---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 01/17/05: 32 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:15 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (Werner Schneider) 2. 06:23 AM - Re: WAAS or not (Brian Lloyd) 3. 08:28 AM - Re: WAAS or not (John Schroeder) 4. 08:28 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (D Fritz) 5. 08:32 AM - Re: avionics master (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 08:40 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (D Fritz) 7. 08:56 AM - Re: WAAS or not (Wayne Sweet) 8. 09:31 AM - Re: Dynon Efis (Rob Logan) 9. 09:31 AM - Re: WAAS or Not (Rob Logan) 10. 09:39 AM - Source for Alternator B+ lead (Neil K Clayton) 11. 10:37 AM - Re: WAAS or not (BobsV35B@aol.com) 12. 11:51 AM - Re: Source for Alternator B+ lead (Scott Bilinski) 13. 01:16 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (Werner Schneider) 14. 01:17 PM - Re: Source for Alternator B+ lead (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 15. 01:34 PM - Re: Odyssey Battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 01:40 PM - Re: avionics master (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 02:21 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Jim Oke) 18. 04:10 PM - Type I Contactor (Tinne maha) 19. 04:31 PM - Re: Dynon Efis (James Freeman) 20. 04:40 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Brian Lloyd) 21. 04:50 PM - Encoder test (Richard Suffoletto) 22. 05:11 PM - Cat 5 (Jay Brinkmeyer) 23. 06:15 PM - Speaking of Ultraviolet lights (EMAproducts@aol.com) 24. 06:56 PM - Re: WAAS or not (Wayne Sweet) 25. 07:05 PM - Re: Encoder test (Wayne Sweet) 26. 07:18 PM - Re: Encoder test (James Freeman) 27. 07:33 PM - Re: Encoder test (Larry McFarland) 28. 07:42 PM - Re: Type I Contactor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 29. 08:33 PM - Re: Encoder test (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 30. 08:47 PM - Re: Type I Contactor (Sam Chambers) 31. 09:07 PM - Fuse-link (Bikcrzy@aol.com) 32. 09:27 PM - Re: Encoder test (Paul McAllister) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:15:09 AM PST US From: "Werner Schneider" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" Fritz, what software version are you using, as they have a better sampling rate on the newest one I would love to hear what a new version will perform like in a chandelle type maneuvers. You would need at least version 1.10 (actual is 1.12). Keep us updated Werner BTW did you also compare the BMA EFIS in this conditions? ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Fritz" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz > > For those interested in how well the Dynon unit performs, I will give my impressions after using it for about 125 hours in a Thorp T-18. I bought the Dynon unit to act as backup to my Bluemountain Avionics EFIS-One in the Velocity I'm building. SInce I'm still a ways off from flying the Velocity and I had the Thorp at the time, I decided to mount it in the Thorp for some VFR evaluation of its performance. Overall, I was quite impressed with the performance of the unit AS A BACKUP, but would not launch into the weather with it as my only attitude reference (this was the original D-10 unit). The unit was quite stable in normal IFR flight (minor stepping in attitude as I maneuvered) and would serve just fine to perform an approach to full-stop landing. The unit was actually better than most of the backup attitude indicators I've had in the military aircraft I fly. I subjected the Dynon to a long test involving many 360 degree turns at progressively larger bank angles from 4 > degrees > to 60 degrees (try your patience sometime with a 4 degree banked 360 degree turn!) The Dynon performed flawlessly. However, on initial takeoff and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the unit had significant acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank angles. This may have been addressed in future Dynon revisions; but was enough for me to swear off launching into the weather with only this unit as an attitude reference. This is all in keeping with what the Dynon folks are advertising as they say it is not intended for sole-source IFR flight. They have built a great little unit that I would trust for recovery and have used for several long night flights on moonless nights. > > Dan Fritz > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:42 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Jan 16, 2005, at 11:02 PM, cgalley wrote: > Seems the numbers I heard was that ONE satellite was the cost of ONE > ILS > approach. There are only about 25 satellites but the are many more ILS > approaches. there are at least 2 at our airport alone. I like GPS. It is wonderful. I have an IFR-certified GPS in each of my airplanes. It is not cheap though. The numbers from about five years back are as follows: Annual cost to operate LORAN -- $29M Annual cost to operate GPS -- $400M Cost to deploy GPS -- $10.5B Cost for WAAS was supposed to be -- $1B (it went way over budget) The costs have gone up substantially, especially for WAAS. The Europeans have it right with their system that will do WAAS by transmitting the corrections via LORAN. The nice thing is that their WAAS datalink acts as a backup area navigation. If their satellites go down for whatever reason, you can still find your way to your destination. The way that the FAA is going we will have no backup navigation system. I do not advocate getting rid of GPS -- far from it. We need GPS. It is just that it is monstrously more expensive than either VOR or LORAN for navigation and it is easily jammed. The WAAS system is very poorly designed. What it boils down to is that I *really* want the FAA to keep VOR and/or LORAN navigation around. I don't want to find out that some bad guy has laid hands on one of the $4000 Russian GPS jammers just as I am making a precision VLP approach to minimums on some dark and stormy night after the FAA has 'retired' the VOR and LORAN systems. Someone at the FAA needs to get a clue about systems design. Oh yeah, I forget: "Hi, I'm from the FAA and I am here to help." "Here at the FAA we're not happy until you're not happy!" 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:33 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not From: "John Schroeder" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" Hey guys - I doubt if comparing the cost of installing and maintaining the ILS systems vs. the costs to the FAA of implementing WAAS can be done easily. Nor can we blame the loss of signal when not looking at the southern skies on the FAA, as Rob suggests. As Brian notes, the FAA bears little, if any of the cost of the basic GPS system. The architecture is designed for truly world-wide operations by the DOD - not for 95% reliability of navigation by us good GA users. I also believe that the Coast Guard is OPR for the Loran system. Like so many other items benefitting the citizenry, the DOD picks up the huge tab for this wonderful system - not only for U.S. citizens but for the entire world!! Terrorists, drug runners, thugs included. This phenom (almost complete loss of control of a strategic system by its owner) is probably one of the great case studies of public policy, along with the fairly large chunks of money Congress adds to the DOD budget for breast and prostate cancer research every year. And there are many more tucked away in the thousands of line items in that budget. Don't get me wrong. GPS and its progeny, such as moving maps, is perhaps the single most important technological contribution to general aviation in the last 50 years. Now all we need to do is lobby the Hill; get Congress to add a chunk of money to the DOD bill every year for about a decade and have it earmarked for building a 95% reliable WAAS system for us. :-)) Just some off-the-wall thoughts. Cheers, John Schroeder >> I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each >> for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over >> $2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost >> that much more. > > Hi Brian, > I don't have any reports or anything to refer to, but I remember > reading some time ago that this > was one of the selling points for them > moving towards it. The GPS system is maintained to serve > > multiple uses, not just aviation, so the overall cost to aviation of GPS > is cheaper than the > ILS/VOR/NDB cost times the number of installations at/near airports. > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:36 AM PST US From: D Fritz Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz Yes, the Dynon was completely installed in the system, plumbed to pitot and static and running on ship's power. Incidentally, I was using the internal magnetometer vice the remote option; also, I did not experience any of the noise interference on my radio that other Dynon users had reported. Dan Fritz "I'd like to confirm one thing - did you have the Dynon EFIS connected to the pitot and static systems? The reason I ask is that I understand that they use the airspeed input to partially correct for acceleration errors. The unit might behave strangely if it saw accelerations but no airspeed. Thanks for the Dynon report. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/" --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:32:07 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: avionics master --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 01:05 AM 1/17/2005 +0000, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky) > >if switch failure is still an issue for airplanes operated at the >relatively low frequency of most recreational GA aircraft then why not >just go ahead and replace the switch every 5 years or something and not >worry about it. > >Anyone on the list actually had a toggle switch fail on a GA aircraft? It's NOT just the switch . . . how about wires and terminals that route from the main bus to the "avionics bus"? If you review chapter 17 from the 'Connection at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf . . . then consider what features you'd like for your airplane to carry when things are not going well with the electrical system. One feature of the e-bus concept is DUAL power pathways to the bus . . . one from what SHOULD be the most reliable power source in the airplane; the BATTERY. The second feature is automatic and very simple load-shedding to put the airplane into an ENDURANCE mode of en route operations that will ASSURE comforable arrival at the airport of intended destination . . . not at some remote field less than 30 minutes from your present location. The third feature is driven by the notion that an avionics master switch was conceived based on poor understanding of the relationship between solid state devices -AND- the power generation and distribution system. There is no foundation in physics or good design that calls for installation of what has become popularized as an avionics master switch. Rather than getting bogged down in debating the reliability of any particular switch or associated hardware, why not ASSUME that the switch or wires WILL fail at some point in time . . . What is your "Plan B" for dealing with that situation? I'll suggest that the dual supply path e-bus concept is at least one rational approach . . . if you have others to suggest, let's consider them. But most important: make your design decisions based on understanding of supporting simple ideas and be very wary of ol' hangar tales and well worn traditions that are not supported with physics. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:40:29 AM PST US From: D Fritz Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz Werner, I had one of the early units and updated the software once or twice, probably not up to the 1.10 version. I can't say for sure as I've sold the aircraft and last flew it in May '04. I did not compare these results with the Bluemountain unit since it was not installed in the Thorp. I'll have to wait until the Velocity is flying to do that test; however, I'm told Bluemountain went to great lengths to successfully avoid these errors through the use of GPS aiding in their filters. Dan Fritz --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:56:53 AM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" Brian, The LORAN I flew with for a few years was, well, adequate, but lost track several times in the most inopportune times. I was delighted to remove it and install the first GPS. Since then, zero lost tracks, zero problems with the Apollo 2001, UPS GX50 and now the GNS430. To use LORAN in conjunction with a GPS system is a bit bizarre. VOR's will go the way of NDB's. Never heard of a device that jams GPS signals. How does such equipment interfere with signals from 25 satellites over a wide geographical area? Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > On Jan 16, 2005, at 11:02 PM, cgalley wrote: > >> Seems the numbers I heard was that ONE satellite was the cost of ONE >> ILS >> approach. There are only about 25 satellites but the are many more ILS >> approaches. there are at least 2 at our airport alone. > > I like GPS. It is wonderful. I have an IFR-certified GPS in each of my > airplanes. It is not cheap though. > > The numbers from about five years back are as follows: > > Annual cost to operate LORAN -- $29M > > Annual cost to operate GPS -- $400M > > Cost to deploy GPS -- $10.5B > > Cost for WAAS was supposed to be -- $1B (it went way over budget) > > The costs have gone up substantially, especially for WAAS. > > The Europeans have it right with their system that will do WAAS by > transmitting the corrections via LORAN. The nice thing is that their > WAAS datalink acts as a backup area navigation. If their satellites go > down for whatever reason, you can still find your way to your > destination. The way that the FAA is going we will have no backup > navigation system. > > I do not advocate getting rid of GPS -- far from it. We need GPS. It is > just that it is monstrously more expensive than either VOR or LORAN for > navigation and it is easily jammed. The WAAS system is very poorly > designed. > > What it boils down to is that I *really* want the FAA to keep VOR > and/or LORAN navigation around. I don't want to find out that some bad > guy has laid hands on one of the $4000 Russian GPS jammers just as I am > making a precision VLP approach to minimums on some dark and stormy > night after the FAA has 'retired' the VOR and LORAN systems. Someone at > the FAA needs to get a clue about systems design. > > Oh yeah, I forget: > > "Hi, I'm from the FAA and I am here to help." > > "Here at the FAA we're not happy until you're not happy!" > > 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 > > > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 692 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:31:06 AM PST US From: Rob Logan Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dynon Efis |July 24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:15:51 AM, Serialize by Router on mtasmtp1-clev/P/SERVER/PHILIPS-CLE(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:16:17 AM, Serialize complete at 01/17/2005 11:16:17 AM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan > on initial takeoff and chandelle type maneuvers (such as a closed > pull-up, or first turn out of traffic), the unit had significant > acceleration errors and frequently showed erroneous bank angles. The $15k certified xbow 500 in a lancair will do the same. Its better than any spinning tungsten because the kalman filter level it soon after. (no caging) enough so I take mine IMC with a backup T&B. the trick is to fly GPS barring and track (or Chelton velocity vector) for the first 2mins. Rob ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:31:49 AM PST US From: Rob Logan Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: WAAS or Not |July 24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:16:35 AM, Serialize by Router on mtasmtp1-clev/P/SERVER/PHILIPS-CLE(Release 5.0.11 |July 24, 2002) at 01/17/2005 11:17:11 AM, Serialize complete at 01/17/2005 11:17:11 AM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rob Logan > At airports located in high obstacle fields, the lowest minima will almost > always be via a non precision level flight segment approach. while this is true, a CNX80 loaded with 2.0 software or any Chelton will provide vertical guidance below MDA from FAF to MAP via a perfect to hit dirt (yea its shallow) GS. with a Chelton one can do a "VFR" approach with any angle GS (all the way to dirt) but I'd prefer to take the surveyed path up high. For those that have actually pushed mins, ground lighting is extremely important.. heck, I've gone missed on an ILS twice and then went to an airport with centerline lighting and made it.. Lighting is extremely important. This and another experience makes me note the type of lighting (RAIL) before any approach. The point the original author of the thread was trying to make before it was hijacked was: Does the shutdown of your entire navigator if one very hard to receive SV signal is lost, increase safety? wouldn't some information be better than none? Bob's been waiving the MDA, LPV minima flag for 3+ years to keep us legal, and that's *very* important. but these navigators offer real life advantages, and lets hope that can be improved too. Rob ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:26 AM PST US aeroelectric-list@matronics.com From: Neil K Clayton Subject: AeroElectric-List: Source for Alternator B+ lead --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton I read that the alternator output (B+) lead should be #6 AWG and shielded. I can't find a source for shielded #6 cable. Could someone pls direct me? Is the shielding grounded? both ends? one end? what kind of connection? Thanks Neil ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 10:37:38 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 1/17/2005 10:55:11 A.M. Central Standard Time, jschroeder@perigee.net writes: I doubt if comparing the cost of installing and maintaining the ILS systems vs. the costs to the FAA of implementing WAAS can be done easily. Nor can we blame the loss of signal when not looking at the southern skies on the FAA, as Rob suggests. As Brian notes, the FAA bears little, if any of the cost of the basic GPS system. The architecture is designed for truly world-wide operations by the DOD - not for 95% reliability of navigation by us good GA users. I also believe that the Coast Guard is OPR for the Loran system. Good Points John, Personally, I am just a user and can't comprehend all of the subtleties of finance involved. I just note that it works great and has never failed me even once in over fifteen years of use. I think the fact that it is a worldwide system and relied upon by so many others besides aviation will assure it's being adequately available to all. I have no doubt that there are good reasons to keep the Loran in operation, but I sure hope we GA type do not have to use it at all. When I had my IFR approved LORAN set, it always failed me when I wanted it the most. Every time I was in precipitation, it told me it was unreliable. That has never happened when I was using GPS. I realize just one operators experience doesn't make a valid case for all, but it sure impressed me. All of those brainy techies tell me that with better static wicks, better grounding of aircraft components and a newer, and yet to be developed, antenna, the LORAN problems will be mitigated. I am not so sure that will ever work for us small plane devotees. The last "H" style antenna I saw was so big it could never be used in a Bonanza let alone an RV. I can go to the K-Mart and buy a GPS for one hundred dollars that will work in a torrential downpour and still give me excellent positional accuracy anywhere on the planet Earth. I hope the LORAN dies and pleasant and honorable death. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Airpark LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:51:31 AM PST US From: Scott Bilinski Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for Alternator B+ lead --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Bilinski You can buy shielding sleeve and shield any wire. I have seen it, but dont know where to get it. At 11:23 AM 1/17/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton > > >I read that the alternator output (B+) lead should be #6 AWG and shielded. > >I can't find a source for shielded #6 cable. >Could someone pls direct me? > >Is the shielding grounded? both ends? one end? what kind of connection? > >Thanks >Neil > > Scott Bilinski Eng dept 305 Phone (858) 657-2536 Pager (858) 502-5190 ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:23 PM PST US From: "Werner Schneider" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" Hello Dan, sorry for the name mismatch. Thanks for the update, from whom did you get this message about BMA? I just can remember, that BMA had severe problems even in 30 deg turns until about a year ago. As the 1.10 is from December last years you did fly with the old version of the Dynon. Thx for the update Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: "D Fritz" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz > > Werner, > I had one of the early units and updated the software once or twice, probably not up to the 1.10 version. I can't say for sure as I've sold the aircraft and last flew it in May '04. I did not compare these results with the Bluemountain unit since it was not installed in the Thorp. I'll have to wait until the Velocity is flying to do that test; however, I'm told Bluemountain went to great lengths to successfully avoid these errors through the use of GPS aiding in their filters. > > Dan Fritz > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:17:14 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Source for Alternator B+ lead --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:23 AM 1/17/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neil K Clayton > > >I read that the alternator output (B+) lead should be #6 AWG and shielded. > >I can't find a source for shielded #6 cable. >Could someone pls direct me? > >Is the shielding grounded? both ends? one end? what kind of connection? Where did you read this? I'm aware of no practical reason for shielding any lead wires to or from the alternator. This was done as part of the ADF installation kit on Cessnas back in the 60s. However, the kit also included a noise filter capacitor on the alternator's b-lead . . . Turns out that all benefits of the kit were realized by adding the capacitor. Shielding added nothing but labor and cost. We didn't have the knowledge or tools to deduce this at the time so yet another baseless fabrication philosophy was plowed into the fertile ground of tradition. Leave the shielding off. You're going to be just fine. If you do have a noise problem, it won't be due to lack of shielding on the alternator's wiring. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:34:47 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Odyssey Battery --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:51 PM 1/16/2005 -0500, you wrote: >Bob: > >" but don't lust after an Odyssey > if your budget is limited. There are other practical choices." > >I researched all batteries, and don't know what has changed in 3 months, >but you can get a New PC-680 Odyssey on eBay delivered for about $50 + $15 >shipping. (add $12 for MJ=metal jacket). I know B&C specialties sells a >little 12 volt 16 amp for $120. Ouch! I don't know what brand, they don't >mention it. > >I looked at all options, Panasonic, Power Sonic, Dyna-Bat, Yuasa, Hawker >Genesis (retagged odyssey), Universal, B & B, and a few others and the >Odyssey it the best Value, has the lowest internal resistance, fits the RV >aircraft box and has the better M6 female terminals. > >The "OTHERS" SLA / AGM batteries with the same approx "FIT" cost around >$32-$69 (or more). Why would you want anything else? The El Cheap-O's do >work for most under normal conditions, but one who tried the Odyssey and >then a Cheap-O notice that the cheap battery did not crank as vigorously >as the Odyssey. Likely due to the higher internal resistance, Example is a >Panasonic LC-XB1220P 20 amp does not crank like a 16 amp Odyssey. Also the >"others" have the Tabs, not the nice internal threaded M6 terminals. You >can get some "Other" Batteries with a M5 female terminal but end up >costing about $70. > >The Odyssey is affordable and the best choice; *(Odyssey may-be $12-$20 >bucks diff from the cheapest battery, which has less performance. You get >what you pay for AND shop around.) > >Show me where I am wrong. :- ) There is nothing "wrong" with the Odyssey battery . . . and nothing "wrong" with the selection of any other battery. My caution about designing a premium battery into you airplane is based on the notion that BATTERY MAINTENANCE should include either (1) periodic testing for CAPACITY such that you KNOW the battery will support the e-bus for duration of fuel aboard or (2) periodic replacement of the battery IN SPITE of the fact that it still cranks the engine very nicely. Even if you do periodic CAP TESTS, you'll be swapping the battery out long before it fails to crank the engine. This means that you not only expend $time$ to do the testing, you still swap the battery out before it's "dead". If you use the cheapest battery and swap it out every annual, then you have zero $time$ for testing and you minimize the cost per operating hour for batteries. If one uses a premium battery, there is an underlying desire on the part of most owners to take advantage of the capability of the premium product . . . i.e. run that puppy 'til it croaks just like we do in our cars and most of our airplanes. It depends on what your time and equipment costs are worth. Run the gold-plated battery if you wish but track it for capability and ditch it when capacity falls below your established minimums. Or, run the copper-plated battery for one year and pitch it. This isn't a decision driven so much by battery performance as the economics of $time$. Run any battery you like but please do so with understanding of how that product fits into your operating and maintenance goals. Which one is the better VALUE five years down the road? Bob . . . > >Thanks George > >PS I note that the Max temp specification limit is 45c and 80c, for the >Odyssey PC-680 and PC-680MJ respectively. I guess the $12 bucks for the >extra layer may be good. Any idea of temp under a RV-7 cowl on the firewall? > ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:48 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: avionics master --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:25 PM 1/16/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" > > >For what it's worth, I have had a switch suddenly go open for no >apparent reason (while it was on and supplying power). The failure was >permanent - it would no longer turn on even though it would physically >toggle from off to on and back. Had one do it on a Beechjet last week. In this case, the switch carried TOO LITTLE current and was NEVER operated except in case of emergency . . . the contacts of this $high$ Microswitch product simply went open. I hooked a power supply to it and caused it to carry 20A constant current for a few dozen operations . . . it "recovered" and will probably run well for another 10 years. Bottom line is that the most reliable system design philosophy with respect to switches is figure out a way NOT to have the switch there in the first place. But if you MUST, then USE IT periodically, like every flight. This is the other side of the coin for "advantages" of not having to fiddle with radio switches when there's an avionics master switch in place . . . every radio power switch exists in a non-operating, ageing mode. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:39 PM PST US From: Jim Oke Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke Keep in mind that GPS is not "just" an aviation system and there are many, many other users out there who benefit from GPS (and now WAAS). There are all sorts of applications from tracking pizza delivery vans, agriculture (high tech farmers use GPS guidance to selectively apply chemicals, monitor their harvest, etc.), scientific, surveying, to marine navigation that have evolved from the basic GPS system. This has led to a very large commercial market for GPS based devices, of which aviation is only a relatively small part. Land based military users such as infantry, artillery and tank drivers also probably drove a lot of the requirement in the first place and not aviation users (either civil or military). How to get all these users to pay their "fair share" of GPS costs is a difficult, probably insoluble, political question. The US Govt. seems to have adopted a "we'll be content to fund GPS and reap the benefits indirectly from the extra economic activity" approach vice trying to make it a user pay system. The Europeans are now playing catch up ball with their Galileo system so as not to be left behind. The coming (whenever) GPS II upgrade is likely intended to ensure the United States keeps a jump ahead in commercial GPS applications. Indeed, the politics of these high-tech systems is often just as fascinating as the technology itself! Jim Oke RV-6A C-GKGZ (GPS equipped - of course!) Wpg., MB Do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schroeder" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" > > > Hey guys - > > I doubt if comparing the cost of installing and maintaining the ILS > systems vs. the costs to the FAA of implementing WAAS can be done easily. > Nor can we blame the loss of signal when not looking at the southern skies > on the FAA, as Rob suggests. As Brian notes, the FAA bears little, if any > of the cost of the basic GPS system. The architecture is designed for > truly world-wide operations by the DOD - not for 95% reliability of > navigation by us good GA users. I also believe that the Coast Guard is OPR > for the Loran system. > > Like so many other items benefitting the citizenry, the DOD picks up the > huge tab for this wonderful system - not only for U.S. citizens but for > the entire world!! Terrorists, drug runners, thugs included. This phenom > (almost complete loss of control of a strategic system by its owner) is > probably one of the great case studies of public policy, along with the > fairly large chunks of money Congress adds to the DOD budget for breast > and prostate cancer research every year. And there are many more tucked > away in the thousands of line items in that budget. > > Don't get me wrong. GPS and its progeny, such as moving maps, is perhaps > the single most important technological contribution to general aviation > in the last 50 years. Now all we need to do is lobby the Hill; get > Congress to add a chunk of money to the DOD bill every year for about a > decade and have it earmarked for building a 95% reliable WAAS system for > us. :-)) > > Just some off-the-wall thoughts. > > Cheers, > > John Schroeder > >>> I am not sure that is true. As I recall, it was costing about $40M each >>> for the LORAN and VOR/DME systems per year. GPS maintenance was over >>> $2B per year. Big difference. I can't imagine that the ILS systems cost >>> that much more. >> >> Hi Brian, >> I don't have any reports or anything to refer to, but I remember >> reading some time ago that this > was one of the selling points for them >> moving towards it. The GPS system is maintained to serve > >> multiple uses, not just aviation, so the overall cost to aviation of GPS >> is cheaper than the >> ILS/VOR/NDB cost times the number of installations at/near airports. >> > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 04:10:34 PM PST US From: "Tinne maha" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Type I Contactor --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" Listers, My battery contactor is a Type I, the kind where two flat surfaces come together to supply current through the big wire & one of the flat surfaces is formed by the internal end of the post to which we bolt our ring terminals. I'm sure it works great unless one of the posts is rotated & the flat surfaces are no longer parallel, thus preventing the maximum amount of surface area to come into contact. Well, the other day when tightening a bolt on my battery contactor, the post rotated some. Can anyone suggest how I can be positive that the post is rotated back to the optimum position? Thanks, Grant Krueger ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:31:13 PM PST US From: James Freeman Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dynon Efis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Freeman On Jan 17, 2005, at 1:58 PM, Werner Schneider wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" > > > Hello Dan, > > sorry for the name mismatch. > > Thanks for the update, from whom did you get this message about BMA? I > just > can remember, that BMA had severe problems even in 30 deg turns until > about > a year ago. (snip) Werner, I know from personal experience that's not accurate (not sniping, just trying to squelch a rumor). There have been _lots_ of rumors swirling around most of the EFII. I had one of the earliest EFIS-One boxes (plastic case) which initially had some issues but the in-flight inertial performance was quite good as early as summer of '02. After a software upgrade at that time, I was unable to confuse the EFIS in flight in a Cessna 150 or 337 (I did hook up temporary pitot and GPS inputs) I tried aggressive maneuvering (within the flight envelopes of the cessnas), level acceleration and deceleration, and multiple turns (7 or 8 consecutive 360 degree turns at various bank angles). I was able to consistently confuse the TSOd vacuum gyros installed in the airplanes, but not the EFIS. I have flown a few hours behind an early EFIS Lite in an RV8A, and it works very well, except that you can saturate the sensors in a full-deflection roll. I won't dispute that BMA probably shipped stuff a little too soon, but Greg has worked aggressively to make things right. I was very disturbed after Sam Buchanan had his problems, and flew with my box to Copper hill. Greg bench checked my box, and then went flying with me for more than an hour until I was satisfied that it was working properly. I think his biggest problem right now is production, and the current flight planning and engine monitoring software have significant room for improvement. James Freeman ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:40:25 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: > The LORAN I flew with for a few years was, well, adequate, but lost > track > several times in the most inopportune times. I was delighted to remove > it > and install the first GPS. You had to understand its limitations. The addition of the mid-continent chains and the availability of receivers to track multiple chains eliminated the coverage and geometry problems. > Since then, zero lost tracks, zero problems with > the Apollo 2001, UPS GX50 and now the GNS430. I have had problems with GPS. > To use LORAN in conjunction with a GPS system is a bit bizarre. Actually, it makes perfect sense. They both provide reliable area navigation. GPS has better absolute accuracy and LORAN has astounding repeatability. They work at completely separate frequencies so that a problem that jams one will not affect the other. LORAN is almost impossible to jam because the signal is just so bloody powerful and the required antenna is huge, i.e. hundreds of feet, not something you will cart around in the back of your car. Unlike GPS, you can't carry a LORAN jammer in your briefcase. And as the Europeans have shown, you can combine the two systems and get something much better. You can easily fly an approach to VOR or NDB minimums using LORAN reliably and safely. That is why it makes such a good backup for GPS. > Never heard of a device that jams GPS signals. How does such equipment > interfere with signals from 25 satellites over a wide geographical > area? Since all the satellites share a single frequency, you just need a jammer on that frequency. Since the satellites are so far away (14,000 mi) and transmitting a not-very-powerful signal, someone in a C-172 with the lunchbox-sized Russian 5-watt jamming transmitter could wipe out GPS for the whole of the Los Angeles basin or the whole of the Bay Area. You just have to get high enough that the GPS antennas on the aircraft can see your jammer too. Because the jammer is so much closer, it will completely swamp the signal from the satellites. And an even more devious hack would be to transmit valid but bogus satellite transmissions. You could make a single aircraft fly anywhere you wanted it to just by forcing the signals it hears to be what you want them to be. Imagine taking a single airliner and change the signals it receives so that it flies off-course into higher terrain while all the receivers on the airplane show it tracking the approach. It could be done and if I can think of it ... BTW, the Russsian jamming transmitter was selling for $4000 a couple of years back. They were showing it off at the Tail Hook convention in Reno a couple years back. The whole point of this is not to rant but to help people understand just how fragile GPS is. The way it is currently designed, it cannot be depended on as sole-source navigation where such navigation is life-critical. It is just too easy to make it not work. 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 21 ____________________________________ Time: 04:50:29 PM PST US From: "Richard Suffoletto" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto" This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see if it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages are where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach (not impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before closing it in. I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit difficult due to my location... thanks richard ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:11:09 PM PST US From: Jay Brinkmeyer Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cat 5 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer Cat 5 cable is typically used for Ethernet networks running at 10 or 100 Mbps... More than you want to know here: http://www.lanshack.com/cat5e-tutorial.asp Jay > >Hi All- > > > >Can someone explain to me the significance of cat5 and or cat5e cable? > >What makes it special? When would I want to use it vs a bundle of plain > >old fashioned MS tefzel? > > ===== __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 06:15:48 PM PST US From: EMAproducts@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Speaking of Ultraviolet lights --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: EMAproducts@aol.com Geiger Counters & instrument panels In the '60 & '70's I flew aircraft from L-19, Twin Beech, Twin Bonanza, DC-3/C47's and the F-27 for the US Atomic Energy Commission. I know on the C & D-18's & Gooney birds they used a Geiger counter to try and get the lead "pigs" with the hot material as far forward as possible because of CG. They would move them forward until the counter behind the bulkhead read the same as we got in the cockpit from the instruments. This was on a lakebed in the Nevada Test Site after the underground shots. I hauled the "samples" from the shot to a laboratory, normally taking off the lakebed around 2-3AM, with pickup at far end of strip for lighting, glad I didn't have to return, no other lights for many miles. It must have been OK, I'm still here! Elbie Elbie H. Mendenhall EM Aviation, LLC www.riteangle.com DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 06:56:46 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" I fly regularly with other pilots with GPS equipped aircraft and have not heard a single complaint about GPS signal loss. BTW, I was flying the LORAN (Apollo 618) when all the chains were up. Still lost track one night going into Columbia Airport in the Sierra foothills and departing Arlington, WA. The latter was the last straw. Lost track frequently in the southwest. Have flown across the U.S., down to the southwest and the northwest, never lost track with the GPS. Oh, on one of the initial test flights, did lose track on the Apollo 2001, but a reposition of the antenna solved the problem. Wonder how many other lost tracks in aircraft can be attributed to poor antenna location. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Lloyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: WAAS or not > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > On Jan 17, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Wayne Sweet wrote: > >> The LORAN I flew with for a few years was, well, adequate, but lost >> track >> several times in the most inopportune times. I was delighted to remove >> it >> and install the first GPS. > > You had to understand its limitations. The addition of the > mid-continent chains and the availability of receivers to track > multiple chains eliminated the coverage and geometry problems. > >> Since then, zero lost tracks, zero problems with >> the Apollo 2001, UPS GX50 and now the GNS430. > > I have had problems with GPS. > >> To use LORAN in conjunction with a GPS system is a bit bizarre. > > Actually, it makes perfect sense. They both provide reliable area > navigation. GPS has better absolute accuracy and LORAN has astounding > repeatability. They work at completely separate frequencies so that a > problem that jams one will not affect the other. LORAN is almost > impossible to jam because the signal is just so bloody powerful and the > required antenna is huge, i.e. hundreds of feet, not something you will > cart around in the back of your car. Unlike GPS, you can't carry a > LORAN jammer in your briefcase. > > And as the Europeans have shown, you can combine the two systems and > get something much better. You can easily fly an approach to VOR or NDB > minimums using LORAN reliably and safely. That is why it makes such a > good backup for GPS. > >> Never heard of a device that jams GPS signals. How does such equipment >> interfere with signals from 25 satellites over a wide geographical >> area? > > Since all the satellites share a single frequency, you just need a > jammer on that frequency. Since the satellites are so far away (14,000 > mi) and transmitting a not-very-powerful signal, someone in a C-172 > with the lunchbox-sized Russian 5-watt jamming transmitter could wipe > out GPS for the whole of the Los Angeles basin or the whole of the Bay > Area. You just have to get high enough that the GPS antennas on the > aircraft can see your jammer too. Because the jammer is so much closer, > it will completely swamp the signal from the satellites. > > And an even more devious hack would be to transmit valid but bogus > satellite transmissions. You could make a single aircraft fly anywhere > you wanted it to just by forcing the signals it hears to be what you > want them to be. Imagine taking a single airliner and change the > signals it receives so that it flies off-course into higher terrain > while all the receivers on the airplane show it tracking the approach. > It could be done and if I can think of it ... > > BTW, the Russsian jamming transmitter was selling for $4000 a couple of > years back. They were showing it off at the Tail Hook convention in > Reno a couple years back. > > The whole point of this is not to rant but to help people understand > just how fragile GPS is. The way it is currently designed, it cannot be > depended on as sole-source navigation where such navigation is > life-critical. It is just too easy to make it not work. > > 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 > > > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 693 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 07:05:29 PM PST US From: "Wayne Sweet" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" Always assume you WILL have to get to the avionics and make access an hatche(s) to provide such access. My plans called for riveting the bottom skin panel, but I realize that to access behind the instrument panel would be impossible for all but a 4 foot midget avionics tech., so that bottom skin was screws and nutplates, about 50 of them. It takes 30 minutes to remove it, then the fuel distribution system. Then I can sit on a creeper and get up behind the panel with complete access to all the stuff. I have updated the avionics several times and that one feature made it possible. Otherwise, no way. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Suffoletto" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto" > > > > This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see > if > it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages > are > where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach > (not > impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before > closing it in. > > > I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit > difficult due to my location... > > thanks > > richard > > > I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 693 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now! ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 07:18:16 PM PST US From: James Freeman Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Freeman On Jan 17, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Richard Suffoletto wrote: > Is there any way to test an encoder to see if > it is working? snip > > I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a > bit > difficult due to my location... > snip Jim Weir wrote an article about making an encoder "test box" a few years ago, but I can't seem to find it on the web. Someone may have a copy stashed. If you are building at an airport, see if you can find someone with a well-equipped late model IFR airplane with the BF Goodrich Skywatch. It would be trivial to turn the skywatch on and see if it can see your transponder and (ground) altitude ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 07:33:58 PM PST US From: "Larry McFarland" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" Richard, The encoder has to be tested by an authorized instrument repairman that can tag it for use in controlled airspace. There are methods available for you to do it, but I wouldn't get too excited about that. The system coupled with your altimeter will be tested to 20,000 ft the first time in an installation. Your Airworthiness Cert will require you have this done beforehand. Additionally, I'd recommend you look at making the forward top skin removable so you can check this system and so many others as often as you like. My forward top skin comes off in 10 minutes with my canopy tilted forward so that I can check the engine mount attachments and service the other wiring, plumbing etc. If you're interested in this, both the inspection process is in my journal 7 or 8 along with pictures of the removable forward top skin and how it was done. I've had it off probably 15 times since April of 2004. Site is www.macsmachine.com Good question. Larry McFarland - 601HDS Stratus with Ram Heads at 50 hours. Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto" > > > > This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see > if > it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages > are > where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach > (not > impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before > closing it in. > > > I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit > difficult due to my location... > > thanks > > richard ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 07:42:36 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Type I Contactor --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:50 PM 1/17/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" > >Listers, > >My battery contactor is a Type I, the kind where two flat surfaces come >together to supply current through the big wire & one of the flat surfaces >is formed by the internal end of the post to which we bolt our ring >terminals. I'm sure it works great unless one of the posts is rotated & the >flat surfaces are no longer parallel, thus preventing the maximum amount of >surface area to come into contact. > >Well, the other day when tightening a bolt on my battery contactor, the post >rotated some. Can anyone suggest how I can be positive that the post is >rotated back to the optimum position? You can't without taking the lid off and then it's trash anyhow. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:42 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:34 PM 1/17/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Suffoletto" > > > >This may be a dumb question... Is there any way to test an encoder to see if >it is working? Other than making sure all wiring is correct and votages are >where they should be and proper. My encoder will be difficult to reach (not >impossible) when I put the top skin on so I wanted to check it before >closing it in. > > >I know I can have an Avionics shop come out and test it but that is a bit >difficult due to my location... No real easy way. I use an Airsport transponder receiver and display which you can view at: http://www.airsport-corp.com/ For most transponders, you can lay a 115 vac drillmotor on a stool right under the transponder antenna. Tie the switch ON with a rubber band. Brush noise from the motor will cause the transponder to "reply" continuously. You can read the altitude being reported directly from the Airsport receiver's panel. Put a small hand vacuum pump on the static system. These work well: http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ProductDisplay/c-10101/s-10101/p-161626/mediaCode-ZX/appId-385312 I use a pint mason jar with a couple of hose fittings soldered to the lid for a vacuum accumulator. A brass needle valve from an aquarium supplies store provides a precision leak-down valve to control rate of descent. Plumb a calibrated altimeter into this system and you can do your own static system checks with the same degree of precision as the $high$ guys. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:36 PM PST US From: "Sam Chambers" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Type I Contactor --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Chambers" Replace it with a type II? Sam Chambers Do Not Archive ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tinne maha" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Type I Contactor > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" > > Listers, > > My battery contactor is a Type I, the kind where two flat surfaces come > together to supply current through the big wire & one of the flat surfaces > is formed by the internal end of the post to which we bolt our ring > terminals. I'm sure it works great unless one of the posts is rotated & the > flat surfaces are no longer parallel, thus preventing the maximum amount of > surface area to come into contact. > > Well, the other day when tightening a bolt on my battery contactor, the post > rotated some. Can anyone suggest how I can be positive that the post is > rotated back to the optimum position? > > Thanks, > Grant Krueger > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:20 PM PST US From: Bikcrzy@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuse-link --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy@aol.com Hello List, I need an explanation why the wire coming off the master switch connecting to the main power bus on the Z-11 generic light aircraft system drawing needs a fuse-link instead of a standard fuse? Is it because the fuse-link will handle spikes better than a fuse? I don't see any special path that would require a break before a fuse? There probably is an easy answer but this stuff is somewhat new to me. Thanks in advance. John Robinson RV-7A. ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 09:27:42 PM PST US From: "Paul McAllister" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" Richard, You might want to re think access. The avionics shop will need to adjust the offset and gain to match your altimeter. My shop let me take in the encoder and altimeter separately and then they performed a leak test latter. If you really have to bury it inside your aircraft then this might me an option. My encoder drifted out of calibration (an ACK30) 5 months latter, so they do fail sometimes. Paul