AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Fri 05/19/06


Total Messages Posted: 18



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 05:42 AM - Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets (pfsiegel)
     2. 07:27 AM - Re: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets (Robert Sultzbach)
     3. 07:38 AM - Re: Antennas ()
     4. 08:10 AM - Re: Re: Antennas (Rob Housman)
     5. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: Antennas (Gilles Thesee)
     6. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: Antennas (Gilles Thesee)
     7. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: Antennas (Rob Housman)
     8. 09:13 AM - Re: KMA-24 Audio Panel "speaker load" (William Morgan)
     9. 09:40 AM - Re: Re: Antennas (Robert Sultzbach)
    10. 09:47 AM - Re: Z11 architecture question (Gerry Filby)
    11. 12:36 PM - "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets) (Bill Dube)
    12. 12:37 PM - Re: Re: Antennas (Gilles Thesee)
    13. 12:57 PM - Re: "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets) (Brinker)
    14. 01:17 PM - Re: Re: Antennas (Gilles Thesee)
    15. 03:49 PM - Looking for Aeroflash schematic (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
    16. 05:59 PM - PTT (PS Engineering PCD7100) (JOHN CRATE)
    17. 08:17 PM - MB antenna length (Robert G. Wright)
    18. 08:45 PM - Re: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets (James Freeman)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 05:42:23 AM PST US
    From: pfsiegel <psiegel@fuse.net>
    Subject: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: pfsiegel <psiegel@fuse.net> I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets. Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take them on trade-in for the new style) My portable interface box no longer works. Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might be able to get this unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have one of the portable interface boxes they would like to get rid of? Thanks! Paul Siegel <psiegel@fuse.net>


    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
    Time: 07:27:27 AM PST US
    From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> Paul, Try Ben Dover Avionics at Falcon Field Peachtree City, Ga. The gentleman who is the proprieter there used to fix broken headsets for quite a few Delta pilots. He knows what he is doing. Bob --- pfsiegel <psiegel@fuse.net> wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: pfsiegel > <psiegel@fuse.net> > > I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose > Noise Cancelling > Headsets. > > Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take > them on trade-in > for the new style) > > My portable interface box no longer works. > > Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might > be able to get this > unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have > one of the portable > interface boxes they would like to get rid of? > > Thanks! > > Paul Siegel <psiegel@fuse.net> > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________


