---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 08/02/06: 41 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:25 AM - Is this solder okay? (Speedy11@aol.com) 2. 03:42 AM - Re: Installation Location of LR3C regulator (bob noffs) 3. 04:35 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Brian Lloyd) 4. 05:57 AM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Kelly McMullen) 5. 06:29 AM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (OldBob Siegfried) 6. 06:31 AM - wig-wag? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 07:22 AM - Re: Z-diagrams moved?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 07:22 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 9. 07:25 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Bob McCallum) 10. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: grounds (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 08:28 AM - Re: Z-diagrams moved?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 08:35 AM - OT-accident over lake MI (rd2@evenlink.com) 13. 09:03 AM - Re: OT-accident over lake MI (Harley) 14. 09:32 AM - 8.33 kHz comms (sportav8r@aol.com) 15. 10:58 AM - avionics ordering tip (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com) 16. 11:49 AM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Don Honabach) 17. 11:50 AM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Kelly McMullen) 18. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Bill Denton) 19. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Dave N6030X) 20. 01:32 PM - MPJA speed control (Ernest Christley) 21. 01:55 PM - Re: OT-accident over lake MI (Kevin Horton) 22. 01:55 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Buckaroo Banzai) 23. 02:22 PM - Re: avionics ordering tip (B Tomm) 24. 02:22 PM - Re: Is this solder okay? (Brian Lloyd) 25. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd) 26. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd) 27. 02:55 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Bill Denton) 28. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (OldBob Siegfried) 29. 03:30 PM - Re: avionics ordering tip (Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com) 30. 03:41 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Dave N6030X) 31. 03:43 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd) 32. 04:00 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Kelly McMullen) 33. 04:20 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Bill Denton) 34. 04:26 PM - Re: Re: avionics ordering tip (Brian Lloyd) 35. 04:51 PM - Re: Re: STC for standby generator on a (Brian Lloyd) 36. 05:06 PM - CB Power Source (Speedy11@aol.com) 37. 05:14 PM - Re: GRT/ SL-40 (Carl Morgan) 38. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: GRT/ SL-40 (Brian Lloyd) 39. 07:51 PM - Re: CB Power Source (FLYaDIVE@aol.com) 40. 08:22 PM - Re: CB Power Source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 41. 10:29 PM - Alternator failure quits engine () ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:25:46 AM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Is this solder okay? I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches and using fastons is not feasible. So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable? Stan Sutterfield ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:42:49 AM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installation Location of LR3C regulator --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" hi tom, several months back i asked the same question and got about the same answer. logic on that one was to keep the capicator forward of the metal firewall and close to the regulator. atleast they are consistant. bob n. ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 11:44 PM > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > At 04:53 AM 8/1/2006 -0700, you wrote: > > >>Have any of you put the B & C regulator on the back side of the firewall >>as suggested on the installation sheet? Lancair mounted mine on the >>front side. They seem to operate just fine no matter where they are. How >>important to longevity is the location? Comments Bob??? or anyone! >>Thanks in advance... > > EVERY manufacturer would like to have you place THEIR product > in the most benign environment possible. But the bottom line is > that short of bolting the LR3 to an engine or exhaust part, > it will be fine on the forward side of the firewall also. > > Of the gazillions of automotive regulators mounted under > the hoods of cars in some of the most stressful environments, > how many manufacturers would stay in business very long if > their particular electro-whizzie was ill-suited to compete? > > > Bob . . . > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > > < the authority which determines whether there can be > > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > > < with experiment. > > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:35:29 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is this solder okay? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:22 AM, Speedy11@aol.com wrote: > I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to > use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using > fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches > and using fastons is not feasible. > So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable? Normally the tin content is listed first and the stuff you want is very close to 60% tin and 40% lead. This is known as 60/40 solder. If what you are looking at is 40/60 you definitely don't want it. The ideal solder for electrical connections is actually 63% tin 37% lead (63/37). This is also known as eutectic solder. It has the characteristic that, as it cools, it goes directly from liquid to solid without passing through a pasty "plastic" phase. I also just found out that it has the highest tensile strength of all the tin/ lead solder alloys. http://www.efunda.com/materials/solders/tin_lead.cfm The top solder manufacturers used to be Kester and Ersin. Kester still seems to be around but I can't find a link to Ersin. http://www.kester.com Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:29 AM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 years. No mention of anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I recall, on anything but the late model planes as a replacement for the standby vacuum pump on late models. The earlier models would require approval for removal of the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric system. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd aircraft to get the > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. I'm certain that by > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system on older airplanes > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or perhaps the limited > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the first to ask, > then go to Mooney Type Clubs. > > Bob . . . > > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X >> >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom would I be paying >> money to, and for what? >> >> Dave Morris >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote: >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen >>> >>> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for early Mooneys. The >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum pump pad. Unless one has >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a fortune getting it approved. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > > Bob . . . > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > > < the authority which determines whether there can be > > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > > < with experiment. > > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:29:05 AM PST US From: OldBob Siegfried Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried Good Morning Kelly, Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is required is a log book entry that the pump and associated plumbing was removed. You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is not listed as required, get rid of it! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Stearman N3977A --- Kelly McMullen wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly > McMullen > > I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 > years. No mention of > anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I > recall, on anything but > the late model planes as a replacement for the > standby vacuum pump on > late models. The earlier models would require > approval for removal of > the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric > system. > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert > L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd > aircraft to get the > > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. > I'm certain that by > > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system > on older airplanes > > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or > perhaps the limited > > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the > first to ask, > > then go to Mooney Type Clubs. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: > > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave > N6030X > >> > >> > >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom > would I be paying > >> money to, and for what? > >> > >> Dave Morris > >> > >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote: > >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly > McMullen > >>> > >>> > >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for > early Mooneys. The > >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum > pump pad. Unless one has > >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a > fortune getting it approved. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > < What is so wonderful about scientific > truth...is that > > > < the authority which determines whether > there can be > > > < debate or not does not reside in some > fraternity of > > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority > rests > > > < with experiment. > > > > < --Lawrence M. > Krauss > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > http://wiki.matronics.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:31:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: wig-wag? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Comments/Questions: Bob, I have an uninformed question: What is the Wig Wag flasher system? I have looked at all the details of it from the B & C site, and the only thing missing is, What does it do? I am looking for a strobe light system that does not cost megabucks. Is the Wig Wag system supposed to replace a strobe system? Thanks. No, "wig-wag" is the street name for Alternating Forward Looking Aircraft Recognition System. It needs two lights, typically landing lights or landing/taxi lights that are operated like railroad crossing "wig-wag" lights. This can greatly enhance the aircraft's visibility while viewing from the front in reduced visibility conditions. I have your Rotax 912 wiring system installed now for 100 hours completely trouble free. What a delight! I'm pleased that it's working well for you. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------- ( Experience and common sense cannot be ) ( replaced with policy and procedures. ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:41 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-diagrams moved?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf >There's a link on this page: > >http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html > >This one: > >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf > > >Regards, > >Matt- > > > Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken? > > > > I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another > > fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-) > > > > Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs. > > > > -Bill B > > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:41 AM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is this solder okay? > I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to > use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using > fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches > and using fastons is not feasible. > So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable? ================================================================= Stan: 40/60 NO! But, I think you have the numbers mixed up, it is probably 60/40. If it is 60/40 that is acceptable but not the best. See if you can find 63/37 it is know as Eutectic Solder. It does a great job especially at low soldering temperatures. No need to burn the wire or damage the components. The solder thickness is OK but again not the best, see if you can find .063" For electronic work thin solder is better since it requires less heat and time duration to melt. Also it fits into many a small solder pin connector. As for the Flux ... Does it say anything such as NA or RMA or RA? Here is where longevity of the connection is concerned. The abbreviations stand for: NA = Non-Activated, RMA = Rosin Mildly Activated and RA = Rosin Activated. The ACTIVATED part is ACID or how corrosive the flux is. Most Rosin is of the RMA type and works quite well. As with ALL solder joints make sure you finish by cleaning the joint with isopropyl alcohol, use a soft toothbrush. Failure to do so will bring about corrosion. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:25:03 AM PST US From: "Bob McCallum" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is this solder okay? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob McCallum" Hi Brian; ----- Original Message ----- - snip- > The ideal solder for electrical connections is actually 63% tin 37% > lead (63/37). This is also known as eutectic solder. It has the > characteristic that, as it cools, it goes directly from liquid to > solid without passing through a pasty "plastic" phase. I also just > found out that it has the highest tensile strength of all the tin/ > lead solder alloys. -snip- > The top solder manufacturers used to be Kester and Ersin. Kester > still seems to be around but I can't find a link to Ersin. Ersin is now Multicore (a former Ersin trademark) and are now a part of the Henkel / Loctite group of companies. http://www.multicore.com/ Bob McC ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: grounds --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:51 AM 7/28/2006 -0400, you wrote: >In a message dated 7/28/2006 9:31:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, >nuckollsr@cox.net writes: > > The threads will contact to the metal part of the nut just fine. I > > don't know of any problem of conduction through the platenut. I just > > prefer the nut and washer. YMMV > > Threads of a fastener have almost nothing to do with > conductivity of the joint. 99% happens at the surface > of a terminal held in contact with the surface opposite > the nut. To attach a wire to a surface of the airplane, > you'd be just fine with CERAMIC fasteners as long as > the goal of bringing the two critical surfaces togehter > has been achieved. > >Bob, > >I see your point, but it would be pretty hard to prove where the electrons >actually go. Not at all difficult. Let's noodle this out a bit. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/Bolted_Joint_Resistances.gif the goal is to herd electrons from terminal to the surface of some other conductor . . . like a fire wall surface or perhaps a contactor stud . . . what ever. The resistance in terminal/post joint "B" is where we concentrate on quality by means of pressure for gas-tightness and longevity by keeping contaminants out. This is resistance Rb on the diagram and the majority current flow path. There's an alternate path that runs through Ra (stud/thread) + Re (nut/thread) + Rd (nut/washer) + Rc (washer/terminal) all in series. I think it's obvious that depending on the alternate conduction path to become the majority path because of poor preparation or maintenance of path Rb is exceedingly risky. >Lets say that the relatively large surface area of the terminal and the >stainless firewall caused the pressure to be too small to punch through >the oxide coating of the stainless steel. Then the path would have to be >from the terminal, through the bolt, to the threads, to the nut (self >locking by the way), to the washer and finally to the aluminum. This is a surface preparation issue. If the Rb joint isn't ready to be bolted up and the proper pressures applied from the get-go, then the ship has left the dock an we weren't on it. You will note that when the single-point ground system philosophy as described in the 'Connection is implemented with hardware equal to that supplied by B&C then there are no electrical joints (other than the few low-risk items cited earlier) made to stainless. Engine mounts and fire walls have specific tasks in the design of airplanes that do not include being major current paths for electrical systems. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:28:45 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-diagrams moved?? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Too fast on the keyboard . . . got 'sent' before I was finished. -------------------------------------------------------------- Here's an earlier post on the subject of PM starter "run-on" -------------------------------------------------------------- >I have a problem I need advice on. My electrical system is from an older >version of Bob's drawings but fits the current Z-11 drawing pretty closely >with a Z-22 substitution for the way I wire the starter run on relay. I >need to replace the S704-1 relay which has gone bad. Can I use a standard >starter contactor in place of the smaller lighter relay? It seems that >the wiring logic should be the same regardless of whether the smaller or >larger relay is used. >Thanks in advance. Looking over Z-22, I see that I've stubbed my toe. In the article on spike catcher diodes: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf I alluded to the first issue of an AD against the ACS510 genere' of off-l-r-both-start key switches wherein the FAA took note of EXTRAORDINARY energy dump from modern light weight replacement starter solenoid/contactors. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/strtctr.pdf Seems the coil de-energizing spike was eating up starter control contacts in the switches (just like it did in cars! . . . funny thing about that physics stuff . . . same rules apply everywhere). The first issue of the AD put a spike catcher diode in the wrong place . . . but was modified some time later to correct the error. Then came along a new characteristic in modern, light-weight replacement starters. Efforts to reduce starter push button wear with an add-on starter contactor (a la Z-11 and B&C recommendations), we noted that the back-emf generated during spin-down of a PM starter would cause a delayed retraction of the starter's pinon gear when the push button was released. We STILL didn't want to run full contactor coil current through the panel control so a heavy-duty (30A) relay was suggested and described in Z-22. However, making the relay a "heavy duty" device did NOT alleviate the need for spike suppression at the contacts. The heavy duty relay was just as vulnerable to damage from stored energy as the off-l-r-both-start key switch. However, while concentrating on the run-on issue, I overlooked the need