Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:59 AM - Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (rd2@evenlink.com)
2. 04:44 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (cgalley)
3. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (Steve Thomas)
4. 06:36 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Paul Folbrecht)
5. 06:37 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools (Casey Rayman)
6. 06:41 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 06:41 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com)
8. 06:41 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard)
9. 06:41 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard)
10. 07:04 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 07:21 AM - Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 07:23 AM - Kilovac Konfession (Eric M. Jones)
13. 07:49 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 07:58 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:10 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 08:24 AM - Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV ()
17. 08:33 AM - Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV (BobsV35B@aol.com)
18. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 08:57 AM - Re: (no subject) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
20. 08:58 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (Ronald J. Parigoris)
21. 09:12 AM - GI-106A Back Course ()
22. 09:12 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Paul Folbrecht)
23. 09:21 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (cgalley)
24. 09:37 AM - Re: Avionics breaker (Ken Simmons)
25. 11:28 AM - Re: Kilovac Konfession (Gilles Thesee)
26. 11:37 AM - Re: Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT (Richard Tasker)
27. 11:55 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com)
28. 11:57 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com)
29. 01:11 PM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 02:54 PM - Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (Ken Simmons)
31. 03:10 PM - Re: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters (Charlie England)
32. 07:43 PM - Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV (John Schroeder)
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: | RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Absolutely agree.
If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with bureaucrats
and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to raise children,
when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases), how to teach them to
use condoms (how about introducing that in kindergarden), how to accept the
unacceptable as "normal", "politically correct", or whatever nonsense
adjective or noun they describe it with, the future does not look rosy. I
don't remember that from my childhood and have my solution: that's the way
I like it, that's the way it's gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh,
well...
Rumen
do not archive
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
>>
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM
5/16/2005 -0500)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
............
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
MLI has one I believe.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com writes:
>
> Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> older
> King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> that.
>
>
> How many back course approaches are still in service?
>
> I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
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: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello Robert,
Monday, May 16, 2005, 9:02:44 PM, you wrote:
RLNI> However, I've observed first hand, a very
RLNI> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
RLNI> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
RLNI> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
I have been very impressed lately by a pervasive attitude of
entitlement. It seems to me that a lot of our crime, welfare state,
education, job, retirement, and daily life activities are becoming
centered on a you-owe-me or government-owes-me attitude. This is a
180 degree shift on what this country was founded upon. Consider this
quote from Alexis de Toqueville, a Frenchman touring this country in
the early 19th century:
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers
that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
We have arrived, have we not?
Do Not Archive
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
It does. What got it for me was just thinking "same direction as course -
normal sensing; opposite direction of course - reverse sensing". It'll come
one day and then you'll never think about it again.
--- Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
> I know this probably shouldn't turn into a "There's one here... There's
> one here too..." type thing... But, I am finishing up my instrument
> rating right now, and use the Localizer Back Course a couple of times each
> week at Boise. Fly the ILS to published missed, then vectors (normal
> because of terrain) for the BC going the opposite direction, then miss -
> climb runway heading for the procedure turn back to the ILS. Keeps the
> neurons whirring..
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
> do not archive
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 5/16/2005 9:51:56 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > Well, BC indicator is hardly necessary to fly a BC anyway. None of the
> > older
> > King, etc. indicators tell you you're flying a BC - you need to know
> > that.
> >
> >
> > How many back course approaches are still in service?
> >
> > I haven't shot one in at least twenty years. Maybe more.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8502
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Casey Rayman <theturbodog@yahoo.com>
> Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
> to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
> There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
> to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
I have had great luck with most HF tools. Their hand electric tools
like drills and jugsaws are not worth the trouble unless you are only
going to use them once or twice. The heavier tools like bandsaws and
mills are actually decent, but they are definately put together in
the quickest/easiest way possible. Out of the box they are not too
accurate or easy to work with, but once they are cleaned up they work
great.
My opinion on the future is that we, the US, has lost focus. In the
last century we had back to back war for almost the entire century.
War gives people great focus. I'm not saying we should create war or
anything, but lack of a genuine goal leads us to boredom and
lazyness. Which is where we as a nation are right now. I suspect as
oil supplies get tighter(40 or 50 years from now) we will get back in
the saddle again if we still have it in us.
