Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:57 AM - Lights and Pitot heat (Richard Talbot)
2. 06:05 AM - PIDG Crimp Connections (Richard Talbot)
3. 07:36 AM - Re: AOA Pro and Garmin GMA340 (Walter Tondu)
4. 07:44 AM - Re: Garmin Jeppssen Database (John Danielson)
5. 07:45 AM - flip-flop tone generator (Dan Checkoway)
6. 08:32 AM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
7. 08:37 AM - Re: PIDG Crimp Connections (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:45 AM - Re: Lights and Pitot heat (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:47 AM - Re: Electrical cutting out--problem solved (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:21 AM - Re: normally-on switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:33 AM - Re: Garmin Jeppssen Database (DAVID REEL)
12. 10:05 AM - Re: Z-13A questions for Bob (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 10:21 AM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (John Schroeder)
14. 11:01 AM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Dan Checkoway)
15. 11:06 AM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
16. 11:19 AM - Re: Garmin Jeppssen Database (rd2@evenlink.com)
17. 12:14 PM - Re: Re: Precise Aircraft Maneuvering (Mike Larkin)
18. 01:37 PM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Matt Prather)
19. 02:02 PM - Odyssey PC625 Question (Larry E. James)
20. 02:49 PM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Dan Checkoway)
21. 03:15 PM - Odyssey PC625 Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 03:17 PM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 03:58 PM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Dan Checkoway)
24. 04:01 PM - touch screen pdas in rough air? (Jim Jewell)
25. 04:23 PM - Re: Re: Contact Arc Suppression (Charlie Kuss)
26. 05:07 PM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Eric M. Jones)
27. 05:09 PM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Matt Prather)
28. 05:23 PM - Re: flip-flop tone generator (Fred Fillinger)
29. 05:52 PM - Re: RV-List: X-COM Radio and Microair Repair (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
30. 06:45 PM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Earl_Schroeder)
31. 07:41 PM - Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
32. 08:25 PM - Re: Molex Extraction Tool (Mike Larkin)
33. 08:58 PM - Re: Re: RV-List: X-COM Radio and Microair Repair (Dick Fisher)
34. 10:30 PM - Re: PIDG Crimp Connections (HCRV6@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: | Lights and Pitot heat |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
Hi Everyone,
I am currently working on getting the wings wrapped up for my RV 7. I have
a few questions about wiring the lights and pitot heat.
I intend on running 100W bulbs in the Duckworks lights. These should draw
around 8 amps continuous. I will run the recommended 16 AWG wire to the
bulbs (one per side). The question I have is if a ground return is
necessary. There seems to be conflicting opinions.... On one side it would
be lighter and cheaper not to install ground returns. On the other, noise
could be introduced into the system and I have heard that corosion can be an
issue. What is the story here?
Out of interest has anyone had a lens melt? 10A would produce a fair bit of
heat I would assume.... My local auto store sells 130W bulbs as well... This
is over 11A (at 12V).
Also, has anyone worked out what would happen if the perspex lens on the
front of the leading edge fails in flight? At 180kt I would expect there
would be some issues....
Thanks
Richard
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot" <rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
I'm wondering if anyone could let me in on when I should use insulated
versus non-insulated PIDG crimp lugs? I have heard a few builders say that
they thought the non-insulated lugs were easier to install etc.
In addition, what should I look for in a tool? Some tools specifically say
they are not for insulated or non-insulated connectors... Some tools are
$250, some are $40 (as per the B&C unit). I'm confused as to what I need.
I am prepared to spend money on tools where there is value, but if the $40
unit will do the job properly for one (or two) airplanes that is all I am
really after.
Also, is is best to stick with the AMP lugs or is there a cheaper
alternative that has been proven to work well?
Thanks and sorry for all the questions
Richard
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AOA Pro and Garmin GMA340 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 04/17 8:57, John Schroeder wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Walter -
>
> We have the Proprietary Software Sport model AOA from Jim Franz. We also
> have the Garmin 340 (and the other stack items) that we got from John
> Stark at Stark Avionics in Columbus, GA. He did all the wiring between the
> stack and to other items we specified. Our problem was that the Dynon
> D-10A has an input to the 340; as did the Garmin 330 Modes S, the TruTrak
> autopilot and the AOA. John wired the the transponder directly to the 340
> at pin 31 of Plug #1 ("Altitude Warning In") and the ground goes to Pin 32
> ("Altitude Warning Return"). This is for unswitched audio input to the 340
> and can also be used for other audio inputs. The cabling to the Dynon
> (Encoder Data) also contained one shielded two wire that was labelled
> "EFIS Audio" and pinned to the same pins on the 340.
>
> So, we had lots of questions as to how to get the other two pieces and the
> Dynon wired into the 340. If you do have other audio inputs, John said to
> put a 300 ohm resistor in the signal line of each unit and parallel the
> signals to pin 31 of plug 1 on the 340. This resistor has something to do
> with the impedances and signal. The grounds go to pin 32.
Thanks John. You are right, there's the data in the manual. I must
have fogged over it while reading.
> An alternative to unswitched audio is noted in the 340 manual. You can
> route it thru the ADF Radio pins 7 (hi) & 8 (lo) of Plug 1 on the 340.
> But, you then have the input on a switch (ADF) and can turn it on or off.
> However you then have to placard the ADF button accordingly.
do not archive.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Garmin Jeppssen Database |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Danielson" <johnd@wlcwyo.com>
Garmin is no longer supporting the GPS-90.
Go to Garmins web site, and you will find a statement under the download
section.
