keep the nav vol off Im ok.
> Could this be something simple or does it sound like it needs to go to
> the shop? Charlie heathco Atl.
>
>
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: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mdthomson@attglobal.net>
Just have Greg make you one!
Are you flying yet?
Malcolm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heated Pitot Tubes
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the
one
straight one we found was 24v.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: | Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
I've straight ones on ebay.
What's the deal with the high prices for new L shaped heated tubes?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: CozyGirrrl@aol.com [SMTP:CozyGirrrl@aol.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heated Pitot Tubes
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the one
straight one we found was 24v.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
I never found any during my searches so I made my own and used a 12v Cessna
heating element.
See details: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut41.htm
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <CozyGirrrl@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Heated Pitot Tubes
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
>
> Anyone know of a source for straight heated pitots in 12v?
> All the ones we have managed to find are 90 deg L shaped and I think the
> one
> straight one we found was 24v.
> ...Chrissi
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: LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski@provalue.net>
Bob Kuc wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>Does anyone have any experience with these LED position ligths with
>replaceable strobes. Their web site is https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/
>. There is a technical pdf doc on their web site that they use to explain
>how their LED system meets the FAR's requirement. However, not being of an
>electrical background, I have no way of proving that what they state is
>valid or not. I was looking at their LED-002 product specifically, and with
>their package with strobes and powerpack it seems kind of attactive.
>
>Wick also resells the package, but then that does not mean that it is still
>a viable option.
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
I would be careful with such an item. If it is not FAA certified, the
FAA inspector's might approve it, or he might not, it is his choice,
and many of them try to cover the buttt. So, if you want to play a
lottery....
My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
had to replace them. These lights are worth several hundred dollars and
you might loose the money, while you can get TSO'd Grimes lights on ebay
for much less.
Jerzy
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: | LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
> lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
> the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
> had to replace them.
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
in some way?
Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/2005 12:19:35 PM Central Standard Time,
james@berkut13.com writes:
I never found any during my searches so I made my own and used a 12v Cessna
heating element.
See details: http://www.berkut13.com/berkut41.htm
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
Dear James,
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT !!! exactly what we are looking for and way so
easy to make. OK, you can take full credit for making the nose of our Cozy look
so cool when we are done.... now, how much does it draw?
Thanks, Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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: | LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
FYI It is unfortunate that rather than stand up for what is right, a
builder will capitulate to the demands of the inspector EVEN though the
inspector is wrong. The Builder gets antsy, wants to fly without further
delay so he easily gives in when he doesn't have to.
Cy Galley
EAA Safety Programs Editor
Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris@eaa.org>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no requirement
that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental aircraft be manufactured
under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no specific regulatory
requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
The truth is, SAE and ASTM standards for seat belts are far more stringent
than TSO requirements, so auto or racing belts are actually much better than
aircraft belts anyway!
Cheers!
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org]
Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
TSO for seat belts for a homebuilt? I thought that there were other
qualifiying numbers from the automotive field that were even stronger than
the FAA TSO.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
<mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> > My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
> > lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
> > the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
> > had to replace them.
>
> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
> of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
> in some way?
>
> Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "GEORGE INMAN" <ghinman@allstream.net>
This may be a dumb question,
but if there is only one push to talk switch
for a headset.what do you do if you only
want to talk to a pasenger and not
transmit on the radio?
GEORGE H. INMAN
ghinman@allstream.net
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mic talk switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
It's been awhile since I used it, but if I remember correctly, my
intercom is voice activated...just talk, and the passenger and pilot can
communicate...if a transmission comes in, or if you push the push to
talk button, the passenger's mike is cut out.
Harley
GEORGE INMAN wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "GEORGE INMAN" <ghinman@allstream.net>
>
> This may be a dumb question,
> but if there is only one push to talk switch
> for a headset.what do you do if you only
> want to talk to a pasenger and not
> transmit on the radio?
