---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 05/19/05: 48 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:34 AM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Vern W.) 2. 05:45 AM - Something Completely Different (William Bernard) 3. 06:00 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (George Braly) 4. 06:02 AM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Mark R Steitle) 5. 06:03 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Harley) 6. 06:06 AM - [Fw: Re: Something Completely Different] (Harley) 7. 06:23 AM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Ken) 8. 06:28 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 06:44 AM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 10. 07:13 AM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 07:23 AM - Re: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 07:26 AM - Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Eric M. Jones) 13. 07:26 AM - toggle switch action? (Jan de Jong) 14. 07:38 AM - Wire (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 15. 07:54 AM - Re: GI-106A Back Course (BobsV35B@aol.com) 16. 08:06 AM - Re: toggle switch action? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 08:34 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Rick Girard) 19. 09:37 AM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (BTomm) 20. 10:34 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Eric M. Jones) 21. 10:54 AM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Chuck Jensen) 22. 11:04 AM - Re: Something Completely Different (Mickey Coggins) 23. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Vern W.) 24. 11:47 AM - Re: Load Analysis (Matt Jurotich) 25. 12:10 PM - metric and units and stuff... (Craig P. Steffen) 26. 12:13 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 27. 12:22 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (rv-9a-online) 28. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 29. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Craig P. Steffen) 30. 01:22 PM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Ken) 31. 01:30 PM - Re: Something Completely Different (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 32. 01:37 PM - Re: Something Completely Different (Eric M. Jones) 33. 02:34 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Walter Tondu) 34. 05:40 PM - Metric musings (Alex & Gerry Peterson) 35. 05:42 PM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 36. 06:01 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Chuck Jensen) 37. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Dan Brown) 38. 07:35 PM - Re: Something Completely Different (Eric M. Jones) 39. 07:35 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Richard E. Tasker) 40. 07:51 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Jim Oke) 41. 07:58 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (BobsV35B@aol.com) 42. 08:00 PM - Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor (r falstad) 43. 08:01 PM - Re: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire (Chris) 44. 08:11 PM - Alternator Wiring Question (r falstad) 45. 08:22 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Walter Tondu) 46. 09:02 PM - 12/14v instruments and accessories in a 24/28v plane (chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org) 47. 09:06 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Charlie England) 48. 11:13 PM - Re: Re: Something Completely Different (Richard Riley) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:34:15 AM PST US From: "Vern W." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." C'mon Bob, don't yank the guy like that. You know he's talking about home "built" aircraft :-) I'm also interested in the issue of TKT wire because I've seen a couple of references that TKT is supposedly the ONLY safe way to go for aircraft wiring. Yet, I haven't found any supplier that offers it. All I find with a Google search is a whole bunch of articles about how good it is and how bad everything else is (including Tefzel) and how you're going to fall to the ground in a ball of flames if you use anything but TKT (at least that's the tone I get from what I read). I'm going with Tefzel, but I'm intrigued by the panic mode that some writers have gone into that leads them to want every aircraft flying to be wired with TKT. Just Wondering Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 10:44 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" > > > >Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it > >expensive and not worth it? > > What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You > can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way > you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the > products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running > 130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't > get you any more snort . . . > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:45:47 AM PST US From: "William Bernard" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?" Anybody know? Thanks Bill ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:00:37 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course From: "George Braly" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" Except Bob, I tend to see them used when they have equipment outages. That happens more than one would desire. I caught one for real about a year or so ago - unexpectedly. GPS should largely solve that. George -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:02:41 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course From: "Mark R Steitle" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" Frank, Suggest you go to their web site (www.bluemountainavionics.com) and read through the "Discussion Group" postings. It is divided by subjects, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find what you're looking for. Mark S. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" While we're on the subject of CDI's. Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions? Does it really work? Frank Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" --> The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure. The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI . . . TDT ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:03:20 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley I originally stood for "Intensity". I also notice that a lot of people are using the V=IR formula now instead of the one I learned 45 years ago, E=IR. But, if you also use E=IR and wonder why "E" when they mean "Volts"...it stands for "Electromotive Force" Maybe they should change it to V=AR now! Harley William Bernard wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?" > >Anybody know? > >Thanks > >Bill > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:06:29 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: [Fwd: Re: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different] --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley Oops...I meant "It originally stood for 'Intensity'"... "I" was never very intense! Harley I originally stood for "Intensity". I also notice that a lot of people are using the V=IR formula now instead of the one I learned 45 years ago, E=IR. But, if you also use E=IR and wonder why "E" when they mean "Volts"...it stands for "Electromotive Force" Maybe they should change it to V=AR now! Harley William Bernard wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol for amperage in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?" > >Anybody know? > >Thanks > >Bill > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:23:12 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3 volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename. Ken Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >At 06:36 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >> >>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not >>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is >>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines. >> >> snip ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:30 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:51 AM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > >This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol >for amperage in Ohn's Law an 'i' ?" > >Anybody know? For the same reason some folks call it a "hood" and others call it a "bonnet". The advancements of every discipline took place all over the world and while various cultures injected their own flavors to the language of description, the physics remained uniform and inviolate. Depending on where you went to school on the surface of the planet, there may be yet more commonly used symbols to represent the various units in physics. I don't recall the exact dates but even in my span of experience in engineering, I recall being somewhat put upon when the folks around me began to refer to the periodic rate of a signal or wave as "Hertz" as opposed to "cycles/second" or "megacycles/second". Both were correct and I was already quite comfortable with my usage of language so far. None the less, I now refer to this unit as "Hertz" and write it MHz and KHz, etc. The recommendation for shifting to "Hertz" was based on meetings and agreements between large groups of individuals who took on the task of recommending adoption of worldwide, uniformity of titles and symbols for things physical. Some recommendations took hold, others were not so successful . . . we still cling 6-32 screws, 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. Here the pressures to resist were driven more by market forces than for stubborn resistance to change . . . while the US represented a small portion of the total population, the proportionate cost to change over was much greater for a country that was producing so much of the world's technologies, goods and services. There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric components and measures in our society. My hardware store now stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware. So the short answer is, "language" . . . while the schematic and foundations in physics are fundamental and invariable between languages and cultures, we are still mindful of the fact that someone may express a concept in E = I x R or volts amps x ohms or V = A * R, etc. Here is an excellent case for multiculturalism . . . instead of fussing over whether or not kids should be allowed to wear their native dress to school, we should be concentrating on whether or not they KNOW how to get their money's worth when purchasing products offered in a variety of measures that describe value and performance. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:35 AM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." > > C'mon Bob, don't yank the guy like that. You know he's talking about >home "built" aircraft :-) Ah but of course. Amazing what can happen to your head after midnight . . . > I'm also interested in the issue of TKT wire because I've seen a couple >of references that TKT is supposedly the ONLY safe way to go for aircraft >wiring. Yet, I haven't found any supplier that offers it. All I find with a >Google search is a whole bunch of articles about how good it is and how bad >everything else is (including Tefzel) and how you're going to fall to the >ground in a ball of flames if you use anything but TKT (at least that's the >tone I get from what I read). > I'm going with Tefzel, but I'm intrigued by the panic mode that some >writers have gone into that leads them to want every aircraft flying to be >wired with TKT. Agreed. The do-gooders have raised a great deal of fuss over wire types and what the industry ought to be doing about certain wire failures . . . and of course, their recommendations almost never include widespread adoption of a technology already available in low cost quantity. We've discussed wire insulations several times here on the list and I'm planning a much expanded discussion on insulations in the next update to the wire chapter. The air transport category aircraft builders will be on a never ending quest for LIGHTER technologies due to the massive amounts of wire in their products. This may take a rapid turnaround as fiber optics take a larger role in airframe systems control. It was predicted by some 40 years ago that the world was going to suffer a severe shortage in copper at the current rate of expansion of communications networks. Others predicted that new technologies would replace copper and that the shortage would never materialize. Indeed, copper prices after adjusted for inflation have never been cheaper and tons of copper are being pulled out of the ground for salvage when replaced with glass fibers. Watch for the war-of-wires to continue unabated with lots of enthusiasm . . . especially from folks who's jobs depend on expansion of a "problem" so that they continue to be employed at public expense in a task for which they'll never have consumer/supplier accountability. In the mean time, your Tefzel wired airplane will go to the scrap yard having never suffered an insulation failure due to shortcomings in the insulation's performance. Chris, my apologies for the brain fart. Vern, thanks for the heads-up! The short answer is "Tefzel is about as close to the ideal insulation as has ever existed." It's cost/performance model has yet to exceeded by any other technology. I'm aware of no instance where insulation failure in a Tefzel wired airplane would have been averted had the airplane been wired with any other technology. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:05 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:22 AM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken > >Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other >references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3 >volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero >current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated >at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka >http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but >my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename. >Ken After achieving full charge, there's no big driver for selection of one "float" voltage over another as long as it's above the open circuit voltage of the battery. After a battery has been setting for some hours off the charger, it assumes an open circuit voltage just under 13.0 volts. Internal discharge paths are operating at this voltage level and begin to tax the battery's stored energy. The simple act of supporting the battery's terminal voltage at or slightly above the open circuit voltage says there is now an EXTERNAL supply of energy to source the battery's built in losses and such losses no longer tax the battery. Anything from 13.0 to 13.8 would be just fine. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:47 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:24 PM 5/18/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn > >Hi, > >I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on >the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall >or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there >is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery >contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This >would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the >plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to >run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the >alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two >runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If >the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire >just for the alternator. I think you've answered your own question. Putting it back on the firewall reduces wire runs and reduced losses because the alternator can share the same fat wire with the starter. >My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that >runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it >really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+ >amps all the way down the plane? Got into this discussion at RAC a few weeks ago. I could relate a long and reasonably exciting blow-by-blow on the event but bottom line is that risks to these wires, PARTICULARLY in a plastic airplane are exceedingly low. Even in metal airplanes, protection of long feeders in the cranking circuits have not been demonstrated to be useful or add value. >Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is >there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an >external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods >are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the >nose then I'll have to use an external one. It's a matter of service life on starter switch, and size of wire needed for a long run to the tail to accommodate the extraordinary solenoid/contactor current draw. Finally, you may have some issues with respect to whether the starter uses a PM motor in which case figure Z-22 is recommended anyhow. See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf and figure Z-22 of http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11B.pdf and notes for Figure Z-22 on page Z-5. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:26:24 AM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" One day Chicken Little was walking in the woods when -- KERPLUNK -- an acorn fell on her head "Oh my goodness!" said Chicken Little. "The sky is falling! I must go and tell the king." The tone of this TKT issue on the WWW is remarkable. Yikes the sky is falling! Years back, when my knickers were in a twist about something, a friend used to imitate John Wayne and drawl, --"Stop yer bleedin' if ya' ain't been shot". So if you are building a plastic airplane fueled with gasoline burned by fiery spark systems. Chill...partner. What the commercial aircraft builders are after is the lightest-weight wire that can carry current at the highest temperatures without problems. Remember that they have huge amounts of current at much higher voltages, carried by smaller wires, packed into gigantic bundles. And they don't mind the Isq X R losses since they have plenty of power generating capability. But it's not magic. See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961 Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones@charter.net "Mankind faces a cross-roads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." --Woody Allen ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:26:24 AM PST US From: Jan de Jong Subject: AeroElectric-List: toggle switch action? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong Small question: Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand movements to move it from end to end? And: Are 3-position toggle switches as mechanically reliable as 2-position toggle switches? Thank you, Jan de Jong ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:38:42 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wire From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Out of interest...I found that instrumentation wire that is normally "plenum rated" for use in buildings is usually teflon coated. The "Belden" instrumentation wire we use here at work is as such and tends to populate our scrap bins in enourmous quantities. Just a thought for those of you that work in this kind of industry....:) Frank ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:54:22 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning George, It is nice that one was available when you needed it, but it is still true that they are disappearing fast. As you say, with GPS, the need is minimized. In an emergency, even a handheld GPS would probably provide guidance as useful as the average back course. My point is not that we should disregard the capability when it is available, but that I (me personally) would not spend any money, weight or panel space to have the capability of annunciation or back course manipulation. I figure if the need arises, as it did for you, "pulling" the needle is adequate. I don't need switches to reverse sensing, lights to tell me sensing has been changed or an autopilot that is capable of flying the reversed signals. It is a matter of where my limited funds are to be spent. Those extra bells and whistles that are designed to make it easier to fly a back course seems to be funds wasted for me. Fact is, I sometimes wonder whether all of those things don't add more confusion than just flying the back course with raw data as we did in the days before all that stuff was developed. 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 5/19/2005 8:02:22 A.M. Central Standard Time, gwbraly@gami.com writes: Except Bob, I tend to see them used when they have equipment outages. That happens more than one would desire. I caught one for real about a year or so ago - unexpectedly. GPS should largely solve that. George ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 08:06:32 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: toggle switch action? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:59 PM 5/19/2005 +0200, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jan de Jong > >Small question: >Does a 3-position switch as the 2-10 in Z13 require 1 or 2 hand >movements to move it from end to end? Not real clear on question . . . the 2-5, 2-7, 2-10, 2-50 and 2-70 switches are all three position meaning that you have three stable positions for the handle . . . one at each extreme and one in the center. >And: >Are 3-position toggle switches as mechanically reliable as 2-position >toggle switches? I'm unaware of any reliability issues with three position switches. The vast majority of switch failures in light aircraft are from old age and disuse . . . not from service stress or operating cycles. A large number of switch and relay failures in large aircraft are due to mis-application of the device in the system. Since our design goal is to fabricate failure tolerant systems then "reliability" of any single component is a very low order concern. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 08:18:22 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:23 AM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > > > >But it's not magic. > >See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php > >Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961 A couple of great examples of do-gooders running amok. If the $time$ required to support these folks salaries added to the $time$ industry expends to modify behaviors and processes to address "concerns" were expended instead on figuring out how to reduce PREVENTABLE accidental death in hospitals, tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year starting NEXT year. Instead, these same authors who have been beating the same drums for decades will still be beating them decades hence. Further, it will be difficult if not impossible to quantify ANY numbers of lives saved . . . but certainly not in the same orders of magnitude as lives lost in hospitals for stupid reasons. >Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up >when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff. Well put sir. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:27 AM PST US From: Rick Girard Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard i would be for inductance, wouldn't it? Rick Girard ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:03 AM PST US From: BTomm Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm Interesting. If my batteries are located aft of the baggage bulkhead (ie in a non heated space), should their charge voltage be higher or lower than that at room temp? Electrically dependant engine, dual batts with only one batt designated for starting the engine. Bevan planning for H6 Subaru On Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:22 AM, Ken [SMTP:klehman@albedo.net] wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken > > Seems odd that the 'battery tenders' float at 13.2 volts whereas other > references I've seen in the past recommend 13.7 volts or 2.25 to 2.3 > volts per cell at room temperature. My little Deka indicates zero > current (even on the microamp scale) after a couple of days when floated > at 13.75 volts. Larger flooded cells seem to take a couple if ma. Deka > http://www.eastpenn-deka.com/ has an excellant .pdf on AGM batteries but > my dial up is too slow to search for the exact filename. > Ken > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > >At 06:36 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: > > > > > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >> > >>I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not > >>be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is > >>made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines. > >> > >> > snip > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 10:34:54 AM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >This question got asked the other day at the airport: "Why is the symbol >for amperage in Ohn's [Ohm's] Law an 'i' ?" >Anybody know? Okay, but be careful....your brain might explode-- Georg Simon Ohm (German 1789-1854) discovered the law governing the relationships between voltage resistance and electric currents. This was published in 1827 in an obscure and very hard to get for free 'Die Galvanische Kette, Mathematische Bearbeitet'. Although I have not seen the book, I can guarantee that it has a whole bunch of differential equations. But until WWI, most books on physics used the letter "C" for current and ignored the German usage. My guess is that the letters were simply the common letters used in the electro-mathematics of the late 18th and early 19th century--"I subscript m" which stands for Intensity (magnetic), and of course there was an "I subscript s" for Intensity (static). Why this should be so requires some explanation: The physics of the late18th century (at the time called "Natural Philosophy"), recognized electrical potential V (from Volta) also called E.M.F. or electromotive force, or just E. And it recognized that different materials were better or worse conductors (rho and then R for resistance). The only way of measuring currents then was by measuring how much a compass needle was deflected (Oersted). Thus Intensity (magnetic) seemed as good a way as any to describe the invisible force in the wire. Only after Ampere was the idea of "flowing current" made popular. (And by the way the popular idea of current flow is basically wrong). Ohm tied this all together. But tiny bits of knowledge like this are incredibly volatile. And the assignment of a letter in an equation is so spur-of-the-moment that it seems almost random. Who remembers what a Mho is or how a quark got it's name? Who will know in 100 years? One of my pet projects is to distribute a small book on how California got its name. It was named by Cortez in 1537 but by 1600 NOBODY KNEW! Today 99.9% of Californians do not know that the golden state was named after a mythical land ruled by bejeweled naked black Amazon warriors who had pet griffins and who captured men only for breeding purposes--from a 15th century trashy novel carried by Cortez. But I digress.... > I don't recall the exact dates but even in my span of experience > in engineering, I recall being somewhat put upon when the folks > around me began to refer to the periodic rate of a signal or wave > as "Hertz" as opposed to "cycles/second" or "megacycles/second". > Both were correct and I was already quite comfortable with my > usage of language so far. None the less, I now refer to this unit > as "Hertz" and write it MHz and KHz, etc. I have a really handy chart showing the conversion between Hertz and cycles-per-second. >. . . we still cling 6-32 screws, 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in >spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports >individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. Here the >pressures to resist were driven more by market forces than >for stubborn resistance to change . . . while the US represented >a small portion of the total population, the proportionate cost >to change over was much greater for a country that was producing >so much of the world's technologies, goods and services. >There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by >emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts >of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric >components and measures in our society. My hardware store now >stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware. Bob . . . My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is simply not done in Inches anymore. Regards, Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge MA 01550-2705 Phone (508) 764-2072 Email: emjones@charter.net "I tried being reasonable--I didn't like it!" --Clint Eastwood ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 10:54:00 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different From: "Chuck Jensen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" Eric wrote.... My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is simply not done in Inches anymore. Well, the reasons for not converting to metric is simple,"it ain't natural" and "its not mentioned in the bible", so there--we don't nee any other reasons. Chuck Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 11:04:38 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > . . . we still cling 6-32 screws, > 14AWG wire, acres of land and statute miles to the next town in > spite of the fact that MOST of the planet's occupied surface area supports > individuals who talk in meters, and multiples thereof. ... > > There was a recent discussion concerning market pressures by > emerging technology and production suppliers in other parts > of the world. Already we're seeing the deeper rooting of metric > components and measures in our society. My hardware store now > stocks both American/British sized and Metric hardware. I was at the EBACE trade show today in Geneva, and I asked the guys showing the Socata TBM 700, a French-built aircraft, if they used metric or imperial hardware, and they said most is imperial. Market forces win again! I wouldn't complain too loudly if the aviation world switched to metric hardware, but I'm sure that won't happen in my lifetime! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 Wiring ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:43 AM PST US From: "Vern W." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." Bob, As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use? Vern ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > At 10:23 AM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > > > > > > > >But it's not magic. > > > >See: http://www.ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20030529/index.php > > > >Also: http://www.eprairie.com/printer/article.asp?newsletterID=9961 > > A couple of great examples of do-gooders running amok. If > the $time$ required to support these folks salaries added > to the $time$ industry expends to modify behaviors and processes > to address "concerns" were expended instead on figuring out > how to reduce PREVENTABLE accidental death in hospitals, > tens of thousands of lives could be saved each year starting > NEXT year. > > Instead, these same authors who have been beating the same > drums for decades will still be beating them decades hence. > Further, it will be difficult if not impossible to quantify > ANY numbers of lives saved . . . but certainly not in the > same orders of magnitude as lives lost in hospitals for > stupid reasons. > > >Our OBAM problems are closer to automotive than commercial jet. Wake me up > >when the automobile manufacturers decide they need this TKT stuff. > > Well put sir. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:47:41 AM PST US From: Matt Jurotich Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should dissipate a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the middle of a wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why most in aerospace insist on significant derating. Have fun Matthew M. Jurotich NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Swales contractor to the JWST ISIM Systems Engineer m/c : 443 e-mail mail to: phone : 301-286-5919 fax : 301-286-7021 JWST URL: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" Eric, > ignored the German usage. My guess is that the letters were simply the > common letters used in the electro-mathematics of the late 18th and early > 19th century--"I subscript m" which stands for Intensity (magnetic), and of > course there was an "I subscript s" for Intensity (static). Neat. I don't know if that's right or not, but it certainly makes sense. > current" made popular. (And by the way the popular idea of current flow is > basically wrong). Ohm tied this all together. Well, it's wrong in a few ways that for the purposes of electrical engineering mostly don't matter. Equations for charge flow refer to positive charge flow, despite the fact that it's the negative particles (electrons) that do the moving. I don't know if it's true or not, but at least one of my physics classes attributed this error to Ben Franklin, who was a superb embassador and statesman, but only a resonably competent experimental scientist. So in what other ways are the popular ideas of current flow "basically wrong"? > My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go > metric. It's not a matter of being pea-brained, just conservative. The US Government declared that the US was officially on the metric system in...was it the 60s? However, so much of industry was (and still is) on inches that there was too much inertia to just change. I think part of it was nationalistic, too. Going to a system that was invented by "those damn Europeans" seems like giving in. The International System of units and measures (usually called "metric") is indeed a much easier to use system, if you're taught with it...but people are just set in the ways of what they know. Anyone who wasn't exposed to meters before they were 25 years old just isn't ever going to adapt to them, no matter how much sense they make. Much farther ingrained in our way of doing things is our completely bizarre numbering system for time; 60 seconds in a minute, 60 minutes in an hour, and 24 hours in a day. (365 days in a year has to do with the motion of the earth; we can't do anything about that one.) It would make much more sense to divde the day into 10 segments, or 25, some nice multiple. > The > international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US > half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting > against our own best interests. Thanks for the confidence. The Space Station was designed by committee, because that was the only way that it could be done. Half of the station runs on 110V DC power (the US half), and the other runs on 28V DC (the Russian Half). > metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I > had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is > simply not done in Inches anymore. I really don't care which one, I just want to use only one. That doesn't seem to be the way of things, though. I think what's dragging people in the US into metric kicking and screaming is that so many car parts nowadays have metric parts, any sensible mechanic has to have sets of hardware for both. That, milling machines and lathes with electronic position readouts that can go from inches to mm with the touch of a button. Craig Steffen -- craig@craigsteffen.net public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/ current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:13:42 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:46 PM 5/19/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich > > >A small problem with your experiment. A single wire in air should dissipate >a lot of heat to the surrounding air. That same wire in the middle of a >wire bundle is going to get very much hotter. That is why most in >aerospace insist on significant derating. Not a problem at all. The experiment shows what the experiment shows . . . 