John L. Danielson
307-266-2524
johnd@wlcwyo.com
WLC, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ivorphillips
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Jeppssen Database
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ivorphillips"
<ivor@ivorphillips.flyer.co.uk>
I read somewhere that garmin were withdrawing support for the early
handheld
GPS's, That may include the Database updates,
Ivor Phillips
XS486 London UK
From: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Jeppssen Database
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
>
> Attempting to get the latest database for my GPS90, the
j90-amrn-0306.exe
> file produces the message "not a valid win32 application" when I try
to
> execute it in Windows 2000. Has anyone overcome a problem like this
that
> could steer me in the right direction? Email to Garmin has gone
> unanswered for quite some time.
>
> Dave Reel - still want to use my old GPS.
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
A button on my stick is used to flip-flop the COM freq on my GX60. Works
great, love it, yadda yadda. What I'm looking to add, though, is a feature
whereby when I click the flip-flop button on the stick, a quick unobtrusive
tone is generated. The reason for doing this is twofold --
- I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the time. I
pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice if the
change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took effect.
- The GX60 has several screen modes where the COM freq is not displayed.
Again, an aural cue would be nice to confirm the flip-flop.
As for the aural cue itself, I'm thinking a simple quick beep or bong will
do.
I'd like to build (or buy) a "black box" tone generator, which ideally would
be very lightweight and compact, and it needs the following inputs/outputs:
1) Power
2) Ground
3) Stick switch (activated when pulled to ground)
4) Audio output (and presumably a way to control level)
I will couple it to my existing flip-flop stick switch and run the audio
output to the unswitched audio input on my GMA-340 audio panel.
I don't really know diddly about making this type of thing myself, which is
why I'm hitting up this group for info. Does anybody have a schematic for a
dummy-proof tone generator or something like that?
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: | flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
Ditto everything DC stated.
Happens to me all the time and I get bit as flight lead. Tone generation
on the stick flip flop would be great.
I look fwd to the suggestions.
To my friends at PS Engineering, how about incorporating this into the
audio panel for my stick swap button?
Mike
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Checkoway
Subject: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
<dan@rvproject.com>
A button on my stick is used to flip-flop the COM freq on my GX60.
Works
great, love it, yadda yadda. What I'm looking to add, though, is a
feature
whereby when I click the flip-flop button on the stick, a quick
unobtrusive
tone is generated. The reason for doing this is twofold --
- I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the time.
I
pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice if
the
change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took effect.
- The GX60 has several screen modes where the COM freq is not displayed.
Again, an aural cue would be nice to confirm the flip-flop.
As for the aural cue itself, I'm thinking a simple quick beep or bong
will
do.
I'd like to build (or buy) a "black box" tone generator, which ideally
would
be very lightweight and compact, and it needs the following
inputs/outputs:
1) Power
2) Ground
3) Stick switch (activated when pulled to ground)
4) Audio output (and presumably a way to control level)
I will couple it to my existing flip-flop stick switch and run the audio
output to the unswitched audio input on my GMA-340 audio panel.
I don't really know diddly about making this type of thing myself, which
is
why I'm hitting up this group for info. Does anybody have a schematic
for a
dummy-proof tone generator or something like that?
Thanks in advance,
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
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: PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:00 PM 4/18/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>
>I'm wondering if anyone could let me in on when I should use insulated
>versus non-insulated PIDG crimp lugs? I have heard a few builders say that
>they thought the non-insulated lugs were easier to install etc.
Please review the information available at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles.html
but more specifically articles at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/big_term.pdf
When you run across anyone who offers suggestions
contrary to the simple-ideas offered above, please
have him/her visit my website and then advise me
where I've gone wrong. If there are modifications
in order for anything published there, I'd be very
pleased to know of it.
>In addition, what should I look for in a tool? Some tools specifically say
>they are not for insulated or non-insulated connectors... Some tools are
>$250, some are $40 (as per the B&C unit). I'm confused as to what I need.
Since B&C's bread and butter for sales of tools and supplies
to the OBAM aircraft community, aside from price of the tool,
what are your reasons for doubt?
They've been in business quite a long time and their warranty is
"no unhappy customers" . . . When it comes to value, I'm more
suspicious of a four-color catalog describing a warehouse full
of "stuff" presided over by hoards of stock-pickers and packing
clerks who know virtually nothing of their products or customer's needs.
>I am prepared to spend money on tools where there is value, but if the $40
>unit will do the job properly for one (or two) airplanes that is all I am
>really after.
>
>Also, is is best to stick with the AMP lugs or is there a cheaper
>alternative that has been proven to work well?
How cheap do you want to get? Keep in mind that the
differences in performance between PIDG and Plasti-Grip
terminals at half the price is pretty profound.
If you're ready to buy 1000 lots of any part from
any supplier, the prices can get attractive . . .
but when you need bags of 10 and boxes of 100,
the costs of handling and packing start to pile
onto the piece price.
There is also the issue of tools working well with
the terminals. About a year ago, a local supplier
sent me samples of some less expensive terminals . . .
about 2/3 price of AMP in small quantity. Here's how
they worked in tools we sold and recommend.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/JST_Samples_2.jpg
They were mechanically and electrically secure but
looked like @#$@. Get the $40 tool and use the money
you saved from buying a $250 tool to buy good terminals
instead. You won't go wrong with AMP PIDG or Waldom
Avicrimp. B&C strives to have their tools match
their parts . . . and if they don't, they too
would be pleased to know about it so that it can
be fixed.
Bob . . .
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: Lights and Pitot heat |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:53 PM 4/18/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard Talbot"
><rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au>
>
>
>Hi Everyone,
>
>I am currently working on getting the wings wrapped up for my RV 7. I have
>a few questions about wiring the lights and pitot heat.