Casey
__________________________________
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
MLI has one I believe.
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. Flying toward the needle was no more normal than flying
away from the needle with the VAR. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Cy,
I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were very
common.
The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we must
remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range stations
were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the direction
you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more normal
than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots lost
comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and utilize,
circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those conditions,
but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six month
hood check.
But I digress!
The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not providing
the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt for
the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost, that
is fine with me!
I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide that function.
When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course localizer
approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space, and
weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in Instrument
Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I know of
in
Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see that it
now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first ones
certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to be
the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
used low weather runway.
I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho Falls
Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
point.
The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways where
the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument conditions.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
MLI has one I believe.
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: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I
pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition
is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow
a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems.
The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests
the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in
the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
battery any more.
My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
something preventable.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 06:56 AM 5/15/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> ><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >Hi all: I had an interesting situation yesterday afternoon, fortunately
on
> >the ground.
> >
> >I had completed a flight to another airport and when I went to start the
> >aircraft for the return tirp, there was no electricity. The trip over had
> >been about an hour earlier and no, I didn't leave the master switch on.
> >
> >The aircraft is wired using Bob's ideas with both a main and emergency
> >buss. The single electronic ignition is wired directly from a battery
> >buss. Nothing worked although the master contactor would click sometimes.
> >It sounds like a classic dead battery, but the battery is only 2 1/2 - 3
> >years old and is an RG type. There has been no obvious signs of impending
> >failure.
> >
> >I plan to replace the battery, but I wondered if anyone had any thoughts
> >as to what the problem might be and how to prevent a recurrence.
>
> You say "sometimes" . . . on times that it DID click, did the
> system come up? Were you able to start the engine? How did you
> get the airplane home or is it stuck on the other airport.
>
> If your battery started the airplane earlier that day, it's
> far from DEAD. If the contactor made no noise at all, the
> most likely problem is the battery-master side of your
> DC POWER MASTER switch. Do you have a diode across the
> coil of the battery contactor as illustrated in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s701-1l.jpg
>
> If not, then the contactor's de-energizing spike
> may have burned the contacts of the master switch
> so as to make it unreliable. Replacement of the switch
> and ADDITION of the diode would be indicated.
>
> 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: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I
no longer have the battery.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 06:30 AM 5/16/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
> ><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
> >
> >I don't believe it is a switch problem for the simple reason that three
> >switches would all have to die suddenly. The master would produce the
clicks
> >from the master contacter, but when the switch that turns on the e-buss
was
> >turned on, nothing happened either. Also, there is a power light on the
> >electronic ignition circuit and the powe comes directly from the battery.
> >That circuit was dead also.
> >
> >Replacing the battery corrected all the problems.
> >
> >I just wonder if there is a way to prevent a recurrence.
>
> Yes, periodic cap testing of your battery . . . or some
> other considered preventative maintenance program. I think
> you mentioned that the battery was several years old.
> 95% of the time, my "sudden" failures of batteries in
> my vehicles was a loose post on the battery. Several
> years ago, I did have a flooded battery behave as you've
> described. Got in the car at store 2 miles away and it
> started right up. Ten minutes after arriving home, I
> identified another procurement task and the car wouldn't
> start. Battery refused to carry even 8A worth of headlamp
> loads. I stuck one of my 32 a.h. RG instrumentation batteries
> in and drove to the parts store to buy a new battery for
> the van. This battery was several years old too . . . more
> than 3 and probably less than 5.
>
> Do you still have the old battery? Are you SURE that the
> problem wasn't a poor connection at the battery post?
>
> 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: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning Bill,
Just as a data point, I had a similar failure in a sealed battery on my
minivan.
One day it would start fine, the next day it did not. Tapping the
connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting,
and so
forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour
again. Replacing the battery fixed the problem. My local auto service person
tells me that such internal failures are relatively common.
I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily
as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in
competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider it was
that was doing the bragging!
In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft
have been Recombinant Gas Concordes.
So far, so good.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/17/2005 8:47:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
billbernard@worldnet.att.net writes:
Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
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: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
>>
Yes, I got about a dozen bounces of the same message sent to a
lot of folks I don't know and services I don't subscribe to.
