---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 06/18/06: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:38:09 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:41:12 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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" >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" > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:28:17 AM PST US From: "J. Mcculley" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:39 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:20:24 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: IFR Requirements --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:00:27 PM PST US From: "John Burnaby" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:55:00 PM PST US From: "Franz" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:50:46 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:05:47 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping Coax pins --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:06:38 PM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:04 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lightspeed & sheilded wires, crimping --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:36 PM 6/18/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:51 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:51 PM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-16 OV simplification ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:57:31 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:25 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-16 OV simplification ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > 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