>
>I intend on running 100W bulbs in the Duckworks lights. These should draw
>around 8 amps continuous. I will run the recommended 16 AWG wire to the
>bulbs (one per side). The question I have is if a ground return is
>necessary. There seems to be conflicting opinions.... On one side it would
>be lighter and cheaper not to install ground returns. On the other, noise
>could be introduced into the system and I have heard that corosion can be an
>issue. What is the story here?
There's a wealth of ol' mechanic's tales out there on this
topic. Local grounds for landing lights, pitot heat, position
lights and strobe supplies are fine in a metal airplane. Clean
aluminum to bright around the hole, install terminal with a
minimum 8-32 screw (10-32 better). Use metallic locknut on top
of washer and torque to upper end of limits. This will produce
a gas-tight interface between terminal and airframe that will
last the lifetime of the airplane. If you're a belt-n-suspenders
guy, you can dope the mating surfaces with silicone grease before
bolting them together. The grease will fill microscopic voids
in the interface and prevent entry of gasses and/or moisture.
>Out of interest has anyone had a lens melt? 10A would produce a fair bit of
>heat I would assume.... My local auto store sells 130W bulbs as well... This
>is over 11A (at 12V).
Have you considered talking to the manufacturer? Is their
lens Plexiglas or Lexan? What are their recommendations
for modifications to their product?
>Also, has anyone worked out what would happen if the perspex lens on the
>front of the leading edge fails in flight? At 180kt I would expect there
>would be some issues....
Nothing spectacular . . . unless you're flying in the
rain and fill a wing full of water.
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: | Re: Electrical cutting out--problem solved |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:28 PM 4/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "dave" <dford@michweb.net>
>
>I've been chasing an intermittent power failure "blinking" or a 2 second
>cutout of power enough to lose radio, reset gps flight planning and
>overall nuisiance. I've been checking wire connections, possible loose
>terminals/wires. The trouble until recently has been difficult to
>troubleshoot since it took a while to determine exactly everything that
>was cutting out. Everything on the ESS buss was losing power for just an
>instant. Sometimes this would happen as I keyed the mic to transmit. I
>recently shut down everything to load a passenger and when turning on
>master, all power going to items on the ESS buss were dead. Further
>checking revealed no power through the ESS buss bridge diode. One section
>of the AC to + terminal was open, connecting to the other AC input
>restored power to ESS buss.
Interesting. I had another builder report the same problem
about 10 years ago. His bridge rectifier's potting compound
didn't have a good grip on the terminal and flexing within
broke some bonds during installation of the wiring. New
fast-ons have to be wrestled into place with some effort
and the terminals must be well retained. Thank you for
sharing this with us.
Bob . . .
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: normally-on switch? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:57 AM 4/1/2005 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong@xs4all.nl>
>
>If one needs a normally-closed-open-to-test switch is a cb the best
>choice? Alternatives?
>Properties looked for:
>- reliable conductor of a wide range of currents
>- normally-on appearance
>- impossible to accidentally open
>
>Thank you for opinions.
>Jan de Jong
Depends on your design goals. No switch is immune to
accident . . . you can do things to reduce risk but
it's never going to be zero.
What is your application? Do you want it to be a real
switch and look like other switches or would a shielded
push button like a starter button be the ticket? We
need more details on what you want to accomplish and
how it's supposed to look and work.
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 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: Garmin Jeppssen Database |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
I was able to contact Garmin via phone - thanks for the number Rumen - & the cause
of this error was virus filtering that routinely runs on my PC. This truncated
the download preventing it from executing on my PC. Turning off the filtering
allowed me to download the complete database & get past the problem.
Dave
Attempting to get the latest database for my GPS90, the j90-amrn-0306.exe file
produces the message "not a valid win32 application" when I try to execute
it
in Windows 2000. Has anyone overcome a problem like this that could steer
me
in the right direction? Email to Garmin has gone unanswered for quite some
time.
Dave Reel - still want to use my old GPS.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Z-13A questions for Bob |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:36 PM 4/15/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
><jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
>Bob, have you changed Z-13A since the end of December?
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Architecture/z13A.pdf
>Any changes in the works?
Nothing really profound. I have decided to remove all
examples of internally regulated alternators from the Z-figures
until such time as I can deduce a well-founded means
by which OV protection and control can be added to make
these machines behave as most pilots expect.
I know there are folk who have faith in the integrity
of internally regulated alternators but we KNOW the failure
rate is not zero. Further, while there may be COTS (commercial
off the shelf) alternators for which the faith is well deserved,
I have no way to know where all the offerings out there
fit in the good-better-best curve.
If my boss were to task me with qualifying an internally
regulated alternator onto one of our products, the supplier
would have to spill his guts on design and fabrication details
of his product. Further, once we decided that his product
meets both sprit and intent of the FARs and our product design
policies, he's obligated to make no changes to the design
without telling us about it.
I can confidently recommend architectures in the Z-figures
not because I understand how they work. I'm not suggesting
there are no internally regulated products worthy of consideration,
I'm only saying that I have no mechanism by which I can
KNOW which ones they are.
>On the main alternator, far right, is the "F" lead on the left side of
>the alternator a field lead? I didn't think internally regulated
>alternators had an external field lead.
They don't . . . that's 'field control' . . . so I left
it with "F" . . . but it could be any other letter you like.
>If this is a modification as suggested in Note 11, can you point me
>towards instructions on how to perform the modification?
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/
>Why are there ammeter shunts and alternator loadmeters attached? You
>recently said: Voltmeters and ammeters are diagnostic tools, not flight
> operations tools.