    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
    Time: 07:38:11 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> >From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> >Hi gmcjetpilot and all, > >It takes a Trinidad a 250 hp engine to cruise at 155 knots >TAS (75 % power). Your 1.82 knot cruise speed impact on >this large draggy spam can amounts to more than 3 % of >the Trinidad total drag. That means about 6.5 hp just to >carry your antennas in the breeze. cher monsieur Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention. Here is the calculations for one COM at 200 mph: Area: 2.88 in-sq (.04 ft-sq)(assume 20"x3/16" bent-whip w/ base) Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9) Drag: 1.02 lbs HP req: 0.54 HP act: 0.68 (assume prop efficency 0.80) Speed penalty: 0.25 mph (0.22 kts) 0.68 HP not 3 HP. This is what I am talking about. If I used 3.75 in-sq the drag would be 0.89 HP/ 0.33 mph lost. These numbers are WAY conservative. Remeber the TB-20 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) placed the penalty of the VOR (about twice a COM antenna in frontal area) at 0.59 kts (.68 mph). Half is .34 MPH. This is what I got. This is equal to less then 1 HP not 6.5 HP. If you had a VOR and COM (like 3 COM's) we have about 2.1 to 2.7 HP MAX. I agree IF you can get rid of this drag great, but we need antennas. A metal plane is limited in where the antennas can go. >Our MCR-4S four seater has a 100 hp engine and cruises at 140 >knots TAS. (75 % power). Total drag is much lower. Those same >antennas would spend 4.8 hp on our MCR. Much more significant >when compared to the 75 hp cruise setting. I don't know what a MCR-4S. It does not matter drag is drag, but if it is fiberglass than by all means hide your antenna's. However I only fly metal airplanes, fiberglass is for hot tubs and boats. (I am kidding, joke, ha ha). Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide antennas like a composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read on). >I'd say something on the order of 2 to 3 knots for an MCR. 3 knots >or 5 km/h is something we can easily see on the ASI or when flying >formation. That is the difference we currently measure between clean >and dirty MCRs. When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the speed differnce was NIL or negligible. However from flight test it did appear I picked up a some speed. Of course measuring such a small change is hard with flight test that has errors. Analytically I know its good for about 1/3rd mph. Flight test back up the calculations. Drag is not that large. An antenna is just not that big of a deal. Now 5 or 10 antennas would get your attention, but one antenna or two antenna, no. YOUR MCR-4S: Drag is a function of airspeed. With your 140 kt cruise, your speed loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM. With frontal area, coefficient of drag conservatively assumed, calculated drag is very straight forward. Your 2 to 3 kts is off by a factor of 16 to 24 too high. For your 140 kt (160 mph plane) one COM the calculations: Area: 2.88 in sq (0.04 ft sq) (assume 20"x3/16" bent whip w/base) Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9) Drag: 0.66 lbs HP req: 0.28 HP act: 0.36 (assume prop efficency 0.80) Speed penalty: 0.11 mph (0.095 kts) That is hard to read on the IAS. IT IS NOT THAT BAD :-) Even if I assumed a large frontal areal say 3.75 in-sq, speed lost = .14 mph, it is no big deal. Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about small losses. Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people assume. ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme >Of course there is no point in hiding antennas on a Pitts or a Cessna, >but small and sleek airplanes will really benefit. >And it is so easy to do, so why not try ? I appreciate your opinion and I guess any plane can benefit from less drag. However in a metal plane antenna placement it pretty limited to external locations. Again the drag from on COM, Tpx or VOR is about 3/4 - 1 mph tops on a 200 mph plane, or I should say a 199 mph plane. It does not matter if it is a RV-7, MCR-4S, Cessna or Pitts, DRAG is DRAG. However if fiberglass HIDE AWAY. However if it is good to bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus aircraft sprout external antennas? http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount antennas on the airframe and fly. I have done this. It just is not a big deal. Cheers George __________________________________________________


    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
    Time: 08:10:32 AM PST US
    From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us> In order to gain certification something must be done to make the composite structure electrically conductive in order to deal with a lightning strike. So, unlike experimental composite aircraft, the certificated variety have a metallic mesh, Al or Cu, imbedded in the laminate. This precludes mounting antennas internally. Best regards, Rob Housman A070 Airframe complete Irvine, CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:35 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Antennas --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> >From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> >Hi gmcjetpilot and all, > >It takes a Trinidad a 250 hp engine to cruise at 155 knots >TAS (75 % power). Your 1.82 knot cruise speed impact on >this large draggy spam can amounts to more than 3 % of >the Trinidad total drag. That means about 6.5 hp just to >carry your antennas in the breeze. cher monsieur Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention. Here is the calculations for one COM at 200 mph: Area: 2.88 in-sq (.04 ft-sq)(assume 20"x3/16" bent-whip w/ base) Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9) Drag: 1.02 lbs HP req: 0.54 HP act: 0.68 (assume prop efficency 0.80) Speed penalty: 0.25 mph (0.22 kts) 0.68 HP not 3 HP. This is what I am talking about. If I used 3.75 in-sq the drag would be 0.89 HP/ 0.33 mph lost. These numbers are WAY conservative. Remeber the TB-20 Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) placed the penalty of the VOR (about twice a COM antenna in frontal area) at 0.59 kts (.68 mph). Half is .34 MPH. This is what I got. This is equal to less then 1 HP not 6.5 HP. If you had a VOR and COM (like 3 COM's) we have about 2.1 to 2.7 HP MAX. I agree IF you can get rid of this drag great, but we need antennas. A metal plane is limited in where the antennas can go. >Our MCR-4S four seater has a 100 hp engine and cruises at 140 >knots TAS. (75 % power). Total drag is much lower. Those same >antennas would spend 4.8 hp on our MCR. Much more significant >when compared to the 75 hp cruise setting. I don't know what a MCR-4S. It does not matter drag is drag, but if it is fiberglass than by all means hide your antenna's. However I only fly metal airplanes, fiberglass is for hot tubs and boats. (I am kidding, joke, ha ha). Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide antennas like a composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read on). >I'd say something on the order of 2 to 3 knots for an MCR. 3 knots >or 5 km/h is something we can easily see on the ASI or when flying >formation. That is the difference we currently measure between clean >and dirty MCRs. When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the speed differnce was NIL or negligible. However from flight test it did appear I picked up a some speed. Of course measuring such a small change is hard with flight test that has errors. Analytically I know its good for about 1/3rd mph. Flight test back up the calculations. Drag is not that large. An antenna is just not that big of a deal. Now 5 or 10 antennas would get your attention, but one antenna or two antenna, no. YOUR MCR-4S: Drag is a function of airspeed. With your 140 kt cruise, your speed loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM. With frontal area, coefficient of drag conservatively assumed, calculated drag is very straight forward. Your 2 to 3 kts is off by a factor of 16 to 24 too high. For your 140 kt (160 mph plane) one COM the calculations: Area: 2.88 in sq (0.04 ft sq) (assume 20"x3/16" bent whip w/base) Cd: 0.50 ( Fluid Dynamic Drag, by Hoerner, fig 13, pg 3-9) Drag: 0.66 lbs HP req: 0.28 HP act: 0.36 (assume prop efficency 0.80) Speed penalty: 0.11 mph (0.095 kts) That is hard to read on the IAS. IT IS NOT THAT BAD :-) Even if I assumed a large frontal areal say 3.75 in-sq, speed lost = .14 mph, it is no big deal. Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about small losses. Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people assume. ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme >Of course there is no point in hiding antennas on a Pitts or a Cessna, >but small and sleek airplanes will really benefit. >And it is so easy to do, so why not try ? I appreciate your opinion and I guess any plane can benefit from less drag. However in a metal plane antenna placement it pretty limited to external locations. Again the drag from on COM, Tpx or VOR is about 3/4 - 1 mph tops on a 200 mph plane, or I should say a 199 mph plane. It does not matter if it is a RV-7, MCR-4S, Cessna or Pitts, DRAG is DRAG. However if fiberglass HIDE AWAY. However if it is good to bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus aircraft sprout external antennas? http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount antennas on the airframe and fly. I have done this. It just is not a big deal. Cheers George __________________________________________________


