Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:04 AM - Re: Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects (Rodney Dunham)
2. 05:48 AM - Re: Re: Amateur Built Requirements ()
3. 08:05 AM - Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility Issues.... (Eric M. Jones)
4. 08:20 AM - Re: emergency battery disconnect (Eric M. Jones)
5. 08:42 AM - Re: welding cable (Bob McCallum)
6. 08:57 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
7. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (Roger Evenson)
8. 09:17 AM - Re: Re: emergency battery disconnect (Bob McCallum)
9. 09:30 AM - Re: welding cable (Jerry2DT@AOL.COM)
10. 10:38 AM - Re: Welding Cable (Eric M. Jones)
11. 11:22 AM - Re: Re: welding cable (Frank)
12. 11:28 AM - Re: Re: Welding Cable (Chuck Jensen)
13. 11:42 AM - Re: Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility Issues.... (Rob Housman)
14. 12:42 PM - Re: Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size (Will N. Stevenson)
15. 02:18 PM - Re: Hobbs meter wiring (Werner Schneider)
16. 05:19 PM - Re: Re: welding cable (Bob McCallum)
17. 07:13 PM - Re: Re: welding cable (bob noffs)
18. 07:18 PM - welding cable (bob noffs)
19. 07:33 PM - Re: Re: Circuit Breakers (N1deltawhiskey@aol.com)
20. 08:48 PM - Re: Re: welding cable (John Schroeder)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: Question about Strobe Wire Disconnects |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
For a cheap but robust wing disconnect system read Bob's article...
"Bob's Shop Notes: Wing Root Connections"
at...
www.aeroelectric.com/articles/wingwire/wingwire.html
Rodney in Tennessee
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Amateur Built Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rhshumaker@cox.net>
OC: I thought you handled this exchange with great tact and patience. Congrats.
Bob END
>
> From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Date: 2005/10/21 Fri PM 01:21:01 EDT
> To: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Amateur Built Requirements
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 10/21/2005
>
> Hello Wayne, Thanks for your prompt response copied below and the
> opportunity to confirm the correctness of my table and to clear up a common
> misunderstanding.
>
> Here is the situation: The FAA, with help from the EAA, permits the flying,
> in day VFR only, of some very rudimentary (no offense intended) aircraft.
> Some examples are Breezy, Cri-Cri, Curtis Pusher Replicas, and Quicksilver
> MX. These are true amateur built experimental aircraft that are registered
> with the FAA, have N numbers assigned, and have been issued Special Category
> airworthiness certificates for operating amateur built aircraft.
>
> But it is obviously impractical or impossible for these rudimentary
> aircraft to be instrumented and equipped as required by FAR Sec 91.205 (b).
> At the same time the FAA wants to ensure that more sophisticated and higher
> powered amateur built experimental aircraft that will be flown IFR or at
> night are properly equipped for such flight.
>
> The FAA accomplishes this dual goal through wording in the Operating
> Limitations that are the part of the airworthiness certificate of each
> amateur built experimental aircraft. Those words are: "After completion of
> Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
> instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
> under VFR, day only."
>
> Maybe there is a better way for the way for the FAA to accomplish their
> intended dual goals (I find the above wording awkward and back handed
> myself, even in conflict with some other words in the Operating
> Limitations), but that is the way they are doing it now. If you want
> confirmation of what I have written above I can put you in touch with the
> authorities.
>
> The table that I have created is accurate for equipping (and to some extent
> operating) amateur built experimental aircraft because it takes into account
> current FAA policy, FAA Orders, FAR content, and each aircraft's
> airworthiness certificate which includes the Operating Limitations with the
> wording provided above.
>
> << 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft with ANY US category
> airworthiness certificate must have the instruments and equipment in
> 91.205(b).>>
>
> Not quite. The heading of FAR Sec 91.205 reads "Powered civil aircraft with
> STANDARD category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
> requirements." (emphasis provided). Since amateur built experimental
> aircraft have SPECIAL category, not Standard, category, airworthiness
> certificates FAR Sec 91.205, as written, does not apply to amateur built
> experimental aircraft at all. It takes the Operating Limitations wording
> quoted above to make FAR Sec 91.205 applicable to amateur built aircraft as
> reflected in my table.