Actually, the bob.nuckolls@cox.net is my personal account that
I run with a server based spam filter. The filter is fairly effective
but I still get 20-30 pieces a of spam per day to that account.
I've been hijacked several times before and both were cases
where my email address was clearly published on my website.
Since I went to a hidden address accessed through a form-mailer,
the incidences have dropped way off . . . but that still doesn't
keep the 'bots from finding your address in someone's address
files.
This goes directly to the point I was making about how children
are raised. A very wise philosopher once noted:
-----------------
"If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought
to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid
the punishment, but have no sense of shame. "If they be
led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them
by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense
of shame, and moreover will become good."
------------
With the probability of punishment becoming ever more remote
in both our courts and other institutions of authority, many
citizens are operating as if "freedom" means a license to
indulge in any whim. When our parents (AND TEACHERS) don't
endow their charges with a sense of shame, then it is
expected that many will take pleasure in attacking the
liberties of others be it through direct assault upon their
persons or property or indirectly through things like floods
of spam on the 'net.
It takes no great talent or resources to be terribly
destructive or disruptive. 9-11 demonstrated that. The roots
of that behavior by any individual are firmly
grounded in the absence of shame for not behaving
in honorable ways. I have to believe that this is what
the philosopher was thinking about when it was observed
that, "The sins of the fathers shall beset the children
for generations." This wasn't about observance of any
particular dogma but the byproduct of having lost or
ignored one's sense of shame.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
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: | Kilovac Konfession |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
In case you were wondering, John, Steve, Scott and others...I confess--Yes,
it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay
yesterday.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father did....
Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his airplane."
--anonymous
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: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:09 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Bob, the bolts holding the wires to the terminals were tight, with no
>corrosion. A loose terminal may have been a problem, but, if so, it wasn't
>very loose. I thought I could feel a very slight movement in one of them
>and, after jiggling it a bit, I got the "best" response of having a few
>lights come on on the panel when the master switch was turned on. The effect
>didn't last long - only until I pressed the starter button.
>
>That may be as good an explanation as any I'm going to get, especially as I
>no longer have the battery.
Too bad. I would ask that anyone on the list who
observes or experiences a mystifying failure of ANY
device . . . be it a battery, contactor, switch, etc.
to try and capture the offending article and send it
to me.
We are beset by innumerable anecdotal incidences that
go forever unexplained and never understood. Yet
the fear of potential consequences for these incidences
prompt decisions that drive up costs and may even drive
system reliability down. In any case, no real considered
design changes can take place unless we can get beyond
the "tis so, taint so" phase of deliberations and deduce
the simple-ideas upon which the failure was based.
This battery may have suffered some form of chemical
failure which might have been deduced in advance by
periodic testing. It may have suffered a crack in a
major conductor.
I note that many battery manufacturers are moving away
from pure lead terminal posts and bringing harder, more
durable connections to the outside world. But in any
case, please consider using 4AWG welding cable jumpers
for your short leads from battery(-) to ground and
battery(+) to contactor. This will greatly reduce the
installation and operating stresses on the battery's
terminals.
Bob . . .
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: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:03 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
><billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
>Bob, the electrical system did energize briefly for a few seconds, until I
>pressed the starter button then everything was dead again. The switch to
>activate the e-buss had no effect (the turn coordinator and the engine
>instruments should have started, but they did not). The electronic ignition
>is wired to the battery buss and the power LED did not come on.
>
>I replaced the battery and everything worked normally. (I was able to borrow
>a battery and get the plane home.) There were aboslutely no other problems.
>The battery showed 12+ volts at the battery shop and given the minor tests
>the clerk did, appeared to be normal. I did try to charge it briefly.
>Typically, on a discharged battery, the meter on the charger will go to
>about 6 amps and then drop back slowly. In this case, the meter went to
>about 2 amps and was pretty steady. I suspect some sort of sudden fault in
>the battery itself, but have no way to test it. I don't even have the
>battery any more.
>
>My main concern is to know if this is just a random failure, or if it is
>something preventable.
>
>Bill
It sounds very much like a mechanical failure . . . cracked conductor
perhaps? Without a teardown inspection, we'll never know. We DO know
that batteries are manufactured in the millions and that the vast majority
will perform as designed over the service life of the battery. We
also know that most of the VSLA products are being used in stationary
and/or relatively benign portable applications. Our use of such products
in aircraft is undoubtedly pushing any battery's performance envelope
with respect to both mechanical capabilities and chemical activity.