    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
    Time: 08:17:02 AM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Rob Housman a crit : > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us> > > In order to gain certification something must be done to make the composite > structure electrically conductive in order to deal with a lightning strike. > So, unlike experimental composite aircraft, the certificated variety have a > metallic mesh, Al or Cu, imbedded in the laminate. This precludes mounting > antennas internally. > > Hi Rob, Aren't we talking about experimental aircraft ? By the way, why should aluminum RVs be able to hide antennas and not compsite airplanes ? Wingtips, fin cap, etc... Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr


    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
    Time: 08:42:05 AM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Dear Monsieur gmcjetpilot, > > Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my point with > analytical values and flight test data, beg your attention. > Thank you for your message. I was quoting your numbers : *************************************** "There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough, the engineers at Socata actually quantified the cruise speed impact of each antenna:" ADF - .75 knots G/S - .32 knots VOR - .59 knots ELT - .16 knots *************************************** The total speed reduction is indeed in the vicinity of 1.82 knot. We ought to include one COM antenna. > > I don't know what a MCR-4S. Oh, you really should check http://contrails.free.fr/index_en.php > Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide antennas like a > composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read on). > They do have plastic wingtips and fin tops. > > When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the speed differnce was > NIL or negligible. What type airplane ? No wonder if it is some aluminum box with short wings and a big engine ;-) > With your 140 kt cruise, your speed > loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM. How come ? With a speed loss of 0.3 kt at 155 kt, the same antenna would lose only 0.1 kt at 140 ? > > Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about small losses. > Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people assume. > ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme > > Just like weight reduction, small gains add to small gains, and in the end it makes quite a difference. That's how Michel Colomban's two seater and the MCR01 need only an 80 hp engine to CRUISE at 155 kt TAS. Those who indulge in the "ce n'est pas une affaire" attitude are achieving much lower speeds. > However if it is good to > bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia and Cirrus aircraft > sprout external antennas? http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ > They are designed by, ahem, aircraft engineers. Many of them have the same "pas une affaire" background. The industry doesn't believe in the existence of drag. Especially in the land of cheap gas and big engines. > > I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount antennas on the > airframe and fly. > No need. I just have to watch similar airplanes with their antennas sticking out, and receding in my slipstream ;-) Oh, and by the way, do you really count the Cirrus in the sleek airplane category ? Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr


    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
    Time: 08:51:08 AM PST US
    From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us> Gilles, see the bottom of my reply to George's message - he is asking why Cirrus and Columbia have external antennas.. Best regards, Rob Housman A070 Airframe complete Irvine, CA -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gilles Thesee Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:15 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Antennas --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Rob Housman a crit : > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us> > > In order to gain certification something must be done to make the composite > structure electrically conductive in order to deal with a lightning strike. > So, unlike experimental composite aircraft, the certificated variety have a > metallic mesh, Al or Cu, imbedded in the laminate. This precludes mounting > antennas internally. > > Hi Rob, Aren't we talking about experimental aircraft ? By the way, why should aluminum RVs be able to hide antennas and not compsite airplanes ? Wingtips, fin cap, etc... Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr


    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
    Time: 09:13:15 AM PST US
    From: William Morgan <wmorgan31@netzero.net>
    Subject: Re: KMA-24 Audio Panel "speaker load"
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: William Morgan <wmorgan31@netzero.net> Scott, The 19/L and 16/M pin pairs labeled "speaker load" are for some radios that require a load on their built in audio amps, the King KX170B comes to mind. If your radios have no speaker output, you do not need to connect these pins. Scott -- Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.0/342 - Release Date: 5/17/2006


    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
    Time: 09:40:04 AM PST US
    From: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> Monsieur: I noticed you live in Grenoble. Ah, I remember the great Jean-Claud Killy and the 1968 Winter Olympic Games. Is that correct? Il y a quarante annee's? C'est impossible! How is the skiing there these days? Magnificent, n'est pas? Bob Sultzbach --- Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles > Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > Dear Monsieur gmcjetpilot, > > > > > > Your HP values are way off, and I'll prove my > point with > > analytical values and flight test data, beg your > attention. > > > > Thank you for your message. > I was quoting your numbers : > > *************************************** > "There is a recent article in Plane & Pilot which > features the Socata Trinidad. Interesting enough, > the engineers at Socata actually quantified the > cruise speed impact of each antenna:" > > ADF - .75 knots > G/S - .32 knots > VOR - .59 knots > ELT - .16 knots > *************************************** > > The total speed reduction is indeed in the vicinity > of 1.82 knot. We > ought to include one COM antenna. > > > > > I don't know what a MCR-4S. > > Oh, you really should check > > http://contrails.free.fr/index_en.php > > > Clearly a metal plane like a RV can not hide > antennas like a > > composite plane. It is just not a big deal, (read > on). > > > > They do have plastic wingtips and fin tops. > > > > When I took off my COM and VOR whiskers the > speed differnce was > > NIL or negligible. > > What type airplane ? No wonder if it is some > aluminum box with short > wings and a big engine ;-) > > > With your 140 kt cruise, your speed > > loss is about 1/8th MPH for one COM. > > How come ? With a speed loss of 0.3 kt at 155 kt, > the same antenna > would lose only 0.1 kt at 140 ? > > > > > Even with 2 or 3 antennas we are talking about > small losses. > > Losses yes, but not the huge amounts that people > assume. > > ce n'est pas une affaire, un problme > > > > > Just like weight reduction, small gains add to small > gains, and in the > end it makes quite a difference. That's how Michel > Colomban's two seater > and the MCR01 need only an 80 hp engine to CRUISE at > 155 kt TAS. > Those who indulge in the "ce n'est pas une affaire" > attitude are > achieving much lower speeds. > > > However if it is good to > > bury the antennas why does the Lancair Columbia > and Cirrus aircraft > > sprout external antennas? > http://www.cirrusdesign.com/ > > > They are designed by, ahem, aircraft engineers. Many > of them have the > same "pas une affaire" background. > The industry doesn't believe in the existence of > drag. Especially in the > land of cheap gas and big engines. > > > > > I suggest you can experiment and temporarily mount > antennas on the > > airframe and fly. > > > No need. I just have to watch similar airplanes with > their antennas > sticking out, and receding in my slipstream ;-) > Oh, and by the way, do you really count the Cirrus > in the sleek airplane > category ? > > Regards, > Gilles Thesee > Grenoble, France > http://contrails.free.fr > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________


