Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:17 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 05:37 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Bruce Gray)
3. 05:49 AM - Bird Strikes (Mark Neubauer)
4. 05:50 AM - Re: OV Module (Ken)
5. 06:04 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Harley)
6. 06:15 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Alex Peterson)
7. 06:30 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Bruce Gray)
8. 06:36 AM - Hardened Windshield (Fergus Kyle)
9. 06:42 AM - Plug for Turn & Bank (Paul McAllister)
10. 07:14 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Alan K. Adamson)
11. 07:33 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Bill Denton)
12. 07:34 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Bill Denton)
13. 07:35 AM - SL-30 Intercom (Speedy11@aol.com)
14. 07:37 AM - Re: Plug for Turn & Bank (Lynn Riggs)
15. 07:53 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Kevin Horton)
16. 07:59 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Alan K. Adamson)
17. 08:04 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Alan K. Adamson)
18. 08:19 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Alex Peterson)
19. 08:40 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (James Clark)
20. 08:52 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Bob C.)
21. 09:16 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Mickey Coggins)
22. 09:32 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (ogoodwin@comcast.net)
23. 09:43 AM - Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (D Wysong)
24. 10:02 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Kevin Horton)
25. 10:12 AM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Alan K. Adamson)
26. 10:23 AM - Helmet and nomex (was: Re: Why use starter contactor (fire)) (Brian Lloyd)
27. 10:29 AM - Re: helmet issues (Brian Lloyd)
28. 10:33 AM - Re: helmet issues (Brian Lloyd)
29. 10:34 AM - Re: helmet issues (Brian Lloyd)
30. 10:40 AM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Mickey Coggins)
31. 10:43 AM - Re: Antenna Tester (TSaccio@aol.com)
32. 10:43 AM - Re: Hardened Windshield (David Carter)
33. 10:51 AM - Re: GPS Antenna (Brian Lloyd)
34. 11:06 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Brian Lloyd)
35. 11:15 AM - Re: Bird Strikes (Brian Lloyd)
36. 11:28 AM - Re: SL-30 Intercom (Brian Lloyd)
37. 11:52 AM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
38. 12:02 PM - Re: Bird Strikes (Wesley Warner)
39. 12:46 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
40. 12:58 PM - Re: Bird Strikes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
41. 01:20 PM - Re: Bird Strikes (Joel Jacobs)
42. 01:25 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (Dave Morris \)
43. 01:32 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Alan K. Adamson)
44. 01:33 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (TSaccio@aol.com)
45. 02:00 PM - Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded (rd2@evenlink.com)
46. 02:00 PM - Re: helmet issues (Chuck Jensen)
47. 02:27 PM - tach vs. Hobbs time (was: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?) (Brian Lloyd)
48. 02:27 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (LarryRobertHelming)
49. 02:27 PM - Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (rd2@evenlink.com)
50. 02:30 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (Brian Lloyd)
51. 02:32 PM - Re: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded (Brian Lloyd)
52. 02:37 PM - Re: helmet issues (Brian Lloyd)
53. 02:49 PM - Re: GPS Antenna (Nancy Ghertner)
54. 03:02 PM - Re: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded (rd2@evenlink.com)
55. 03:02 PM - Re: GPS Antenna (Gilles Thesee)
56. 03:05 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (Dave Morris \)
57. 03:13 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (LarryRobertHelming)
58. 03:21 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (gert)
59. 03:46 PM - Re: Antenna Tester (William)
60. 03:53 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Alan K. Adamson)
61. 03:54 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Alan K. Adamson)
62. 04:17 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Brian Lloyd)
63. 04:31 PM - Re: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded (LarryRobertHelming)
64. 04:42 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (LarryRobertHelming)
65. 04:47 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (LarryRobertHelming)
66. 06:11 PM - How to Crimp Flag Terminals? (Dennis Johnson)
67. 06:27 PM - Re: Bird Strikes (Charlie England)
68. 06:27 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Eric M. Jones)
69. 06:47 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (Alan K. Adamson)
70. 07:05 PM - Re: How to Crimp Flag Terminals? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
71. 07:23 PM - Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? (D Wysong)
72. 07:39 PM - Re: helmet issues (Jim Stone)
73. 08:17 PM - HMD was [Re: helmet issues (David Carter)
74. 08:19 PM - Antenna tester (Fergus Kyle)
75. 08:28 PM - Re: Hardened Windshield (Fergus Kyle)
76. 09:01 PM - Six New Email Lists / Forums At Matronics! (Matt Dralle)
77. 10:54 PM - Re: helmet issues (Mickey Coggins)
78. 11:49 PM - Re: HMD was [Re: helmet issues (Brian Lloyd)
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning All,
Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told that
the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
I have seen them mounted on a wooden support just beneath the fabric on a
couple of Beech Staggerwings and I have seen many supported by various means
near a Plexiglas window or canopy, all without ground planes.
The question posed by Bob In Iowa adds another facet to the first questions.
Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
fabric cause a loss?
If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/28/2006 11:34:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
Peter,
Have you attempted to measure the "attenuation factor" if any?
I'm installing a 430 in an all electric IFR Panel in a RV-8.
Thanks,
Bob in Iowa
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
My guess would be no and no. GPS is a digital signal, it's very weak and the
reciever is designed, because it knows what to look for, to pull this weak
signal from very noisy backgrounds.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning All,
Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told
that
the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
I have seen them mounted on a wooden support just beneath the fabric on a
couple of Beech Staggerwings and I have seen many supported by various means
near a Plexiglas window or canopy, all without ground planes.
The question posed by Bob In Iowa adds another facet to the first
questions.
Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
fabric cause a loss?
If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/28/2006 11:34:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
Peter,
Have you attempted to measure the "attenuation factor" if any?
I'm installing a 430 in an all electric IFR Panel in a RV-8.
Thanks,
Bob in Iowa
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer" <markn@fuse.net>
Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said avian creature
must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder? I can see
this being more of an issue with twins (just a nosecone up front), but I
thought a single engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
Mark Neubauer
GlaStar 875ED
25 hours
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Ron
Digi-key will have numerous resistors that will do the job under various
part numbers. 2% and 5% resistors will change value more with
temperature changes but I doubt that will cause any problem for you.
Exact resistance values are not necessary. The resistors form a voltage
divider. The voltage will be the same ratio as the resistance that you
use if you wish to do the math. Or just assemble what you have and
measure the voltage. As long as you can adjust the trip voltage to the
correct value you should be fine. If it won't adjust to the correct
value then you should only have to change one resistor.
Ken
Ron wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" <rondefly@rtriano.com>
>
>
>
>I could not get the listed resistors at Digikey and went to Frys, was not
>able to get the 1% but was able to get some 2% and 5 %, also on the
>BC1.62KZCT could only get a 1.6. I am having problems getting up to the
>voltage stated in the troubleshooting area. Is it the tolerance of the
>resistors or that 1.62 one maybe? I have checked all my solder joints and
>went completely through the troubleshooting guide Bob has with the parts
>list. Any help is appreciated.
>
>
>
>Ron Triano
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: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Morning, Mark...
>>first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder?<<
I guess if I had a Glastar, that would be my first thought as well...but
a lot of us here have pushers! Long EZs, VariEzes, Berkuts, Velocities,
E-Racers, etc. etc. And the first thing we think of is birds in the
canopy and stones in the prop!
Harley Dixon
Mark Neubauer wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer" <markn@fuse.net>
>
>Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>
>How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said avian creature
>must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder? I can see
>this being more of an issue with twins (just a nosecone up front), but I
>thought a single engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
>
>Mark Neubauer
>GlaStar 875ED
>25 hours
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer"
> --> <markn@fuse.net>
>
> Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>
> How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said
> avian creature must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180
> HP meat grinder? I can see this being more of an issue with
> twins (just a nosecone up front), but I thought a single
> engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
>
> Mark Neubauer
> GlaStar 875ED
> 25 hours
The bird is unlikely to hit the propellor. For example, at 2400 rpm and 140
knots, a blade (two bladed prop) comes by every 4 feet of forward travel.
2400rev/min*1min/60sec=40revs/second. For two blades, 80 blades/second.
140knots*1.15mph/knot*88feet/sec/60mph=236ft/sec.
236ft/sec/80blade/sec=4feet/blade. Slower planes: it is obviously more
likely to hit the prop, but chances are still that it will pass through the
blades.
I consider bird strikes among the higher risk items, particularly when I fly
near lakes, which Minnesota tends to have. I have seen many birds pass
within 50 feet of the plane, and usually one only has about a second of
seeing them before passing them. I found myself amongst hundreds of flocks
of dozens of pelicans one time near Aberdeen SD (major flyway). These can
be seen from quite far away, but it really got my attention. BTW, this was
at about 2000agl. I've encountered pelicans at 6000agl.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 710 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Oh, I am so glad I have a 1/2 inch thick windshield. Just remember, if the
bird sees you, he's more than likely to dive.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex
Peterson
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:13 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Bird Strikes
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
<alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer"
> --> <markn@fuse.net>
>
> Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>
> How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said
> avian creature must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180
> HP meat grinder? I can see this being more of an issue with
> twins (just a nosecone up front), but I thought a single
> engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
>
> Mark Neubauer
> GlaStar 875ED
> 25 hours
The bird is unlikely to hit the propellor. For example, at 2400 rpm and 140
knots, a blade (two bladed prop) comes by every 4 feet of forward travel.
2400rev/min*1min/60sec=40revs/second. For two blades, 80 blades/second.
140knots*1.15mph/knot*88feet/sec/60mph=236ft/sec.
236ft/sec/80blade/sec=4feet/blade. Slower planes: it is obviously more
likely to hit the prop, but chances are still that it will pass through the
blades.
I consider bird strikes among the higher risk items, particularly when I fly
near lakes, which Minnesota tends to have. I have seen many birds pass
within 50 feet of the plane, and usually one only has about a second of
seeing them before passing them. I found myself amongst hundreds of flocks
of dozens of pelicans one time near Aberdeen SD (major flyway). These can
be seen from quite far away, but it really got my attention. BTW, this was
at about 2000agl. I've encountered pelicans at 6000agl.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 710 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: | Hardened Windshield |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
On the subject of birdstrikes and helmets:
Didn't I see a TV ad for a plastic layer to add to glass/whatever
which renders it virtually impervious to baseball bats, robbers' tools (and
birdstrikes)? Might be worth searching........
Ferg
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: | Plug for Turn & Bank |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
Could someone point me towards a surce for a 3 pin plug for a Turn & Bank.
It appears to be a fairly standard fitting, this particular instruments is
a Unites Instruments.
Thanks, Paul
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Let's see if we can make sense of this.
Actually, it has nothing to do with whether it's an analog or digital
signal. Most GPS antennas are what's called "patch" antennas. This means
that there are two pieces of metal that are on different vertical planes.
These planes are actually inside the antenna housing and one is the ground
plane (in effect it's built in). Most of the aviation antennas are also
"active" antennas. This means there is a small voltage that comes from the
receiver to active components in the antenna, one of which is usually a
pre-amplifier. There are two types of amplification, one for King radios
(larger amplification needs), and one for garmin radios (smaller
amplification needs).
Because gps uses 2.4-2.5ghz, these planes of metal are only about 1" square
(yep, usually both are square) and only separated by 1/8" or so. As you
might imagine the wavelength at 2.4G is pretty short.
The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
view of the sky. Anything that could degrade the signal, will remove some
of the quality of signal.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
My guess would be no and no. GPS is a digital signal, it's very weak and the
reciever is designed, because it knows what to look for, to pull this weak
signal from very noisy backgrounds.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning All,
Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told that
the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
I have seen them mounted on a wooden support just beneath the fabric on a
couple of Beech Staggerwings and I have seen many supported by various means
near a Plexiglas window or canopy, all without ground planes.
The question posed by Bob In Iowa adds another facet to the first questions.
Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
fabric cause a loss?
If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/28/2006 11:34:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
Peter,
Have you attempted to measure the "attenuation factor" if any?
I'm installing a 430 in an all electric IFR Panel in a RV-8.
Thanks,
Bob in Iowa
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
It appears you are ignoring the length of the bird...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alex
Peterson
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:13 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Bird Strikes
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
<alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer"
> --> <markn@fuse.net>
>
> Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>
> How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said
> avian creature must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180
> HP meat grinder? I can see this being more of an issue with
> twins (just a nosecone up front), but I thought a single
> engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
>
> Mark Neubauer
> GlaStar 875ED
> 25 hours
The bird is unlikely to hit the propellor. For example, at 2400 rpm and 140
knots, a blade (two bladed prop) comes by every 4 feet of forward travel.
2400rev/min*1min/60sec=40revs/second. For two blades, 80 blades/second.
140knots*1.15mph/knot*88feet/sec/60mph=236ft/sec.
236ft/sec/80blade/sec=4feet/blade. Slower planes: it is obviously more
likely to hit the prop, but chances are still that it will pass through the
blades.
I consider bird strikes among the higher risk items, particularly when I fly
near lakes, which Minnesota tends to have. I have seen many birds pass
within 50 feet of the plane, and usually one only has about a second of
seeing them before passing them. I found myself amongst hundreds of flocks
of dozens of pelicans one time near Aberdeen SD (major flyway). These can
be seen from quite far away, but it really got my attention. BTW, this was
at about 2000agl. I've encountered pelicans at 6000agl.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 710 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Could you clarify your use of the word "clear" in the following statement:
The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
view of the sky.
This could be read as "with no metallic objects blocking all or part of the
view", or as "with nothing, metallic or otherwise, between the antenna and
the satellite".
You gave such an excellent explanation that I want to make sure that I've
got it 100%...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan
K. Adamson
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
<aadamson@highrf.com>
Let's see if we can make sense of this.
Actually, it has nothing to do with whether it's an analog or digital
signal. Most GPS antennas are what's called "patch" antennas. This means
that there are two pieces of metal that are on different vertical planes.
These planes are actually inside the antenna housing and one is the ground
plane (in effect it's built in). Most of the aviation antennas are also
"active" antennas. This means there is a small voltage that comes from the
receiver to active components in the antenna, one of which is usually a
pre-amplifier. There are two types of amplification, one for King radios
(larger amplification needs), and one for garmin radios (smaller
amplification needs).
Because gps uses 2.4-2.5ghz, these planes of metal are only about 1" square
(yep, usually both are square) and only separated by 1/8" or so. As you
might imagine the wavelength at 2.4G is pretty short.
The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
view of the sky. Anything that could degrade the signal, will remove some
of the quality of signal.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
My guess would be no and no. GPS is a digital signal, it's very weak and the
reciever is designed, because it knows what to look for, to pull this weak
signal from very noisy backgrounds.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning All,
Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told that
the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
I have seen them mounted on a wooden support just beneath the fabric on a
couple of Beech Staggerwings and I have seen many supported by various means
near a Plexiglas window or canopy, all without ground planes.
The question posed by Bob In Iowa adds another facet to the first questions.
Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
fabric cause a loss?
If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/28/2006 11:34:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
Peter,
Have you attempted to measure the "attenuation factor" if any?
I'm installing a 430 in an all electric IFR Panel in a RV-8.
Thanks,
Bob in Iowa
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Listers,
Is anyone with the Garmin SL-30 nav-comm using the built-in intercom?
If so, is it acceptable? Or do you recommend buying a separate intercom?
Is squelch a problem? Do you have control over squelch? Is there a means to
input music? Is there a muting function?
All advice appreciated.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
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: Plug for Turn & Bank |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lynn Riggs <riggs_la@yahoo.com>
Try Aircraft Spruce part # 10-00789 Cannon Plu MS3106A-10SL-3S and part # 10-00959
Cable Clamp MS3057-4A. That is what I used.
Paul McAllister <paul.mcallister@qia.net> wrote: --> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Paul McAllister"
Hi all,
Could someone point me towards a surce for a 3 pin plug for a Turn & Bank.
It appears to be a fairly standard fitting, this particular instruments is
a Unites Instruments.
Thanks, Paul
Lynn A. Riggs
riggs_la@yahoo.com
St. Paul, MN
BH #656 Kit #22
http://home.comcast.net/~lariggs/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
---------------------------------
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: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 29 Jan 2006, at 08:47, Mark Neubauer wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer"
> <markn@fuse.net>
>
> Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>
> How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said avian
> creature
> must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder? I
> can see
> this being more of an issue with twins (just a nosecone up front),
> but I
> thought a single engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
Search the RV-List archives for bird strike. Look for posts from
Laird Owens, Dec 2000 (account of hawk through an RV-6 canopy)
Doug Weiler, Aug 1996 (account of dove through an RV-4 canopy)
And go to the account of John Perri's bird strike story with his RV-6:
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/bird.html
The prop provides very, very little protection from a bird strike.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Any "obstruction", or part of an "obstruction" will degrade the signal in
some way. Metal objects will be the worst, and even fiberglass will degrade
the signal to some extent. With fiberglass, it has to do more with
thickness. With metal, or conductive objects (like carbon fiber), it has to
do with obscuration.
It's a very small antenna (approx 1" x 1") and to gather as much signal as
possible, it needs to see as much of the sky/satellites as it can. This is
complicated somewhat by being in a aircraft to begin with. An Airplane can
"bank" and "pitch", so your view of the sky, and any obstructions, need to
take that into account. Think about it this way. If the satellite had a
string attached from it to your airplane, what parts of the plane
(obstructions) would get in the way of a "clear" view of the sky/satellite,
as the plane moves, pitches, banks, etc. This is compounded by the fact
that most GPS receivers are 12 if not 16 channel, so they are actually
seeing 12 or 16 satellites at the same time with each of the satellites
being in different sky locations...
You probably will never find the *perfect spot*, so you just need to pick
the spot with the most "clear" view of the entire sky and hopefully it will
be the spot with the least of the evils.
Hope this helps.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:34 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Could you clarify your use of the word "clear" in the following statement:
The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
view of the sky.
This could be read as "with no metallic objects blocking all or part of the
view", or as "with nothing, metallic or otherwise, between the antenna and
the satellite".
You gave such an excellent explanation that I want to make sure that I've
got it 100%...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan K.