>
>GEORGE H. INMAN
>ghinman@allstream.net
>
>
>
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: | Re: LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Agreed.
A good way to get around this is to play dumb. Ask the inspector to
show you the regulation that applies and explain it to you. Your argument
should be that you need to understand the situation well enough that you
can correctly comply with the requirement. This is all for education, right?
You are paying him (either as a private arrangement, or via your taxes)
to be the expert. Make him work for it.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> FYI It is unfortunate that rather than stand up for what is right, a
> builder will capitulate to the demands of the inspector EVEN though the
> inspector is wrong. The Builder gets antsy, wants to fly without
> further delay so he easily gives in when he doesn't have to.
>
> Cy Galley
> EAA Safety Programs Editor
> Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris@eaa.org>
> To: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
>
> Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no
> requirement that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental aircraft be
> manufactured under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no specific
> regulatory requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
>
> The truth is, SAE and ASTM standards for seat belts are far more
> stringent than TSO requirements, so auto or racing belts are actually
> much better than aircraft belts anyway!
>
> Cheers!
>
> Joe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org]
> To: Joe Norris
> Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
>
> TSO for seat belts for a homebuilt? I thought that there were other
> qualifiying numbers from the automotive field that were even stronger
> than the FAA TSO.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>>
>> > My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
>> lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers
>> on the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts
>> and I had to replace them.
>>
>> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
>> of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
>> in some way?
>>
>> Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
>>
>> --
>> Mickey Coggins
>> http://www.rv8.ch/
>> #82007 Wiring
>>
>>
>
>
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: LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
This might work but all the inspector might have to do is write it into your
operating limitations. But I really don't know.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> Agreed.
>
> A good way to get around this is to play dumb. Ask the inspector to
> show you the regulation that applies and explain it to you. Your argument
> should be that you need to understand the situation well enough that you
> can correctly comply with the requirement. This is all for education,
right?
> You are paying him (either as a private arrangement, or via your taxes)
> to be the expert. Make him work for it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
> VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> >
> > FYI It is unfortunate that rather than stand up for what is right, a
> > builder will capitulate to the demands of the inspector EVEN though the
> > inspector is wrong. The Builder gets antsy, wants to fly without
> > further delay so he easily gives in when he doesn't have to.
> >
> > Cy Galley
> > EAA Safety Programs Editor
> > Always looking for ideas and articles for EAA Sport Pilot
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris@eaa.org>
> > To: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> >
> >
> > Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no
> > requirement that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental aircraft be
> > manufactured under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no specific
> > regulatory requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
> >
> > The truth is, SAE and ASTM standards for seat belts are far more
> > stringent than TSO requirements, so auto or racing belts are actually
> > much better than aircraft belts anyway!
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> > Joe
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cgalley [mailto:cgalley@qcbc.org]
> > To: Joe Norris
> > Subject: Fw: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> >
> >
> > TSO for seat belts for a homebuilt? I thought that there were other
> > qualifiying numbers from the automotive field that were even stronger
> > than the FAA TSO.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
> >
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> > <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> >>
> >> > My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
> >> lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers
> >> on the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts
> >> and I had to replace them.
> >>
> >> Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
> >> of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
> >> in some way?
> >>
> >> Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mickey Coggins
> >> http://www.rv8.ch/
> >> #82007 Wiring
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com
That is my initial question. Since the gs-air booklet explains how it meets the
FAR with the LED lighting. This should be sufficient to show the inspector
the document, if need be.
Bob Kuc
> A good way to get around this is to play dumb. Ask the inspector to
> show you the regulation that applies and explain it to you. Your
> argumentshould be that you need to understand the situation well
> enough that you
> can correctly comply with the requirement. This is all for
> education, right?
> > Contrary to what some FAA inspectors seem to believe, there's no
> > requirement that seat belts or harnesses in an experimental
> aircraft be
> > manufactured under a TSO authorization. In fact, there's no
> specific> regulatory requirement for seat belts of any kind!!