20A through a 22AWG wire in free air runs at about 100C . . . WELL below the rating of the insulation. This speaks nothing to de-rating the wire for lots of reasons including voltage drop due to length, elevated temperature of the environment AND restriction of heat rejection capabilities due to bundling of the wire. I wasn't suggesting that one should even consider running 20A through a 22AWG wire as an installed equipment design goal. What I WAS suggesting is that folks who worry about wire behaving like fuses and breakers have mis-placed their concerns. The fusing constant (I-squared*T) for wire is many times that of a breaker and still more times that of most fuses. The notion that just because a 5A breaker opens pretty quickly at 10A somehow translates to a 22AWG wire treading up to the edge of destruction is a waste of worry resources. Wires installed and protected in accordance with the recommendations of AC43-13 or any other reference document are de-rated and VERY conservative with respect to risks to wire . . . the fact that circuit protection operates relatively quickly does not mean that the wire cheated death by a narrow margin. Bob. . . ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 12:22:23 PM PST US From: rv-9a-online Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online In Canada, we have the worst of both worlds... My altimeter and aviation charts are in feet. My ASI and navigation is in knots and nautical miles. I buy avgas in liters, and convert to US Gallons (not Imperial Gallons) to determine weight in pounds. EXCEPT our 1956 Cessna 172 (model A) is rated in Imperial Gallons. I measure temperatures in degrees Celcius and in degrees Farenheit Altimeter settings are provided in inches of mercury and sometimes kilopascals Gasoline motors are rated in horsepower, electrical motoros in watts. My engineering education was almost exclusively in the MKS system (meters-kilograms-seconds, a convention based on the metric system).... except for 2nd year thermodynamics final exam in which there was a question using British Thermal Units - what a nice suprise! The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of measurement, not a natural system of measurement. The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude]. I am fluent in both systems, and I prefer neither. The problem is in conversion... just Google 'Gimli Glider' to find out how Canada's conversion to metric almost cost the lives of a 767 full of passengers. Vern Little Chuck Jensen wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > >Eric wrote.... > >My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to go metric. The >international Space Station is Metric on the EU half and Inch on the US >half. I think the powers that be are simply cowards and certainly acting >against our own best interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they >make no sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in the >metric system than the inch system. When I taught Physics the first thing I >had to teach students was the metric system, since Physics and Science is >simply not done in Inches anymore. > > >Well, the reasons for not converting to metric is simple,"it ain't natural" and "its not mentioned in the bible", so there--we don't nee any other reasons. > >Chuck >Do Not Archive > > > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:43:06 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Hogwash?...I don't think so. Where else do you find that one unit of volume of water at room temperature is the same as one unit of mass...You now have a direct comparison bewteen weight of water and its volume. Very handy for a piping designer. About the only place the "Power of ten" principle does not work is in pressure where 1 bar is 10 to the power 5 pascals (not the power of three or six like everything else is)..I'm a british engineer transferred to the USA and am also kinda fluent in both. But the metric is far superior...even if it is French...;) Frank Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rv-9a-online Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online --> In Canada, we have the worst of both worlds... My altimeter and aviation charts are in feet. My ASI and navigation is in knots and nautical miles. I buy avgas in liters, and convert to US Gallons (not Imperial Gallons) to determine weight in pounds. EXCEPT our 1956 Cessna 172 (model A) is rated in Imperial Gallons. I measure temperatures in degrees Celcius and in degrees Farenheit Altimeter settings are provided in inches of mercury and sometimes kilopascals Gasoline motors are rated in horsepower, electrical motoros in watts. My engineering education was almost exclusively in the MKS system (meters-kilograms-seconds, a convention based on the metric system).... except for 2nd year thermodynamics final exam in which there was a question using British Thermal Units - what a nice suprise! The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of measurement, not a natural system of measurement. The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude]. I am fluent in both systems, and I prefer neither. The problem is in conversion... just Google 'Gimli Glider' to find out how Canada's conversion to metric almost cost the lives of a 767 full of passengers. Vern Little C ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:43:46 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different From: "Craig P. Steffen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online > The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the > distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of > measurement, not a natural system of measurement. The meter is defined such that the distance from the earth to the equator _through_ Paris is 10,000 km. This is actually extremely useful in test questions that involve the size of the earth (of the sort that I used to have in physics exams). It's easy to remember that the earth has a circumference of almost exactly 40,000 km. All the systems in use are based on physical convention with no fundamental basis. We could define a system based purely on physical constants, but then everyone would have to re-memorize all their conversion constants yet again. The only reason that I prefer the International System (metric) to American is that in the meter-kilogram-second system, the roles of mass and weight are clearly defined. In the american system, mass and weight are muddied together, which makes distinguishing them even harder for physics students. > The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just > adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and > have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this > system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude]. Natical miles are based on the earth's circumference too, tied into the Babylonian idea of dividing things into multiples of 60. Craig Steffen -- craig@craigsteffen.net public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/ current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 01:22:28 PM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken Higher. A cold cell needs higher voltage to fully charge it. Or as a memory aid only, you want to reduce voltage to a hot cell to reduce boiling... ;) However the difference probably isn't worth being concerned about for most practical purposes and the limited hours that most private aircraft seem to operate. Ken BTomm wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BTomm > >Interesting. > >If my batteries are located aft of the baggage bulkhead (ie in a non heated >space), should their charge voltage be higher or lower than that at room >temp? Electrically dependant engine, dual batts with only one batt >designated for starting the engine. > >Bevan >planning for H6 Subaru > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 01:30:56 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:33 AM 5/19/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rick Girard > >i would be for inductance, wouldn't it? > >Rick Girard Depends on who's sandbox you're playing and what language or discipline they embrace. My 1959 edition of the CRS Math and Physics Handbook lists about a dozen variants on the letter "i" as representative of some unit in physics . . . but none of them are inductance. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 01:37:21 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" The official measurement system of the US has been metric since 1866. There is no Inch system, only a mishmash of collected conventions. How many quarts in an acre-feet of water.......give me a break. Gimli Glider indeed. The nice thing about the metric system is that it is a rational measurement SYSTEM. I'll use any system--no matter what it's called or who invented it--over a pile of half-forgotten conventions. Know how they measure shotgun gauges? I would surmise that there are NO new science books except metric now being published. Eric do not archive ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 02:34:08 PM PST US From: Walter Tondu Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu On 05/19 4:37, Eric M. Jones wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > > The official measurement system of the US has been metric since 1866. There > is no Inch system, only a mishmash of collected conventions. How many quarts > in an acre-feet of water.......give me a break. Gimli Glider indeed. > > The nice thing about the metric system is that it is a rational measurement > SYSTEM. I'll use any system--no matter what it's called or who invented > it--over a pile of half-forgotten conventions. Know how they measure shotgun > gauges? The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. I used to shoot a LOT. -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 05:40:30 PM PST US From: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Metric musings --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex & Gerry Peterson" > > My humble opinion is that the US is just pea-brained not to > go metric. The international Space Station is Metric on the > EU half and Inch on the US half. I think the powers that be > are simply cowards and certainly acting against our own best > interests. I've heard the economic arguments and they make no > sense since it is a hell of a lot easier to design things in > the metric system than the inch system. When I taught > Physics the first thing I had to teach students was the > metric system, since Physics and Science is simply not done > in Inches anymore. > > Regards, > Eric M. Jones One good reason why the US hasn't converted is because no one wanted to modify hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of machine tools such as mills and lathes. Not to mention the accessories for these machines. While CNC machining and digital position readouts have removed this concern, most machine tools last many, many decades, and their lead screws (and hence position indicators) were designed around inches. Most machine tools are not CNC. Everything that you see around you was created, or their molds were, on machine tools. It isn't as simple as just changing the units on drawings. I have designed things (in both systems) for a living for almost 25 years, and I find absolutely no particular advantages in either system. For some entertainment, ask your favorite European why the lug nuts on their cars are still English (or at least were as of a decade ago), or why the pipe threads in the plumbing in their house are still English. In-lbs-sec, gm-cm-s, kg-m-s, lightyear-megaton-eon, I don't give a rip. Compared to the other stuff I had to learn in engineering school, dealing with these different "languages" is a non issue. Do not archive Alex Peterson RV6-A 617 hours Maple Grove, MN http://www.home.earthlink.net/~alexpeterson/ ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 05:42:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 01:36 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." > >Bob, > As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the >Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use? When I had the electrical/avionics group on the GP-180 project at Lear about 22 years ago, 22759 was an export controlled substance and we needed special licences to sell airplanes overseas that were wired with 22759. I was ready to use Spec 55 wire in the GP-180 until my betters decided to go for the export license. It's very good wire too. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 06:01:11 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different From: "Chuck Jensen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" Walter wrote... The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. chuck DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:11 PM PST US From: Dan Brown Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Brown -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chuck Jensen wrote: | I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. | It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. It's as Walter said--the "guage" system is defined by the number of lead balls of a certain diameter whose weight adds up to one pound. Twelve balls of 0.729" diameter weigh a total of one pound, so a shotgun with a bore of 0.729" is a 12 ga shotgun. This is why larger numbers indicate smaller bore diameters. The largest that I'm aware of is 4 ga, and the smallest is 28 ga. Do not archive this either, but it should cover the explanation. - -- Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan@familybrown.org "Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring." ~ -- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFCjUVPyQGUivXxtkERAtXlAKDtjAv2Ezcx//G43rVwACLEb9sNBACfUGd8 HlDFOqRU5R+Dlf+F/2g11Zo=bICK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:13 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" >I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sounds more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. I referred to this simply to poke fun at the strange English measurements. Most gauge sizes have some strange history behind them. Shotgun gauges example: 1 ga. = a bore the diameter of a 1 pound lead sphere. 10 ga.=a bore the diameter of a 1/10 pound lead sphere (or if you make 10 perfect spheres from a pound of lead, each one of them has the same diameter as the bore. Many sheetmetal gauges are similar--basically they are the number of sheets, each a square foot, that equal some weight. (Or somesuch.) Eric do not archive ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:15 PM PST US From: "Richard E. Tasker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" If you take one pound of lead and make exactly 12 perfect spheres with it, their diameter is the bore size of a 12 ga. shotgun. Likewise for 16 ga. or 20 ga. There used to be larger gauges like 10 or 8 ga., but the gauges above 12 are not used any more. There also is a smaller gauge shotgun that is currently manufactured but for some reason, as Chuck says, that is rated by bore size in inches rather than lead balls. Dick Tasker Chuck Jensen wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > >Walter wrote... >The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would >equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit >into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. > >Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". >Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. > >I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. > >chuck >DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > > -- ---- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. ---- ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:35 PM PST US From: Jim Oke Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Oke Re: the roles of mass and weight, would anyone care to tackle a definition of the term "poundal" ?? (It was greatly beloved by Mech Eng Profs in the 70s). Jim Oke Wpg., MB (And been living with Metric/SAE confusion for a long time.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig P. Steffen" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" > > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online >> >> The metric system was developed by the French based (I think) on the >> distance from the North Pole to Paris. It is a political system of >> measurement, not a natural system of measurement. > > The meter is defined such that the distance from the earth to the > equator _through_ Paris is 10,000 km. This is actually extremely > useful in test questions that involve the size of the earth (of the > sort that I used to have in physics exams). It's easy to remember > that the earth has a circumference of almost exactly 40,000 km. > > All the systems in use are based on physical convention with no > fundamental basis. We could define a system based purely on physical > constants, but then everyone would have to re-memorize all their > conversion constants yet again. > > The only reason that I prefer the International System (metric) to > American is that in the meter-kilogram-second system, the roles of > mass and weight are clearly defined. In the american system, mass and > weight are muddied together, which makes distinguishing them even > harder for physics students. > >> The whole thing about multiples of ten is hogwash. We could have just >> adopted nautical miles, and multiplied or divided by powers of ten and >> have been much better off... at least we could navigate with this >> system. [remember that a nautical mile is one minute of latitude]. > > Natical miles are based on the earth's circumference too, tied into > the Babylonian idea of dividing things into multiples of 60. > > Craig Steffen > > -- > craig@craigsteffen.net > public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/ > current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books > career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord > > > ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:18 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 5/19/2005 9:52:39 P.M. Central Standard Time, wjoke@shaw.ca writes: Re: the roles of mass and weight, would anyone care to tackle a definition of the term "poundal" ?? A unit of force equal to the force that would give a free mass of one pound an acceleration of one foot per second per second. I cheated and looked in the dictionary. 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 42 ____________________________________ Time: 08:00:12 PM PST US From: "r falstad" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fat Wire Terminals on Starter Contactor Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 19 May 2005 21:59:31 -0500 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" I'm starting to wire my GlaStar. I plan on terminating the 2 AWG from the battery + and the 6 AWG from the alternator + to the same post on the starter contactor. I also need to terminate the wire from the power bus somewhere and the closest place that will see the battery is the same post on the starter contactor. Is this right? That will put three fairly large terminals on one post. Don't you need a rubber terminal nipple to cover the terminals and post so if anything gets loose in the engine compartment, you don't run the risk of a direct short to ground? How do you insulate that arrangement? Best regards, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server To: AeroElectric-List Digest List Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 05/18/05 * Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.html Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-18.txt EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 05/18/05: 20 Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:36 AM - Trickle Chargers (Mike Lehman) 2. 04:38 AM - Re: Sudden Failure (William Bernard) 3. 05:57 AM - Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (flmike) 4. 08:37 AM - Re: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 (Ken Simmons) 5. 11:34 AM - Re: Trickle Chargers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 11:56 AM - Re: Trickle Chargers (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 7. 01:07 PM - Re: GI-106A Back Course () 8. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (dsvs@comcast.net) 9. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Stein Bruch) 10. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Tim Dawson-Townsend) 11. 02:38 PM - Re: Re: GI-106A Back Course (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 12. 02:57 PM - Load Analysis (Jim.Piavis@sybase.com) 13. 03:20 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 14. 03:51 PM - Re: Full Charge on Battery? () 15. 07:12 PM - Re: Load Analysis (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 07:17 PM - Re: Load Analysis (rv-9a-online) 17. 07:45 PM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Chris) 18. 09:26 PM - Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ (Scott Winn) 19. 09:48 PM - Re: Re: Full Charge on Battery? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 20. 09:52 PM - Re: Load Analysis (TKT wire) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:36:08 AM PST US From: "Mike Lehman" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman" > Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage adapter can used with a LM317 regulator. Mike --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > The $7.99 trickle chargers (voltage sensing) have worked great for me for the last five years. -----Original Message----- --> 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:38:45 AM PST US From: "William Bernard" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > Thanks, Bob and all. The new battery has noticably larger posts, but they are still lead. The cables are #4 welding cable, but due to geometry issues the one on the "+" post is pretty short where it goes through the side of the battery box. The cables do lie pretty much parallel to the side of the battery posts and within about 1/8" of them so the strain on the battery posts from the cables should be minimal. Thanks again for the help. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 08:03 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >> > > > >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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:51 AM PST US From: flmike > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike > Allied shows stock. http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID&DESCAML34FBA4AC01 __________________________________ ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:37:32 AM PST US From: "Ken Simmons" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > Thanks for the help. I finally found the same one at Newark. This one is a double pole. That's why I couldn't find it before because I was looking for a specific part number. Shouldn't make a difference in this application. I think this is what NewGlasair calls their master switch. The one from Allied is cheaper and the one from Newark is cheaper still. Thanks. Ken ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: flmike > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: flmike > > >Allied shows stock. > >http://www.alliedelec.com/cart/ProductDetail.asp?SKU642-0131&SEARCHaml34&ID&DESCAML34FBA4AC01 > > > >__________________________________ > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:34:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 05:36 AM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Lehman" > > >Got any unused AC adapters around? I've found that 12 VDC units will >typically trickle charge a wet cell at about 50 to 100 mA. If, after a few >days, you find the battery voltage rise becomes higher than you like, a >timer can be used to cycle the adapter. Getting fancy, a higher voltage >adapter can used with a LM317 regulator. > >Mike A few years ago, I published a compendium of circuits which suggested various power sources and techniques for long term storage and controlled charging of batteries. Several circuits touch on Mike's suggestion above. If you have the goodies laying around and really want to spend the time to assemble your own, by all means. It's an excellent learning experience. However, please consider commercial off-the- shelf (COTS) products that do a better job and often cost less than the bill of materials for a DIY project. I've added the Battery Tender data to the back of the diagrams now available at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Batteries/Charger_Maintainers.pdf I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which cost me right at $30 each. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 11:56:04 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Trickle Chargers From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > Or $7.99 from Harbor Freight...:) www.harborfreight.com Frank I just received a couple of Battery Tender Jr.s in the mail which cost me right at $30 each. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:07:26 PM PST US From: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schroeder" > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course > OC - > > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course > ILS's. John 5/18/2005 Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course approach -- one less "different thing" to remember. Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that equipment to: 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my equipment. If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to change the mode of needle movement. The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. OC PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 02:03:03 PM PST US From: dsvs@comcast.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net OC, The HSI is no smarter, the needle is always pointed aat the transmitter. When you are in the backcourse it points behind the ac nose and this corrects for the "backwards" needle. Don > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Schroeder" > > To: > > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course > > > > OC - > > > > My understanding is that the MD200 needle is directional on the back > > course. ie. If the needle is off to the right, you turn right to > > intercept. I do not know how the GI-106A needle works. My recollection of > > the CDI's of 40 years ago + or -, is that on the back course, one turns > > opposite to the needle to intercept. Of course, this is perhaps a moot > > topic for discussion because of the apparent paucity of true back course > > ILS's. John > > 5/18/2005 > > Hello John, While flying a localizer back course most pilots would find it > easier if their equipment had the capability to be put into a back course > mode because then the pilot would be turning towards the needle to get back > on the localizer center line just as they would do in a front course > approach -- one less "different thing" to remember. > > Since the electronic emission pattern sent from the localizer antenna > remains the same over time, regardless of where the aircraft is located or > the what the pilot's intentions are, the pilot must take some overt physical > action (move a switch) on his equipment (normally the localizer receiver or > the autopilot / flight director) in the cockpit in order to tell that > equipment to: > > 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the > centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course > region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order > to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. > > 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the > cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my > equipment. > > If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a > light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one > might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which > has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle > movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back > course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to > change the mode of needle movement. > > The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which > localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. > > OC > > PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit > more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound > course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region > the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would > produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 02:05:19 PM PST US From: "Stein Bruch" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the "BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel. Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203 & 206/207 are all the same instrument. Just my 2 cents as usual! Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of bakerocb@cox.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schroeder" > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course 5/18/2005 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my equipment. If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to change the mode of needle movement. The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. OC PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:21:18 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course From: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" > The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure. The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI . . . TDT -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein Bruch Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" > The MD-200-306 operates as you require below. Their manual nearly states verbatim for operation as you noted below. Also, that indicator has the "BC" annunciation on the face of it as wel. Just as an aside, you guys do realize the GI-102/106A and the MD-200 202/203 & 206/207 are all the same instrument. Just my 2 cents as usual! Cheers, Stein. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of bakerocb@cox.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Schroeder" > Subject: Re: GI-106A Back Course 5/18/2005 1) Please move the needle such that I can fly towards it to get on the centerline because I am attempting an inbound flight in the back course region of the localizer -- or outbound in the front course region in order to perform a procedure turn or get to a holding point. 2) Please turn on a light, or give me some other visual indication in the cockpit, as a reminder that I have made a back course selection with my equipment. If the MD 200 has an indication on the face of the instrument, such as a light, that shows that the pilot has made a back course mode selection one might consider the MD 200 to be a superior indicator to the GI-106A which has no such back course indication capability. But as far as needle movement, both instruments would be dependent upon actuation of the back course mode by the pilot in the equipment feeding the instrument in order to change the mode of needle movement. The MD 200 by itself can not determine the pilot's intentions or which localizer region that the aircraft is flying in. OC PS: In the HSI's that I've flown the back course mode selection was a bit more subtle than moving a switch. Just by virture of setting up the inbound course desired on the HSI while flying in the localizer back course region the equipment was smart enough to figure out what the pilot wanted and would produce normal fly-to-the-needle-to-get-to-the-center line indications ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 02:38:03 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > While we're on the subject of CDI's. Does anyone have any experience of using the BMA glass screen CDI driven from the Nav radio in actual IFR conditions? Does it really work? Frank Trying to decide on instruments for an IFR RV7. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Dawson-Townsend Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tim Dawson-Townsend" --> > The very nature of the geometry of an HSI sets you up well for backcourse approaches if you follow the correct procedure. The real challenge is for those without an HSI, who must use a conventional CDI . . . TDT ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:04 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis From: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com 05/18/2005 02:56:20 PM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on the following: When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on transmit. Thanks, Jim ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 03:20:51 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > Depends if you intend to transmit all the time I guess?...:) The steady state loads for sizing the alternator and wiring...Use the transient loads only if the load is sustained...say more than 10 seconds?...That should give you a cut off. The little bit of extra the alt needs to give will be taken care by the fact you will oversize the alt by some margin...Say 5amps minimum. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim.Piavis@sybase.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on the following: When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on transmit. Thanks, Jim ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 03:51:33 PM PST US From: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines. http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5 Any clarification would be appreciated. Gary ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:12:05 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 02:56 PM 5/18/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com > >I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 >electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on >the following: > >When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment >item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the >purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? >Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on >transmit. STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB sizing. On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a 22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more? I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list, folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and smoke at just over the "rated" current. Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A. The picture at . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for 150C. I was going to increase the current until the wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it, the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears about burning wires when even severely overloaded with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are not well founded. These wires are quite robust and in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting VERY robust electrical systems. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:17:58 PM PST US From: rv-9a-online > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online > Jim, it's good to analyze both. The sum of steady state loads should be about 80% or less of your alternator rating, in 'normal' configuration (typical worst case flight such as night operations). Any excess capacity is good for charging your battery. Worst case transient loads, such as your comm in tx mode can be handled by the battery. If the worst case transient is less than your alternator rating, your battery will be somewhat less stressed. Vern Little Jim.Piavis@sybase.com wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com > >I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 >electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure on >the following: > >When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment >item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the >purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? >Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on >transmit. > >Thanks, > >Jim > > > > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:45:29 PM PST US From: "Chris" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" > Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it expensive and not worth it? Thanks Chris Lucas RV-10 #40072 wings ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > At 02:56 PM 5/18/2005 -0700, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim.Piavis@sybase.com >> >>I'm in the process of working load analysis on my anticipated RV-7 >>electrical system. From looking through the archives, I'm not quire sure >>on >>the following: >> >>When running a load analysis for my electrical system, for each equipment >>item, there's usually a steady state current and a max current. For the >>purpose of calculating the total loads, do I use the max or steady state? >>Com/Navs are a good example, receive-only is fairly low, then jumps up on >>transmit. > > STEADY states for load analysis, MAX load for wire and fuse/CB > sizing. > > On similar topic, I was doing a lunchtime learning session for > some of my fellow RAC employees and the question was asked > about how fragile is a wire? If you're set up to protect a > 22AWG wire at 5A . . . what is the risk at say, 10A? or more? > I've read conversation on this matter numerous times on the list, > folks are belabored of the impression that wire will poof and > smoke at just over the "rated" current. > > Just for grins, I went to the bench and rigged a segment > of 22AWG Tefzel wire between two c-clamps, attached a > thermocouple and biased the wire up in 5A steps to 20A. > The picture at . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/20A_22AWG.jpg > > was taken after 10 minutes operation at 20A! The wire > temperature was just over 100C. The wire was rated for > 150C. I was going to increase the current until the > wire smoked but when I tried to push 25A through it, > the breaker on my bench supply feeder popped. I need > to run a 220 line to the bench supply before I can > finish the experiment. Suffice it to say that fears > about burning wires when even severely overloaded > with respect to breaker size and wire "rating" are > not well founded. These wires are quite robust and > in fact, we depend on those qualities for crafting > VERY robust electrical systems. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:26:20 PM PST US From: Scott Winn > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter Contactor Location on Long-EZ --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Winn > Hi, I am utilizing a Z-13 diagram in my Long-EZ. I am trying to decide on the location of the starter contactor, if it should be on the firewall or in the nose with the batteries. Looking at the Z13 diagram there is nothing to indicate that the 4AWG wire going from the battery contactor to the starter contactor has to be especially short. This would indicate to me that the large wire can be run the length of the plane with the contactor on the firewall. I am actually planning to run 2AWG because of the extra length. This allows me to connect the alternator output to the starter contactor so I don't have to make two runs of large wire to hook up both the alternator and the starter. If the concactor was in the nose, I'd have to run a second large wire just for the alternator. My concern is that I don't see any protection for the 4AWG wire that runs between the starter contactor and battery contactor. Is it really OK to string an unprotected wire capable of delivering 100+ amps all the way down the plane? Secondly, my engine has an automotive starter conversion on it. Is there any disadavantage to using the built in soleniod instead of an external contactor? The starter is off of a Toyota and the soleniods are quite reliable. Obviously if I need to put the contactor in the nose then I'll have to use an external one. Thanks for your thoughts! ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:48:40 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Full Charge on Battery? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 06:36 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > >I chanced apon this site. The suggestion that an Odyssey Battery may not >be getting a full charge unless it receives a voltage of 14.7 volts is >made. If true, this could be a problem for electrically dependent engines. > >http://batterytender.com/notice_odyssey.php?osCsid88978aa7c540510e2215932c22b512e5 > >Any clarification would be appreciated. The 14.4 to 14.7 value is recommended for rapid recharge of the battery . . . and probably assumes that the battery was deeply discharged before the recharge cycle begins. The charging recommendations publication for Odyssey can be found at . . . http://www.enersysreservepower.com/odycharg_a.asp . . . where we read that the fast recharge voltage should not be sustained for more than 24 hours. They recommend reduction to a "standby" charge value of 13.6 to 13.8 volts. A value that is consistent with the rest of the lead-acid battery industry. One could use the numbers on this chart for ANY lead-acid technology except that I would say that you don't leave the fast-charge level on for more thank, say one tank of fuel duration or much less than 24 hours. Any battery in an airplane should be fully recharged in about one hour after starting the engine. This is the reason for the "75% rule" on alternator sizing in certified ships. If one has used a max of 45A on a 60A machine to run the airplane, you have 15A left over to quickly recharge a deeply discharged battery. Boosting the voltage to 14.7 increases the battery's willingness to accept energy . . . but this level should not be maintained indefinitely. Check out page 8 of . . . http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf and you see the same kinds of fast charge and float voltage ranges. Same goes for Panasonic where on page 3 of . . . http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US_GPL_SG_001_0303.pdf . . . we find 13.7 as a recommended float charge and 14.7 as a recommended fast charge voltage at 25C. Bottom line is that ANY lead acid battery by ANY manufacturer will ultimately achieve 100% charge at 13.8V at 25C. It'a all a matter of how long you want to wait. If you're in a hurry, then jack the voltage up a tad for a SHORT period of time to speed up the recharge process. If your system is not endowed with a automatic recharge/float voltage controller . . . well shucks. Guess we'll have to compromise and set the critter up for 14.2 and quit worrying about it. That's the lead-acid set-point of choice for light aircraft since Duane Wallace bolted the first batteries into the C-140/C-170 products nearly 60 years ago. With respect to the writer's objections about "Pulse Current Amps" take a peek at . . . http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?routineody_dchrg&brandID5 The graphical data for battery performance under various loads is quite specific and yields factual engineering data. The fact that Odyssey quantifies their batteries in a different manner than some industry standards doesn't automatically mean that their product is inferior or that the company is trying to obscure any facts as to their product's performance. Take a peek at . . . http://www.batteryweb.com/faq.cfm . . . where we find the following definitions: Cold Cranking Amps (CCA): "Discharge load measured in amps that a fully charged battery at 0 F can deliver for 30 seconds while maintaining its voltage above 7.2V" Hmmm . . . Odyssey gives similar data but at 25C. Could it be that the majority of Odyssey's customers use their batteries as more mundane temperatures wherein the high discharge rate performance data is more useful when plotted at the higher temperatures? Don't know. But I doubt that Odyssey believes they are competing with Die Hards and boat batteries. And what's all this 7.2 volt stuff anyhow? B&C has quantified their batteries for a 15 second dump based on dragging the battery down to and holding it at 8.5 volts. This is easily accomplished with the tester that both B&C and the 'Connection use in their shops. See . . . http://www.batteryweb.com/autometer-detail.cfm?ModelSB-5 Does that mean that B&C's marketing numbers are bad or that they're trying to obscure any facts? No, I picked that value 15 years ago because I didn't know of any starters that would continue to crank an engine all the way down to 7.2 volts . . . And guess what? We DON'T do that test at 0C. Reserve Capacity (RC): "Number of minutes a fully charged battery at 80.F can be discharged at 25 amps until the voltage drops below 10.5 volts." Well fooey, my e-bus runs only 5 amps . . . should I be bent out of shape that Odyssey or any other manufacturer doesn't give me a 5A value instead of the 25A value? Only if I'm an ignorant consumer likely to make decisions based on a particular manufacturer's marketing hype. If I'm a designer who deals in engineering facts and data, then what ever data the manufacturer supplies is GOOD data as long as it's accurate. If I need ADDITIONAL data plotted in some other venue, then it's my responsibility go get that data myself or request it from the manufacturer. Most have much more data than they publish and will supply it as needed. Deltran's position on Odyssey products is not well researched. It does not mirror any considered understanding of lead-acid technology in general nor Odyssey's engineering and marketing philosophies in particular. The short answer is, "I'm not going to loose any sleep over it." Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:30 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Load Analysis (TKT wire) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 10:44 PM 5/18/2005 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" > > >Speaking of wire is TKT an available wire for home building or is it >expensive and not worth it? What would be the advantage of using it for house wiring? You can purchase any kind of wire from anybody and use it any way you like with complete confidence as long as you observe the products limitations. But it might be an action akin to running 130 avgas in a mogas rated engine . . . expensive but doesn't get you any more snort . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:13 PM PST US From: "Chris" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris" Thanks for the insight. Like anybody I want the best but will settle for what works for the best price. I think the heavy iron folks are always thinking of the bundles that are as thick as an arm and carrying lots of load. I am use to mil-specs and Navy needs. My RV-10 won't be doing 6 month floats. -Chris Lucas #40072 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Teflon Kynar Teflon wire > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 01:36 PM 5/19/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." >> >>Bob, >> As long as we're kicking around a discussion on wire, where would the >>Raychem 44 or Raychem 55 fit in with all this for aircraft use? > > > When I had the electrical/avionics group on the GP-180 project > at Lear about 22 years ago, 22759 was an export controlled substance > and we needed special licences to sell airplanes overseas that were > wired with 22759. I was ready to use Spec 55 wire in the GP-180 > until my betters decided to go for the export license. > > It's very good wire too. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 08:11:02 PM PST US From: "r falstad" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Wiring Question Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:10:13 -0500 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "r falstad" I plan on installing my alternator, then my prop on my GlaStar this weekend. I have to have the wires on the back of the alternator before it goes in otherwise I don't have enough access room. My alternator is a Prestolite ALY-6421. I know, I know, the B&C alternators are much better and lighter but this one came with the engine and is paid for. The alternator has a 1/4"x28 stud for ALT +, a #10x32 stud for "AUX" (which I don't plan to use and really don't know what it's for), and a #6x32 stud for the Field. The confusing part is there are two #10x24 termination screws near the Field post that are labeled "F1" and "F2". Do I just terminate my 20 AWG field wire on the threaded post? What function, if any, do the two screws have? Thanks and best regards, Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server To: AeroElectric-List Digest List Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:55 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 32 Msgs - 05/17/05 * Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.html Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list/Digest.AeroElectric-List.2005-05-17.txt EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 05/17/05: 32 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:59:06 AM PST US From: 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" > ........... 