Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:38 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 07:41 AM - Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good) kelly & mike ()
3. 09:28 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (J. Mcculley)
4. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:00 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (John Burnaby)
7. 12:55 PM - Re: Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) (Franz)
8. 04:50 PM - Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins (Terry Watson)
9. 05:05 PM - Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins (Terry Watson)
10. 05:06 PM - (bob noffs)
11. 05:23 PM - Re: Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:14 PM - Re: (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 06:14 PM - Z-16 OV simplification ? (Gilles Thesee)
14. 10:57 PM - Re: (Mickey Coggins)
15. 11:06 PM - Re: Z-16 OV simplification ? (Mickey Coggins)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: IFR Requirements |
Good Morning Bob,
It is difficult to make a comment without appearing to be one of "those who
claim to know more about airplanes than we do."
Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to reiterate my position.
I agree that the Mooney system had merit.
I also feel it would be great to have a reliable automatic system that could
control the aircraft while the human pilot was confused.
As stated before, it is my theory, totally unsupported by any scientific
evaluation, that we began to experience more and more loss of control accidents
as we added more and more complication to the cockpit.
When there are a multitude of instruments providing conflicting information,
it is very difficult to sort out which is correct.
Just for a minute, let's assume that the only flight attitude indicting
instruments in the cockpit were two T&Bs. One electric and one vacuum powered.
If
one failed, how hard would it be for the pilot to determine which one was
still working?
Switching paths for a minute, what is really important in those moments when
the pilot is confused?
I believe the most important thing is to stop the turn.
I agree that leveling the wings will generally stop the turn, but I also
feel that it is difficult to convince our mind to disregard what our senses are
telling us and believe the instruments.
If we can just get the turn stopped, we will survive.
Whether the turn is stopped by the pilot using a turn indicator or by an
"automatic pilot" device is not important.
What is important is STOPPING the turn.
Make no turn and you will survive.
For the reasons I have often stated in the past, I believe it is a lot
easier to stop the turn using a T&B (NOT a Turn Coordinator, but an old fashioned
Turn and Bank instrument!) than it is with any other instrument now readily
available to the aviation community.
I do have some thoughts as to what may be better, but the T&B is readily
available and twenty hours of good concentrated training will teach anyone how
to use it well enough that they WILL develop confidence in the instrument that
will allow them to use it to stop the turn regardless of whether or not
their brain tells them that the wings are level.
Obviously, if we could purchase a component that would save the day without
the need for any training, that would be ideal.
Meanwhile
---- It is a shame that such a simple device is cast aside while we look for
something better.
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 6/17/2006 11:00:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
A stand-alone, kilo-buck wing leveler would have been less
expensive than the standby vacuum pump and could have been
totally independent of the highly integrated, highly stressed
components "certified" onto that aircraft and holy-watered by
those who claim to know more about airplanes than we do.
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good) kelly & mike |
Dear Mike and Kelly:
I wish I never mentioned twin engines, because you both lost the point.
>From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>An ATP rating makes not an airline pilot!
Mike not sure what the ATP airline comment means or has to do with
anything. My ATP came when I was flying Citation's for a corporation, but
now I am a 44 year young B757 Captain. I could say a military pilot
makes not necessarily a good airline pilot. Let's keep it to instrument
redundancy for IFR flight.
Mike as great and as well trained a pilot as you are, you would agree that
if your glass instrument panel goes dark IMC w/ no other gyro instrument,
you'll exit the clouds at some point and enter the ground. As far as training
Mike, you obviously did not read what I subsequently wrote. This was my
point, dual EFIS, twin engines are all great, but the pilot (training) to use
these safety features is key. The pilot in a single pilot IFR Ops is truly a
weak link. The airline connection or point is simple, two pilot redundancy.
Bruce you are right light twins don't have a safer record than singles
statistically I should know. Even though I am a 44 year young airline guy
and fly a big twins (B757&B767), I came up thru GA as a CFI, CFII, MEI.