In another post, I've encouraged everyone to capture mystifying failures
and get them to me (or any other willing investigator) for failure
evaluation. Without such data, the vast majority of decisions made
on the evidence known are simple "whistles in the dark." Worse yet,
such cases often tie brand names to failures that tend to unfairly
reduce perceived value of the brand.
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>I have noted that some of the aircraft battery suppliers brag quite heavily
>as to their having higher quality internal connections than are found in
>competitive batteries. Unfortunately, I do not remember which provider
>it was
>that was doing the bragging!
>
>In any case, my last three batteries purchased for certificated aircraft
>have been Recombinant Gas Concordes.
>
>So far, so good.
>
>Happy Skies,
When I visited the Concord manufacturing facility about two
years ago, folks there shared their personal experiences concerning
internal connection failures (do to battery abuse) which
ultimately produced a battery explosion. I related this
story in a post about a month ago. Since that time, the
same batteries have been deliberately abused by Navy battery
testing labs in Crane, Indiana. The failure mode could not
be re-produced.
I've seen the Hawker production facilities too . . . they
spot weld their inter-cell connections. One could debate
reliability due to process sensitivity of the hand welded
(see http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_1.jpg
and http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Concord_Crossovers_2.jpg )
crossovers versus spot welded. I know that both companies
have submitted numerous test articles to the Crane labs
for evaluation and both companies are qualified suppliers
to the military based on those evaluations.
I cannot speak to other brands . . . However, this failure
mode included a pre-abuse cycle of the battery that damaged
the crossovers. An aggressive recharge was next followed
by an attempt to start which produced the final failure
of the crossover and the explosion (which did no damage
to the airplane). This is not likely to occur in a piston
powered light aircraft.
This, my friends, is the kind of data upon which rational
design, purchasing and operating decisions are made. Anything
less than this detail is is only fodder for television
advertising or perhaps an "investigative report" by
popular news media.
Bob . . .
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: | Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
<<Hello OC - Page 34 of the Installation Manual for the SL-30 is partially
quoted below:
Calibrating the Resolver Indicator Head Type....skip......
Hope this sheds some light on the subject. John>>
5/17/2005
Hello John, Thanks for the input. Yes, I think the light is coming on a
little. I am at a real disadvantage in discussing this subject since I know
very little about the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of CDI's and the
means of feeding them.
Here is my current thinking / guessing. The problems arise when you are
trying to feed two different CDI's with one SL-30 and try to shift between
CDI's. Since each CDI (and its resolver?) is a bit different it is not
possible / convenient to accurately calibrate both of them to the one SL-30.
But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one
SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in
calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30
by means of the multiple pole relay box installed.
I am not sure how or why that same CDI stays accurately matched up to both
the GPS outputs and the VOR/LOC outputs from the Garmin GNS 430, as mine
does, when that source is connected to the CDI. It may have something to do
with the nature of the signals coming from the GNS 430 and the devices
within the CDI receiving those signals so that, no matter how the CDI may
have been calibrated to the SL-30, the GNS 430 outputs are accurately
displayed.
So my conclusion about all the problems people discuss regarding shifting
back and forth between CDI's and SL-30's is only a real problem if one is
trying to feed two different CDI's / resolvers with one SL-30. Or if one is
trying to feed one CDI with an SL-30 and another source (including a second
SL-30) that demands that the CDI also be calibrated to it and the two
calibrations are not compatible.
It would be nice if David Buckwalter or John Stark would participate on this
subject and provide some additional insight.
OC
PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours. Mine is
dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of 560-0404-01. What
is the date, company, and part number of your manual?
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: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 10:26:24 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
But if you have one CDI, as I do, you can calibrate that one CDI to the one
SL-30 using the set up procedure in the SL-30 manual and it will remain in
calibration as you shift the CDI away from and then back to that same SL-30
by means of the multiple pole relay box installed.
Good Morning OC,
The entire discussion is way over my head, but I do know that my local
electronics guru does occasionally use a "smart box" to convert a non compatible
signal to a compatible one when mixing various boxes together. What is inside
the smart boxes and what the efficiency, or failure rate is, is another
thing about which I know nothing, but it does seem to work!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
HF tools are very good value for money...
Good tools I have bought
10" wood compound miter saw $100
14" benchtop bandsaw $100
6" chop saw/aluminium oxide wheels for alu angles $34
Due grinders...Superb $8 to 29
14" metal chop saw $49
Bunch of other stuff...which I can't remember right now.
As to how fast the economy is going to slip away...try working in hi
tech...All of our IT support is already in India and if you go on the
web and put in "China manufacturing" you will get forms to fill in, send
a drawing and the quote will come back...All shipping and customs taken
care of. They will do anything from injection molding to CNC machining.
I bet within 10 years we won't have a manufacturing economy and to be
honest there is only so much innovation that the world needs.
Sad but I think when you realise the Global rate for an IT professional
is $320 a month....Well...we're screwed!
Do not archive
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rd2@evenlink.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Absolutely agree.
If we keep giving away freedoms by voting-in and agreeing with
bureaucrats and media who tell us how to behave in our families, how to
raise children, when and how to punish them - or not (in most cases),
how to teach them to use condoms (how about introducing that in
kindergarden), how to accept the unacceptable as "normal", "politically
correct", or whatever nonsense adjective or noun they describe it with,
the future does not look rosy. I don't remember that from my childhood
and have my solution: that's the way I like it, that's the way it's
gonna be. Sometimes we have to fight. Oh, well...
Rumen
do not archive
P.S.
Bob, BTW, did this come from your old (hijacked) address:
>>
From: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: S.O.S. Kiez! Polizei schlaegt Alarm
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: bob.nuckolls@cox.net
Lese selbst:
http://bz.berlin1.de/archiv/041115_pdf/BZ041115_004_GB2IG556.1.htm
>>
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Robert L. Nuckolls, III; Date: 11:02 PM
5/16/2005 -0500)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
............
Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
Bob . . .
Do not archive
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me
for the last five years.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
TSaccio@aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: (no subject)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
Sometime ago there was an article written on this site about low cost
battery chargers from Harbor Freight. Does anyone have information as to
the best one to buy? Tom Saccio
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: Sudden Failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Watch it if you wish to tap on connections of a suspect bad internal connection
battery. My
brother did such a thing on a car, it really was a bad connection internal where
the
terminals were, anyway the thing exploded and spewed acid all over. We had a pool
pretty
close, besides burning in his eyes for a while he was OK. Symptoms were as described,
started OK, then bearly would light a few lights. When it exploded I was in the
car and only
the key was in the on position, no other load. I forget brand but it was kinda
sortta a
maintenance free battery, but you could still take the covers off to top up, but
they were
the type that were plenty stuck in place.
Ron Parigoris
> Tapping the
> connections seemed to bring it back on line sufficiently to allow some lighting,
and so
> forth, to be powered, but when I hit the starter, it went completely sour
> again."
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: | GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
<<....skip....... I wouldn't spend much to have back course capability. Old
Bob
5/17/2005
Hello Old Bob, I agree, but then one doesn't have to spend anything extra to
have localizer back course capability in their aircraft. If they have basic
localizer front course capable airborne equipment they also have the
capability to fly a published back course approach. They just need to
remember to turn away from the needle to get to the localizer course
centerline when actually flying inbound on a localizer back course approach.
The fundamental airborne equipment capability is the same for either front
course or back course operations.
The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether
you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles:
1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You
are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the
needle to get to the course centerline."
2) One can have equipment selectability that feeds the CDI in a fashion so
that one would turn towards the needle to get to the localizer course
centerline even though one is flying a localizer back course. This
capability should also be accompanied by a cockpit indicator showing that
that capability has been selected.
UPS / Garmin built item 2) capability inherently into the SL-30 VHF Nav
Comm. It probably took only a few lines of computer code in that digital
device and the cost differential was trivial. But, as has been pointed out,
published localizer back course approaches are not very common these days
and as more GPS approaches and WAAS capability become available localizer
back courses may become even rarer.
OC
PS: One should also use caution in attempting to fly on the localizer
center line beyond the localizer antenna into the back course region if
there is no published back course approach for that facility. There may be
no relationship between your position, your CDI indications, and a
hypothetically projected back course localizer centerline.