    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
    Time: 09:47:42 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Z11 architecture question
    From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> Thanks all - that seems to make sense. g > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Allison > <stevea@svpal.org> > > Gerry Filby wrote: > > I'm in the process of "designing" my electrical system, > > more-or-less following diagram Z11. I think I get the overall > > goal - near-automatic shedding of non-essential electrical load > > in the event of an alternator failure. > > > > The problem I'm having is deciding what's non-essential and > > what's not. Landing lights can be shut off in-route, but they > > become very desireable in the terminal area at night - for > > landing in "comfort". > > > Gerry, > > Here is what is on my Z11 based e-bus (VFR day/night): turn > coordinator, boost pump, panel flood, GPS, COM/intercom, > XPONER/encoder, > electric elevator trim. The full electrical system load is 20-30 amps, > depending on flight configuration (takeoff, landing, cruise, day/night, > etc.). Max e-bus load (all e-bus loads ON) is 6.7 amps, typical e-bus > load is 5 amps (boost pump OFF). Everything on the e-bus has its own > ON/OFF switch (built in or on the panel) except the turn > coordinator and > electric trim. Minimum e-bus load (all switchable loads OFF) > is 0.7 amps. > > Landing lights are in the nice to have category, rather than essential > (at least for me). If really needed after an alternator failure my > landing lights can be run by turning the master switch back ON and > turning the landing lights ON. > > At some point after the alternator quits running, switch/breaker > settings must be dealt with. The Z11 e-bus design does not eliminate > dealing with switches, it just bypasses the no longer needed battery > relay with an alternate e-bus feed (to drop the 1 amp relay load). > Dealing with switches and breakers does not have to be done > immediately. It is ok to take a few minutes (after a few choice words > about the alternator :-) ) to run through the alternator failure > checklist. Here's mine: > > alternate e-bus feed ON > master OFF > panel flood AS REQUIRED > avionics AS REQUIRED > terminate flight as soon as practical > > > Steve > RV-6A ...... under construction.......still > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- __g__ ========================================================== Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com Tel: 415 203 9177 ----------------------------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 12:36:54 PM PST US
    From: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
    Subject: "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling
    Headsets) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube <william.p.dube@noaa.gov> "Ben Dover" Avionics? Someone in this chain has a sense of humor. It is either the poster, the person that named the company, or Mr Dover's parents. Robert Sultzbach wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach <endspeed@yahoo.com> > >Paul, Try Ben Dover Avionics at Falcon Field Peachtree >City, Ga. The gentleman who is the proprieter there >used to fix broken headsets for quite a few Delta >pilots. He knows what he is doing. Bob > >--- pfsiegel <psiegel@fuse.net> wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: pfsiegel >><psiegel@fuse.net> >> >>I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose >>Noise Cancelling >>Headsets. >> >>Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take >>them on trade-in >>for the new style) >> >>My portable interface box no longer works. >> >>Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might >>be able to get this >>unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have >>one of the portable >>interface boxes they would like to get rid of? >> >>Thanks! >> >>Paul Siegel <psiegel@fuse.net> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>browse >>Subscriptions page, >>FAQ, >>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> >> >>Admin. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >__________________________________________________ > > > > > > > > >


    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
    Time: 12:37:46 PM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us> > > Gilles, see the bottom of my reply to George's message - he is asking why > Cirrus and Columbia have external antennas.. > > > Rob, Understand. Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr


    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
    Time: 12:57:12 PM PST US
    From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
    Subject: Re: "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling
    Headsets) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com> Ha Ha if the name is for real I'll bet he caught heck in school and probably still does. LOL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Dube" <william.p.dube@noaa.gov> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 2:24 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Ben Dover" Avionics? (was: (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets) > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Dube > <william.p.dube@noaa.gov> > > "Ben Dover" Avionics? > > Someone in this chain has a sense of humor. It is either the poster, the > person that named the company, or Mr Dover's parents. > > > Robert Sultzbach wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert Sultzbach >><endspeed@yahoo.com> >> >>Paul, Try Ben Dover Avionics at Falcon Field Peachtree >>City, Ga. The gentleman who is the proprieter there >>used to fix broken headsets for quite a few Delta >>pilots. He knows what he is doing. Bob >> >>--- pfsiegel <psiegel@fuse.net> wrote: >> >> >> >>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: pfsiegel >>><psiegel@fuse.net> >>> >>>I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose >>>Noise Cancelling >>>Headsets. >>> >>>Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take >>>them on trade-in >>>for the new style) >>> >>>My portable interface box no longer works. >>> >>>Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might >>>be able to get this >>>unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have >>>one of the portable >>>interface boxes they would like to get rid of? >>> >>>Thanks! >>> >>>Paul Siegel <psiegel@fuse.net> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>browse >>>Subscriptions page, >>>FAQ, >>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >>> >>> >>>Admin. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >


    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
    Time: 01:17:54 PM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > Monsieur: > > I noticed you live in Grenoble. Ah, I remember the > great Jean-Claud Killy and the 1968 Winter Olympic > Games. Is that correct? Il y a quarante annee's? > C'est impossible! How is the skiing there these days? > Magnificent, n'est pas? > > Hi Bob, You're correct. Were you there during those golden days of French skiing ? I wasn't in Grenoble at the time, but I followed Jean-Claude Killy's downhill at a TV store before going to school. Killy is still around, he is a member of the International Olympic Committee. Skiing is great here, but building took sooo much time ! Amicalement, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr


    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
    Time: 03:49:27 PM PST US
    From: Hopperdhh@aol.com
    Subject: Looking for Aeroflash schematic
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com Does anyone on the list have or know where I can get a schematic for the Aeroflash 28V 10J POWER SUPPLY? It is Cessna # C622008-0102 or AEROFLASH #152-0009 made Sept. 99. Would this schematic be available from Aeroflash? do not archive Dan Hopper RV-7A Flying since July 2004


    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
    Time: 05:59:44 PM PST US
    From: "JOHN CRATE" <johncrate@rogers.com>
    Subject: PTT (PS Engineering PCD7100)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "JOHN CRATE" <johncrate@rogers.com> Hi I am trying to connect a ptt switch to a PCD 7100. The intercom/CD player is working fine, as is the audio output of the 250XL through the PCD 7100. I am stumped on how to incorporate a PTT switch for transmitting. I believe the drawings are telling me that I just need a switch wired in such a way that it will cause the mic ptt (tip) to ground out at the barrel of the connector when the switch is activated. When I tried this, I ended up blowing a fuse, thus I am very reluctant to experiment much further without some advice (I only used a 3A fuse, but don't think that is relevant). Any pearls of wisdom greatly appreciated. John Crate RV6A


    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
    Time: 08:17:10 PM PST US
    From: "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights@adelphia.net>
    Subject: MB antenna length
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert G. Wright" <armywrights@adelphia.net> Where is the source for a 40" MB coax antenna? All I find in the Connection is a 75" length for a quarter wave balun. Rob Wright


    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
    Time: 08:45:54 PM PST US
    From: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com>
    Subject: Re: Original (old) Bose Noise Cancelling Headsets
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James Freeman <flyeyes@mac.com> On May 19, 2006, at 7:35 AM, pfsiegel wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: pfsiegel <psiegel@fuse.net> > > I have a set of the very old, first generation Bose Noise Cancelling > Headsets. > > Bose no longer supports this version. (but will take them on trade-in > for the new style) > > My portable interface box no longer works. > > Anyone know if there is anybody out there that might be able to get > this > unit working again? Or, does anyone happen to have one of the > portable > interface boxes they would like to get rid of? > (snip) > > Paul, if you have the box with a 6-pin connector, it's a pretty easy fix. Some of the very earliest ones had a 9-pin connector, but mine had a 6-pin that turns out to be the same pinout as the connectors that are becoming increasingly common in new aircraft for ANR headsets. If your jacks are easy to get to (and your headset has the 6-pin connector) it's pretty simple solder the connector in parallel with your existing jacks, and you no longer need the interface box. You can still use regular headset connectors, just not both at the same position at the same time. Bose sells the jack with a wiring harness (way longer than you probably need) for $30. Part number is 178035. Hope this helps--I loved getting the interface box out of the cockpit, and I'm saving a fortune in AA batteries. James Freeman I've got a few pics if needed




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --