Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:42 AM - Re: Aircraft Theft Protection (George Braly)
2. 05:16 AM - Re: GPS wiring? (Chris Horsten)
3. 05:25 AM - Re: Fuse-link (Bikcrzy@aol.com)
4. 05:43 AM - Re: Aircraft Theft Protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 05:53 AM - Re: GPS wiring? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 05:53 AM - Re: Aircraft Theft Protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 05:54 AM - Re: Re: Aircraft Development Expense (Chuck Jensen)
8. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: Aircraft Development Expense (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:27 AM - Aircraft theft protection (Glen Matejcek)
10. 07:27 AM - Re: Re: Aircraft Development Expense (Chuck Jensen)
11. 07:46 AM - Re: P-Mag Wiring (rv-9a-online)
12. 07:51 AM - Encoder test ()
13. 07:51 AM - Re: Aircraft theft protection (Harley)
14. 08:06 AM - Re: Aircraft theft protection (Bob White)
15. 08:37 AM - Lycoming starter on ebay ()
16. 08:46 AM - Re: Re: Aircraft Development Expense (CFrank@edony.com)
17. 09:05 AM - Lighting Source ()
18. 09:16 AM - Re: Encoder test (Bob White)
19. 09:26 AM - Re: Re: Fix for radio noise (Mickey Coggins)
20. 09:37 AM - Re: GPS wiring? (Mickey Coggins)
21. 09:55 AM - Re: Encoder test (Larry McFarland)
22. 10:34 AM - Re: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane (Steve Sampson)
23. 10:49 AM - Re: Load dump (Paul Messinger)
24. 10:50 AM - Microlight battery sizing (Frank & Dorothy)
25. 11:32 AM - Re: GPS wiring? (Chris Horsten)
26. 11:41 AM - Re: LOAD dump comments (Paul Messinger)
27. 12:17 PM - Re: Encoder test (Larry McFarland)
28. 12:28 PM - Re: Load Dump (Ron Raby)
29. 12:29 PM - Rotary Switch (Bonnie & August Lehmann)
30. 12:42 PM - Re: GPS wiring? (Werner Schneider)
31. 01:10 PM - Re: Rotary Switch (Leo J. Corbalis)
32. 01:22 PM - Re: GPS wiring? (James Redmon)
33. 01:40 PM - Re: Re: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane (Ted Palamarek)
34. 03:55 PM - Re: GPS wiring? (rd2@evenlink.com)
35. 04:54 PM - Re: Rotary Switch (Eric M. Jones)
36. 05:56 PM - Re: WAAS or Not (Speedy11@aol.com)
37. 06:26 PM - Re: 1/4 wave groundplane? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
38. 06:36 PM - Re: Re: WAAS or Not (BobsV35B@aol.com)
39. 06:41 PM - Re: Re: Fix for radio noise (Dj Merrill)
40. 10:41 PM - Re: Aircraft Theft Protection (Dww0708@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aircraft Theft Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
Bob,
Oh! Boy! Can't wait to see the first NTSB accident report on this one.
Not a question of "if" - - only a question of when.
Besides, who would want to steal THAT thing???
And what would you do with it after you sole it?
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Theft Protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
From time to time we've participated in discussions about aircraft
security with respect to theft with many builders gravitating
toward key switches, hidden switches, etc.
I've often offered the story about bringing a rental airplane
home after I'd lost the key by simply breaking the p-leads loose
from the mag switch and propping the engine. After I got
home, I dug up the spare key, cut a replacement for the
lost key and crimped new terminals on the p-leads.
I think my overall favorite anti-theft technique involves
use of a covered length of hard chain and an equally hard
lock looped over the propeller blades. This morning I was
walking in from another look at the "Beechjet from Hell"
and saw this airplane sitting on the ramp:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/AC_Theft_Protection.jpg
Like most aircraft of the genre, once you're inside the airplane,
it belongs to you. But the simple addition to the left propeller
is about as forceful a deterrent to flight as I can imagine.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
---
---
Message 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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Earl,
Not sure I can offer any help - but I have a question about the mouse type
GPS. I take it you mean a simple black blob with no display or buttons? If
so, what use will it serve you when connected to your autopilot? If its
function is to simply provide position info, how will this make your AP
useful except to hold course?
I have a 296 which I have interfaced to my TRIO AP. The idea is that you
enter a goto on the GPS and then the TRIO picks it up and follows it. Am I
missing something here with your setup?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
earl_schroeder@juno.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "earl_schroeder@juno.com"
--> <earl_schroeder@juno.com>
I have a 'surplus' mouse type GPS receiver purchased from ebay. It works
fine with my laptop via the USB port. I would like to use this GPS receiver
to provide data to a TruTrak autopilot which needs NEMA 0183 provided by
this GPS.
I have determined that the outer two USB pins provide power but which of the
two center pins is data? And I assume it is referenced to the negative side
of the power?
If I wanted to use a scope to see the data, what 'load' should be placed on
the data line?
Maybe someone could point to a URL to obtain this info. I've tried email to
the mfg but no response. Thanks, Earl (if this is outside the scope of this
list, surely someone will let me know)
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy@aol.com
Thanks Bob and Ken,
Your answers regarding the fuse-link cleared up the mystery. Back to wiring.
JR
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Aircraft Theft Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:46 AM 1/19/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>Oh! Boy! Can't wait to see the first NTSB accident report on this one.
Wouldn't read much differently than for the pilot who
took off with surface locks, pitot covers, or engine
cooling inlet covers in place . . .
>Not a question of "if" - - only a question of when.
>
>Besides, who would want to steal THAT thing???
Drug runners
>And what would you do with it after you stole it?
Run drugs . . . or part it out. There are plenty
of countries wherein folks are not particularly concerned
with the pedigree of repair parts. Once the airplane
is on the ground south of the border, it could easily
disappear into dozens if not hundreds of small boxes
and crates.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:55 PM 1/18/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Kraut"
><brian.kraut@engalt.com>
>
>I doubt that you are going to have any luck here because NMEA data is
>standard at 4,800 baud and is in a specific serial format. I am not a USB
>expert, but I suspect that the USB data coming from the antenna is vastly
>different than what you need.