I have thousands of hours in single engine and as much in piston twins
and had an engine failures, one in a single piston plane and one in a
TWIN. I got to an airfield both times. In the case of the single I was
lucky to be in the right place. In the twin I had a ton of freight, at night,
IMC over the Cascades mountains. With the twin I was able to extend
my glide, if you will, with the second engine. If I was in a single I would
have likely died in the mountains.
Just for argument sake a second engine CAN make a difference. MY point
relative to IFR EFIS instrument redundancy is you need the TRAINNING,
SKILL and proficiency to use that second engine or backup instruments.
If either of you would have bothered to read what I wrote after I mentioned
twin engine planes you might have noticed my point, training and the pilot
is the weak link. It does not matter if you back your EFIS panel up with a
dual EFIS, mechanical gyro - elect or Vac or just "needle ball and
airspeed". You have to practice your partial panel. I spend a lot of time
with all my students in partial panel.
If you are planning on flying with just a T&B airspeed and altimeter you
better practice. As I also later wrote, which you missed Mike is a T&B in
a Cessna is not a T&B in RV which fishtails and yaws in any turbulence.
Trying to fly IMC with a T&B in clouds in a RV with a little turbulence
is a a little spooky, I know. I had the pleasure of flying partial panel in a
RV-4 after the Vacuum pump failed.
A friend had a vacume failure in his Piper IMC. I had just did a Inst Comp
check with him the month before. He came over and thanked me for saving
his life? We had spent at least 70-80 minutes on partial panel the month
before. He felt that with out that currency and training he might not have
made it.
Point is you might want to plan on a attitude gyro of some kind as your
back up. If that is a T&B only you better practice, a lot!
Please enough with the single engine twin engine thing. We get it light
twins are dangerous. As I wrote, which you missed the old joke is:
Don't worry ladies and gentleman, this is a twin engine plane, if we
lose one engine the good one will take us to the scene of the accident.
Cheers
George M. ATP RV-4/RV-7/SA227/CE500/B737/757/767/CFII-MEI
>From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>
>To this subject: I am an airline guy, current experimental homebuilder,
>current tail wheel guy, current import military jet guy, and current in
>gliders right now! I have three things to say about this discussion:
>An ATP rating makes not an airline pilot!
>
>Mike Larkin
>From: "Kelly McMullen"
>
>You maybe an airline guy, but you don't read the stats too closely.
>Multi-engine GA flights have just as many fatals as singles, and more
>from mechanicals.
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
Hello Old Bob,
This is old Jim here, with early flight training of the era you
apparently experienced.
I have been reading all the inputs on this list on this instrumentation
subject versus IFR for several years and finally have to come out and
say how correct you are in my view!
My early training was exactly as you have frequently described and we
became totally comfortable under the hood AND in the clag with nothing
other than the T&B. We even had to do entire instrument check rides
with ONLY T&B. Even basic acrobatics this way at night or under the hood
was not considered showing off--only proving that you were comfortable
with just the basics. The only time that I got severe vertigo(stupidly
self-induced in solid IMC)I just automatically focused on the T&B and
used rudder and airspeed/throttle/elevator control exclusively for some
several minutes (eternity-it seemed) until my personal sensations became
slowly in agreement with the instruments.
As far as the T&B versus TC, I mentally just interpret them the same by
viewing the vertical axis of the banked airplane depiction in the TC
as if it were the needle in the T&B. The TC seems more sensitive to
small turn rates than the T&B because it responds to both bank and yaw
changes, but that simply allows you to make small corrections sooner and
usually stop either condition before it can become a larger excursion.
To me that seems to be a positive feature favoring the TC over the T&B,
but doesn't otherwise diminish the more important features you have been
discussing. Your message on the importance of the T&B relative to all
the other instruments when the stuff hits the fan in huge quantities is
DEAD ON (pun intended).
Jim McCulley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Bob,
>
> It is difficult to make a comment without appearing to be one of "those
> who claim to know more about airplanes than we do."
>
> Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to reiterate my position.
>
> I agree that the Mooney system had merit.
>
> I also feel it would be great to have a reliable automatic system that
> could control the aircraft while the human pilot was confused.