>
> <<The reason I say this is your table differs drastically from the table
> that appeared recently in Sport Aviation magazine.>>
>
> You are right. The table on page 68 of the Sep 2005 issue of Sport Aviation
> magazine is different from mine. Dick Koehler created that table as an
> accurate reflection of FAR Sec 91.205 AS WRITTEN for aircraft with Standard
> category airworthiness certificates. Note the title of that table. In order
> to find out how that table relates to amateur built experimental aircraft
> the reader must go into the text of Dick's article and interpret the
> applicability of the table.
>
> Dick very kindly provided me an electronic copy of his table. What I did was
> modify it, and retitle it, so that the reader could directly see the
> requirements for amateur built experimental aircraft without having to go
> hunting through other sources.
>
> I would like to emphasize that no table, plus a few accompanying words, can
> tell the entire exact picture of this somewhat complex subject. There are
> some subtle "gotchas" that require some further reading and understanding.
>
> Please let me know if you have any further questions.
>
> OC
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks@zeltech.com>
> To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Subject: RE: Amateur Built Requirements
>
>
> >
> > Hello Wayne, I am presuming that I am the "this guy"
> >
> > ----> I'm sorry, I thought I was replying to someone who forwarded the
> > links
> > from another person. Had I known that you were indeed "that guy", I would
> > have addressed you more formally and more completely.
> >
> > And that "off his rocker" implies that you are taking exception to
> > some information that you find in my Amateur Built Requirements Table
> > which
> > has been sent to you and other builders.
> >
> > --> I'm wondering how you came to the conclusion of "not required" for
> > most
> > all of the day VFR? 91.205 is so very clear that powered civil aircraft
> > with ANY US category airworthiness certificate must have the instruments
> > and
> > equipment in 91.205(b). The reason I say this is your table differs
> > drastically from the table that appeared recently in Sport Aviation
> > magazine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility Issues.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I plan to post on my website a plea for instructions that can be seen and understood.
This is a nearly hopeless cause, of course.
Font size? I have a friend in Redlands, CA.--an old WWII P-38 pilot named Maxwell--
who has painted large labels on his radios, TVs, appliances and various
implements to enable him to use them. He is "function-oriented" to be sure, and
frustrated by teeny-tiny low-contrast labels on things. I consider putting
unreadable labels on things to be a sort of designer-madness, an evil sacrifice
of functionality at the alter of form and style. Maxwell and I agree on the
issue, but I have not yet attacked my household appliances with a paint brush....yet.
We live in a confederacy of dunces. Bad design is everywhere and illiteracy rules
the day. Just Google "Bad Design" for much amusement.
The FAA documents are not up to the task either. I quote-- "Sec. 23.1395 No position
light intensity may exceed the applicable values in the following equal
or exceed the applicable values in =A723.1389(b)(3):" (Insert: sound of cartoon
hound dog in bewilderment here). In my article on red and green LED position
lights, I note other examples of just plain FAA fumbles, such as changing the
name of a variable from "I" to "L" right in the middle of the calculations.
It takes mighty strong coffee even to read this stuff.
My workshop-garage is heated by a Coleman LP heater with instructions in a type
font so small, that if one could read them, you would need to be in sunlight
in the tropics. The control knob turns counterclockwise to increase the heat and
parts you would naturally grab to move the heater are burn hazards. The propane
cylinder of course has a left-hand thread just to trap the uninitiated (and
left over from a more mechanically-sophisticated age). The thing needs its
own Terror-Alert warning.
So we builders have the opportunity of designing airplanes that correct some of
this craziness. Just remember that there's a lot of bad design, and you don't
have to be fooled by ANY of it. Someday you'll be tired and the seeing conditions
will be poor--or someone like John Denver borrows your plane and needs to
find the fuel valve. Oops.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement.
--John Stuart Mill
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: emergency battery disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone
rv8iator@earthlink.net
>I came across this device:
> http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
>In the course of other research.
>This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery
>disconnect
>in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
>It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in
>series with
>the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator off line?
>Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
>I am in no way affiliated with Delphi. >Chris Stone
Chris,
Cool idea! I have often wondered if a really good indication of an OV
condition means absolutely that the alternator must be taken offline. The
auto guys have the pyrotechnic glitch thing pretty well figured out. The
Delphi battery disconnect "No-Fires" at currents up to 0.5 amps.