>Would it be at all useful to have a diagnostic tool installed?
Doesn't hurt a thing . . . airplanes have been fitted with
some form of electrical system gage (usually a battery-ammeter
or loadmeter) since day-one. One could add any number of other
devices depending on panel space, and builder's perceived
value. The decision's should include consideration of exactly
what the gage does for you when things are going bad in-flight
and how you will use the displayed information to improve your
probability of comfortable termination of flight.
If you decide some diagnostic tools are okay and you've got
the panel space, where do you decide to stop? One could build
a full-up diagnostic system into the panel so that you could
KNOW exactly what needed to be fixed before you land . . . but
is this part of a pilot's duty while airborne . . . or is it
an invitation to distraction which raises probability of
disaster.
> I'm
>thinking--maybe if you saw a sudden unexplained increase in load, it
>might warn you that something, somewhere, had shorted and maybe you
>should start turning things off to try to isolate it before you get
>smoke. I realize fuses/CB's should deal with such faults, but why else
>would you install a loadmeter, other than idle curiosity?
I haven't a clue. The FARS demand that some kind of electrical
system gaging be included in the airplane. Since cars had
battery ammeters from day-one, gee why not airplanes too?
Problem is that a gage is NOT active notification of alternator
failure. 95% of the dark-n-stormy-night stories involving
failed alternators begin where the pilot notices that things
are not working right on the panel . . . the alternator has
be dead for some time and the pilot is nearly if not totally
out of options. The low voltage warning light combined with
architecture and planning for going to battery-only
endurance mode makes a whole lot more sense than having
ANY kind of instrument which slices amps or volts into little
pieces for consideration.
The "soft" fault you hypothesize is the topic of a paper
I'm doing at Raytheon right now. AC43.13, says:
11-48. DETERMINATION OF CIRCUIT BREAKER RATINGS. Circuit protection
devices must be sized to supply open circuit capability. A circuit breaker
must be rated so
that it will open before the current rating of the wire attached to it is
exceeded, or before the
cumulative rating of all loads connected to it are exceeded, whichever is
lowest. A circuit
breaker must always open before any component downstream can overheat and
generate
smoke or fire. Wires must be sized to carry continuous current in excess of
the circuit
protective device rating, including its time/current characteristics, and
to avoid excessive
voltage drop. Refer to section 5 for wire rating methods.
Nice sounding words but it cannot be done and the circuit
breaker industry is the first to point out that there are
cases of high-energy, low-current faults that WILL NEVER
open the breaker or fuse while wreaking havoc with important
things in the airplane.
When the paper is finished and present to my compatriots
at RAC, I'll get permission to publish it on my website.
It's the nature of soft-faults that you're probably going
to become aware of it just because something isn't working
right or you have bad smells in the cockpit long before
you happen to notice an ammeter reading that's out of
whack.
>I may yet repent and splurge for an L40, but want to understand both
>options as well as I can.
You won't go wrong . . . the time it will take to locate and modify
another alternator to compare with the L-40 is significant.
It's all a matter of how you stack your $time$ against the
hoped-for date of first flight. Bottom line is that you have
only 24-hours per day to apply to all the tasks before you.
Only you can decide which of the make-or-buy decisions best
fit your game plan.
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dan -
I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in close
formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread for such
things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare times when
one has to do things like this in close formation, but I doubt if they
apply to the type of flying you do. A formation instrument approach in
weather is one - and one never does those unless separate approaches are
impossible (electrical failure or pitot/static problems at the drome of
last resort). I certainly would talk it over with your leader.
This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather and
night weather formation.
Cheers,
John
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:02 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
wrote:
> - I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the
> time. I
> pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice if the
> change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took effect.
--
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: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
John,
Thanks for your input. The leaders I fly with always kick the formation out
to cruise/route before changing freqs and doing ops checks. No worries
there.
Regardless of being in cruise spread, I don't always visually check the
radio to see that the flip-flop has been done. Yes, I should...but
realistically, that's the point of the flip-flop switch on the stick imho.
Not having to look, not having to touch.
I'm just looking for simple feedback when I push the switch.
do not archive
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Dan -
>
> I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in close
> formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread for such
> things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare times when
> one has to do things like this in close formation, but I doubt if they
> apply to the type of flying you do. A formation instrument approach in
> weather is one - and one never does those unless separate approaches are
> impossible (electrical failure or pitot/static problems at the drome of
> last resort). I certainly would talk it over with your leader.
>
> This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather and
> night weather formation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:02 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
> wrote:
>
> > - I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the
> > time. I
> > pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice if
the
> > change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took effect.
>
>
> --
>
>
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: | flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
I think you missed his point John.
As flight lead, close or not, you might be flipping freq's a lot and the
flight may stay on a company freq while you are working ATC on another.
Back and forth you go for hours. My flop is between radios through the
audio panel, others is on the actual radio.
You might invariantly hit the flop switch on your stick, which I do all
the time cause the little sw is so damn touchy, and not know it. Also as
a wingman you also want to know if you have inadvertently hit the flop
on your stick. It is a constant problem for me.
We flip freq's in every show to switch from show freq to our discrete
freq in close formation and it is a necessary evil. This is exactly why
most of our team members have the flip on the stick to take care of that
problem.
A small 'ding' in my ear would be a life saver for this little problem
we have here.
Mike
Team RV
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dan -
I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in
close
formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread for
such
things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare times when
one has to do things like this in close formation, but I doubt if they
apply to the type of flying you do. A formation instrument approach in
weather is one - and one never does those unless separate approaches are
impossible (electrical failure or pitot/static problems at the drome of
last resort). I certainly would talk it over with your leader.
This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather and
night weather formation.
Cheers,
John
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:02 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
wrote:
> - I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the
> time. I
> pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice if
the
> change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took effect.
--
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: Garmin Jeppssen Database |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>I was able to contact Garmin via phone - thanks for the number Rumen.....
you're welcome
R
do not archive
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Precise Aircraft Maneuvering |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
I could pull all the documents to prove my point but that would take
some time and proving myself with out a doubt right is not my
motivation: with 13,000 hours and 25 years flying experience; 10 years
of test flying; more NTSB accident reports reviewed then I care to
mention; more than my fair share of accident investigations. My point
is not to prove you wrong but to offer my many years of experience to
others. You may do what you would like, but a turn-around maneuver done
poorly will kill you. A pilot that does not remain proficient with such
maneuver in the airplane he is flying will on average (by experience)
perform this maneuver poorly.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Precise Aircraft Manuevering
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 4/10/2005 5:25:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
More people die trying to make it
back to the airport when an engine quits then flying it strait ahead and
landing (crashing under control). It is my opinion that unless you
believe without a doubt you can safely turn around (at that particular
point in time) you should land under control wing level strait ahead.
Mark,
Thanks for your comments. I have to use one of Bob's favorite lines and
say,
"Show me the statistics you are referring to which document that more
people
die trying to turn back to the airport compared to a straight-ahead
landing
and 'crashing under control.'" Without facts, your comment is
unsubstantiated.
Further, you implication is that the pilot will be out-of-control should
he
turn around. Perhaps - but I suggest that by using safe techniques and
careful
preparation, a turn around to the airport could be much safer than
landing
straight ahead.
Ha, tell you what, I'll stir the pot a little more with another topic.
I
advocate striving to land on a highway should the engine fail out of
reach of an
airport. I have good rationale why it's the safest thing to do and I
have
techniques for accomplishing it safely. Maybe I should put that on the
web site
also.
Whew! I can feel the flames already! : )
Stan Sutterfield
--
--
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: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
/Devil's Advocate Comment...
What happens if you miss the "beep" when you accidentally switch frequencies
while bouncing around in turbulence? You can't tell by feel which
frequency is
selected. While a momentary switch is easy to construct, it doesn't tell
you anything
about the setting of a system.
I'm not trying to poke holes in your idea.. It clearly is already working
for you. I
just wonder if the ergonomics could be even better. Maybe a small toggle
or slide
switch so that you can determine the position of the system by feel.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
> <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> John,
>
> Thanks for your input. The leaders I fly with always kick the formation
> out to cruise/route before changing freqs and doing ops checks. No
> worries there.
>
> Regardless of being in cruise spread, I don't always visually check the
> radio to see that the flip-flop has been done. Yes, I should...but
> realistically, that's the point of the flip-flop switch on the stick
> imho. Not having to look, not having to touch.
>
> I'm just looking for simple feedback when I push the switch.
>
> do not archive
> )_( Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>>
>> Dan -
>>
>> I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in
>> close formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread
>> for such things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare
>> times when one has to do things like this in close formation, but I
>> doubt if they apply to the type of flying you do. A formation
>> instrument approach in weather is one - and one never does those
>> unless separate approaches are impossible (electrical failure or
>> pitot/static problems at the drome of last resort). I certainly would
>> talk it over with your leader.
>>
>> This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather
>> and night weather formation.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:02 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > - I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the
>> time. I
>> > pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice
>> if
> the
>> > change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took
>> effect.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Odyssey PC625 Question |
SpamAssassin (score=-1.466, required 4, autolearn=not spam,
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
Hello,
In searching the archives I have found limited reference to
the performance differences between a PC680 and PC625.
The excerpt I find is :
"Battery selection is mostly driven by CAPACITY
requirements
to support your endurance bus and to have a low enough
internal impedance to deliver the very small dose of energy
required to get an engine going. You use typically less
than
5% of a battery's capacity to get the engine going.
ONE PC625 is plenty of battery to crank an engine. There
are SMALLER batteries yet that are plenty to crank an
engine.
Bob . . ."
The PC625 is 2.2 lbs lighter than the PC680; so a two
battery system using these would save 4.4 lbs. Can anyone
offer experience with either of these batteries in cranking
a medium-high-compression Lyc IO-540 ???
What I'm not understanding is that all electrical numbers
for the PC625 are higher than the PC680 except the 5 sec.
Hot Cranking Amps ...... making it an obvious choice (to
someone that has a hard time with electrons).
thanks a ton,
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA HR2 -fuselage / systems
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
The flip-flop stick switch is not something I hit inadvertently. Matt, I
already have the flip-flop switch on my stick. Like I said originally,
"Works great, love it, yadda yadda."
I'm just looking for feedback in a DIFFERENT form that suits my needs.
Does anybody do electronics on this list?
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
>
> /Devil's Advocate Comment...
>
> What happens if you miss the "beep" when you accidentally switch
frequencies
> while bouncing around in turbulence? You can't tell by feel which
> frequency is
> selected. While a momentary switch is easy to construct, it doesn't tell
> you anything
> about the setting of a system.
>
> I'm not trying to poke holes in your idea.. It clearly is already working
> for you. I
> just wonder if the ergonomics could be even better. Maybe a small toggle
> or slide
> switch so that you can determine the position of the system by feel.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
> VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway"
> > <dan@rvproject.com>
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Thanks for your input. The leaders I fly with always kick the formation
> > out to cruise/route before changing freqs and doing ops checks. No
> > worries there.
> >
> > Regardless of being in cruise spread, I don't always visually check the
> > radio to see that the flip-flop has been done. Yes, I should...but
> > realistically, that's the point of the flip-flop switch on the stick
> > imho. Not having to look, not having to touch.
> >
> > I'm just looking for simple feedback when I push the switch.
> >
> > do not archive
> > )_( Dan
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flip-flop tone generator
> >
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> > <jschroeder@perigee.net>
> >>
> >> Dan -
> >>
> >> I don't know about the leaders you fly with, but channel changes in
> >> close formation are dumb. The formation should be kicked out to spread
> >> for such things as fuel checks and radio changes. There are very rare
> >> times when one has to do things like this in close formation, but I
> >> doubt if they apply to the type of flying you do. A formation
> >> instrument approach in weather is one - and one never does those
> >> unless separate approaches are impossible (electrical failure or
> >> pitot/static problems at the drome of last resort). I certainly would
> >> talk it over with your leader.
> >>
> >> This is my humble opinion based on hundreds of hours of day weather
> >> and night weather formation.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:02 -0700, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > - I fly formation all the time, and I'm staring at lead 99% of the
> >> time. I
> >> > pre-load my frequencies. When I click flip-flop, it would be nice
> >> if
> > the
> >> > change was accompanied by an aural cue to confirm that it took
> >> effect.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
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: | Odyssey PC625 Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:59 PM 4/18/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Larry E. James" <larry@ncproto.com>
>
>Hello,
>In searching the archives I have found limited reference to
>the performance differences between a PC680 and PC625.
>
>The excerpt I find is :
> "Battery selection is mostly driven by CAPACITY
>requirements
> to support your endurance bus and to have a low enough
> internal impedance to deliver the very small dose of energy
> required to get an engine going. You use typically less
>than
> 5% of a battery's capacity to get the engine going.
>
> ONE PC625 is plenty of battery to crank an engine. There
> are SMALLER batteries yet that are plenty to crank an
>engine.
> Bob . . ."
>
>The PC625 is 2.2 lbs lighter than the PC680; so a two
>battery system using these would save 4.4 lbs. Can anyone
>offer experience with either of these batteries in cranking
>a medium-high-compression Lyc IO-540 ???
>
>What I'm not understanding is that all electrical numbers
>for the PC625 are higher than the PC680 except the 5 sec.
>Hot Cranking Amps ...... making it an obvious choice (to
>someone that has a hard time with electrons).
>thanks a ton,
If somebody swapped the two batteries around at random,
you'd never know the difference in cranking for the new
batteries. The two batteries are about the same internal
impedance (meaning same number of plates) wild the
heavier battery probably has thicker plates for a bit
better deep cycle characteristics. Again, these differences
are so small that you're not likely to observe any differences
in performance without laboratory measurements.
I'd go for the ligher battery.
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: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:47 PM 4/18/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
>The flip-flop stick switch is not something I hit inadvertently. Matt, I
>already have the flip-flop switch on my stick. Like I said originally,
>"Works great, love it, yadda yadda."
>
>I'm just looking for feedback in a DIFFERENT form that suits my needs.
>
>Does anybody do electronics on this list?
What are you looking for Dan . . . it wasn't immediately
apparent to me browsing through the tread.
Bob . . .
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> What are you looking for Dan . . . it wasn't immediately
> apparent to me browsing through the tread.
> I'd like to build (or buy) a "black box" tone generator, which ideally
would
> be very lightweight and compact, and it needs the following
inputs/outputs:
>
> 1) Power
> 2) Ground
> 3) Stick switch (activated when pulled to ground)
> 4) Audio output (and presumably a way to control level)
>
> I will couple it to my existing flip-flop stick switch and run the audio
> output to the unswitched audio input on my GMA-340 audio panel.
>
> I don't really know diddly about making this type of thing myself, which
is
> why I'm hitting up this group for info. Does anybody have a schematic for
a
> dummy-proof tone generator or something like that?
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: | touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
A question for those that own and are using The iPAQ and other touch screen
type PDA's;
In a discussion recently I was told that the majority of touch screen PDA
GPS system users felt that they where very difficult to use effectively in
bumpy and or rough air flight conditions.
The person making the claims was adamant that this reason among unmentioned
others was the prime reason to avoid the PDA based GPS and flight systems.
I think it has been a while since this kind of question on this subject has
been asked.
I have not as yet chosen a path on this subject and hope to get some input
pro and con re- PDA based GPS and flight data versus the mainstream portable
GPS and fight data systems.
Jim in Kelowna
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Contact Arc Suppression |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Eric,
Oh, wow! I want a dozen of those. Just think how cool brass knobs will
look next to your company logo! :-)
Charlie Kuss
>snipped
>I lean towards the Jules Verne giant knife switches and polished brass
>handles and levers on a panel with snaphead rivets the size of snooker
>balls. Now that's elegant.
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: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> I'd like to build (or buy) a "black box" tone generator, which ideally
would
> be very lightweight and compact, and it needs the following
inputs/outputs:
>
> 1) Power
> 2) Ground
> 3) Stick switch (activated when pulled to ground)
> 4) Audio output (and presumably a way to control level)
>
> I will couple it to my existing flip-flop stick switch and run the audio
> output to the unswitched audio input on my GMA-340 audio panel.
>
> I don't really know diddly about making this type of thing myself, which
is
> why I'm hitting up this group for info. Does anybody have a schematic for
a
> dummy-proof tone generator or something like that?
Hi Dan,
A good way of doing this is with a 556 dual timer. The first timer is called
a "one shot". When triggered, its output turns on for a user-selected time
(like 10 mS). The second timer generates the user-selected tone like 500 Hz
for a time period determined by the first timer. I think you can't go wrong
going to radio shack and getting Forrest Mimm's "Engineer's Notebook". This
book has everything you need to know about how to do the job. The only
tricky thing is to use a series capacitor like 0.01 uF in series with the
first timer's trigger and a 10-100 uF capacitor in series with the second
timer's output.
You'll do fine.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true."
James Clerk Maxwell, discoverer of electromagnetism
"Too much of a good thing can be wonderful."
Mae West, discoverer of personal magnetism
Message 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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
That's a good question. I remember this discussion from a while back, and
I expressed concern that the touch screen might be a problem, but didn't
have any data to back it up. It ocurrs to me that I actually have a Palm
Pilot.
I'll try to remember to take it with me the next time I go flying, just to
check
the interface. I suspect that it will work just fine, as long as my hand
can be
braced against something while it is entering data.
Regards,
Matt-
VE N34RD, C150 N714BK
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell"
> <jjewell@telus.net>
>
> A question for those that own and are using The iPAQ and other touch
> screen type PDA's;
>
> In a discussion recently I was told that the majority of touch screen
> PDA GPS system users felt that they where very difficult to use
> effectively in bumpy and or rough air flight conditions.
>
> The person making the claims was adamant that this reason among
> unmentioned others was the prime reason to avoid the PDA based GPS and
> flight systems.
>
> I think it has been a while since this kind of question on this subject
> has been asked.
>
> I have not as yet chosen a path on this subject and hope to get some
> input pro and con re- PDA based GPS and flight data versus the
> mainstream portable GPS and fight data systems.
>
> Jim in Kelowna
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: flip-flop tone generator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> I'm just looking for feedback in a DIFFERENT form that suits my
needs.
>
> Does anybody do electronics on this list?
>
What I think would be best is a tone which sounds for a fixed time,
like 1/2 second or so. If you don't mind an unmusical tone (not
sinusoidal), consider:
http://www.fairchildsemi.com/ds/NE/NE555.pdf
The 555 is the simplest approach I can think of, using two of them.
One is a monostable, for the brief on time. When on, its output
supplies Vcc to the other, which is an oscillator (astable) at desired
frequency, say 1000Hz. The output won't drive phones but should be
plenty for an audio panel. Use a 1K potentiometer on the output to
set audio level. You can google up many papers on the net discussing
this popular IC.
The only tricky part might be the voltage on the flip-flop line from
the GX-60 -- measure it. Then reference that to the trigger
characteristics in the data sheet. If a problem, then you need some
circuit modification, but simple to do.
Fred F.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: RV-List: X-COM Radio and Microair Repair |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Stein & list,
What's vendor/part number you are using for the music in mono wire on the xcom?
Mine came with a premade harness that has two tinned wires at the jack end that
form a Y. One is relatively thick and the other thin. I can't tell if the
smaller one is a braided ground wire or not since they are all covered with
heat shrink incuding over where the Y comes together. Maybe it's a left and a
right channel that joins and becomes one wire? I can't tell and never wired
up a mono connector before.
I figured that the connector I was looking for was an easily recognizable Radio
Shack item but when I went there all I saw were "large" jacks and not smaller
stuff I want for something like an Ipod or XM radio out to connect to.
thx,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch"
>
> I've had at close to a dozen X-Coms go through my hands in the past 2
> months, so I personally know they are available. I normally try to keep at
> least 3-4 of them on the shelf, but lately they've been selling quickly.
> Only takes us about 3-4 days to get another batch from X-Com though! It is
> indeed one of the nicest little radios I've seen.
>
> Can't help you on the Microair, sorry.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein.
>
> do not archive
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ted Lumpkin
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: X-COM Radio and Microair Repair
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ted Lumpkin
>
> My Microair VHF 760 radio has failed after only 27 hours of operation. I'm
> trying to decide if I should try to have it repaired or replace it with the
> new XCOM radio which has some nice additional features.
> Does anyone know of a U.S. repair station for Microair radios? I've
> contacted the factory, but haven't heard back from them. Phone calls to
> Australia are expensive so I'm relying on e-mails.
> Also, has anyone been able to get their hands on the XCOM radio? They seem
> to be back ordered everywhere. Looking at the wiring diagram I should be
> able to plug it in to my existing radio connector.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ted
> Sweet, sweet flying (but communication challenged) RV-4
>
>
>
>
>
>
Stein list,
What's vendor/part number you areusing for the music in mono wire on the xcom?
Mine came with a premade harness that hastwotinned wires at the jack end that
form a Y. One isrelatively thick and the other thin. I can't tell if the smaller
one is a braidedground wire or not since they are all covered with heatshrink
incuding over where the Y comes together. Maybe it's a left and a right channel
that joins and becomes one wire? I can't tell and never wired up a mono connector
before.
I figured that the connector I was looking for was an easily recognizable Radio
Shack item but when I went there all I saw were "large" jacks and not smaller
stuff I want for something like an Ipod or XM radio out to connect to.
thx,
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <STEIN@STEINAIR.COM>
I've had at close to a dozen X-Coms go through my hands in the past 2
months, so I personally know they are available. I normally try to keep at
least 3-4 of them on the shelf, but lately they've been selling quickly.
Only takes us about 3-4 days to get another batch from X-Com though! It is
indeed one of the nicest little radios I've seen.
Can't help you on the Microair, sorry.
Cheers,
Stein.
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ted Lumpkin
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: X-COM Radio
and Microair Repair
-- RV-List message posted by: Ted Lumpkin <TLUMP51@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
My Microair VHF 760 radio has failed after only 27 hours of operation. I'm
trying to decide if I should try to have it repaired or replace it with the
new XCOM radio which has some nice additional features.