Adamson
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
<aadamson@highrf.com>
Let's see if we can make sense of this.
Actually, it has nothing to do with whether it's an analog or digital
signal. Most GPS antennas are what's called "patch" antennas. This means
that there are two pieces of metal that are on different vertical planes.
These planes are actually inside the antenna housing and one is the ground
plane (in effect it's built in). Most of the aviation antennas are also
"active" antennas. This means there is a small voltage that comes from the
receiver to active components in the antenna, one of which is usually a
pre-amplifier. There are two types of amplification, one for King radios
(larger amplification needs), and one for garmin radios (smaller
amplification needs).
Because gps uses 2.4-2.5ghz, these planes of metal are only about 1" square
(yep, usually both are square) and only separated by 1/8" or so. As you
might imagine the wavelength at 2.4G is pretty short.
The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
view of the sky. Anything that could degrade the signal, will remove some
of the quality of signal.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
--> <Bruce@glasair.org>
My guess would be no and no. GPS is a digital signal, it's very weak and the
reciever is designed, because it knows what to look for, to pull this weak
signal from very noisy backgrounds.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Good Morning All,
Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told that
the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
I have seen them mounted on a wooden support just beneath the fabric on a
couple of Beech Staggerwings and I have seen many supported by various means
near a Plexiglas window or canopy, all without ground planes.
The question posed by Bob In Iowa adds another facet to the first questions.
Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
fabric cause a loss?
If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/28/2006 11:34:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
Peter,
Have you attempted to measure the "attenuation factor" if any?
I'm installing a 430 in an all electric IFR Panel in a RV-8.
Thanks,
Bob in Iowa
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Stan, this was discussed at length over on the RV forums
(www.vansairforce.net). From all accounts, it useable, but the first time
you experience a *real* intercomm, you'll want one. :)...
Depends on what you want for features, aux inputs, quality, conveniences
(like squelch, etc). For the little extra money, it sure seems most suggest
to put in a dedicated intercomm. But I'd suggest you go read the comments
over there.
I will have an SL-30, but I'm also going to put in a dedicated audio
panel/intercomm.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 Intercom
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Listers,
Is anyone with the Garmin SL-30 nav-comm using the built-in intercom?
If so, is it acceptable? Or do you recommend buying a separate intercom?
Is squelch a problem? Do you have control over squelch? Is there a means
to input music? Is there a muting function?
All advice appreciated.
Stan Sutterfield
www.rv-8a.net
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: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> --> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> It appears you are ignoring the length of the bird...
>
>
No. Most birds are small compared to four feet, so they will more likely
than not pass through the prop unscathed. For the case of a large bird,
should it hit the prop, the remaining two chunks will still likely hit the
windscreen if they were in line with it. I would not want to even have a
sparrow hit the windscreen. See Kevin's post and dig in the archives.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 710 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Clark <jclarkmail@gmail.com>
Short answer ...
Get the intercom and make sure it is stereo with a music input.
Lots of reason covered in archives.
James
SL30 w/DRE44e
On 1/29/06, Speedy11@aol.com <Speedy11@aol.com> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Listers,
> Is anyone with the Garmin SL-30 nav-comm using the built-in intercom?
> If so, is it acceptable? Or do you recommend buying a separate intercom?
> Is squelch a problem? Do you have control over squelch? Is there a means
> to
> input music? Is there a muting function?
> All advice appreciated.
> Stan Sutterfield
> www.rv-8a.net
>
>
--
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james@nextupventures.com .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
In my case anything becomes something of a compromise . . . If I put
the antenna behind the canopy, on top of the fuselage, and leave it
white (unpainted) I end up with 10 more of RG/400 which isn't
insignificant at 2.4 Ghz (but maybe not much of a factor with an
active antenna?) . . . If I put it on the glare shield and paint it
black I have Plexiglas and a layer of paint attenuating the signal, or
if as suggested put it under the cowl I have the fiberglass and paint
in the way?!
So Alan and anyone else that wishes to comment, what would you choose?
Thanks,
Bob in Iowa
On 1/29/06, Alan K. Adamson <aadamson@highrf.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Any "obstruction", or part of an "obstruction" will degrade the signal in
> some way. Metal objects will be the worst, and even fiberglass will degrade
> the signal to some extent. With fiberglass, it has to do more with
> thickness. With metal, or conductive objects (like carbon fiber), it has to
> do with obscuration.
>
> It's a very small antenna (approx 1" x 1") and to gather as much signal as
> possible, it needs to see as much of the sky/satellites as it can. This is
> complicated somewhat by being in a aircraft to begin with. An Airplane can
> "bank" and "pitch", so your view of the sky, and any obstructions, need to
> take that into account. Think about it this way. If the satellite had a
> string attached from it to your airplane, what parts of the plane
> (obstructions) would get in the way of a "clear" view of the sky/satellite,
> as the plane moves, pitches, banks, etc. This is compounded by the fact
> that most GPS receivers are 12 if not 16 channel, so they are actually
> seeing 12 or 16 satellites at the same time with each of the satellites
> being in different sky locations...
>
> You probably will never find the *perfect spot*, so you just need to pick
> the spot with the most "clear" view of the entire sky and hopefully it will
> be the spot with the least of the evils.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Denton
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:34 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> --> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> Could you clarify your use of the word "clear" in the following statement:
>
> The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
> view of the sky.
>
> This could be read as "with no metallic objects blocking all or part of the
> view", or as "with nothing, metallic or otherwise, between the antenna and
> the satellite".
>
> You gave such an excellent explanation that I want to make sure that I've
> got it 100%...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan K.
> Adamson
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 9:12 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Let's see if we can make sense of this.
>
> Actually, it has nothing to do with whether it's an analog or digital
> signal. Most GPS antennas are what's called "patch" antennas. This means
> that there are two pieces of metal that are on different vertical planes.
> These planes are actually inside the antenna housing and one is the ground
> plane (in effect it's built in). Most of the aviation antennas are also
> "active" antennas. This means there is a small voltage that comes from the
> receiver to active components in the antenna, one of which is usually a
> pre-amplifier. There are two types of amplification, one for King radios
> (larger amplification needs), and one for garmin radios (smaller
> amplification needs).
>
> Because gps uses 2.4-2.5ghz, these planes of metal are only about 1" square
> (yep, usually both are square) and only separated by 1/8" or so. As you
> might imagine the wavelength at 2.4G is pretty short.
>
> The most critical issue with a GPS antenna, it to make sure it has a "clear"
> view of the sky. Anything that could degrade the signal, will remove some
> of the quality of signal.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:35 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
> --> <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> My guess would be no and no. GPS is a digital signal, it's very weak and the
> reciever is designed, because it knows what to look for, to pull this weak
> signal from very noisy backgrounds.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BobsV35B@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:11 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS Antenna
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> Good Morning All,
>
> Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told that
> the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
>
> I have seen them mounted on a wooden support just beneath the fabric on a
> couple of Beech Staggerwings and I have seen many supported by various means
>
> near a Plexiglas window or canopy, all without ground planes.
>
> The question posed by Bob In Iowa adds another facet to the first questions.
>
>
> Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
>
> Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
> fabric cause a loss?
>
> If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
>
> In a message dated 1/28/2006 11:34:05 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> flyboy.bob@gmail.com writes:
>
> Peter,
>
> Have you attempted to measure the "attenuation factor" if any?
>
> I'm installing a 430 in an all electric IFR Panel in a RV-8.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob in Iowa
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> . . . If I put it on the glare shield and paint it
> black I have Plexiglas and a layer of paint attenuating the signal, or
> if as suggested put it under the cowl I have the fiberglass and paint
> in the way?!
>
> So Alan and anyone else that wishes to comment, what would you choose?
Any chance you can find a compatible black antenna on the
market somewhere?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Cc: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com>
| Subject: | Re: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ogoodwin@comcast.net
I know a guy that took a great horned owl through the windshield of a super cub.
The good news is the owl somehow missed him, but the bad news was that the
owl survived for a while and was pretty irritated.
As for how often: thinking back over the years, I'd guess I've had at least 2
strikes on the windshield (of a B 727 or similar) a year, mostly at night and
always lit up all the way across the front of the airplane. I'm not sure the
lights help, I wonder if the birds aren't disoriented by them (deer in the headlights).
Although I'm going faster than an RV or most light aircraft, the speed
is always 250K or less, so it's not that much difference.
Bottom line, to me, is that if you fly much you WILL take a bird in the cockpit
area. If you're lucky, it'll be a sparrow. If not, something larger.
Olen Goodwin
do not archive
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
> Morning, Mark...
>
> >>first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder?<<
>
> I guess if I had a Glastar, that would be my first thought as well...but
> a lot of us here have pushers! Long EZs, VariEzes, Berkuts, Velocities,
> E-Racers, etc. etc. And the first thing we think of is birds in the
> canopy and stones in the prop!
>
> Harley Dixon
>
> Mark Neubauer wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer" <markn@fuse.net>
> >
> >Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
> >
> >How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said avian creature
> >must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder? I can see
> >this being more of an issue with twins (just a nosecone up front), but I
> >thought a single engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
> >
> >Mark Neubauer
> >GlaStar 875ED
> >25 hours
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Is anyone using this gadget?
http://tinyurl.com/cg3az
More expensive ($30) than an oil pressure sender with aux 'warning'
contacts ($25), but still interesting. Any ideas about what's under
the hood? Ideas for a DIY version?
D
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 29 Jan 2006, at 10:58, Alan K. Adamson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Any "obstruction", or part of an "obstruction" will degrade the
> signal in
> some way. Metal objects will be the worst, and even fiberglass
> will degrade
> the signal to some extent. With fiberglass, it has to do more with
> thickness. With metal, or conductive objects (like carbon fiber),
> it has to
> do with obscuration.
My GPS picks up useable signals inside my garage. The signal has to
come through the shingles, the plywood in the roof, several inches of
pink fibreglas insulation, more plywood and drywall and my plexiglas
canopy before it gets to the antenna. I'm sure the signal is
degraded, as the number of satellites seen is lower than it should
be. But it still locks on to five or six every time I fire it up.
If you want the best possible performance, then put the antenna
outside. But many people have put them under the cowl, and they
report the GPS still works fine.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
This is so curious.... I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
type meter in an airplane that you own. I suppose for 2 reasons. A) most
of the engine monitors of which just about everyone has no a days has one
built in; b) what information do they give you that you need. No maint that
I know of uses hobbs time, they are all tach time. And if you just need to
know how long the flight is, then get a cheap timer or wear a watch.
This is just soo odd for me... Perhaps someone can help enlighten me on this
topic?
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D Wysong
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:40 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Is anyone using this gadget?
http://tinyurl.com/cg3az
More expensive ($30) than an oil pressure sender with aux 'warning'
contacts ($25), but still interesting. Any ideas about what's under the
hood? Ideas for a DIY version?
D
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Helmet and nomex (was: Re: Why use starter contactor |
(fire))
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
> ... Also Nomex and helmets and gloves are all good stuff.
> Bird strikes are deadly in fast homebuilts with thin plexiglass windows.
> The window on the 757 I fly has multi-panes and very thick. The 250 kts limit
> below 10,000 feet is in part for bird strike. I had one and it shattered the
> windscreen. It happened at 9,000 feet! It held. So I expect to see you with
> a helmet and eye protection and a nomex flight suite going fast Dave.
> George
Don't rush on the Nomex. In a hot summer cockpit it can lead to
dehydration and reduced pilot performance. I fear that more than I fear
a fire in the cockpit. Without someone shooting at me fire in the
cockpit is a lot less likely that pilot-induced stupidity.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
David Carter wrote:
> Brian, my helmet simply has a snap on each side for attaching the elastic
> strap on the visor. I can unsnap the clear and snap on the colored visor
> when needed. I use the clear most of the time, for bird protection, with
> sunglasses underneath when needed, so don't really need the tinted visor.
Ah, you must be wearing the HGU-55. That is the more popular helmet than
the older (and clunkier) HGU-33 I wear. The HGU-33 I wear has the
tension knob that controls the visor.
> In combat in 1967 up "north" in Package 6, one day I told myself the visor
> was bulletproof - I no longer suffered anxiety rolling in on a heavily
> defended tgt. Prior to that I worried a bit about a 37 or 57mm in the face.
> Piece of cake after I put on my bullet proof visor. Now the biggest threat
> is buzzards, snow geese, and other large "mm" birds. Visor is real
> protection in event of a birdstrike, not just make believe.
I combat you have to tell yourself something or you won't be able to
make yourself go.
> Hey, we are on the "Lectric list" - Sorry for being "off topic". Will Cc:
> the RV list.
This seems to be more about systems. The helmet is part of your
communications and environmental systems. With an HMD (head-mounted
display) it becomes part of your navigation and systems monitoring.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Jim Stone wrote:
> For those considering a helmet, Flight suits offers active noise canceling
> for your helmet. I personally would rather have thousand dollars in a
> helmet than a thousand in a set of Bose.
I haven't tried their active noise reduction. My experience with ANR
headsets is that they lack the same level of passive noise reduction
needed to protect your hearing. (ANR only takes out the low frequencies
which do not cause hearing loss.) Does the ANR still preserve the
passive noise reduction?
And then there is the added complexity with its attendant reduction in
reliability.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Richard Riley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
>
> At 07:22 PM 1/28/2006, you wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>>
>> I didn't know they did helmet NC.
>> Jim
>
> http://www.headsetsinc.com/anr_upgrade.htm
>
> $179.
>
> Flightsuits' stuff is very nice, but good golly gosh it's expensive.
No kidding. There are some Chinese AF helmets available on E-Bay. A
friend with a CJ6A got one. It looks pretty nice but does not have
earspeakers or boom mic. One would have to add those things but
otherwise the price is right.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> This is just soo odd for me... Perhaps someone can help enlighten me on this
> topic?
>
> Alan
Having "hobbs time" is good so that when you post the
number of hours on your aircraft in your signature,
the number will be larger. See below. That's kewl.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
0000.0 hours
do not archive
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
Does anyone have any information on antenna testers. I've installed copper
foil antenna's in my Seawind and I need to test there integrity. If anyone
could tell me where I could purchase such a unit it would be greatly appreciated.
Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Hardened Windshield |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter11@sbcglobal.net>
For 3M films, go to
http://www.3m.com/us/arch_construct/scpd/windowfilm/
The "breakage protection" films are listed under "Safety and Security
Films" - At the link above, go to the left column and click "Products", then
"Residential" (or probably any of them) and click
"3M Scotchshield Safety & Security Films" link after reading the blurb.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hardened Windshield
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Cheers,
> On the subject of birdstrikes and helmets:
> Didn't I see a TV ad for a plastic layer to add to glass/whatever
> which renders it virtually impervious to baseball bats, robbers' tools
> (and
> birdstrikes)? Might be worth searching........
> Ferg
>
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Somewhere in my totally uninformed background I thought I had been told that
> the GPS antenna required no ground plane at all.
I think it depends on the type of patch antenna used. Some have one
built-in. Some don't.
> Does the lack of a ground plane cause a loss in signal strength?
>
> Does the requirement to bring the signal through Plexiglas, fiberglass or
> fabric cause a loss?
The answer to this is 'yes' but the real question is, what are your
signal margins. The nice thing about space communications is that path
loss is relatively fixed allowing successful operation at very low
signal margins. The only real problem is rain-fade and this is usually
not a big problem at 1.7 GHz where GPS operates.
> If these are factors, how does one measure the loss?
It would be nice if the receiver actually provided the actual
single-to-noise ratio number:
E /N
b/ 0
(E sub bee over N sub zero)
but most receivers just provide a number between zero and 127 or zero
and 255.
The key is to see if your receiver locks up reliably on satellites that
are very close to the horizon. If it can see a bird that has an
elevation of only 5-10 degrees, your system is working just fine.
Remember that ANY metal between your antenna and the bird, and that
means an engine mount tube or your head, will make the signal from that
bird go away as far as the GPS receiver is concerned.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Mark Neubauer wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer" <markn@fuse.net>
>
> Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>
> How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said avian creature
> must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder? I can see
> this being more of an issue with twins (just a nosecone up front), but I
> thought a single engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
Consider the width of the blade compared to the area of the propeller
disk. A lot is going to get through. 2500 RPM is 42 RPS. With a
two-bladed prop that is 84 blades-per-second. The "hole" between blades
going by is then open for 12 ms.
If the bird is traveling at 160 kts or 370 fps and has a length of 1
foot, it is going to take 3.7 ms to pass through your prop arc. That
implies to me that most birds will likely pass through your prop arc
without ever being touched by a prop blade.
And it doesn't matter that much that the prop chops said bird into two
pieces. The combined momentum of the two pieces doesn't change and will
still likely hit your windscreen with effectively the same impact.
My guess is that it doesn't matter one bit. That sucker is still going
to give your windscreen one hell of a whack.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 35
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
ogoodwin@comcast.net wrote:
> Bottom line, to me, is that if you fly much you WILL take a bird in the cockpit
area. If you're lucky, it'll be a sparrow. If not, something larger.
I took a sea gull in the wing of a Grumman Tiger on take off. I was at
about 80 kts and the sucker was sitting on the runway. He decided to fly
out of the way as I was on my takeoff roll. I didn't even know I had hit
him until I got to my destination and went to put the airplane away.
The leading edge of the wing was crushed. We were able to carefully
hammer the leading edge back into shape. Fortunately it was between ribs
so the structure was still sound. Had a rib been crushed I would have
been looking at a totaled airplane as it would have needed a new wing.
And that was only at 80 kts.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 36
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SL-30 Intercom |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Listers,
> Is anyone with the Garmin SL-30 nav-comm using the built-in intercom?
> If so, is it acceptable? Or do you recommend buying a separate intercom?
I went separate because I want to be able to easily adjust level and
squelch. Getting to these parameters in in the SL-30 set-up screen is an
annoyance.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 37
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 01/29/2006 12:13:36 PM Central Standard Time,
aadamson@highrf.com writes:
I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
type meter in an airplane that you own.
>>>
Don't reckon it's much of a "gotta have", but I like mine simply because it's
a historically reliable mechanical device (activated by oil pressure switch)
that keeps my logbooks in order, for maintenance and continuity reasons. My
engine monitor time will always show less time (engine idling not recorded) and
it's probably more likely I'll have an airframe log entry stating "engine
monitor changed at 853.3 hours" than "Hobbs meter replaced- add 8,533 hours at
each entry"
Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW, whose 2nd BIRTHDAY is day after tomorrow with
277.3 hours on the HOBBS! ...er, maybe I should use EIS time so she stays
younger longer! 8-)
do not archive
Message 38
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Wesley Warner <warner.wesley@gmail.com>
Just an FYI. I had my first strike a few months ago. I was flying a
twin that has 4-blade props with the blade width approx. 6", turning
1700RPM. The bird went through the propeller leaving no trace on the
blades. It made a pretty decent sized dent in the leading edge of the
wing. Wes
Message 39
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:43 PM 1/29/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
>
>Does anyone have any information on antenna testers. I've installed copper
>foil antenna's in my Seawind and I need to test there integrity. If anyone
>could tell me where I could purchase such a unit it would be greatly
>appreciated.
>Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
There are a variety of low cost, 'swr' meters that need
your vhf comm transmitter as a signal source for operation.
Some don't work very well (show low SWR when in fact the
match is poor). My personal favorite is the MFJ-259. I've
owned two and have purchased them for clients. They've gone
up about $100 since I purchased my first one some years ago
but they're still about the best value out there for serious
antenna work. See:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-269
and
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/man/pdf/MFJ-269.pdf
This is the kind of tool a club ought to own and 'rent'
out. I used to rent one but after it had been out and back
about 10x (break even on acquisition cost) it was needing
too much maintenance attention to make it a useful business
activity. I refurbished the rental and sold it. Purchased a
second one which has been used more than enough times to justify
having it.
Bob . . .
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
Message 40
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:30 PM 1/29/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>Bottom line, to me, is that if you fly much you WILL take a bird in the
>cockpit area. If you're lucky, it'll be a sparrow. If not, something larger.
>
>Olen Goodwin
>do not archive
Some years ago a Beech Employees Flying Club member and passenger were
coming
back to Beech Field in an A36 one evening. They encountered a formation
of geese just south of Wichita. Took out the windshield, did a lot of
damage to folks in front seats and filled the front seat with goose parts.
Pilot managed to land and everyone (but the geese) was attended to and
recovered. Airplane took a dozen or more hits along leading edge
of wing. Some with sufficient force to mash leading edge back to
the spar. Insurance company totaled the airplane. BEFC bought it back
from insurance company at salvage price and our mechanics took a year+
to rebuild it. I think that airplane is still in the fleet. It's amazing
how much damage the airplane and folks took and still walked away from it.
The geese that hang around here in winter time love to do night
recon flights over the city. I often hear formations going over at night.
They're probably our most significant airborne hazard around here this time
of year.
Bob . . .
Message 41
| 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: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Joel Jacobs" <jj@sdf.lonestar.org>
I had my first bird strike about a year ago. Taxiing for TO on a grass
strip in a Champ, there was a group of Canadian geese on the side of the
strip. All of a sudden they decided to charge! One had just became
airborn about the time he smashed into the side of the cowling. It hit the
prop, feathers everywere. I stopped the airplane and got out to inspect the
damage. Nice sized dent in the cowl popped back out ok. Blood and crap all
down the side of the plane.
Walked over to where the runway was covered with feathers and found a
wing. The geese were walking away down the edge of the strip. I'm sure one
was telling the others "damn that hurt!"
I've been keeping an eye out for that one armed goose but have never seen
it since...
Joel Jacobs
Do Not Archive
Message 42
| 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: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
If you scrounge up a used one, make sure it's designed for VHF. There are
a lot of used ham radio units you might find on eBay that only work well on HF.
Dave Morris
N5UP
At 02:41 PM 1/29/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 01:43 PM 1/29/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
> >
> >Does anyone have any information on antenna testers. I've installed copper
> >foil antenna's in my Seawind and I need to test there integrity. If anyone
> >could tell me where I could purchase such a unit it would be greatly
> >appreciated.
> >Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
>
> There are a variety of low cost, 'swr' meters that need
> your vhf comm transmitter as a signal source for operation.
> Some don't work very well (show low SWR when in fact the
> match is poor). My personal favorite is the MFJ-259. I've
> owned two and have purchased them for clients. They've gone
> up about $100 since I purchased my first one some years ago
> but they're still about the best value out there for serious
> antenna work. See:
>
>http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-269
>
>and
>
>http://www.mfjenterprises.com/man/pdf/MFJ-269.pdf
>
> This is the kind of tool a club ought to own and 'rent'
> out. I used to rent one but after it had been out and back
> about 10x (break even on acquisition cost) it was needing
> too much maintenance attention to make it a useful business
> activity. I refurbished the rental and sold it. Purchased a
> second one which has been used more than enough times to justify
> having it.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
>
>
Message 43
| 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: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Yes, but you don't base your maint on hobbs time, you base it on tach time.
At least everyone I know does. I suppose it let's you say, xxx SMOH, and
yyy TTAE.... But that later is of no value except to know how long the time
is you want to put in your logbook as "flight time".
I totally get Tach time (it's the slower one, cuz it's based upon RPM), but
I don't get a hobbs type meter in anything but a flight school airplane.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Fiveonepw@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 01/29/2006 12:13:36 PM Central Standard Time,
aadamson@highrf.com writes:
I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
type meter in an airplane that you own.
>>>
Don't reckon it's much of a "gotta have", but I like mine simply because
it's
a historically reliable mechanical device (activated by oil pressure switch)
that keeps my logbooks in order, for maintenance and continuity reasons. My
engine monitor time will always show less time (engine idling not recorded)
and
it's probably more likely I'll have an airframe log entry stating "engine
monitor changed at 853.3 hours" than "Hobbs meter replaced- add 8,533 hours
at
each entry"
Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW, whose 2nd BIRTHDAY is day after tomorrow with
277.3 hours on the HOBBS! ...er, maybe I should use EIS time so she stays
younger longer! 8-)
do not archive
Message 44
| 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: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
Thanks for the imput Dave. I don't know anything about this stuff. Are you
saying that a Ham radio that operates on VHF will test the antenna's on my
plane? Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
Message 45
| 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: | Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Come to think of it - not too long ago someone shredded a deer on the
runway. In daylight, at midmorning. People weren't hurt but the aircraft
sustained significant damage. Day is bad enough, I just wonder what will I
find down when I do night currency or just night flying.
I am in PA and deer is part of the environment (just 2 weeks ago in the
night one decided to jump over a railing ~5 feet infront of my car; hood
slapped on winshield; deer did not survive; I did :) card sutained ~6K
damage; I think I am going back to deer hunting); also geese are part of
the environment.
There are some kind of whistles people attach on bumpers to chase away deer
by u-sound; is there anything effective to use on an aircraft against birds
or deer?
Rumen
do not archive
Message 46
| 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: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
<brian-yak@lloyd.com>
No kidding. There are some Chinese AF helmets available on E-Bay. A
friend with a CJ6A got one. It looks pretty nice but does not have
earspeakers or boom mic. One would have to add those things but
otherwise the price is right.
Brian, they aren't equipped with earspeakers and boom mic because they
aren't needed---that's what the tin can and piece of string are for in
the accessories kit.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
Message 47
| 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: | tach vs. Hobbs time (was: Powergenie - anyone using |
it? DIY ideas?)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Alan K. Adamson wrote:
> I totally get Tach time (it's the slower one, cuz it's based upon RPM), but
> I don't get a hobbs type meter in anything but a flight school airplane.
Except in twins where there is no "tach" time as the tachometers don't
keep time.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 48
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Interesting. According to my AFS system (ACS2002) the tach time is about
80% of the hobbs time. I always report hobbs time. As I get into doing
longer SC flights the ratio will change.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 80 hours HOBBS
----- Original Message -----
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Yes, but you don't base your maint on hobbs time, you base it on tach
> time.
> At least everyone I know does. I suppose it let's you say, xxx SMOH, and
> yyy TTAE.... But that later is of no value except to know how long the
> time
> is you want to put in your logbook as "flight time".
>
> I totally get Tach time (it's the slower one, cuz it's based upon RPM),
> but
> I don't get a hobbs type meter in anything but a flight school airplane.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Fiveonepw@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:51 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 01/29/2006 12:13:36 PM Central Standard Time,
> aadamson@highrf.com writes:
> I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
> type meter in an airplane that you own.
>>>>
>
> Don't reckon it's much of a "gotta have", but I like mine simply because
> it's
> a historically reliable mechanical device (activated by oil pressure
> switch)
>
> that keeps my logbooks in order, for maintenance and continuity reasons.
> My
>
> engine monitor time will always show less time (engine idling not
> recorded)
> and
> it's probably more likely I'll have an airframe log entry stating "engine
> monitor changed at 853.3 hours" than "Hobbs meter replaced- add 8,533
> hours
> at
> each entry"
>
> Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW, whose 2nd BIRTHDAY is day after tomorrow with
> 277.3 hours on the HOBBS! ...er, maybe I should use EIS time so she stays
> younger longer! 8-)
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 49
| 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: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>Any ideas about what's under the hood?
Might be a vibration switch, I saw a portable hour meter (in Wag-Aero's
catalog) that turns itself on from the engine vibration; worked pretty
decently.
rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from D Wysong; Date: 11:40 AM 1/29/2006 -0600)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Is anyone using this gadget?
http://tinyurl.com/cg3az
More expensive ($30) than an oil pressure sender with aux 'warning'
contacts ($25), but still interesting. Any ideas about what's under
the hood? Ideas for a DIY version?
D
--
Message 50
| 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: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
TSaccio@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
>
> Thanks for the imput Dave. I don't know anything about this stuff. Are you
> saying that a Ham radio that operates on VHF will test the antenna's on my
> plane? Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
You aren't looking for a ham radio, per se. You are looking for an SWR
meter (or directional wattmeter) that is designed to operate at 120 MHz.
Bob used to have an antenna analyzer he used to loan to people just for
this purpose.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 51
| 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: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
> There are some kind of whistles people attach on bumpers to chase away deer
> by u-sound; is there anything effective to use on an aircraft against birds
> or deer?
Birds respond well to a shotgun. Deer respond better to a 30/06 or a
.308 Winchester.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 52
| 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: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Chuck Jensen wrote:
> Brian, they aren't equipped with earspeakers and boom mic because they
> aren't needed---that's what the tin can and piece of string are for in
> the accessories kit.
We tend to make fun of the Russians and Chinese as their stuff tends to
be less technically advanced than ours but having spent a fair bit of
time with their flying hardware has given me a healthy respect for what
they do. I really like the fact that they design their structures to
withstand 100% overload at failure instead of 50% as we do here, i.e. an
airframe rated at 6G by the Chinese or Russians is tested to 12G before
failure, not 9G as we do here.
And they do have intercoms in the Chinese aircraft. It is just that they
use vacuum tubes. (True!)
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 53
| 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: Nancy Ghertner <nghertner@verizon.net>
On 1/29/06 12:14 PM, "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>> . . . If I put it on the glare shield and paint it
>> black I have Plexiglas and a layer of paint attenuating the signal, or
>> if as suggested put it under the cowl I have the fiberglass and paint
>> in the way?!
>>
>> So Alan and anyone else that wishes to comment, what would you choose?
>
> Any chance you can find a compatible black antenna on the
> market somewhere?
The Trimble antenna is black.
You guys are a lot more esoteric into this stuff than I; I called the Garmin
tech folks who told me to put their antenna under the fiberglass without a
ground plane and be done with it. No problem. Lory Ghertner
Message 54
| 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: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
I get the drift :)
got'em both
rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Brian Lloyd; Date: 02:31 PM 1/29/2006
-0800)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
> There are some kind of whistles people attach on bumpers to chase away deer
> by u-sound; is there anything effective to use on an aircraft against birds
> or deer?
Birds respond well to a shotgun. Deer respond better to a 30/06 or a
.308 Winchester.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
--
Message 55
| 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: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>>>o Alan and anyone else that wishes to comment, what would you choose?
>>>
>>>
>>Any chance you can find a compatible black antenna on the
>>market somewhere?
>>
>>
Hi all,
Don't remember what the original poster's GPS was, but if it is the
ubiquitous Garmin 400 series, the following antenna is black,
inexpensive (24 euros with coax, yes sir), and works great.
We regularly catch satellites from inside a closed hangar. The reception
has always been flawless in flight.
See
http://contrails.free.fr/gps_en.php
FWIW,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 56
| 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: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Brian's right. You just need the SWR meter (aka "SWR Bridge"). Then you
use your own aircraft band transmitter. I bought an SWR meter a long long
time ago from Radio Shack and it's worked dandy for me for all these
years. What I was basically warning you about is that there are some SWR
meters that are not designed for VHF. I used to have a Heathkit SWR meter
that would only work on HF, and not VHF. So be careful if you are going to
go out there and pick one up on eBay.
Dave
At 04:29 PM 1/29/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>TSaccio@aol.com wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
> >
> > Thanks for the imput Dave. I don't know anything about this stuff. Are
> you
> > saying that a Ham radio that operates on VHF will test the antenna's on
> my
> > plane? Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
>
>You aren't looking for a ham radio, per se. You are looking for an SWR
>meter (or directional wattmeter) that is designed to operate at 120 MHz.
>
>Bob used to have an antenna analyzer he used to loan to people just for
>this purpose.
>
>--
>Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
>brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
>+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
>I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
>- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
Message 57
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Really SC should be XC (cross country).
Indiana Larry
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> Interesting. According to my AFS system (ACS2002) the tach time is about
> 80% of the hobbs time. I always report hobbs time. As I get into doing
> longer SC flights the ratio will change.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 80 hours HOBBS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
>> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Yes, but you don't base your maint on hobbs time, you base it on tach
>> time.
>> At least everyone I know does. I suppose it let's you say, xxx SMOH, and
>> yyy TTAE.... But that later is of no value except to know how long the
>> time
>> is you want to put in your logbook as "flight time".
>>
>> I totally get Tach time (it's the slower one, cuz it's based upon RPM),
>> but
>> I don't get a hobbs type meter in anything but a flight school airplane.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Fiveonepw@aol.com
>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:51 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 01/29/2006 12:13:36 PM Central Standard Time,
>> aadamson@highrf.com writes:
>> I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
>> type meter in an airplane that you own.
>>>>>
>>
>> Don't reckon it's much of a "gotta have", but I like mine simply because
>> it's
>> a historically reliable mechanical device (activated by oil pressure
>> switch)
>>
>> that keeps my logbooks in order, for maintenance and continuity reasons.
>> My
>>
>> engine monitor time will always show less time (engine idling not
>> recorded)
>> and
>> it's probably more likely I'll have an airframe log entry stating "engine
>> monitor changed at 853.3 hours" than "Hobbs meter replaced- add 8,533
>> hours
>> at
>> each entry"
>>
>> Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW, whose 2nd BIRTHDAY is day after tomorrow
>> with
>> 277.3 hours on the HOBBS! ...er, maybe I should use EIS time so she
>> stays
>> younger longer! 8-)
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 58
| 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: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: gert <gert.v@sbcglobal.net>
i bought a simple SWR off ebay, a MFJ-841, which seem to do the trick,
The MFJ-259 is nice, but takes more explaining to the folks using it who
are less techno-literate.
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>TSaccio@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
>>
>>Thanks for the imput Dave. I don't know anything about this stuff. Are you
>>saying that a Ham radio that operates on VHF will test the antenna's on my
>>plane? Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
>>
>>
>
>You aren't looking for a ham radio, per se. You are looking for an SWR
>meter (or directional wattmeter) that is designed to operate at 120 MHz.
>
>Bob used to have an antenna analyzer he used to loan to people just for
>this purpose.
>
>
>
--
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
Message 59
| 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: Antenna Tester |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William" <wschertz@ispwest.com>
Check with your local Ham Radio club. Someone may have the equipment and do
the test for you.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message -----
From: <TSaccio@aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna Tester
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
>
> Does anyone have any information on antenna testers. I've installed copper
> foil antenna's in my Seawind and I need to test there integrity. If anyone
> could tell me where I could purchase such a unit it would be greatly
> appreciated.
> Tom Saccio _tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
>
>
>
Message 60
| 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: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
You always "report hobbs time" to what/where??? If to insurance for total
flying time, then I agree with that.
If you do oil changes, for example on 50 hours intervals, do you use hobbs
time or tach time? When you log engine time, do you use hobbs or tach......
I would suggest that standard practice is to use tach for either of the
above. Again, only place I know where hobbs is used is when you want to
know how long the flight was and it's directly related to the "clock" time
from engine start up to engine shutdown.
Most people log that as "their flight time", but use the tach for maint,
etc.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
--> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Interesting. According to my AFS system (ACS2002) the tach time is about
80% of the hobbs time. I always report hobbs time. As I get into doing
longer SC flights the ratio will change.
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 80 hours HOBBS
----- Original Message -----
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> Yes, but you don't base your maint on hobbs time, you base it on tach
> time.
> At least everyone I know does. I suppose it let's you say, xxx SMOH,
> and yyy TTAE.... But that later is of no value except to know how long
> the time is you want to put in your logbook as "flight time".
>
> I totally get Tach time (it's the slower one, cuz it's based upon
> RPM), but I don't get a hobbs type meter in anything but a flight
> school airplane.
>
> Alan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Fiveonepw@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:51 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 01/29/2006 12:13:36 PM Central Standard Time,
> aadamson@highrf.com writes:
> I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
> type meter in an airplane that you own.
>>>>
>
> Don't reckon it's much of a "gotta have", but I like mine simply
> because it's a historically reliable mechanical device (activated by
> oil pressure
> switch)
>
> that keeps my logbooks in order, for maintenance and continuity reasons.