>
> As stated before, it is my theory, totally unsupported by any scientific
> evaluation, that we began to experience more and more loss of control
> accidents as we added more and more complication to the cockpit.
>
> When there are a multitude of instruments providing conflicting
> information, it is very difficult to sort out which is correct.
>
> Just for a minute, let's assume that the only flight attitude indicting
> instruments in the cockpit were two T&Bs. One electric and one vacuum
> powered. If one failed, how hard would it be for the pilot to determine
> which one was still working?
>
> Switching paths for a minute, what is really important in those moments
> when the pilot is confused?
>
> I believe the most important thing is to stop the turn.
>
> I agree that leveling the wings will generally stop the turn, but I also
> feel that it is difficult to convince our mind to disregard what our
> senses are telling us and believe the instruments.
>
> If we can just get the turn stopped, we will survive.
>
> Whether the turn is stopped by the pilot using a turn indicator or by an
> "automatic pilot" device is not important.
>
> What is important is STOPPING the turn.
>
> Make no turn and you will survive.
>
> For the reasons I have often stated in the past, I believe it is a lot
> easier to stop the turn using a T&B (NOT a Turn Coordinator, but an old
> fashioned Turn and Bank instrument!) than it is with any other
> instrument now readily available to the aviation community.
>
> I do have some thoughts as to what may be better, but the T&B is readily
> available and twenty hours of good concentrated training will teach
> anyone how to use it well enough that they WILL develop confidence in
> the instrument that will allow them to use it to stop the turn
> regardless of whether or not their brain tells them that the wings are
> level.
>
> Obviously, if we could purchase a component that would save the day
> without the need for any training, that would be ideal.
>
> Meanwhile
> ---- It is a shame that such a simple device is cast aside while we look
> for something better.
>
> 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 6/17/2006 11:00:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
>
> A stand-alone, kilo-buck wing leveler would have been less
> expensive than the standby vacuum pump and could have been
> totally independent of the highly integrated, highly stressed
> components "certified" onto that aircraft and holy-watered by
> those who claim to know more about airplanes than we do.
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: IFR Requirements |
In a message dated 6/18/2006 11:30:04 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mcculleyja@starpower.net writes:
This is old Jim here, with early flight training of the era you
apparently experienced.
I have been reading all the inputs on this list on this instrumentation
subject versus IFR for several years and finally have to come out and
say how correct you are in my view!
Good Morning Old Jim!
Thank you for the very kind words. It is nice to know I am not alone.
Incidentally, when the TC was first invented, we put them in all of our
trainers. It was several years before I developed my dislike for the unit.
If you would be at all interested in my reasoning, let me know and I would
be happy to send you some messages off list that I wrote previously on the
subject.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Do Not Archive
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: RE: IFR Requirements |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:27 AM 6/18/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Good Morning Bob,
>
>It is difficult to make a comment without appearing to be one of "those
>who claim to know more about airplanes than we do."
>
>Nevertheless, I feel duty bound to reiterate my position.
>
>I agree that the Mooney system had merit.
>
>I also feel it would be great to have a reliable automatic system that
>could control the aircraft while the human pilot was confused.
So why should that not be the design goal and
what are the barriers to achieving that goal?
>
>As stated before, it is my theory, totally unsupported by any scientific
>evaluation, that we began to experience more and more loss of control
>accidents as we added more and more complication to the cockpit.
Exactly. N79NL was 'loaded' . . . all the bells and
whistles . . . all expensive and each offered with
the regulator promise and a promotional sales pitch
that "this gizmo can help save your life".
>
>When there are a multitude of instruments providing conflicting
>information, it is very difficult to sort out which is correct.
>
>Just for a minute, let's assume that the only flight attitude indicting
>instruments in the cockpit were two T&Bs. One electric and one vacuum
>powered. If one failed, how hard would it be for the pilot to determine
>which one was still working?
>
>Switching paths for a minute, what is really important in those moments
>when the pilot is confused?
>
>I believe the most important thing is to stop the turn.
>
>I agree that leveling the wings will generally stop the turn, but I also
>feel that it is difficult to convince our mind to disregard what our
>senses are telling us and believe the instruments.
>
>If we can just get the turn stopped, we will survive.
>
>Whether the turn is stopped by the pilot using a turn indicator or by an
>"automatic pilot" device is not important.
>
>What is important is STOPPING the turn.
>
>Make no turn and you will survive.
>
>For the reasons I have often stated in the past, I believe it is a lot
>easier to stop the turn using a T&B (NOT a Turn Coordinator, but an old
>fashioned Turn and Bank instrument!) than it is with any other instrument
>now readily available to the aviation community.
>
>I do have some thoughts as to what may be better, but the T&B is readily
>available and twenty hours of good concentrated training will teach anyone
>how to use it well enough that they WILL develop confidence in the
>instrument that will allow them to use it to stop the turn regardless of
>whether or not their brain tells them that the wings are level.
>
>Obviously, if we could purchase a component that would save the day
>without the need for any training, that would be ideal.
No disagreement here . . . but you're arguing an
alternative design goal. I'm suggesting that
the neophyte pilot in a J-3 with independent
battery operated, GPS aided wing levelers has
a higher order probability of survival in clouds
than the 10,000 hour guy with a loaded panel
when both are presented with a stack of stressors
that instructors neglected to add to the flight
training syllabus.
This is because there are two schools of
thought:
(1) give the pilot plenty of training and useful
visual presentation such that he can
(a) fly the airplane and . . .
(b) recover gracefully if the airplane upsets
irrespective of anticipated hardware
failures or . . .
(2) give the pilot redundant, simple, low cost
hardware that doesn't even offer a presentation.
The goal here is to . . .
(a) don't depend on the pilot for basic
manipulation of controls in IMC and
(b) offer a high order probability that the
airplane never becomes upset in spite of
equipment failure.
We're talking about working further down the
bell-curve for individuals who are skilled and
practiced in venue (1). Just because more owner/
pilots choose to equip themselves for flight
into IMC does not alter their personal position
on the bell-curve for the ultimate limits of
human capabilities under real stress. This is
independent of equipment or training. I'm only
suggesting that a reasoned expansion of the
IMC capable pilot/machine combination is better
served by exploiting what modern electronics
can offer - a means for
(1) reducing probability of upset to near zero
which in turn offers . . .
(2) a calm pilot who is no longer distracted
by a need to stay right side up so that
he/she can make good decisions about which
way the airplane should be pointed.
It serves little purpose to be in total control
of the airplane's attitude and fly into a
mountainside because you're too busy flying
and cannot navigate well.
Single-pilot IFR is a demonstrably high-risk
endeavor. Launching a summer trip across Death Valley
in a 1910 Model T is also demonstrably high-risk.
One can consider the same trip in a new car as
routine. In 1961, I probably could count on at least two
flat tires a year . . . I can't even remember the
last time I had a flat tire. The driver hasn't
changed but the hardware has.
Too much of the way we think about hardware in
airplanes today is rooted in 50 year old ideas
that more hardware with more stringent certification
installed to give a pilot more options had value
as the fledgling electronics industry matured. I'll
suggest that it peaked for return on investment
a couple of decades ago. It's now possible and
practical to virtually eliminate the need for options
and the decision-making work-loads that go with
them. The result is a high order of system reliability
for a fraction of the investment demanded by our
1960's mentality for panel design.
The probability of upset in IMC for airplanes needs
to be pushed as far down the risk scales as we have
for flat tires on cars . . . and for proportionately
fewer dollars than it cost us for tires in 1960.
I'm suggesting that it CAN BE DONE.
>
>Meanwhile
>---- It is a shame that such a simple device is cast aside while we look
>for something better.
Who's casting anything aside? The goal is to make
any decision the builder makes for choice of displays
insignificant with respect to the outcome of a choice
to fly into a cloud. The task is to make it unnecessary
for him to ever need to look, perceive, interpret, and
react appropriately when the gods of weather, machines
and human frailties taunt him with a bad day in the cockpit.
My comment about "those who claim to know more about
airplanes that we do" was referring to the regulators
who's understanding of physics, the art of building and
flying airplanes is in decline. They offset this deficiency
with renewed vigor of promoting old rules while dreaming up
volumes of new ones or more creative ways to implement old
ones. I've just spent about 200 hours of time over the past
year wrestling with an ACO that shall remain unnamed. They
cost a manufacturer tons of money, drove time-to-market up
by a year and ultimately demanded that we do tests and write
reports about those tests that will never be read by anyone.
A year later, we're going to get the STC. None, repeat
none of the discoveries and remedies generated by the
testing will change the reliability or utility of the
product . . . only make it more expensive. But should
this product become a player in an unhappy event aboard
the airplane, it will not happen because of anything that
certification and testing missed. It will happen because
there was either (1) a design flaw or (2) lack of
craftsmanship in manufacture.
The price of tickets to enter aviation's coliseum
are becoming so expensive that the gladiator's are short
on funds to finance the battle once inside. They are also
short of equipment and training when development budgets
are burdened with no-value-added regulatory hat-dancing
are part of the price of admission.
The demonstrable results are that many products making their
way onto airplanes do not meet the owner's expectations
for return on investment in spite of the ceremony and
hazing the manufacturer endured for the privilege of
entering the arena.
This situation is ruthlessly governed by the law of
optimal proportionality. Engines run best when fuel/air
ratios are optimized to stoichiometric proportions.
Food tastes best with the optimal amount of salt. Plants
grow best with the optimal proportioning of many components.
The best loaf of bread is crafted from carefully controlled
proportions and techniques.
Manufacturing will benefit from the artful application
of regulation when it promotes consumer confidence and prevents
the dishonorable and/or incompetent from offering bad product
to an unsuspecting consumer. However, there always comes a time
when adding more of what was a good thing to do become a poison
that destroys.
I have a ring-side seat in the arena of Type Certification where
I am witnessing a slow death by poison of of the craft which has been
my cherished career for over 40 years. The vast majority of my
compatriots in aviation engineering are now occupied with creation
and management of great piles of paper. They never create new
products. They never touch an airplane. They never watch a customer
fly a new airplane away from the field with both the consumer and
suppliers grinning ear to ear knowing that the transaction
just completed was based on the best they know how to do. Walter
would be saddened to see what we've done to his airplane company.
The comment was never appropriate for the skilled and experienced
practitioners. In fact, were I tasked with assembling a team
for designing the next generation of cockpit hardware, I would
seek out folks like yourself who can sift through the simple-
ideas needed to craft the elegant design. Here in the
alternative arena of OBAM aircraft, elegant solutions are
sought out and the laws of optimal proportionality are still
observed. A necessary component of success is the guidance
and counsel of those with experience and understanding.
I am pleased that you choose to share with us sir.
Bob . . .
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Do not archive
Mike,
You have repeated what an experienced 4 engine water bomber pilot, in
the Pacific northwest, told me when I asked him, as a newly minted pilot
in 1980, "What do you do when forced down in a forest?" He said to land
between two trees to shear off the wings to absorb and diminish a lot of
the energy involved in the landing.
I filed that away on my brain's essential bus, hoping that I never have
to access it. However, since I began building my Glasair, with its one
piece wing that would be housing my valuable (at least to me) bottom at
an inhospitable landing site, I have wondered if the aiming between two
solid objects is a prudent idea. From a lay person perspective, the
Glasair wing is built hell-for-stout, and its fuelage anchor points seem
less so, as their function is mainly to keep the wing attached during
negative G. I have visions of landing between two trees still sitting in
the wing and the inertia of the empennage, still moving at 70 kts,
ruining any chance of smugness to which I might be entitled.
Hopefully, I am over estimating the strength of that spar.
Cheers,
John
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements (required vs. good to have) |
Believe me, it works. I was forced to try it out myself a few years back.
Franz
guides@lastfrontierheli.com
www.lastfrontierheli.com
tel: 604 639-8455
fax: 604 639-8456
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
Burnaby
Sent: June 18, 2006 11:25 AM
have)
Do not archive
Mike,
You have repeated what an experienced 4 engine water bomber pilot, in the
Pacific northwest, told me when I asked him, as a newly minted pilot in
1980, "What do you do when forced down in a forest?" He said to land between
two trees to shear off the wings to absorb and diminish a lot of the energy
involved in the landing.
I filed that away on my brain's essential bus, hoping that I never have to
access it. However, since I began building my Glasair, with its one piece
wing that would be housing my valuable (at least to me) bottom at an
inhospitable landing site, I have wondered if the aiming between two solid
objects is a prudent idea. From a lay person perspective, the Glasair wing
is built hell-for-stout, and its fuelage anchor points seem less so, as
their function is mainly to keep the wing attached during negative G. I have
visions of landing between two trees still sitting in the wing and the
inertia of the empennage, still moving at 70 kts, ruining any chance of
smugness to which I might be entitled.
Hopefully, I am over estimating the strength of that spar.
Cheers,
John
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: | Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Bob,
I have been cruising through the archives looking for an answer to this, and
I think I found one but wanted to confirm my conclusion.
I am installing the Lightspeed Plasma II ignition on one side of my
Aerosport Power IO-360-B1B. The instructions say to take the RPM input for
an electric tach off one pin of the 15 pin DB connector with a shielded
wire, and to connect the shield up to another pin of the connector. The
connector is the solder type and I am concerned about being able to solder
even 1 more wire to a pin, let alone the rolled up shielding from the same
wire to another pin. The instructions say to ground the other end of this
shield to the electric tach, which in my case is a Bluemountain EFIS/one. My
conclusion from reading the archives is to just solder a 20 or 22ga wire to
the proper pin and ignore the shielding.
Another question about another part of the same installation: Klaus's
instructions now say to use RG-400 instead of RG-58 coax between the control
unit and the ignition coils, so I started installing a coax connector to one
end of some RG-400. When I crimp the pin with my pin crimper (Paladin
PA1440), it distorts the pin so much it can't be removed from the small
opening in the crimper. The 4 little teeth that come in to the pin from 4
sides come so close together they almost touch, which seems to put way too
much crimp on the pin. The ratcheting mechanism won't release until it is
completely crimped, which is too much. Do I have the wrong crimper? Can I
just crimp the pin with my really old automotive crimper that only indents 1
side?
Thanks. I really appreciate all your help.
Terry
RV-8A
Seattle
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: | Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Never mind the second part of my previous question. I found the part of my
coax crimping tool for crimping the pins. Funny. I swear that wasn't there
an hour ago.
Thanks,
Terry
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: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
ok you guys,
i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a turn
coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:36 PM 6/18/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have been cruising through the archives looking for an answer to this, and
>I think I found one but wanted to confirm my conclusion.
>
>I am installing the Lightspeed Plasma II ignition on one side of my
>Aerosport Power IO-360-B1B. The instructions say to take the RPM input for
>an electric tach off one pin of the 15 pin DB connector with a shielded
>wire, and to connect the shield up to another pin of the connector. The
>connector is the solder type and I am concerned about being able to solder
>even 1 more wire to a pin, let alone the rolled up shielding from the same
>wire to another pin. The instructions say to ground the other end of this
>shield to the electric tach, which in my case is a Bluemountain EFIS/one. My
>conclusion from reading the archives is to just solder a 20 or 22ga wire to
>the proper pin and ignore the shielding.
As you've accurately noted, solder-cups on d-subs are intended for
one and one wire only. Here's how you get bunches of shield ground
into one pin. One also may butt-splice numerous wires into a single
pigtail for soldering to the d-sub. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>Another question about another part of the same installation: Klaus's
>instructions now say to use RG-400 instead of RG-58 coax between the control
>unit and the ignition coils, so I started installing a coax connector to one
>end of some RG-400. When I crimp the pin with my pin crimper (Paladin
>PA1440), it distorts the pin so much it can't be removed from the small
>opening in the crimper. The 4 little teeth that come in to the pin from 4
>sides come so close together they almost touch, which seems to put way too
>much crimp on the pin. The ratcheting mechanism won't release until it is
>completely crimped, which is too much. Do I have the wrong crimper? Can I
>just crimp the pin with my really old automotive crimper that only indents 1
>side?
No, I'd suggest soldering first. Carefully tin the strands
of RG400 . . . and wipe 'clean' so that the diameter of the
stranded layup does not increase. It's usually easier to strip
an extra long center conductor. Tin the strands, then wipe them
while hot with a dry rag. Then cut to desired length with a pair
of flush-cutters (flat side toward cable) for the cleanest finished
cut.
Put a length of solder in the pin's hole where the wire goes. Hold
the pin with needle nose while heating it from the outside and
pressing the solder filled opening to the end of your RG-400 center
conductor. When the solder inside the pin melts, the pin will slip
right onto the wire. Remove heat and let it cool.
Your tool is obviously not matched to the task. Just because the
label says it's good for coax fittings on RG-whatever doesn't insure
success with the connectors you have. I've always encouraged builders
to get their tools and connectors from the same source and only after
they told you that they've been checked for compatibility.
>Thanks. I really appreciate all your help.
My pleasure sir.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
In a message dated 6/18/2006 7:09:28 P.M. Central Standard Time,
icubob@newnorth.net writes:
ok you guys,
i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank indicator and a
turn coordinator. could someone please explain. thanks in advance, bob noffs
Good Evening Bob,
The Turn Coordinator utilizes the same gyroscope that the Turn and Bank uses
but it is mounted at an angle to horizontal.
The T&B has a needle, usually hinged at the bottom, but some old ones were
hinged at the top.
To show a yaw, the needle is displaced to one side or the other a varying
amount that is dependent on the rate of turn.
The TC has a presentation that looks a lot like an attitude indicator, but
it is still a rate instrument, not a displacement or attitude instrument.
The result is that if you roll the instrument, it shows an indication and if
you yaw the instrument, it shows the same indication.
Kinda difficult for me to explain, but if I had a spinning gyroscope, I
could show the TC action quite easily by canting the forward end up. The gyro is
hooked to a bar that looks just like the bar in an attitude indicator, but it
has no pitch information. If you roll or yaw, the little "airplane" shows a
"Bank" type picture.
The history comes from a development by ITT of a low cost autopilot. They
used a standard T&B mounted with the leading edge (the part forward behind the
panel, at about a forty degree angle above the fore and aft axis of the
aircraft. That way, if the airplane was rolled, the instrument thought it was
being yawed. If it yawed, it also thought it was being yawed.
Brittain, Century and a few other manufacturers picked up on the ITT idea
and used a "canted" gyro for their low cost autopilots. S-Tec still uses it.
After a couple of years, somebody got the idea of hooking the canted gyro up
to the little airplane type indicator and using it in place of the standard
turn and bank instrument.
Any help? If you want further information, I would be happy to send more off
list.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Z-16 OV simplification ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi Bob and all,
A buddy homebuilder, who does research in electricity, finds the OV
protection in figure Z-16 somewhat complex, and advocates using a simple
component similar to a Zener to prevent overvoltage.
Any comment or opinion on the pros and cons, or hidden issues ?
Thanks in advance,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
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: ectric-List: |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ok you guys,
> i dont understand the difference between a turn and bank
> indicator and a turn coordinator. could someone please explain.
> thanks in advance, bob noffs
There is a picture along with an explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_coordinator
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: Z-16 OV simplification ? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> A buddy homebuilder, who does research in electricity, finds the OV
> protection in figure Z-16 somewhat complex, and advocates using a simple
> component similar to a Zener to prevent overvoltage.
>
> Any comment or opinion on the pros and cons, or hidden issues ?
Eric sells a device for this purpose:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors.htm
I've got one, but I also have OV protection to
try to cut off the alternator so it doesn't just
keep putting out energy.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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! --
|