Resetting it? I doubt that this is a concern. Glitches? That's not a concern
if the actuator is well designed. One for each battery and one for the
alternator? Maybe.
Getting these in small quantities might be tough given Delphi's business
model, but I will certainly check it out.
Thanks for the idea!
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Beaten paths are for beaten men."
-Eric A. Johnston
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: welding cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Extremely well! It's designed to be run over by trucks and to be dragged
over hot, recently welded, steel, sometimes with sharp edges, in an
industrial environment. Probably survive your engine compartment better than
almost any other wiring material.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "peter goudinoff" <peterg@dakotacom.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: peter goudinoff
<peterg@dakotacom.net>
>
> as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
> any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
>
> peter goudinoff
> Legacy #200
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
Bob, et al,
For what its worth, we in the specialized field of industrial/commercial
property loss prevention recommend annual cycling of circuit breakers for much
the
same reason. Principally, we want them to work if needed to break any shorts
downstream in the hope of preventing fires.
Doug Windhorn
In a message dated 21-Oct-05 15:35:12 Pacific Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't recognize
it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson" <revenson@comcast.net>
When you say 'cycling', do you mean annual 'replacement'?
----- Original Message -----
From: <N1deltawhiskey@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
> Bob, et al,
>
> For what its worth, we in the specialized field of industrial/commercial
> property loss prevention recommend annual cycling of circuit breakers for
> much the
> same reason. Principally, we want them to work if needed to break any
> shorts
> downstream in the hope of preventing fires.
>
> Doug Windhorn
>
>
> In a message dated 21-Oct-05 15:35:12 Pacific Standard Time,
> nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
> All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
> rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't
> recognize
> it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
> cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
> it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
>
>
>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: emergency battery disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Eric;
This device is manufactured for the automobile industry as a positive means
of battery disconnect during a crash. It is incorporated in the airbag/crash
detection circuitry (yes, using accelerometers as well as attitude sensors)
so that when a crash occurs of sufficient violence to trigger the airbag
and/or possibly the roll over sensors, then this device is fired off to
remove the chance of electrically initiated fire. These sensors also fire an
explosive charge which tensions your seatbelt, another which deploys your
airbags, still others which, in certain cars, raises the roll bar, and being
considered, if not already in some cars, more explosives which close the
windows and the sunroof. They also turn off electric fuel pumps and the
ignition. (mind you if this battery disconnect is installed, turning off the
fuel pumps and ignition may be redundant although maybe a good backup) These
explosive disconnect switches should be available from the parts department
of the manufacturers fitting them to their cars, in quantities of one, or up
to however many you wish to purchase. (Obviously more expensive than if you
could buy them direct from Delphi of course.) A sophisticated, (??) modern
car, will do many thousands of dollars damage to itself in a crash which was
not directly caused by the crash.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: emergency battery disconnect
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone
> rv8iator@earthlink.net
> >I came across this device:
> >
http://www.globalspec.com/FeaturedProducts/Detail/DelphiConnectionSystems/Battery_Disconnect_Safety_Device/25086/1
> >In the course of other research.
> >This disconnect could be triggered by an accelerometer to force a battery
> >disconnect
> >in the event of (heaven forbid) a crash.
> >It could also be used to disconnect a runaway IR alternator. Maybe in
> >series with
> >the contactor as a means of positively taking the alternator off line?
> >Maybe this will spark some ideas!?
> >I am in no way affiliated with Delphi. >Chris Stone
>
> Chris,
>
> Cool idea! I have often wondered if a really good indication of an OV
> condition means absolutely that the alternator must be taken offline. The
> auto guys have the pyrotechnic glitch thing pretty well figured out. The
> Delphi battery disconnect "No-Fires" at currents up to 0.5 amps.
>
> Resetting it? I doubt that this is a concern. Glitches? That's not a
concern
> if the actuator is well designed. One for each battery and one for the
> alternator? Maybe.
>
> Getting these in small quantities might be tough given Delphi's business
> model, but I will certainly check it out.
>
> Thanks for the idea!
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Beaten paths are for beaten men."
> -Eric A. Johnston
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: welding cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
Peter,
I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy, so that
particular stuff won't fly... I think if you check around, you can find it
with appropriate cover for the task though. There must be some petro and heat
resistant stuff somewhere...
FWIW...