> My
>
> engine monitor time will always show less time (engine idling not
> recorded)
> and
> it's probably more likely I'll have an airframe log entry stating
> "engine monitor changed at 853.3 hours" than "Hobbs meter replaced-
> add 8,533 hours at each entry"
>
> Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW, whose 2nd BIRTHDAY is day after tomorrow
> with
> 277.3 hours on the HOBBS! ...er, maybe I should use EIS time so she stays
> younger longer! 8-)
> do not archive
>
>
>
Message 61
| 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: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
I doubt the ratio will change. For example. Unless you run at "max RPM"
the tach time will always be less than the hobbs time, not matter how long
the flight. It has to do with what the Tach registers as 100%, let's say
it's 2700, but that is also redline, then any rpm less than 2700 will be the
associated percentage less tach time than 100%... It get's a little funky
with constant speed props, but the same basically applies.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
--> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
Really SC should be XC (cross country).
Indiana Larry
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> Interesting. According to my AFS system (ACS2002) the tach time is
> about 80% of the hobbs time. I always report hobbs time. As I get
> into doing longer SC flights the ratio will change.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 80 hours HOBBS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
>> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>>
>> Yes, but you don't base your maint on hobbs time, you base it on tach
>> time.
>> At least everyone I know does. I suppose it let's you say, xxx SMOH,
>> and yyy TTAE.... But that later is of no value except to know how
>> long the time is you want to put in your logbook as "flight time".
>>
>> I totally get Tach time (it's the slower one, cuz it's based upon
>> RPM), but I don't get a hobbs type meter in anything but a flight
>> school airplane.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Fiveonepw@aol.com
>> Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 2:51 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
>>
>> In a message dated 01/29/2006 12:13:36 PM Central Standard Time,
>> aadamson@highrf.com writes:
>> I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
>> type meter in an airplane that you own.
>>>>>
>>
>> Don't reckon it's much of a "gotta have", but I like mine simply
>> because it's a historically reliable mechanical device (activated by
>> oil pressure
>> switch)
>>
>> that keeps my logbooks in order, for maintenance and continuity reasons.
>> My
>>
>> engine monitor time will always show less time (engine idling not
>> recorded)
>> and
>> it's probably more likely I'll have an airframe log entry stating
>> "engine monitor changed at 853.3 hours" than "Hobbs meter replaced-
>> add 8,533 hours at each entry"
>>
>> Mark Phillips - RV-6A N51PW, whose 2nd BIRTHDAY is day after tomorrow
>> with
>> 277.3 hours on the HOBBS! ...er, maybe I should use EIS time so she
>> stays
>> younger longer! 8-)
>> do not archive
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 62
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Alan K. Adamson wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> I doubt the ratio will change. For example. Unless you run at "max RPM"
> the tach time will always be less than the hobbs time, not matter how long
> the flight.
Uh, not quite.
> It has to do with what the Tach registers as 100%, let's say
> it's 2700, but that is also redline, then any rpm less than 2700 will be the
> associated percentage less tach time than 100%... It get's a little funky
> with constant speed props, but the same basically applies.
Actually, you will find that various mechanical recording tachometers
have different standard RPMs where the tach-time = real-time (hobbs).
Most mechanical recording tachs have their time set to be accurate at
either 2300 RPM or 2500 RPM, not redline.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Message 63
| 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: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: <rd2@evenlink.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 3:54 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Bird Strikes and deer- OT expanded
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>
> There are some kind of whistles people attach on bumpers to chase away
> deer
> by u-sound; is there anything effective to use on an aircraft against
> birds
> or deer?
>
> Rumen
> do not archive
Anything Effective?? I believe they call it INSURANCE. Best to fly in the
summer and spring. Stay away from deer areas in the fall especially in
November. No whistle or sirren is effective during Oct through Dec. Deer
most active just before dusk. When you see one, there are others around
also. (Knowledge based after 30 years of deer hunting.)
Indiana Larry, RV7 80 hours
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if you can
finally enjoy the level you've reached after you've reached it.
L R Helming
Message 64
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> You always "report hobbs time" to what/where??? If to insurance for total
> flying time, then I agree with that.
Alan, I record it in my pilot log book after each flight. Each flight also
notates the ending Hobbs time. When I was flight training, the plane did
not know what "Tach Time" was so I continue to use the same system.
>
> If you do oil changes, for example on 50 hours intervals, do you use hobbs
> time or tach time? When you log engine time, do you use hobbs or
> tach......
> I would suggest that standard practice is to use tach for either of the
> above. Again, only place I know where hobbs is used is when you want to
> know how long the flight was and it's directly related to the "clock" time
> from engine start up to engine shutdown.
I like simplicity. I use Hobbs time for everything. That includes
maintenance cycles for changing oil. If I change it a bit early as compared
to tach time, I should be helping my engine live longer. Idle time
particularly for warm up is important especially in the winter months. I
would not think it would be good to just act as if it did not matter.
However, it is a good idea to use a consistent time system so I don't
disagree with your approach.
>
> Most people log that as "their flight time", but use the tach for maint,
> etc.
>
> Alan
>
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 80 hours HOBBS time. ( 62 hours tach
time.)
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if you can
finally enjoy the level you've reached after you've reached it.
L R Helming, who thought of it last.
Message 65
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:53 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> I doubt the ratio will change. For example. Unless you run at "max RPM"
> the tach time will always be less than the hobbs time, not matter how long
> the flight. It has to do with what the Tach registers as 100%, let's say
> it's 2700, but that is also redline, then any rpm less than 2700 will be
> the
> associated percentage less tach time than 100%... It get's a little funky
> with constant speed props, but the same basically applies.
>
> Alan
>
Just to help clarify a point: I have my AFS (ACS2002) set to record tach
time when the rpms are over 1500. That usually means the engine is
producing power to sustain flight however it also includes mag check out
times before flight. It would not include times when I pull the power for
landing and taxi. The exact rpm to start counting tach time is changable
with the AFS.
Indiana Larry do not archive
Message 66
| 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: | How to Crimp Flag Terminals? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
Greetings,
I have a handful of flag style fully insulated .250" quick connectors that look
sort of like this:
http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Data/520129.pdf
Since they are fully insulated, they won't fit in my ratchet crimper tool. Even
if I force it into the crimper, it looks like it will pretty much wipe out much
of the insulation. The 90=B0 angle is just what I need if I can figure out
how to crimp it. Any ideas?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Message 67
| 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: Bird Strikes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Brian Lloyd wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
>
>Mark Neubauer wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Neubauer" <markn@fuse.net>
>>
>>Sorry for venturing off-topic, but one question:
>>
>>How frequent is a bird strike to the windscreen when said avian creature
>>must first pass through the 76" diameter, 180 HP meat grinder? I can see
>>this being more of an issue with twins (just a nosecone up front), but I
>>thought a single engine plane would be pretty safe from this problem.
>>
>>
>
>Consider the width of the blade compared to the area of the propeller
>disk. A lot is going to get through. 2500 RPM is 42 RPS. With a
>two-bladed prop that is 84 blades-per-second. The "hole" between blades
>going by is then open for 12 ms.
>
>If the bird is traveling at 160 kts or 370 fps and has a length of 1
>foot, it is going to take 3.7 ms to pass through your prop arc. That
>implies to me that most birds will likely pass through your prop arc
>without ever being touched by a prop blade.
>
>And it doesn't matter that much that the prop chops said bird into two
>pieces. The combined momentum of the two pieces doesn't change and will
>still likely hit your windscreen with effectively the same impact.
>
>My guess is that it doesn't matter one bit. That sucker is still going
>to give your windscreen one hell of a whack.
>
And then there's the very large body of empirical evidence....
I've personally seen a 'duck shaped' 6-8" deep dent in the leading edge
of my neighbor's Bonanza wing, next to the fuselage & within the prop
arc. Ponder the impact needed to crush the curved leading edge of a wing
that deep.
Message 68
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I hesitate to say what's inside it...the cost is modest, but furthermore the literature
says it's for two cycle engines that have no oil pressure senders to
use for the Hobbs job.
Using an oil pressure switch seems more reliable and easier, but what the heck--send
the company your money.
For those itching to copy the thing--I very strongly suspect it is a P-fet 13V
Zener shunt regulator (Just three parts!). If you know what that is, you can copy
it. If you don't know what that is, probably please don't try it.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=7955#7955
Message 69
| 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: | Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Ah, ha.... Ok, for you that works, for most, they use tach for maint, etc.
I only use Hobbs for recording the flight time in my log book.... But my
engine monitor will give me that numbers, so not hobbs in my airplane.
Thanks for the dialog, I didn't think many used that mechanism...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
LarryRobertHelming
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
--> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson"
> <aadamson@highrf.com>
>
> You always "report hobbs time" to what/where??? If to insurance for total
> flying time, then I agree with that.
Alan, I record it in my pilot log book after each flight. Each flight also
notates the ending Hobbs time. When I was flight training, the plane did
not know what "Tach Time" was so I continue to use the same system.
>
> If you do oil changes, for example on 50 hours intervals, do you use hobbs
> time or tach time? When you log engine time, do you use hobbs or
> tach......
> I would suggest that standard practice is to use tach for either of the
> above. Again, only place I know where hobbs is used is when you want to
> know how long the flight was and it's directly related to the "clock" time
> from engine start up to engine shutdown.
I like simplicity. I use Hobbs time for everything. That includes
maintenance cycles for changing oil. If I change it a bit early as compared
to tach time, I should be helping my engine live longer. Idle time
particularly for warm up is important especially in the winter months. I
would not think it would be good to just act as if it did not matter.
However, it is a good idea to use a consistent time system so I don't
disagree with your approach.
>
> Most people log that as "their flight time", but use the tach for maint,
> etc.
>
> Alan
>
Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 80 hours HOBBS time. ( 62 hours tach
time.)
"Please use the information and opinions I express with responsibility, and
at your own risk."
Achieving a certain level of success in life is only important if you can
finally enjoy the level you've reached after you've reached it.
L R Helming, who thought of it last.
Message 70
| 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: How to Crimp Flag Terminals? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:05 PM 1/29/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson"
><pinetownd@volcano.net>
>
>Greetings,
>
>I have a handful of flag style fully insulated .250" quick connectors that
>look sort of like this:
>
>http://rocky.digikey.com/WebLib/Amp/Web%20Data/520129.pdf
>
>Since they are fully insulated, they won't fit in my ratchet crimper
>tool. Even if I force it into the crimper, it looks like it will pretty
>much wipe out much of the insulation. The 90=B0 angle is just what I need
>if I can figure out how to crimp it. Any ideas?
Yup, buy the tool that was designed to install them.
I've run across a variety of variants in solderless
terminals, most of which take a mating die set in a
crimp tool for installation. As soon as one strays from
the path of PIDG, the future can become uncertain and
more expensive.
Bob . . .
Message 71
| 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: Powergenie - anyone using it? DIY ideas? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
On 1/29/06, Alan K. Adamson <aadamson@highrf.com> wrote:
> This is so curious.... I've never understood the want or need for a "hobbs"
> type meter in an airplane that you own. I suppose for 2 reasons. A) most
> of the engine monitors of which just about everyone has no a days has one
> built in; b) what information do they give you that you need. No maint that
> I know of uses hobbs time, they are all tach time. And if you just need to
> know how long the flight is, then get a cheap timer or wear a watch.
> This is just soo odd for me... Perhaps someone can help enlighten me on this
> topic?
Pretty simple reasons in my case, Alan. There is no traditional
(mechanical) tachometer installed, nor do I plan on installing one,
nor is 'tach time' recorded by the engine monitor. Sure, I could
write software for the latter but I'm quite lazy. So, in goes the
Hobbs... and I plan to log Hobbs time for everything (flight time,
engine time, prop time).
I plan to install a VDO oil pressure sender with aux 'low pressure
warning' contacts to kick the Hobbs on/off... however, I was forwarded
a link to this "magical" power lug with 3 wires stickin' out of it and
figured I'd throw it to the wolves on this list.
That's all the enlightenment I got!
D
Message 72
| 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: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
As I understand ANR, it blocks the low freq portion of the noise problem and
your passive catches everthing above that. The low freq stuff is not
affected by the passive noise reduction. A good helmet has great ear cup
seals, and a seal around the edge of the helmet to act as a first layer of
defense. This catches all but the low stuff.
ANR is just the icing on the cake, it aint the whole cake.
Jim Stone
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: helmet issues
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> Jim Stone wrote:
>
>> For those considering a helmet, Flight suits offers active noise
>> canceling
>> for your helmet. I personally would rather have thousand dollars in a
>> helmet than a thousand in a set of Bose.
>
> I haven't tried their active noise reduction. My experience with ANR
> headsets is that they lack the same level of passive noise reduction
> needed to protect your hearing. (ANR only takes out the low frequencies
> which do not cause hearing loss.) Does the ANR still preserve the
> passive noise reduction?
>
> And then there is the added complexity with its attendant reduction in
> reliability.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
>
> I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>
>
>
Message 73
| 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: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter11@sbcglobal.net>
Brian,
Any leads on a helmet-mounted display a civilian could acquire? When I left
the Pentagon in Aug '88 they were still in R&D status - had some "good
enough" stuff available, but the "developers" hadn't convinced the
"operators and bean-counters". Army AH-1 Apache's have good stuff fairly
recently.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: helmet issues
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
>
> David Carter wrote:
>
>> Brian, my helmet simply has a snap on each side for attaching the elastic
>> strap on the visor. I can unsnap the clear and snap on the colored visor
>> when needed. I use the clear most of the time, for bird protection, with
>> sunglasses underneath when needed, so don't really need the tinted visor.
>
> Ah, you must be wearing the HGU-55. That is the more popular helmet than
> the older (and clunkier) HGU-33 I wear. The HGU-33 I wear has the
> tension knob that controls the visor.
>
>> In combat in 1967 up "north" in Package 6, one day I told myself the
>> visor
>> was bulletproof - I no longer suffered anxiety rolling in on a heavily
>> defended tgt. Prior to that I worried a bit about a 37 or 57mm in the
>> face.
>> Piece of cake after I put on my bullet proof visor. Now the biggest
>> threat
>> is buzzards, snow geese, and other large "mm" birds. Visor is real
>> protection in event of a birdstrike, not just make believe.
>
> I combat you have to tell yourself something or you won't be able to
> make yourself go.
>
>> Hey, we are on the "Lectric list" - Sorry for being "off topic". Will
>> Cc:
>> the RV list.
>
> This seems to be more about systems. The helmet is part of your
> communications and environmental systems. With an HMD (head-mounted
> display) it becomes part of your navigation and systems monitoring.
>
> --
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
> +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
Message 74
| 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: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Following the thread:
One of our corespondents is correct - check with local ham club.
Some old duffer witrh an antenna analyzer (SWR don't tell you everything)
will probably come out for the curiosity, test to the nth and offer some
interesting antenna information.
Hams have been swamped in latter years by Japanese black boxes
and the single guy can't compete - antennas are another story. Some of the
best are homebrew and one tenth the cost.
The analyzer is delicate and easily misapplied. Bob won't be
loaning his out for long - the cost to repair within guidelines is
prohibitive.
Thass that.
Cheers, Ferg
PS While this list is amazing for the info in it, there's a lot of
misinformation hidden in some messages. An amateur is a professional who
doesn't get paid - unlike professional pallbearers, etc..................
Message 75
| 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: Hardened Windshield |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Thank you, David,
I think it's just the ticket
Ferg
PS ....Brian - might even stick it on your visor(s)?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carter" <dcarter11@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hardened Windshield
| --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
<dcarter11@sbcglobal.net>
|
| For 3M films, go to
| http://www.3m.com/us/arch_construct/scpd/windowfilm/
|
| The "breakage protection" films are listed under "Safety and Security
| Films" - At the link above, go to the left column and click "Products",
then
| "Residential" (or probably any of them) and click
| "3M Scotchshield Safety & Security Films" link after reading the blurb.
|
| David
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
| To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
| Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:34 AM
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Hardened Windshield
|
|
| > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
| >
| > Cheers,
| > On the subject of birdstrikes and helmets:
| > Didn't I see a TV ad for a plastic layer to add to glass/whatever
| > which renders it virtually impervious to baseball bats, robbers' tools
| > (and
| > birdstrikes)? Might be worth searching........
| > Ferg
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 76
| 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: | Six New Email Lists / Forums At Matronics! |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle <dralle@matronics.com>
Dear Listers,
Its my pleasure to announce the addition of six new Email List / Forums to the
aviation line up at Matronics! These new lists support all the usual features
you've come to know and love from the Matronics Email List including full integration
with the All New Web BBS Forums Site!! The new Lists include:
LycomingEngines-List Textron/Lycoming Engines
RotaxEngines-List Rotax Engine for Aircraft
M14PEngines-List Vendenyev M14P Radial Engine
MurphyMoose-List Murphy Moose Aircraft
Allegro-List Allegro 2000, a Czech-built, Rotax-powered Aircraft
Falco-List Sequoia Aircraft's Falco Experimental
To sign up for any or all of the new Lists, surf over to the Matronics Email List
Subscription Form and follow the instructions:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Don't forget to check out the All New Web BBS Forum now available along with all
of the usual message and archive viewing tools at the Matronics Email Lists
site. Surf over to the following URL for information on the BBS Forum:
http://forums.matronics.com
Enjoy the new Lists!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
Message 77
| 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: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> And they do have intercoms in the Chinese aircraft. It is just that they
> use vacuum tubes. (True!)
I've read that vacuum tubes are not affected by EMP, like
transistors are.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 78
| 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: helmet issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
David Carter wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter11@sbcglobal.net>
>
> Brian,
>
> Any leads on a helmet-mounted display a civilian could acquire? When I left
> the Pentagon in Aug '88 they were still in R&D status - had some "good
> enough" stuff available, but the "developers" hadn't convinced the
> "operators and bean-counters". Army AH-1 Apache's have good stuff fairly
> recently.
It all depends on what you want to do and how much resolution you need.
If you want to cook up your own HMD for your aircraft, go look at Micro
Optical Corp.
http://www.microopticalcorp.com/
Their display is about the size of a boom mic and offers VGA resolution
(640x480). Certainly you could put your PFD or engine data on there and
not have to look in the cockpit. It should be easy to mount on a helmet.
--
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630
+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax)
I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . .
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
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! --
|