> >
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modified Z-12 comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Is no one going to take a stab at this?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
> <james@berkut13.com>
>
> I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring his
> plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux battery
> wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
> "modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I
> would
> not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
>
> The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second
> battery
> and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the
> switching
> of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run off
> the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
>
> For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously
> activates
> the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates
> the
> aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single "master"
> switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
> alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to send
> power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the
> e-bus
> can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch.
> However,
> there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
> battery.
>
> Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
> modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
> holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
> opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
>
> Thanks!
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY PERFECT !!! exactly what we are looking for and way so
> easy to make. OK, you can take full credit for making the nose of our Cozy
> look
> so cool when we are done.... now, how much does it draw?
> Thanks, Chrissi
It's a 12v, 80w element so it pulls about 7amps - I have it on a 10amp fuse.
It works great and it gets VERY hot on the ground.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
Just like the heated pitot for IFR, you can leave them off on the initial
inspection and add them later. Then the "appropriately equipped for
night/IFR" clause in your operating limitations kicks in.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jerzy
Krasinski
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LED position light package
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski
<krasinski@provalue.net>
Bob Kuc wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Kuc" <bkuc1@tampabay.rr.com>
>
>Does anyone have any experience with these LED position ligths with
>replaceable strobes. Their web site is https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/
>. There is a technical pdf doc on their web site that they use to explain
>how their LED system meets the FAR's requirement. However, not being of an
>electrical background, I have no way of proving that what they state is
>valid or not. I was looking at their LED-002 product specifically, and
with
>their package with strobes and powerpack it seems kind of attactive.
>
>Wick also resells the package, but then that does not mean that it is still
>a viable option.
>
>Bob
>
>
I would be careful with such an item. If it is not FAA certified, the
FAA inspector's might approve it, or he might not, it is his choice,
and many of them try to cover the buttt. So, if you want to play a
lottery....
My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
had to replace them. These lights are worth several hundred dollars and
you might loose the money, while you can get TSO'd Grimes lights on ebay
for much less.
Jerzy
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: Heated Pitot Tubes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CozyGirrrl@aol.com
In a message dated 1/10/2005 5:48:27 PM Central Standard Time,
james@berkut13.com writes:
It works great and it gets VERY hot on the ground.
I suppose that would preclude using it as a handle ? =)
Its looking like all of our loads are up in the nose except the starter.
...Chrissi
_www.CozyGirrrl.com_ (http://www.cozygirrrl.com/)
Cozy Mk-IV RG 13B-turbo
Plans #957 Chapter? big pieces done, details, details
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED position lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I sell LED position lights--someday everyone will. I invite those with an
interest in the subject to look at my paper on the subject--it is a
description of how to build red and green LED position lights.
http://www.periheliondesign.com/downloads/redandgreenledpositionlights.pdf
The FAA's interest is keeping pilots from knocking heads in the dark and we
all have the same interests. My prediction is that many LED position lights
will fail in what is called "far field distribution", since LED luminous
flux is not distributed like most incandescent lamps.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
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: LED position light package |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski@provalue.net>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>
>>My inspector wanted to see TSO numbers on the position lights, I was
>>lucky because I installed Grimes lights. He also wanted TSO numbers on
>>the safety belts. I was less lucky here, I had automotive belts and I
>>had to replace them.
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps this is a dumb question, but is there a list
>of things like this? Things that have to be "certified"
>in some way?
>
>Did you get an FAA employee to do the inspection, or a DAR?
>
>
>
Funny thing, my safety belts were from Velocity company, and these
belts are a part of their kits. I heard that most of the builders did
not have much troubles with that. Probably the key to this issue is to
contact an already tested inspector or DAR, with known requirements.
FAA part 91 operating rules list things that must be approved. But
"approved " can mean different things to different people. The inspector
or DAR can approve your part based on its look and technical data that
you provide. However, he does not have to approve it even if you provide
the most convincing arguments. He might insist on parts which are
already TSO'd. If you do not like decision of the DAR or inspector,
you are free to challenge his decision through the FAA bureaucracy.
Good luck with that, but I thought that your objective was to get the
plane flying soon.
Dealing with my safety belts I found that one can easy get TSOd lap
belts, which in the FAA slang are called safety belts. To my surprise I
found that there were no certified shoulder belts other than aerobatic
harnesses. In addition these things are not even considered a part of
the safety belts. In FAA zhargon they are called "restraining system"
and they have a different TSO number. So, It looked that the only option
was to buy a totally unnecessary TSOd aerobatic restraining system for
big hundreds of dollars. I did some discussion with the DAR and he
agreed to install TSOd lap belts together with the uncertified shoulder
belts from the same company, made of the same materials and using the
same technology. I found such belts and that solved the problem.
My DAR was very competent and nice. He was also very helpful in
preparing the paperwork, where I was totally lost, while it was not his
duty. But he had strong opinion what does it mean "approved" and I had
to replace the belts.
After my experience with the DAR I would certainly recommend the minimum
friction path. I can imagine similar cans of worms when you start
looking for certified electronic equipment. One way to reduce the future
stress might be to contact the DAR well ahead of time and get his input
before you buy anything expensive.
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: LED position lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
snip
> The FAA's interest is keeping pilots from knocking heads in the dark and
> we all have the same interests. My prediction is that many LED position
> lights will fail in what is called "far field distribution", since LED
> luminous flux is not distributed like most incandescent lamps.
>
I think this begs the question, is the reg is well written? I gather that
the your
assessment of the far field distribution is that there are nulls in places
where
there shouldn't be. Does it matter from the standpoint of keeping from
knocking
heads in the dark?
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> Phone (508) 764-2072
> Email: emjones@charter.net
>
> "Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
> James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
> "Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
> Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
>
>
Regards,
Matt-
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: | Cookin bosch relays |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
my essential buss.
Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
the relay. Drawings here:
http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place, and
the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
ground.
I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from the
relay, between the relay and the buss.
When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
wrong?
Mike
S8
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: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
I think Narco used to make a splitter the went straight onto the back of the
NAV122 that split both glideslope and MB off the VOR antenna input. I often
wondered how it worked because the MB frequency isn't a resonant multiple of
the VOR frequencies, but as Brian points out, there is plenty of RF to
overcome the physics of the situation.
Paul
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: Cookin bosch relays |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
It sounds like it must be wired other than how you expect it to be wired. Do
you have a schematic/wiring diagram that shows how you think its hooked
up? I think when you close the switch, you must be inadvertantly shorting
the bus to ground via the high current part of the relay.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS
> Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
> I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
> my essential buss.
> Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
> the relay. Drawings here:
> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
>
> Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place, and
> the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
> relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
> ground.
>
> I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from the
> relay, between the relay and the buss.
>
> When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
> energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
> time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
> wrong?
>
> Mike
> S8
>
>
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: Cookin bosch relays |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Mike;
What does the expression "I cook one" mean?. Are you saying the contacts
melt? The coil overheats? The coil melts open? The case melts? The
terminals become hot? "I cook one" is not a very accurate descriptive
term giving the necessary information as to what your problem is so that
we can offer solutions. Could you also supply a link to the schematic of
exactly how these relays are wired? Also which specific relay has a
problem? Or is it randomly either of the two? It sounds like it's not
wired like you think it is.
Bob McC
Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
>I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
>I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
>my essential buss.
>Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
>the relay. Drawings here:
>http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
>
>Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place, and
>the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
>relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
>ground.
>
>I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from the
>relay, between the relay and the buss.
>
>When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
>energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
>time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
>wrong?