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:44:46 AM PST US From: "cgalley" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > MLI has one I believe. ----- Original Message ----- From: > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:33:08 AM PST US From: Steve Thomas > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:20 AM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht > 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 > wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:37:04 AM PST US From: Casey Rayman > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: Chinese Tools --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Casey Rayman > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:05 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 6:48:07 A.M. Central Standard Time, cgalley@qcbc.org writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:21 AM PST US 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" > MLI has one I believe. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:29 AM PST US From: "William Bernard" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > 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" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 06:56 AM 5/15/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >> > > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:41:29 AM PST US From: "William Bernard" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > 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" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 06:30 AM 5/16/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > >> > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:04:30 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:21:11 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rash of hijacked e-mail addresses --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:23:31 AM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Kilovac Konfession --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:49:28 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 08:09 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" >> > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:58:06 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 08:03 AM 5/17/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" >> > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:33 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:42 AM PST US From: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder" > <> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:33:07 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:52:02 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > 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" > ........... 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:57:49 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: (no subject) From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:18 AM PST US From: "Ronald J. Parigoris" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sudden Failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ronald J. Parigoris" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:19 AM PST US From: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:19 AM PST US From: Paul Folbrecht > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:21:32 AM PST US From: "cgalley" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" > You see what happens when old memory and being a non-instrument pilot brings. ----- Original Message ----- From: > 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" > > > MLI has one I believe. > > > ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:37:27 AM PST US From: "Ken Simmons" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics breaker --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > 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" > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >At 09:18 AM 5/14/2005 -0600, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:11 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Kilovac Konfession --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee > >-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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:53 AM PST US From: Richard Tasker > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters - OT rant --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker > 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" > > >At 02:21 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > >> >>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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:55:57 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:57:49 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com In a message dated 5/17/2005 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:24 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GI-106A Back Course --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 09:11 AM 5/17/2005 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Folbrecht >> > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:54:09 PM PST US From: "Ken Simmons" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Honeywell/Mircoswitch AMl34 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ken Simmons" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:10:21 PM PST US From: Charlie England > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: cheap Harbor Freight multimeters --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England > AI Nut wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: AI Nut > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:40 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal Sourcing for GPS/NAV From: "John Schroeder" > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" > On Tue, 17 May 2005 11:24:17 -0400, > 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 -- ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:16 PM PST US From: Walter Tondu Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu On 05/19 8:59, Chuck Jensen wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > Walter wrote... > The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would > equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit > into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. > > Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". > Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. > > I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. You are right, they were essentially measureing barrel/sphere diameters and barrel length, hence the guage. Today's shotguns shoot a variety of pellet sizes, not slugs, or single lead spheres. Of course you can still buy slug for shotguns today but they are less popular. A standard shot sphere size was determined after much trial and error. Powder, shot, wads, casings, caps, crimps, barrel length, chokes and a bunch of other things are taken into consideration when creating today's shotgun shells, of any guage. The shot size, shot weight, barrel length, powder type, etc, need to be such that an appropriate amount of gunpowder will effectivly eject the shot, kill it's intended victim, and not blow up the barrel and shooter. You must remember that way back in the day, steel wasn't the steel we have today. I wouldn't put today's 12ga shotgun shells into a Damascus barrel shotgun more than a few times, for fear of it blowing up. The physics of creating the perfect shot shell is something that ballistics experts continue to tinker with today. You can't have a 6' long barrel and it can't be 5" in diameter. Neither of them will kill anything, except perhaps the shooter. You can only get so much lead into any given configuration, and have it fire in an expected, repeatable way, and kill something you want to eat, or otherwise. There is a happy medium (of shot sphere size) for any given barrel length and amount of powder, and type of powder. Since I wasn't there when the guages were developed, I'm recanting what I know from heresay and book reading. Don't take my word for it but it sounds fair. Does that make any sense or should I have another glass of wine? do not archive -- Walter Tondu http://www.rv7-a.com ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 09:02:04 PM PST US From: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org Subject: AeroElectric-List: 12/14v instruments and accessories in a 24/28v plane Z-USANET-MsgId: XID487JeTD5N0290X38 1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org Hi folks - newcomer to the list. My family is building a Lancair IV P-T here in Arizona. It's got a starter/generator as the main electrical supply at 28v. Most of the stuff on the panel and in the plane is happy at either 14/28v or at 28v only. However, one critical Becker comm. is 14v only (on the essential bus). There's also some creature comfort entertainment stuff that's designed to run off 14v as well (very low on the priority list). For a battery we're stacking two Oddessy batteries in series. It occurs to me that we could run two separate DC-DC converters to step down the 28v to 14v. Or we could simply run a couple of busses off the lower potential battery and get out 12v directly. Anyone have any thoughts on a down side to running my 12v stuff diretly off one battery? Will there be a problem as the two batteries will be (slightly) unevenly loaded? My understanding is that the spare electrons from the higher potential battery will migrate to the second battery and both will then charge from the generator. There'd be no problem adding a few DC-DC converters if strictly necessary, but I liked the elegance of not including them if possible. Thanks- Chad Chad Sipperley chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org Phoenix, AZ ________________________________ Message 47 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:26 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England Chuck Jensen wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > >Walter wrote... >The number of lead spheres, just fitting into the barrel, that would >equal one pound. So if 12 perfectly fitting lead balls fit >into the barrel and weigh 1 pound, then this is a 12ga shotgun. > >Except for shotguns with bores measuring less than 1/2". >Then you use the bore measurment, ie. .410 shotguns. > >I didn't follow this at all. What barrel and what size lead spheres. It sound more like your measuring shot size than gun gauge. Completely off topic but fossilized minds want to know--at least this one. > >chuck >DO NOT ARCHIVE > I had to scratch body parts for a while, too. My take: the balls are the same diameter as the bore of the barrel. Add balls to the scale until you get a pound, count the balls & that's your gauge. .410 is 410 thousanths of an inch. Charlie ________________________________ Message 48 ____________________________________ Time: 11:13:49 PM PST US From: Richard Riley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Something Completely Different --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley At 07:34 PM 5/19/05, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" > > >If you take one pound of lead and make exactly 12 perfect spheres with >it, their diameter is the bore size of a 12 ga. shotgun. Likewise for >16 ga. or 20 ga. There used to be larger gauges like 10 or 8 ga., but >the gauges above 12 are not used any more. Not true. There are plenty of 10 guage autos, pumps, doubles and singles on the market. Browning has a very nice auto 10 called the "Gold Hunter" for geese and turkeys. Now, I have a 4 gage side by side "punt gun" with Damascus barrels that's - um - difficult to get ammo for. It was meant for market hunting - go out in a small boat and take out a flock of ducks with 2 shots, sell them at market. Do not archive