>
>I am also not familiar with the Trutrack autopilot, but I am very familiar
>with marine autopilots and 99% of the marine autopilots are looking mainly
>for crosstrack error from the GPS when you have the GPS programmed to steer
>to a waypoint. When you are not steering to a waypoint the only usefull
>data that the pilot uses from the GPS is speed.
How about present course? We've done several GPS implementations for
targets at RAC that hold present course or steer to new course before
implementing
a more precise course + CTE steering.
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: Aircraft Theft Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:31 PM 1/18/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
>Unless that chain is looped around the left hand blade and you can't tell
>from the picture, It has NO Protection
It is looped around two blades.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Eric wrote...
But I digress....Here's the plan: Since the economic well-being of ...oh,
pick a name out of the air...Raytheon, depends greatly on an efficient FAA
certification process, it would behoove Raytheon management to get their
state representatives to wake up and smell the av-gas. Or else.
I think your on to something--Naivety. Mainly, that Raytheon, Boeing, et al care
about the certification process, TSO, et al. They are engineering monsters
with a whole organization geared toward paper-piling and pencil-whipping. Look
at one of the recent Citations that went through certification--less than two
years. And Airbus, with their new flying football field, the shakedown and
flight testing is schedule for about 12 months.
By comparison, it takes two years to TSO a single component that doesn't do anything
in a certified aircraft. The certification process is bureaucratic--granted.
The certification process is archaic--true. But, there are a lot of lazy
aircraft companies (can you say "Cessna") that used the certification process
as an excuse for not upgrading/improving/innovating new products and improvements--also
true. Cirrus didn't seem all that hamstrung in the certification
process. So yes, we should work at changing the system, but it shouldn't be
used as an excuse for not pushing forward.
Chuck
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: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:39 AM 1/19/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
>Eric wrote...
>
>But I digress....Here's the plan: Since the economic well-being of ...oh,
>pick a name out of the air...Raytheon, depends greatly on an efficient FAA
>certification process, it would behoove Raytheon management to get their
>state representatives to wake up and smell the av-gas. Or else.
>
>
>I think your on to something--Naivety. Mainly, that Raytheon, Boeing, et
>al care about the certification process, TSO, et al. They are engineering
>monsters with a whole organization geared toward paper-piling and
>pencil-whipping. Look at one of the recent Citations that went through
>certification--less than two years. And Airbus, with their new flying
>football field, the shakedown and flight testing is schedule for about 12
>months.
>
>By comparison, it takes two years to TSO a single component that doesn't
>do anything in a certified aircraft. The certification process is
>bureaucratic--granted. The certification process is archaic--true. But,
>there are a lot of lazy aircraft companies (can you say "Cessna") that
>used the certification process as an excuse for not
>upgrading/improving/innovating new products and improvements--also
>true. Cirrus didn't seem all that hamstrung in the certification
>process. So yes, we should work at changing the system, but it shouldn't
>be used as an excuse for not pushing forward.
This may be an over-simplification. But it's true that
industry (not necessarily limited to aircraft) have been
trending toward more no-value-added-activities over the
years. The shift has come from MANY forces not the least
of which are legal departments, demands from the outside to
conform to ISO this, EPA that, and OSHA something else.
75 years ago, Walter Beech personally presided over a few dozen
engineers and if he wanted to know how the development efforts
were going, it was all happening in one hangar right outside.
When a new project involves hundreds of engineers, hundreds
of suppliers, hundreds of assembly workers, the paper
mountain grows exponentially. Yes, everyone worries
about not letting things fall through cracks . . . so they
write more rules, policies and procedures. There is a sort
of faith that once a requirement is codified in black and
white that the subject worry about which the document
was crafted will magically go away. Problem is that every
new rule must be presided over by somebody . . . no-value-added
labor (and subsequent delays) is proportional to weight
of the rules documents.
What we're experiencing is a global shift from individuals
with skill, creativity and dedication being able to
operate largely "leaderless" with respect to the details
of their craft. Now, everyone is expected
to know and follow all the procedures, work instructions,
policies, etc to the letter. Show this will
result in the perfect product being pushed out the door.
This is why the "skunk works" style environments like
Cirrus and Lancair seem to move forward with such
dispatch . . . Walter would be proud of them. Walter
knew that real leadership involves setting goals and
the flavor of the product and then making it a priority
to clear away any obstacles that impede the progress
of a skilled staff.
I now see individuals at gate reviews reporting on the
most minute details of their efforts to folks very high
up on the management ladder . . . have no idea if the
managers really understand what they're hearing/seeing
but the new policies and procedures require that they
go through the motions.
This is happening both inside offices of the regulators
and the regulated . . . it's almost as if there's
some like of a contest to see who can preside over the
most complete set of rules.
Did some work for these folks about a year ago:
http://questaircraft.com/specifications.htm
This whole project is driven by perhaps 30 folks
in one building up in the cold north country.
Walter would be proud of these guys too.
Bob . . .
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: | Aircraft theft protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Bob-
While I certainly and whole heartedly agree with your comments on theft
protection, it seems to me that in the photo you provided that turning the
prop 180 degrees by hand would defeat the depicted arrangement....
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
In the nuclear industry, we've gone through the complete conversion from relying
on people to relying on procedures. When something goes wrong, instead of people
being held accountable, the blame is directed first to deficient procedures,
then failure to adhere to procedures, then inadequate training. Rarely is
personal stupidity cited as the casual factor, though it is high on the list
of real reasons.
I suspect the size and complexity of an organization dictates some of this migration
to paper and policies. You can manage 30 engineers, but 300 engineers must
be controlled. And the controls of choice are codes, regulations, procedures
and policies.
In the end, if you want to spend big bucks and make press releases, think BIG.
If you need to get something done expeditiously and at a reasonable cost, think
SMALL.
Chuck
Bob wrote..
What we're experiencing is a global shift from individuals
with skill, creativity and dedication being able to
operate largely "leaderless" with respect to the details
of their craft. Now, everyone is expected
to know and follow all the procedures, work instructions,
policies, etc to the letter. Show this will
result in the perfect product being pushed out the door.
This is why the "skunk works" style environments like
Cirrus and Lancair seem to move forward with such
dispatch . . . Walter would be proud of them. Walter
knew that real leadership involves setting goals and
the flavor of the product and then making it a priority
to clear away any obstacles that impede the progress
of a skilled staff.
I now see individuals at gate reviews reporting on the
most minute details of their efforts to folks very high
up on the management ladder . . . have no idea if the
managers really understand what they're hearing/seeing
but the new policies and procedures require that they
go through the motions.
This is happening both inside offices of the regulators
and the regulated . . . it's almost as if there's
some like of a contest to see who can preside over the
most complete set of rules.
Did some work for these folks about a year ago:
http://questaircraft.com/specifications.htm
This whole project is driven by perhaps 30 folks
in one building up in the cold north country.
Walter would be proud of these guys too.
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: P-Mag Wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
I'm not Bob, but I've ordered my p-mag/e-mag set. I had the factory
review my schematic and they provided some useful tips.
I'm using a seperate 'P-Lead' ACS ignition switch, and a Dual pole
switch for mag power. E-Mag Ignitions recommends having each mag on
it's own seperate power feed/breaker. I chose to have two breakers and
my dual pole switch. They say that a switchable/pullable break is also
acceptable (allows pre-flight testing of p-mag).
So whatever you come up with, have E-mag Ignitions check it over, they
are very helpful
Vern Little
RV-9A C-FRVL
waiting for engine (and e-mag/p-mags)
dsvs@comcast.net wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
>
>
>Bob,
>I am in the process of setting up my electrical system and have a "Switch" question.
The P-mag needs a P-lead type switch and a power switch. To save space
I would like to use one switch for both operations. A three position switch
could be used for this if one with the needed configuration is available. do
you know of such a switch? Thanks. Don
>
>
>Bob,
>I am in the process of setting up my electrical system and have a "Switch" question.
The P-mag needs a P-lead type switch and a power switch. To save space
I would like to use one switch for both operations. A three position switch could
be used for this if one with the needed configuration is available. do you
know of such a switch? Thanks. Don
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Time: 07:33:58 PM PST US
> From: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland"
> <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> 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......skip.......
1/19/2005
Hello Larry, Not true. In fact there may be some advantage in waiting to
have your initial inspection done and Airworthiness Cert in hand before you
have your FAR Sec. 91.413 transponder check done.
If you have your transponder check done before the initial inspection and
then don't pass the initial inspection for some reason you could waste a
portion of the two years that the transponder check is good for before you
start flying.
Also if someone is not going to fly in airspace that requires a transponder
(See FAR Sec. 91.215 (b) (1) through (5)) then he may not have a transponder
installed and that alone would not prevent issuance of the Airworthiness
Cert at the time of the initial inspection.
OC
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Aircraft theft protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
The chain is around TWO blades...it's not big enough to drop off both of
them, or come off first one then the other.
Harley
Glen Matejcek wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
>Hi Bob-
>
>While I certainly and whole heartedly agree with your comments on theft
>protection, it seems to me that in the photo you provided that turning the
>prop 180 degrees by hand would defeat the depicted arrangement....
>
>Glen Matejcek
>aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
>
>
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft theft protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob White" <bob@whitek.com>
One certainly wouldn't think that trolling was necessary on this list.
Bob White
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glen Matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft theft protection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glen Matejcek"
<aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Bob-
While I certainly and whole heartedly agree with your comments on theft
protection, it seems to me that in the photo you provided that turning the
prop 180 degrees by hand would defeat the depicted arrangement....
Glen Matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | Lycoming starter on ebay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Avionics-List message previously posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
> I was browsing ebay and came across this starter for airboats. Why
> airboats? Is it because of liability? It looks like the price is pretty
> good
> for a new starter.....skip....... Dan Hopper
1/19/2005
Hello Dan, FAR Sec. 21.303 says "....no person may produce a modification
or replacement
part for sale for installation on a type certificated product unless it is
produced pursuant to a Parts Manufacturer Approval issued under this
subpart."
I would suspect that the person producing these starters does not have PMA
for them so in order to avoid violating FAR Sec. 21.303 he says they are
strictly for airboats.
The regulations preventing people from installing these starters on type
certificated aircraft are a little more indistinct or unknown and a person
could install one on a type certificated aircraft either out of ignorance of
the regulations or outright flouting of the regulations.**
There is no regulation that would prevent a person from using such a starter
on an amateur built experimental aircraft.
OC
**PS: What FAR prevents the installation of non approved parts in type
certificated aircraft?
The closest that I can come to such a prohibition is FAR Sec 43.13 (b) which
says "Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive
maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a
quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine,
propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or
properly altered condition with regard to aerodynamic function, structural
strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities
affecting airworthiness."
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Aircraft Development Expense |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CFrank@edony.com
Another problem is that the companies that we are talking about were started
and by pilots and engineers who initially did not have a pot to piss in, and
who ran these businesses successfully for many years.
Then came the era of the MBA. Blokes who could not tell the difference
between a nut and a hammer were placed at the head of these companies.
Their sights are on the bottom line and their stock options, and they do not
share the bet-the-farm, can-do, whatever it takes attitudes of the original
founders.
Just another rant. Do not archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Jensen [mailto:cjensen@dts9000.com]
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aircraft Development Expense
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
<cjensen@dts9000.com>
In the nuclear industry, we've gone through the complete conversion from
relying on people to relying on procedures. When something goes wrong,
instead of people being held accountable, the blame is directed first to
deficient procedures, then failure to adhere to procedures, then inadequate
training. Rarely is personal stupidity cited as the casual factor, though
it is high on the list of real reasons.
I suspect the size and complexity of an organization dictates some of this
migration to paper and policies. You can manage 30 engineers, but 300
engineers must be controlled. And the controls of choice are codes,
regulations, procedures and policies.
In the end, if you want to spend big bucks and make press releases, think
BIG. If you need to get something done expeditiously and at a reasonable
cost, think SMALL.
Chuck
Bob wrote..
What we're experiencing is a global shift from individuals
with skill, creativity and dedication being able to
operate largely "leaderless" with respect to the details
of their craft. Now, everyone is expected
to know and follow all the procedures, work instructions,
policies, etc to the letter. Show this will
result in the perfect product being pushed out the door.
This is why the "skunk works" style environments like
Cirrus and Lancair seem to move forward with such
dispatch . . . Walter would be proud of them. Walter
knew that real leadership involves setting goals and
the flavor of the product and then making it a priority
to clear away any obstacles that impede the progress
of a skilled staff.
I now see individuals at gate reviews reporting on the
most minute details of their efforts to folks very high
up on the management ladder . . . have no idea if the
managers really understand what they're hearing/seeing
but the new policies and procedures require that they
go through the motions.
This is happening both inside offices of the regulators
and the regulated . . . it's almost as if there's
some like of a contest to see who can preside over the
most complete set of rules.
Did some work for these folks about a year ago:
http://questaircraft.com/specifications.htm
This whole project is driven by perhaps 30 folks
in one building up in the cold north country.
Walter would be proud of these guys too.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
1/19/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, This lighting source may be well known to many of
you, but I just learned of it and thought I'd share the info.
https://ssl.perfora.net/gs-air.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=1541ee915db8cd2/shopdata/index.shopscript
Eric M. Jones, I'd be interested in your comments on their LED based light
offerings.
OC
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob White" <bob@whitek.com>
What is this authorized instrument repairman that you speak of? I'm
familiar with IA and A&P, but I've always wondered if avionics required a
licensed repairman.
Bob White
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Time: 07:33:58 PM PST US
> From: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland"
> <larrymc@qconline.com>
>
> 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......skip.......
1/19/2005
Hello Larry, Not true. In fact there may be some advantage in waiting to
have your initial inspection done and Airworthiness Cert in hand before you
have your FAR Sec. 91.413 transponder check done.
If you have your transponder check done before the initial inspection and
then don't pass the initial inspection for some reason you could waste a
portion of the two years that the transponder check is good for before you
start flying.
Also if someone is not going to fly in airspace that requires a transponder
(See FAR Sec. 91.215 (b) (1) through (5)) then he may not have a transponder
installed and that alone would not prevent issuance of the Airworthiness
Cert at the time of the initial inspection.
OC
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: Fix for radio noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Dj,
Are these filters between the power supply and
the 12v input or the ground? Where did you
have them grounded when you had the noise?
Thanks,
Mickey
> BTW, I used your suggestion of installing
> the Radio Shack 10A noise filters on my strobe
> power supplies, and it completely cleaned up the
> noise I was hearing in my headset.
>
> Thanks! :-)
>
> -Dj
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Chris,
How did you wire it up? Did you get a PC cable from Garmin and
chop it up?
Thanks,
Mickey
> I have a 296 which I have interfaced to my TRIO AP. The idea is that you
> enter a goto on the GPS and then the TRIO picks it up and follows it. Am I
> missing something here with your setup?
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
You're absolutely right. I posted from the myopic view of my own experience
where I couldn't fly from my airport without the transponder. The inspector
was
aware of the circumstances and said that he expected these things to be in
order
before issuance of the Certification. I made the assumption that everyone
flies in
and out of the controlled fields that carries a transponder. Obviously not
true.
I'm based where jets are in regular schedule at a C-controlled field and
it's sometimes
busy enough to justify it. Thanks for pointing that out.
The more important point of the installation is, keep the thing accessible
for troubleshooting
and the next inspection because you cannot predict when you're going to have
to get to it again.
Larry McFarland
Your Airworthiness Cert will require you have this done
beforehand......skip.......
>
> 1/19/2005
>
> Hello Larry, Not true. In fact there may be some advantage in waiting to
> have your initial inspection done and Airworthiness Cert in hand before
> you
> have your FAR Sec. 91.413 transponder check done.
>
> If you have your transponder check done before the initial inspection and
> then don't pass the initial inspection for some reason you could waste a
> portion of the two years that the transponder check is good for before you
> start flying.
>
> Also if someone is not going to fly in airspace that requires a
> transponder
> (See FAR Sec. 91.215 (b) (1) through (5)) then he may not have a
> transponder
> installed and that alone would not prevent issuance of the Airworthiness
> Cert at the time of the initial inspection.
>
> OC
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <steve@lbho.freeserve.co.uk>
Oops! That was meant to go to aeroelectric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Sampson [mailto:Steve@lbho.freeserve.co.uk]
> Sent: 19 January 2005 18:09
> To: RV Squadron (E-mail)
> Subject: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane
>
> Bob - I would welcome your comments.
>
> In the bumph the PFA (roughly the British EAA) gives out there is some
> stuff about aerials. It includes......
>
> "Even some professional radio installers seem to think that if the braid
> of the feeder coax is firmly connected to the metal fuselageat the base of
> the aerial, then it will do the job. Wrong! At any given frequency the
> length of the driven element ...is calculated to be resonant as a 1/4
> wavelength................................But the 'counterpoise' or other
> half must also be of similar dimensions so as to present the trans/rec
> witha 1/2 wavelength total. The entire fuselage however presents no such
> thing and completely unbalances the system................causing a
> variety of problems, not least interference and much degraded
> performance........ At the base of the aerial the braid should also be
> connected to a tuned groundplane either in the form of a down going
> insulated wire or number of wires measuring 5% less in length than the
> driven element..........................It doe not matter that the
> airframe is also connected at its centre..................the oscilating
> pulses in the aerial will choose the resonant path both
> ways........................................."
>
> What is your reaction to this? I have never seen this reccomendation
> before. He seems to be trying to turn a 1/4 wave into a dipole with half
> the aerial inside and half outside. Surely this would cause energy to
> bounce around inside a metal aircraft?
>
>
> Thanks, Steve.
> RV9a
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.12 - Release Date: 14/01/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Load Dump is Identical when an internally regulated alternator is modified
and used with an external regulator.
IE the same alternator produces an Identical Load dump when the internal
regulator is deleted and an external regulator is used. The type and
location of the regulator is not part of the Load dump conditions. I have
demonstrated this in my testing.
There seems to be some confusion over regulator control/failure etc vs load
dump. That some regulators seem to fail in an unclamped load dump and the
only reported brand is the Vans rebuilt units is interesting, but so far I
have not seen any evidence that the Vans alternator is defective. Perhaps
Vans is getting a bad rap, Sadly no one seems interested in finding out what
is really the cause of these "reported" failures.
Load dump is independent of where the regulator is, and as far as I can
determine, what type of regulator. Load Dump is simply what happens when any
inductor or inductive device is suddenly hit with a step function reduction
if its operating current.
When you remove power from a relay in your system that relay coil has a load
dump. The "flywheel" diode provides a current path to allow the current to
slowly stop using the internal resistance of the coil.
With an alternator, the opening of the "B" lead during current production
results in a self contained event where the internal parts of the alternator
must absorb the load dump event.
If there is an internally placed regulator it is the first line of defense
and the regulator contains a load dump device that clamps the internal
alternator "B" lead voltage to under 40 volts. If the alternator does not
have an internal regulator the Load dump event internal voltage increases
until the rectifier diodes internal to the alternator break down and clamp
the voltage. In this case the internal voltage can be as high as 200 volts.
However these diodes are normally not damaged.
Load dump is simple and its simply the sudden shedding of a load like
turning lights off or simply turning your Com off. The magatitude of the
current being removed and the condition of the rest of the electrical system
bus determine what happens. With a battery connected, not a ripple is
likely. However disconnect the battery when its under heavy charge (charging
at say 40 amps) and its likely that a huge voltags spike will occur. There
is a large amount of energy (at least by my standards) that needs to be
clamped.
If a 20 amp average current pulse for 1/5 of a second is small to you,
ignore the load dump. But note the current pulse can easilly produce
momentary bus voltages in excedes of 40V. If you think everything that might
be connected during this event is protected, DREAM ON.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load dump and PM alternators
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 04:40 PM 1/8/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee"
> ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> >Hi Eric and all,
> >
> >Please pardon me for having followed the load dump thread with a casual
eye.
> >
> > > Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
> > > conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump
are
> > > related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
> > > strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but
an
> > > overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other
causes
> > > and may be long term. Both need to be addressed.
> > >
> >
> >Question : is the load dump issue the same for permanent magnet
alternators
> >? At first glance I would say there are differences, but would one of you
> >experts tell me if I have to reconsider my "ordinary" crowbar OV module
> >setup ?
>
> No, only the internally regulated alternators with Figure Z-24
> wiring. There are no special concerns for alternators with external
> regulators or permanent magnet alternators.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Microlight battery sizing |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on dbmail-mx4.orcon.co.nz
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy <frankv@infogen.net.nz>
Hi
I have recently bought a microlight project which includes a Kawasaki
440 (26 cu in) engine with alternator and electric start.
I'm trying to figure out what size battery I should buy... The
documentation I've found on the engine says that I need a battery
capable of delivering 18A or so cranking current. I guess that's
reasonable, since BobN uses a figure of 250A for (I guess) something
like an O320, which is 10 times as big.
BobN recommends a RG type as providing better cranking current than a
standard flooded cell battery.
There's really no essential electrical load... the only electrical
equipment is a handheld radio, perhaps a GPS, perhaps an MP3 player...
all of them can run off batteries.
I've found a cheap CGB brand (made in China, 12V 7Ah) RG battery for
sale. A Net search showed up 25 milli-ohms internal resistance for this
battery. Is this going to be suitable?
Frank
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Mickey,
Actually my cables were made up for me by Stein Air. I provided them with a
connector which I bought from Garmin. The other end had bare wires for just
such a purpose. Stein used one or two wires from the Garmin and left one or
two for power. The rest aren't used. It's the only way to tap into the
Garmin unless you hack it up. Mine is still under warranty so not gonna
happen. The cable with the bare ends was bout $25 I think.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey
Coggins
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
--> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi Chris,
How did you wire it up? Did you get a PC cable from Garmin and chop it up?
Thanks,
Mickey
> I have a 296 which I have interfaced to my TRIO AP. The idea is that
> you enter a goto on the GPS and then the TRIO picks it up and follows
> it. Am I missing something here with your setup?
>
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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: LOAD dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
First the circuit breakers (several brands) all took more than a few MS to
open. The first application of overcurrent with a cold sitting overnight CB
took from 70-100 MS to open and when warmed up took around 50 ms to open. To
me a few is always less than 10.
Thus its likely that the fault time to open will be at least 50 ms and more
likely 70+ ms for an unplanned overcurrent.
Second batteries have come a long way in the last few years. Short circuit
current ability has more than tripled from the flooded cell of the 60's to
today's AGM type.
The avionics present in the cockpit nay contain devices that measure the
earth's magnetic field that are far less able to withstand being around the
magnetic field of an arc welder (actually many times what the typical
welding current) and that's what we produce with a unlimited current short
that the crow bar produces.
Its true that any CB can be presented with a dead short load and MAY produce
the same current as the Crowbar. The crow bar is Designed to produce huge
currents far in excess of what is needed to perform the function and even
more than is needed to minimize the trip time.
I think its time to leap forward and look at the entire system again in
light of modern avionics and batteries etc and consider a new approach to
the design of overvoltage protection current production etc.
I wonder how many avionics manufacturers would approve of your asking for
permission to do welding in the cockpit near the their equipment with an arc
welder.
The addition of a simple resistor in the crow bar design would completely
eliminate the huge currents and have zero effect on the trip time or
functional usage of the OVP.
The use of solid state switches VS fuses and or CB provide simple ways to
protect and NOT produce huge fault currents.
I have seen far too often what happens when a system design is slowly
updated over the years and there is never a updated total design review to
see what the result of a new mod will do the "old" design.
Just consider replacing the battery with one that increases the short
current max from 300 amps to 2000 amps. Then when the Fuse or CB pops you
are getting a pre pop current of 2000 amps vs. what was originally
considered OK of 300 amps. (Exaggerated for effect)
Now lets remove the whiskey compass and install integrated magnetometers
designed for extremely low magnetic fields. Even exposing that device to a
300 amp current generated field needs review not considering what a 2000 amp
field could do.
What upsets me is the concept of deliberately producing a huge short current
to open a relay. Why just design a OVP that opens a circuit ,not shorts it,
and then depends on another device to open so a third device opens finally
doing the intended job.
We have the OVP a CB and finally a contactor. Why not have the OVP do it all
or at least directly open the contactor. I know its over simplification here
but one solid state modern device can do all the functions of the contactor
and OVP as well as the CB in the sense of being able to disconnect the "B"
lead.
Think about it. We are rehashing the electrical system and piecemeal
upgrading a system designed 50 years ago and avionics had tubes. We have
modern avionics we need modern electrical systems to match.
I am following up with a more specific email on modern electrical design.
Paul
> It still amuses me that some folks are happy to have
> circuit breakers interrupt current to a faulted
> wire but get their shorts in a bunch when we
> deliberately fault a wire downstream of a breaker
> to corral a runaway alternator. The SAME fault currents
> flow in both instances. Yes, it's certainly hundreds
> of amps. But irrespective of WHY the breaker or fuse
> opens, the event terminates in milliseconds, effects
> on the rest of the system are the same and of no
> particular significance.
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Encoder test |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry McFarland" <larrymc@qconline.com>
Bob,
There are levels of authorization for repair of Avionics and instruments
that provide
a level of assurance for IFR flight, qualify insurance and these are coupled
with the equipment
that go along with FAA approved facilities. The transponder is one which
you can
test, but if you fly into controlled airspace, you'd best be carrying the
tags on your
altimeter and transponder to show you have the legal equipment &
authorization to fly there.
We have a facility on our field that does such work on jets to private
aircraft and I'm glad
they're there.
They are Quad City Aviation & Instruments, 309-507-1280, Mgr Tim McKune
Web site, Quad_City_Aviation@hotmail.com.
Tim worked quite a while setting up the facility and is repairing radios,
instruments,
testing transponders and has the authorization to overhaul or repair any
instrument
or transceiver, etc. Very good people that work well with the little guy
like myself.
Larry McFarland - 601hds - Stratus - 50 hrs.
www.macsmachine.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Encoder test
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob White" <bob@whitek.com>
>
> What is this authorized instrument repairman that you speak of? I'm
> familiar with IA and A&P, but I've always wondered if avionics required a
> licensed repairman.
>
> Bob White
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Bob, Thanks for the response. The system is wired to a double pole double
throw switch. one side switches the return to the battery contactor. the
other is wired from the main buss to a 5 amp pullable circuit breaker, then
to the other pole of the switch, and on to terminal 6 on the LR3C -14
voltage regulator.
I do have the crossfeed on light, it is built into the switch.
Should I ajust the voltage's on both systems to be the same?
The voltage readouts are picked up after the battery contactors. EDM 900 and
on the Dynon. If I hit the crossfeed I am then reading the voltages from the
one system. Would it make sense to get these readouts from the battery buss?
That way If you shut a system off you would still have an indication to what
was going on with the battery you shut off.
Regards
Ron Raby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Dump
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 09:52 AM 1/13/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
>><ronr@advanceddesign.com>
>>
>>Bob
>>
>>I have some procedure questions.
>>
>>I have my plane wired per Z14. In the event of a low volt warning. Do I
>>just
>>turn on the crossfeed contactor? or do I pull the circuit breaker going to
>>the B&C regulator and then turn on the crossfeed contactor.
>
> If your master switches are 2-10 then simply turn off the alternator
> on the 'dead' side and close the crossfeed contactor. If the main
> alternator fails, then your COMBINED bus loads must be reduced to
> 20A or less. Optionally, you could simply shut down the 'dead' side
> and treat the working side as an endurance mode operation thus saving
> all battery energies for approach to landing.
>
>
>>Is there any problem if the crossfeed contactor is accidentally turned on
>>with both system working properly?
>
> It doesn't hurt anything. If the SD-20 voltage is set higher than
> the main alternator, it might cause the loadmeter on the SD-20 to
> peg but this isn't a big deal if you catch it in a few minutes.
> I presume you have a CROSSFEED ON indicator light?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bonnie & August Lehmann <blehmann@pris.bc.ca>
Searching for a 5-position, six wire contacts on the back, rotary switch
with capacity of 25A (1.5HP) 120V A.C.
Background:
Mist, blowing snow etc. resulted to my battery booster/engine starter (6V,
12V & 24V) being run over by a ground vehicle. Brand name of the
booster/engine starter is SOLAR, model 1670. Upon disassembly I was
surprised that the only damage was the volt selector switch. It is
manufactured by ARK-LES. Part numbers on the broken switch are 96-07 with
271-91-116A beneath it.
I have tracked down the manufacturer of the switch on the net, who referred
me to their regional wholesaler who has not replied to any inquiries. One
west coast source could provide me with one if I ordered a minimum of 1000
of them. Local retailers who sell the whole unit are eager to sell me
another whole unit, but deny having access to any parts for it's repair.
As we are constantly bombarded by various conservation concerns to reduce,
repair & re-use, it is ironic for me to look at spending up to $600 to
replace the whole unit instead of just replacing the switch.
Any leads to a sealed rotary, 5 positon, switch with six contact leads at
the back, with 25A 120VAC capacity, would help me survive the cold season
right now. And I'd be twice as glad if its not an ARK-LES, as I find it
objectionable to support a business that appears to be totally unconcerned
about backing up people who buy their products.
Thank you, List providers for allowing me to post my cry for help.
August Lehmann
Cyclone 180 builder
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: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Mickey,
there is a cable available which says power data cable (eg. for the 196 it
is 010-10082-00 see
http://shop.garmin.com/accessory.jsp?sku=010%2D10082%2D00 ) I did use this
one for my trutrak and my 196, just did hook it up directly to the ships
power system. similar things are available for the 296.
And believe it or not, even here in Switzerland =(;o)
Take care
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten"
<airplanes@sympatico.ca>
>
> Mickey,
>
> Actually my cables were made up for me by Stein Air. I provided them with
a
> connector which I bought from Garmin. The other end had bare wires for
just
> such a purpose. Stein used one or two wires from the Garmin and left one
or
> two for power. The rest aren't used. It's the only way to tap into the
> Garmin unless you hack it up. Mine is still under warranty so not gonna
> happen. The cable with the bare ends was bout $25 I think.
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey
> Coggins
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> --> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> How did you wire it up? Did you get a PC cable from Garmin and chop it
up?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> > I have a 296 which I have interfaced to my TRIO AP. The idea is that
> > you enter a goto on the GPS and then the TRIO picks it up and follows
> > it. Am I missing something here with your setup?
> >
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
>
>
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: Rotary Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
If you only use one voltage setting you should be able to replace it with a
heavy duty SPST switch. Another choice could be an ordinary rotary switch
operating several starter solonoid type relays to handle the heavy lifting.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bonnie & August Lehmann" <blehmann@pris.bc.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Rotary Switch
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bonnie & August Lehmann
<blehmann@pris.bc.ca>
>
> Searching for a 5-position, six wire contacts on the back, rotary switch
> with capacity of 25A (1.5HP) 120V A.C.
>
> Background:
> Mist, blowing snow etc. resulted to my battery booster/engine starter (6V,
> 12V & 24V) being run over by a ground vehicle. Brand name of the
> booster/engine starter is SOLAR, model 1670. Upon disassembly I was
> surprised that the only damage was the volt selector switch. It is
> manufactured by ARK-LES. Part numbers on the broken switch are 96-07 with
> 271-91-116A beneath it.
>
> I have tracked down the manufacturer of the switch on the net, who
referred
> me to their regional wholesaler who has not replied to any inquiries. One
> west coast source could provide me with one if I ordered a minimum of 1000
> of them. Local retailers who sell the whole unit are eager to sell me
> another whole unit, but deny having access to any parts for it's repair.
>
> As we are constantly bombarded by various conservation concerns to reduce,
> repair & re-use, it is ironic for me to look at spending up to $600 to
> replace the whole unit instead of just replacing the switch.
>
> Any leads to a sealed rotary, 5 positon, switch with six contact leads at
> the back, with 25A 120VAC capacity, would help me survive the cold season
> right now. And I'd be twice as glad if its not an ARK-LES, as I find it
> objectionable to support a business that appears to be totally unconcerned
> about backing up people who buy their products.
>
> Thank you, List providers for allowing me to post my cry for help.
>
> August Lehmann
> Cyclone 180 builder
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
For those of you interested in making a wiring harness for your Garmin GPS,
you can get the special plug at the following URL and make you own for a
fraction of the cost!
http://pfranc.com/projects/g45contr/g45_idx.htm
Enjoy,
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
> there is a cable available which says power data cable (eg. for the 196 it
> is 010-10082-00 see
> http://shop.garmin.com/accessory.jsp?sku=010%2D10082%2D00 ) I did use this
> one for my trutrak and my 196, just did hook it up directly to the ships
> power system. similar things are available for the 296.
>> Actually my cables were made up for me by Stein Air. I provided them with
> a
>> connector which I bought from Garmin. The other end had bare wires for
> just
>> such a purpose. Stein used one or two wires from the Garmin and left one
> or
>> two for power. The rest aren't used. It's the only way to tap into the
>> Garmin unless you hack it up. Mine is still under warranty so not gonna
>> happen. The cable with the bare ends was bout $25 I think.
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: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ted Palamarek" <temco@telusplanet.net>
Steve
Did you get a response from Bob on your question. This
interests me as well.
Ted P
Kitfox IV-1200
DO NOT ARCHIVE
<<<<SNIP>>>>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane
Oops! That was meant to go to aeroelectric
> What is your reaction to this? I have never seen this
reccomendation
> before. He seems to be trying to turn a 1/4 wave into a
dipole with half
> the aerial inside and half outside. Surely this would
cause energy to
> bounce around inside a metal aircraft?
>
>
> Thanks, Steve.
> RV9a
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
This is often referred to as "bare wires" cable - connector on one end,
loose wires on the other end. Convenient, if you want to keep the cable
always in the airplane.
For the 196, the cable ends are power, ground, data in, and data out
(digital=serial interface).
The cable for 296 has more wires but for aviation use, only the following
apply:
power, ground, data in 1, data in 2, data out 1, data out 2
(digital=serial). For the 296 Garmin provided 2 separate serial inputs and
outputs (whereas the 196 serial output can be fed to more than 1 device).
BTW, I must have packed too many (old house type of guy) - I have 1 of each
of these cables, new, sealed, orig. Garmin. If any one needs such a cable,
let me know (<rd2@evenlink.com>). Got them for about $27 or so ea., will
let them go for $13 ea. plus shipping.
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Werner Schneider; Date: 09:39 PM 1/19/2005
+0100)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Mickey,
there is a cable available which says power data cable (eg. for the 196 it
is 010-10082-00 see
http://shop.garmin.com/accessory.jsp?sku=010%2D10082%2D00 ) I did use this
one for my trutrak and my 196, just did hook it up directly to the ships
power system. similar things are available for the 296.
And believe it or not, even here in Switzerland =(;o)
Take care
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Horsten" <airplanes@sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Horsten"
<airplanes@sympatico.ca>
>
> Mickey,
>
> Actually my cables were made up for me by Stein Air. I provided them with
a
> connector which I bought from Garmin. The other end had bare wires for
just
> such a purpose. Stein used one or two wires from the Garmin and left one
or
> two for power. The rest aren't used. It's the only way to tap into the
> Garmin unless you hack it up. Mine is still under warranty so not gonna
> happen. The cable with the bare ends was bout $25 I think.
>
> Chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey
> Coggins
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS wiring?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> --> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> How did you wire it up? Did you get a PC cable from Garmin and chop it
up?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> > I have a 296 which I have interfaced to my TRIO AP. The idea is that
> > you enter a goto on the GPS and then the TRIO picks it up and follows
> > it. Am I missing something here with your setup?
> >
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 Wiring
>
>
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: Rotary Switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bonnie & August Lehmann
<blehmann@pris.bc.ca>
>>Searching for a 5-position, six wire contacts on the back, rotary switch
with capacity of 25A (1.5HP) 120V A.C.
Try these guys---
http://www.surplussales.com/Switches/
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
John,
Your thoughts were not off-the-wall. On the contrary, they were dead on
accurate.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa
www.rv-8a.net
In a message dated 1/18/2005 2:59:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com 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.
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.
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: | Re: 1/4 wave groundplane? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:35 PM 1/19/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
><steve@lbho.freeserve.co.uk>
>
>Oops! That was meant to go to aeroelectric
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Sampson [mailto:Steve@lbho.freeserve.co.uk]
> > Sent: 19 January 2005 18:09
> > To: RV Squadron (E-mail)
> > Subject: [rvsqn] 1/4 wave groundplane
> >
> > Bob - I would welcome your comments.
> >
> > In the bumph the PFA (roughly the British EAA) gives out there is some
> > stuff about aerials. It includes......
> >
> > "Even some professional radio installers seem to think that if the braid
> > of the feeder coax is firmly connected to the metal fuselageat the base of
> > the aerial, then it will do the job. Wrong! At any given frequency the
> > length of the driven element ...is calculated to be resonant as a 1/4
> > wavelength................................But the 'counterpoise' or other
> > half must also be of similar dimensions so as to present the trans/rec
> > witha 1/2 wavelength total. The entire fuselage however presents no such
> > thing and completely unbalances the system................causing a
> > variety of problems, not least interference and much degraded
> > performance........ At the base of the aerial the braid should also be
> > connected to a tuned groundplane either in the form of a down going
> > insulated wire or number of wires measuring 5% less in length than the
> > driven element..........................It doe not matter that the
> > airframe is also connected at its centre..................the oscilating
> > pulses in the aerial will choose the resonant path both
> > ways........................................."
> >
> > What is your reaction to this? I have never seen this reccomendation
> > before. He seems to be trying to turn a 1/4 wave into a dipole with half
> > the aerial inside and half outside. Surely this would cause energy to
> > bounce around inside a metal aircraft?
The writer is not "wrong" but he's making a mountain out of
a molehill. An airplane is not a perfect world for antennas.
Further, his concerns for "degraded performance" generally don't
surface as significant realities.
VHF Comm antennas have been installed on aircraft for over 60
years. Installations range from nearly ideal (antenna sits on
large area of metal "radiating" several wavelengths in all
directions. 747s and their like make really good airborne
antenna farms. As the airplane gets smaller, the real estate
for ground plane goes down. As the airplane becomes fabric
over tube, opportunities for using existing features on
the airplane as a ground plane or "counterpoise" degrades
further and ultimately becomes non-existent on the glass-n-
plastic machines.
Yes, if you went to the antenna range and quantified
performance of the various compromise antennas that have
flown on ultra-lights through 747s, one could cheer
the data plots on the 747 installation and cry in lots
of beer over the results of tests for the ultra-light.
Let us consider the most compromised antenna of all - the
"rubber duckie" common to bizillions of hand held radios
ranging from CB frequencies (27 Mhz) to near microwave
(wi-fi products at 5 Ghz). NONE of these products are
favored with anything like the ideal antenna when it comes
to ground planes. Your hand-held vhf comm transceiver
not only has a foreshortened antenna (it should be 23.6
inches long), it has only your very small body capacity
to couple thorough to approach anything like a useful
ground plane.
Bottom line for USEFULNESS of ANY antenna installation
is whether or not it serves the intended purpose while
avoiding interference with other systems (some folks
can use the outside-antenna comm transceiver with no
problems while hand-held comm with rubber-duck in cockpit
drives some panel mounted stuff zonkers). I've often
remarked here on the list about the disparity of comments
on Bob Archer's wing tip comm antennas (VERY compromised).
One user says, "piece of crap" while another says, "greatest
thing since sliced bread". Turns out that one guy never
needs to talk to stations more than 10 miles away and the
other guy was gunching about not hitting an RCO 40 miles
away while he was flying 2000 feet above the terrain.
We KNOW that a hand-held performs MUCH better plumbed
into the ship's external antenna (no matter how compromised)
than it does using just a rubber-duck from the cockpit.
However, I'm not going to pitch the rubber-ducks on my
hand-helds in favor of an "ideal" antenna with an
optimal ground plane. This umbrella sized device would
be difficult to open and use in the cockpit.
All this stuff applies only to resonant, un-amplified
antennas that drive low impedance feedlines (50 ohm coax).
There's a whole other world of antennas like amplified
GPS antennas, loran antennas, ADF antennas, AM antenna
on your car, etc. which are e-field receptors and have
their own special worlds that do not (indeed some cannot)
depend on any kind of resonant counterpoise or ground plane.
The writer was perfectly founded in the physics of
the ideal antenna structure but appears unaware of
the practical realities of antenna compromise that
have performed to the degree EXPECTED and ACCEPTED
on airplanes of all sizes for for decades. He may be
familiar with the efforts that antenna designers expend
to get the most from a broadcast or ground based
communications antenna where the GOAL is ANTENNA
performance. Our goal is to optimize FLIGHT SYSTEM
performance wherein most situations will tolerate
"degraded" antenna performance. Please feel free to
forward this note to the original author and invite
him to join us here on the List.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Rob Logan Wrote:
"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)"
Good Evening Rob,
I am having something of a hard time following what you are saying.
Is it your contention that following a glide path beyond the published DA without
meeting regulatory vision requirements is a safe thing to do?
If that is your point, I strongly disagree.
While I do think that many of our approaches are poorly drawn (due to policy, not
due to the efforts of the folks who have to follow that policy) and that a
change in the policy of implementation would be likely to yield much lower minimums
at many of those airports located in high obstacle areas, I absolutely do
not ever want to encourage anyone to bust minima.
If the FEDs use the accuracy available with WAAS to it's optimum advantage, we
would gain the greatest good. That is all I am suggesting
Following a WAAS generated, or any other glide path, all the away to the dirt when
the route to that dirt has not been found clear of obstacles borders on suicide.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fix for radio noise |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Hi Dj,
>
> Are these filters between the power supply and
> the 12v input or the ground? Where did you
> have them grounded when you had the noise?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
These are installed in a Glasair (fiberglass
airplane), so no metal wings. The noise filters
have 4 wires, a 12v and ground for the input side connected
to the 12v aircraft power source and the ground wire
going back to the aircraft common ground point, and a 12v and ground
on the output side connected to the 12v and ground
on the strobe power supply. The instructions on the
package show the proper way to install the filter.
http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&product%5Fid=270-051
When I had noise, the strobe power supply was
connected to the same 12v aircraft power and ground wires.
I essentially added the filter in-line to the existing
wired connections.
-Dj
do not archive
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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: Aircraft Theft Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dww0708@aol.com
During" oneday on the flight line "an old man started his 182 with one of
those chain gangs on the prop, snapped three of the four engine mounts before
he realized what he had done. I mean you could see the cross grain of the
castings where they exceeded their yield strength, probably makes you go
sentimental. That BE 1900 looks like it is covered in Gill Liner internally.
Did
yall do that cargo mod. I did a few cargo mods on some DO228 s. Love
hearing stuff from the Big Shops. David
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! --
|