>
>Mike
>S8
>
>
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: | Re: Phosphor-Bronze washers? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:03 PM 1/10/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris"
><rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
>Thanks Bob
>
>"unless live on the coast or plan to put your airplane on floats, adding
>guckums to the
>joint has problematical benefit"
>
>What problematical benefit?
I doesn't hurt but doesn't help either . . . insurance
against invasion by pink hippos but takes $time$ to
install.
Bob . . .
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: LED position lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
emjones@charter.net>
snip
>> The FAA's interest is keeping pilots from knocking heads in the dark and
we all have the same interests. My prediction is that many LED >>position
lights will fail in what is called "far field distribution", since LED
luminous flux is not distributed like most incandescent lamps.
>I think this begs the question, is the reg is well written? I gather that
your assessment of the far field distribution is that there are nulls in
places
>where there shouldn't be. Does it matter from the standpoint of keeping
from knocking heads in the dark?
Matt,
The regs are badly written (please read my paper), however they ARE
extremely well intentioned.
Yes, there may be nulls where there should be light. It could be argued that
this is not entirely bad--but it's not regulation either.
Does it matter? I believe it does. Even if the FAA inspector overlooks it,
you have an obligation to be safe AND to make sure other peoples'
flying-assemblages-of-parts in the sky are safe. Unsafe aircraft do damage
to us all.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
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: Cookin bosch relays |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
<mstewart@iss.net>
>I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
>I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
>my essential buss.
ASSUMING the currents are okay. Check if the relay sockets are okay. They
wear out and cause heating due to high resistance....things go downhill from
there. Usually you can see heating damage on the relay tabs--sometimes you
just have to replace the socket on faith.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"People don't appreciate how very difficult it is to be a princess."
-Princess Diana
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: | Cookin bosch relays |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
www.mstewart.net/super8/panel/index_gif_20.gif
You guys crack me up.
Your right, it was not wired as expected. In the above image, you can
see the diagram of the relay. But in looking at it one more damn time, I
see what the problem was. The diagram in not of the relay, but the
receptacle. Meaning I had the relay coil + & - backwards cause I was not
looking at what I though I was looking at. Worked fine on one relay, but
with a second one in , well I was shorting to ground. After digging in
the wires further, I found that the smoke was from wire insulation under
the relay receptacle not the relay itself. I have run new wires and it
now works great. I was very frustrated that a simple thing like a relay
was giving me such a headache.
So, the issue was I was looking at the receptacle schematic, not the
relay schemetic. I spent many hours messin with this thing. Cant believe
how much time can get burned on such a simple matter.
Thanks team for the help.
I threw 3 relays away. Then after finding out what was happening, I dug
em out of the garbage.
Your
1. Its not wired like you think
2. Look at the schematic again did the trick. The 172 time looking at it
triggered the though.
Did the trick.
Many thanks.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cookin bosch relays
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
It sounds like it must be wired other than how you expect it to be
wired. Do
you have a schematic/wiring diagram that shows how you think its hooked
up? I think when you close the switch, you must be inadvertantly
shorting
the bus to ground via the high current part of the relay.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS
> Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
>
> I have now cooked my 3rd relay and I am getting very irritated.
> I have 2 relays in my buss system, one for my instrument buss, one for
> my essential buss.
> Both are bosch 0 332 019 155 spst 40A relays with diode protection in
> the relay. Drawings here:
> http://order.waytekwire.com/IMAGES/M37/catalog/217_052
>
> Both relay contactors get their source voltage from the same place,
and
> the load side of the relays go to their respective fuse panels. Both
> relays are energized with a simple switch that pulls the relay coil to
> ground.
>
> I have the diode protection for the essential buss down stream from
the
> relay, between the relay and the buss.
>
> When I engage the relays one at a time, either one, they work and
> energize the appropriate buss nicely. If they both are on at the same
> time. I cook one. ARGH! The wiring checks out fine. What am I doing
> wrong?
>
> Mike
> S8
>
>
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! --
|