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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht <paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
Bob,
I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have
reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are
very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
do not archive
--- BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
>
> I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt if
> you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The ones
> that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
You see what happens when old memory and being a non-instrument pilot
brings.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
> Good Morning Cy,
>
> I believe you will find that MLI had one, but no longer does.
>
> That is the point I was so clumsily trying to make.
>
> When ILS first came on the scene, back course localizer approaches were
> very
> common.
>
> The CAA tried to build them at every site, if the surrounding terrain and
> obstacles would allow. They even had a few with glide slopes.
>
> As the years went by, most busy airports were equipped with either a full
> ILS or a localizer with "normal" sensing. (When I say "normal" sensing, we
> must
> remember that the localizer was designed in the days when VAR range
> stations
> were also being built and for which needle sensing depended on the
> direction
> you were flying. With the VAR, flying toward the needle was no more
> normal
> than flying away from the needle. Once VOR came upon the scene, pilots
> lost
> comfort "pulling" the needle and back courses became less popular.)
>
> The main reason the air carriers generally no longer train for, and
> utilize,
> circling approaches is not because they are less safe than straight in
> approaches, it is because they have so little need to do them.
>
> By eliminating circling approaches they can shorten the time spent in
> training and checking. If the weather is VFR, they can circle in those
> conditions,
> but that maneuver does not have to be trained for nor checked on a six
> month
> hood check.
>
> But I digress!
>
> The point is that back course localizer approaches are on the way out.
>
> I have no doubt that, somewhere, someone will find me wrong, but I doubt
> if
> you will see very many new ones instituted in the next few years. The
> ones
> that are still around are generally to runways where the need is rare.
>
> If it is possible to save a few bucks and reduce complexity by not
> providing
> the capability of flying a back course localizer approach, I would opt
> for
> the lower cost, lighter weight and fewer parts.
>
> If the back course capability can be provided with no additional cost,
> that
> is fine with me!
>
> I recently replaced my roll autopilot.
>
> S-Tec has a roll unit without back course coupling capability at a
> substantially lower cost and weight than their unit which does provide
> that function.
>
> When I considered that I had not had the need to use a back course
> localizer
> approach in at least twenty years, I elected to save the money, space,
> and
> weight that the more sophisticated unit needed.
>
> Many years ago, I would try to include a back course approach in
> Instrument
> Competency Checks every three or four years. It has been increasingly
> difficult to find one to use for the check rides. The only ones that I
> know of in
> Illinois are the one for Rwy 17 at RFD and the one for Rwy 11 at BMI.
>
> Matt Prather mentioned that he has one to play with at Boise.
>
>
> I do recall landing on Rwy 28 at Boise often in the distant past, but I do
> believe it was equipped with a full front course ILS back then. I see
> that it
> now has an MLS and I do believe that particular MLS was one of the first
> ones
> certificated in the USA. It is very unusual for a back course approach to
> be
> the only approach available for use in actual IFR conditions on a heavily
> used low weather runway.
>
>
> I checked Idaho and find there is one other in that state at the Idaho
> Falls
> Rwy 2. I may have missed one in my quick check, but I think you get the
> point.
>
> The few back course approaches still in service tend to be for runways
> where
> the back course approach is rarely used during actual instrument
> conditions.
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
> In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> cgalley@qcbc.org writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
>
> MLI has one I believe.
>
>
>
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: | Re: Avionics breaker |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
Bob,
Thanks for the reply. I hadn't thought about the basic similarity to the Z drawings.
I do have another question for you. I understand the diode in the Z drawings
prevents back feeding the main bus during a "main buss loss" event. In my
case I can isolate these two buses by the use of the avionics master/relay without
a diode.
I can see a potential procedural problem if feeding the aux avionics breaker from
the battery, though. If the normal avionics master and the aux avionics switch
were on at the same time during a start I can see a potential for a big current
through a little wire problem. I'm sure I can add the diode, but if I can
eliminate a component and achive the same functionality, why not?
I could "interlock" the two switches by using a double throw, but I have the Honeywell/Microswitch
AML34 series rocker switches. I can't find one of these in
a double through configuration, just SPST and DPST. If you or anyone else knows
otherwise please let me know.
It may be a moot point anyway. Moving the feed for the aux avionics breaker to
the battery will take a bunch more work. There is a wire from the battery now
(in the rear of the plane) to the breaker panel that feeds an LSE ignition. It's
only 16AWG, though, so I couldn't enlist it to feed the aux avionics breaker.
That's assuming I'm reading the current capacity numbers correctly.
I hope I made all that clear enough.
Thanks.
Ken
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 09:18 AM 5/14/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
>>
>>My flying Glastar has a "conventional" electrical system with an avionics
>>master switch and solenoid. I guess for fault tolerance reasons there is
>>also a separate "aux avionics switch" with a separate breaker that can
>>bypass the avionics solenoid and feed the avionics bus directly.
>>
>>This seems to add a level of complexity that provides very little if any
>>benefit. There are only three pieces of avionics, a GNC250XL(10A), a
>>GTX320(3A) and an intercom(1A). The aux avionics breaker is 15 Amps.
>>
>>As they say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". In this case I'm not trying
>>to fix it, I'm trying to add a Trutrak autopilot and I'm trying to figure
>>out the best way to wire in the power. The quickest would be to feed it
>>separately from the main bus and not use the avionics bus. The most
>>complex would be to re-wire the entire plane using a Z-drawing type
>>configuration. I'm looking for a in-between solution, preferably closer to
>>the first idea.
>
> the only difference between what you describe and what I've recommended
> in the z-figures is where the alternate power feed for the endurance
> (avionics) bus comes from. I prefer to take it right from the battery
> bus . . . and then move a few useful items like minimal panel lighting,
> turn coordinator and perhaps a voltmeter to the endurance bus.
>
> your autopilot could run from the endurance bus nicely . . . I think
> I'd add a no-feedback diode into the normal feedpath and move the second
> feedpath to the battery. The "aux avionics" breaker could move to the
> battery bus and you could use miniature contactor (relay) to support
> the larger than normal aux feed path. See figure Z-32.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: Kilovac Konfession |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>-Yes,
>it was I who snatched up all the Kilovac EV200AAANA contactors on eBay
>yesterday.
>
>
>
Eric,
Would you care to conduct some tests on these babies and share the
results with us ?
Two questions keep nagging at me :
- What was that Kilovac-induced noise that was disturbing my LVWM ?
- Do the Kilovacs really need a diode across the coil/control wires ?
To this moment I've not been in a position to perform such tests,
although I've just been given an ITT/Metrix OX 7520 oscilloscope.
By the way, anyone around happen to have a manual for this 'scope ?
Thanks,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
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: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT |
rant
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
Perhaps not all hope is not lost. My company is doing fine
(www.astsensors.com) and we do all our design and manufacturing in the
USA. We do buy a few machined parts from China when the cost is
significantly lower, but we buy the majority from US suppliers. Yes,
the prices are a little higher for the US parts but that is outweighed
by the response time, the ease of interfacing with local vendors and the
lack of international shipping. Our annual sales have been growing by
40-50% per year for the last five years and we expect that to continue
(60% for the first quarter this year). We successfully compete with
manufacturers in the US, Europe (including Eastern Europe) and China for
sales internationally. It turns out that treating your employees right,
good customer support and a quality product allows you to remain
competitive despite slightly higher manufacturing costs. Our major
hindrance to even faster growth is lack of available financing. It
seems that the banks (and everyone else for that matter) don't want to
talk to you unless you don't really need money or unless you have a
pie-in-the-sky idea with no actual product. Someone like us - who have
a viable product and growing sales - don't interest them. Sorry for the
rant, but it is very frustrating and one of the reasons there are not
more successful small businesses.
Dick Tasker
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 02:21 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>>
>>A couple of nights ago I was working out on a stair machine at my health
>>club in a Seattle suburb, reading Thomas Friedman's book, "The World is
>>Flat", which Eric mentioned.
>>
>>
>
> I just ordered that book on a audio CD from my local library.
> I'll keep it in the CD player in my car for the next week or so.
>
>
>
>
>>We can all have our own reasons for buying or not buying from any company or
>>country we want, but to dismiss anything manufactured in China as being of
>>low quality is to be maybe a quarter of a century behind the times.
>>
>>
>
> Well put. I've been gigged by many dishonorable and/or incapable
> individuals over the years. Some were in China, most were not.
> I have several machine tools from HF that have demonstrated
> some limitations but for the most part, have been good value.