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
In a message dated 10/21/2005 11:57:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Time: 09:43:48 PM PST US
From: peter goudinoff <peterg@dakotacom.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: peter goudinoff
<peterg@dakotacom.net>
as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
peter goudinoff
Legacy #200
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Welding Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Listers,
Free samples of Super-2AWG and new Super-4AWG-Copper Clad Aluminum cables if you
email me off list.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
email: emjones@charter.net
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: welding cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
>small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy, so that
>particular stuff won't fly...
>
>
Or you could put a layer of fuel-proof heatshrink or whatever over the
bad insulation. Maybe just paint it?
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Welding Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Eric, can I have a 25' sample?
Chuck (just kidding)
Do Not Archive
Listers,
Free samples of Super-2AWG and new Super-4AWG-Copper Clad Aluminum
cables if you email me off list.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility Issues.... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
Generally valid points but you are very wrong about those left hand thread
fittings on the propane tank. Standard cylinder-valve outlet connections
have been devised by the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) to prevent mixing
of incompatible gases. The outlet threads used vary in diameter; some are
internal, some are external; some are right-handed, some are left-handed. In
general, right-handed threads are used for non-fuel and water-pumped gases,
while left-handed threads are used for fuel and oil-pump gases.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Legibility. Font Size, Comprehensibility
Issues....
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
I plan to post on my website a plea for instructions that can be seen and
understood. This is a nearly hopeless cause, of course.
Font size? I have a friend in Redlands, CA.--an old WWII P-38 pilot named
Maxwell-- who has painted large labels on his radios, TVs, appliances and
various implements to enable him to use them. He is "function-oriented" to
be sure, and frustrated by teeny-tiny low-contrast labels on things. I
consider putting unreadable labels on things to be a sort of
designer-madness, an evil sacrifice of functionality at the alter of form
and style. Maxwell and I agree on the issue, but I have not yet attacked my
household appliances with a paint brush....yet.
We live in a confederacy of dunces. Bad design is everywhere and illiteracy
rules the day. Just Google "Bad Design" for much amusement.
The FAA documents are not up to the task either. I quote-- "Sec. 23.1395 No
position light intensity may exceed the applicable values in the following
equal or exceed the applicable values in =A723.1389(b)(3):" (Insert: sound
of cartoon hound dog in bewilderment here). In my article on red and green
LED position lights, I note other examples of just plain FAA fumbles, such
as changing the name of a variable from "I" to "L" right in the middle of
the calculations. It takes mighty strong coffee even to read this stuff.
My workshop-garage is heated by a Coleman LP heater with instructions in a
type font so small, that if one could read them, you would need to be in
sunlight in the tropics. The control knob turns counterclockwise to increase
the heat and parts you would naturally grab to move the heater are burn
hazards. The propane cylinder of course has a left-hand thread just to trap
the uninitiated (and left over from a more mechanically-sophisticated age).
The thing needs its own Terror-Alert warning.
So we builders have the opportunity of designing airplanes that correct some
of this craziness. Just remember that there's a lot of bad design, and you
don't have to be fooled by ANY of it. Someday you'll be tired and the seeing
conditions will be poor--or someone like John Denver borrows your plane and
needs to find the fuel valve. Oops.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
advancement.
--John Stuart Mill
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Passenger Warning Placard, Font Size |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Will N. Stevenson" <will@wavecable.com>
Thanks Bruce, that makes some sense at least.
Will
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> Several years ago the FAA issued a new AC20-27?, in preliminary electronic
> format. In it was the 3/8 inch font size requirement. The EAA and all us
> guys started raising a fuss and the FAA recanted, saying it was a mistake.
> The final published revision did not have any font size requirement. Seems
> like some of our brethren are a bit behind the curve.
>
> Bruce
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Hobbs meter wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
Hello Charlie,
sorry, it took a little bit longer to find it, in Europe it is from
Conrad Electronics article 185990 an adjustable sensor from 1.2 to 8 mbar.
They are from Micro Pneumatic Logic and actually from the MPL 503 series
http://www.pressureswitch.com/products500.html
They have more such products, also for larger load (503 is up to 20mA).
Werner
Charlie Kuss wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Kuss <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
>Werner,
> Could you give us the Manufacturer and model number of the switch you are
>using?
>Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
>>
>>I'm using a pressure switch adjusted a tad over the Vs0 hooked into the
>>pitot line to get flying time.