Does anyone know of a U.S. repair station for Microair radios? I've
contacted the factory, but haven't heard back from them. Phone calls to
Australia are expensive so I'm relying on e-mails.
Also, has anyone been able to get their hands on the XCOM radio? They seem
to be back ordered everywhere. Looking at the wiring diagram I should be
able to plug it in to my existing radio connector.
Thanks,
Ted
Sweet, sweet flying (but communication challenged) RV-4
=================
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
Hi Jim,
I've been running a couple of Ipaqs for awhile and I'd guess that 1% of
the flying time it is difficult or impossible to stab the correct place
with a stylus. Some vendors get around that by providing an on screen
'rough air' software buttons and although my system does have that
feature, I have yet to use it. I just wait a bit for smoother air or
just ignore the Ipaq functions until later. One should never get into a
situation that all your 'eggs' are in a portable device anyway in my
opinion. Most button pushing can be done prior [or should be] of
liftoff. If it is too rough to use the stylus, it is difficult to push
buttons on other instrument also. Earl
Jim Jewell wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Jewell" <jjewell@telus.net>
>
>A question for those that own and are using The iPAQ and other touch screen
>type PDA's;
>
>In a discussion recently I was told that the majority of touch screen PDA
>GPS system users felt that they where very difficult to use effectively in
>bumpy and or rough air flight conditions.
>
>The person making the claims was adamant that this reason among unmentioned
>others was the prime reason to avoid the PDA based GPS and flight systems.
>
>I think it has been a while since this kind of question on this subject has
>been asked.
>
>I have not as yet chosen a path on this subject and hope to get some input
>pro and con re- PDA based GPS and flight data versus the mainstream portable
>GPS and fight data systems.
>
>Jim in Kelowna
>
>
>
>
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: touch screen pdas in rough air? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 04/18/2005 8:06:26 PM Central Standard Time,
jjewell@telus.net writes:
In a discussion recently I was told that the majority of touch screen PDA
GPS system users felt that they where very difficult to use effectively in
bumpy and or rough air flight conditions.
>>>
My primary flight display and moving map are on panel mounted PDAs, and yes,
they can be a b*tch when the going gets rough. I tried the little Tru-tip
fingertip stylus deal, but just wound up using the short pencil that stays
velcroed to the top of my kneeboard (always keep the tip very dull). With the
heel
of my hand and other fingers held firmly against the panel, I can usually poke
what I want on the first or second try. But I'm actually more concerned
about yankin' that itty-bitty tuning knob off my Microair 760 in the bumps than
I
am with finding out what freq to dial in!
Mark Phillips N51PW - 174 hours
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Molex Extraction Tool |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
I just purchased an inexpensive molex extraction tool from Radio Shack.
It is metal and works well. Because of what a molex pin is, they only
work so well compared to the high end mil-spec stuff. Over all I would
give the Radio Shack extractor a 7+, the cost was about 4 or 5 bucks...
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Guy
Buchanan
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Molex Extraction Tool
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
All,
I bought the cheapo Molex extraction tool and, no surprise, it
doesn't work worth a damn. Does anyone have a recommendation for a good
one? Price no object at this point. I want it to work.
Thanks,
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
--
--
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: RE: RV-List: X-COM Radio and Microair Repair |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dick Fisher" <sonex76@velocity.net>
> Stein & list,
> What's vendor/part number you are using for the music in mono wire on the
> xcom? Mine came with a premade harness that has two tinned wires at the
> jack end that form a Y. One is relatively thick and the other thin. I
> can't tell if the smaller one is a braided ground wire or not since they
> are all covered with heat shrink incuding over where the Y comes together.
> Maybe it's a left and a right channel that joins and becomes one wire? I
> can't tell and never wired up a mono connector before.
>
> I figured that the connector I was looking for was an easily recognizable
> Radio Shack item but when I went there all I saw were "large" jacks and
> not smaller stuff I want for something like an Ipod or XM radio out to
> connect to.
>
> thx,
> lucky
I have a PS Engineering PM 501 intercom. I bought a pack of 3 each 1/8"
phone plugs from Radio Shack..part nbr 274-251
and installed one into my instrument panel. My intercom has a two wire
conductor for audio input.
I then found a 1/8" stereo jack to 1/8" stereo jack cable at
http://www.myradiostore.us/ for $6.99. I hope to be able to listen
to my XM radio through the intercom into my headsets. I could not find any
1/8" jacks at Radio Shack.
Hope this is what you were referring too.
Dick Fisher
sonex76@velocity.net
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: PIDG Crimp Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: HCRV6@aol.com
In a message dated 4/18/05 6:06:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au writes:
> I'm wondering if anyone could let me in on when I should use insulated
> versus non-insulated PIDG crimp lugs? I have heard a few builders say that
> they thought the non-insulated lugs were easier to install etc.
>
> In addition, what should I look for in a tool? Some tools specifically say
> they are not for insulated or non-insulated connectors... Some tools are
> $250, some are $40 (as per the B&C unit). I'm confused as to what I need.
> I am prepared to spend money on tools where there is value, but if the $40
> unit will do the job properly for one (or two) airplanes that is all I am
> really after.
>
> Also, is is best to stick with the AMP lugs or is there a cheaper
> alternative that has been proven to work well?
>
>
Richard: Use the insulated Amp PIDG terminals, this is not a place to
use the cheap alternatives. On the other hand, I did all my wiring with the B&
C crimper, with AMP PIDG terminals from B&C, and it worked just fine.
Harry Crosby
RV-6 N16CX, 65 hours and counting
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! --
|