> I was able to produce parts that sold for a great deal more than
> the tools cost. In the grand scheme of things, the consumer/
> supplier transactions were all accomplished to the satisfaction of
> persons involved.
>
> Someone wondered if we have any competitive goods or services
> to offer . . . perhaps as a nation we are slipping behind.
> There are undoubtedly a host of economic forces that play
> to that condition. However, I've observed first hand, a very
> powerful force pushing us in the wrong direction: If we don't
> radically modify the way our children are schooled, the future
> of the US will be much less bright and more difficult.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>Do not archive
>
>
>
>
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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:14:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com writes:
Bob,
I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and
have
reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches
are
very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
do not archive
Good Afternoon Paul,
Obviously, if one is to fly outbound via the localizer front course, the
pilot should be aware of how that is done.
What I was trying to emphasize is that there is very little, if any,
advantage to be gained by spending any extra funds to get an autopilot that will
track in that mode. If you can get the capability in a flight management system
or on an autopilot at no cost in dollars, weight or extra panel space, I
would go for it, but I would not spend one red cent, give up one once of
payload, one inch of panel space, for that capability.
Modern navigation is all To-To navigation and flying outbound on any
approach is such a very rare thing that I feel it can be handled comfortably using
raw data and visual pilot observation and manipulation.
If someone absolutely has to use an autopilot to fly that outbound leg, use
the heading mode!.
Better yet, load the point being flown TO in an IFR approved GPS and couple
the autopilot to that.
More than one way to skin a cat.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 5/17/2005 11:11:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
The only additional cost consideration for the airborne equipment is whether
you want to add some localizer back course bells and whistles:
1) One can have just an indicator in the cockpit that tells the pilot "You
are flying a localizer back course -- make sure that you turn away from the
needle to get to the course centerline."
Good Afternoon OC,
That is, of course, completely correct.
I was commenting primarily on those autopilots and flight directors which
have the extra bells and whistles to help the folks who have not been taught to
"pull" the needle. As I mentioned earlier, in the days of VARs, we all knew
how to do that, but the technique is rarely used these days.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: GI-106A Back Course |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:11 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht
><paulfolbrecht@yahoo.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>I think you're totally right but I was thinking and I've flown the most LOC
>backcourses when flying a NON-back LOC approach but flying the full approach,
>outbound on the procedure turn. LOC 31 at ETB comes to mind - if you fly the
>full approach you intercept the LOC outbound (IAF is an on-field VOR) and have
>reverse-sensing. That is not going to go away.. of course full approaches are
>very rare in the radar environment but we should have the skill..
At Cessna in the 60's we offered an optional double-pole, double-throw
switch next to the LOC indicator that would reverse the connections to the
needle for flying the back-course. It's an easy thing to add to an
installation
where the back-course capability is desired.
Bob . . .
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: | Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" <ken@truckstop.com>
Does anyone know a source for these rocker switches other than NewGlasair. I finally
got ahold of them today and the factory has given them a six week lead time.
Thanks.
Ken
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
AI Nut wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>
>Nearly EVERYthing one gets that was made in China is pure junk. And I
>don't mean just the boats, either.
>And don't forget they are still killing Americans (and others) with
>impunity.
>
The 1st statement is obviously not true.
As to the 2nd, perhaps you are better informed than the rest of us & can
enlighten us?
Charlie
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:24:17 -0400, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> PS: The pagination in my SL-30 manual is a bit different than yours.
> Mine is dated February 2000 on the front with a UPS part number of
> 560-0404-01. What is the date, company, and part number of your manual?
OC:
My Manual is: August 2003 560-0404-03A
I would agree with your interpretation of the page I referenced: You
should not switch the SL-30's between separate OBS's (CDI's) without
calibrating the instrument per the book before using the OBS.
As to why yours appears to work when it is switched from the 430 between
its nav section to its GPS section: Perhaps, Garmin specked that their
"G-106A" have circuitry that automatically does this. Another alternative
is that the signals in the 430 are sync'd to a standard before they are
sent to the OBS (G-106). These are guesses.
Does the installation manual for the 430 have a calibration procedure for
the VOR/ILS section to an external OBS? From the GPS section to an
external OBS. Might be worth a check.
Best,
John
--
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! --
|