>>
>>br
>>
>>Werner
>>
>>Rodney Dunham wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham"
>>>
>>>
>><rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
>>
>>
>>>I've noticed on the Rotax 912UL wiring diagrams that the "L" pin on the VR
>>>is for a lamp which indicates charge and is usually only "on" at run-up
>>>speed or greater.
>>>
>>>Has anyone tried using this as a DCV source for the Hobbs meter? Seems it
>>>would give good "flying time" readings and, or course, no falsely high "I
>>>left the master switch on overnight" readings! Only engine on and RPM's
>>>above warm-up times.
>>>
>>>I was thinking run a wire to the meter with an in-line fuse, say 3 amps,
>>>would do the trick.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts?
>>>
>>>Rodney in Tennessee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: welding cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Hopefully you don't have raw fuel leaking in your engine compartment to soak
your battery cables and make this a concern?? As for heat resistance,
welding cable is pretty good, designed to touch red hot steel occasionally.
The older welding cables were rubber based insulation, possibly affected by
fuel, the latest designs are modern polymers which stand up well.
Bob McC
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: welding cable
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>
> Peter,
>
> I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
> small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy,
so that
> particular stuff won't fly... I think if you check around, you can find
it
> with appropriate cover for the task though. There must be some petro and
heat
> resistant stuff somewhere...
>
> FWIW...
> Jerry Cochran
> Wilsonville, OR
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: welding cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
hi all,
i have heard that welding cable is tough as nails. i have also heard that
the toughness comes at quite a weight penalty compared to other cable
available. airplanes dont need all that heavy insulation that helps welding
cable take all the abuse that it does.
just an observation
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: <Jerry2DT@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: welding cable
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com
>
>
> Peter,
>
> I bought some #2 cable at the local welding supply, tested by immersing a
> small piece in gasoline. Within a short time the insulation went soggy,
> so that
> particular stuff won't fly... I think if you check around, you can find
> it
> with appropriate cover for the task though. There must be some petro and
> heat
> resistant stuff somewhere...
>
> FWIW...
> Jerry Cochran
> Wilsonville, OR
>
> In a message dated 10/21/2005 11:57:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> Time: 09:43:48 PM PST US
> From: peter goudinoff <peterg@dakotacom.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: welding cable
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: peter goudinoff
> <peterg@dakotacom.net>
>
> as suggested, I'm installing #4 welding cable for my battery hookups
> any idea how this stuff will do inside the engine compartment?
>
> peter goudinoff
> Legacy #200
>
>
>
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
one more thing about battery cable. i used to own a piper warrior and appreciated
the plug in to jump the airplane for cold starts. i used it all the time.
an a&p talked me into pulling out the aluminum battery cable and replace it with
copper. i did and never needed the a jump again.
bob noffs
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breakers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
Gosh no! Who would agree to do that? Just flipping them off-on-off- a few
times.
Doug
In a message dated 22-Oct-05 9:11:58 Pacific Standard Time,
revenson@comcast.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Roger Evenson"
<revenson@comcast.net>
When you say 'cycling', do you mean annual 'replacement'?
----- Original Message -----
From: <N1deltawhiskey@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Circuit Breakers
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N1deltawhiskey@aol.com
>
> Bob, et al,
>
> For what its worth, we in the specialized field of industrial/commercial
> property loss prevention recommend annual cycling of circuit breakers for
> much the
> same reason. Principally, we want them to work if needed to break any
> shorts
> downstream in the hope of preventing fires.
>
> Doug Windhorn
>
>
> In a message dated 21-Oct-05 15:35:12 Pacific Standard Time,
> nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
> All this stuff is pretty academic . . . the failure mode is very low
> rate although very under-reported because the technicians don't
> recognize
> it. They simply replace the "failed" switch. I've recommended periodic
> cycling to avoid this phenomenon. I hesitate to even mention it lest
> it get fertilized and take off in the world of hangar legend funguses.
>
>
>
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: welding cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
But it sure is an order of magnitude easier to work with because of the
flexibility. Win some and lose some on this item
Do not archive
JOhn Schroeder
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:06:48 -0500, bob noffs <icubob@newnorth.net> wrote:
> hi all,
> i have heard that welding cable is tough as nails. i have also heard
> that
> the toughness comes at quite a weight penalty compared to other cable
> available.
--
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|