for a spike catcher. I've updated Z-22 and published it in the Page-Per-System drawings at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Engine/Starter/PM_Starter_w_RunOn_Relay.pdf Here's a good example of how the diode bridge rectifier assembly can be used to good electrical and mechanical advantage. I show two of the four didoes used to suppress the spike out of the starter contactor -AND- the relay coil. Further, the mechanical characteristics of this part give us good places to bring pairs of wires into the same terminal as tie points. You COULD replace the S704 with a HEAVIER duty still device like a starter contactor, but it's not necessary. Try the NEW Z-22 and see what it does for you. Bob . . . >>There's a link on this page: >> >>http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html >> >>This one: >> >>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Matt- >> >> > Can't find 'em online anymore... link broken? >> > >> > I'm trying to have a discussion about PM starter run-on with another >> > fellow, and it's hard if I can't cite my sources ;-) >> > >> > Thanks for any pointers to the reference docs. >> > >> > -Bill B >> > ________________________________________________________________________ >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> >>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > > Bob . . . > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > > < the authority which determines whether there can be > > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > > < with experiment. > > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:35:02 AM PST US From: rd2@evenlink.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT-accident over lake MI --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back from OSH http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150 .story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed Rumen do not archive ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:03:48 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OT-accident over lake MI http://tinyurl.com/lmpw9 Harley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ rd2@evenlink.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > > Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back from OSH > > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150 > .story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed > > Rumen > do not archive > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:38 AM PST US From: sportav8r@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 8.33 kHz comms I've been planning on a garmin SL-30 nav/comm for a future panel upgrade, but Garmin tech support today just confirmed a fear of mine: they have no plans to make either the SL-30 or SL-40 compatible with the new tighter spacing. I suppose one option is to plan on upgrading comm2 to 8.33kHz when needed and leaving the SL-30 as-is. Anyone know when the new channelization is going to become mandatory in the US? I hear it's coming, someday. What are some good options for current production nav-comms that offer this feature already? I don't need a gps/nav/comm unit since I plan to run GRT's gps as a stand-alone IFR unit, so the 430, 530, 480 are all too much radio for my needs. Thanks. -Bill B. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:58:55 AM PST US From: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: avionics ordering tip --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com Here is a small tip for those of you considering ordering a GRT EFIS along with Garmin avionics from Stark Avionics. For a small fee, Stark provided the wiring harnesses for my SL-40 comm, GTX-327 transponder, and PS Engineering intercom with lead lengths I specified. They did a nice neat job and I was glad I did it. However, what I didnt realize at the time was that the EFIS and SL-40 can talk to each other using serial input and output so that multiple airport frequencies can be automatically loaded into the comm for easy access. To do this, you will need to specifically request from Stark that the harness for the comm include the serial input and output pins. Otherwise, if you want to make use of this feature, you will have to undo Starks nice neat job and add the wire leads in yourself. Similarly, as desired, the EFIS can automatically switch the transponder from standby to on when it determines your flight has begun, but this requires an additional serial input lead to the transponder, which also must be specifically requested to be included in the harness. You can obviously do this all yourself after the fact, but if you are having Stark do the harnesses anyway, why mess up his nice neat job and re-do it? The above probably also applies to other EFIS brands, and possibly other avionics vendors, but I have no experience with those. regards, Erich Weaver ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:20 AM PST US From: "Don Honabach" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Is this solder okay? For larger diameter solder and switch work, you probably won't need this, but it's helpful if you are working with small diameter solder (which has limited amounts of flux) or doing any sort of PCB re-work. I keep a small bottle of Flux at my bench and will add a small amount to the joint/connection in some cases - mostly when doing de-soldering or if I need to 're-wet' a joint to remove or add a component. The only catch is that you absolutely must clean up the joint with a cleaner afterwards to get rid of the acid left over. However, it does seem to really help in those cases where the solder doesn't have enough flux or you need to de-solder/re-solder a joint. Regards, Don ________________________________ [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 7:17 AM > I'm wondering if common auto parts store solder is acceptable to > use for connecting airplane wires. Yes, I know about using > fastons. The soldering I need to do is on small rotary switches > and using fastons is not feasible. > So, is Rosin Flux Core 3/32" 40/60 tin-lead acceptable? ========================= ========================= =============== Stan: 40/60 NO! But, I think you have the numbers mixed up, it is probably 60/40. If it is 60/40 that is acceptable but not the best. See if you can find 63/37 it is know as Eutectic Solder. It does a great job especially at low soldering temperatures. No need to burn the wire or damage the components. The solder thickness is OK but again not the best, see if you can find .063" For electronic work thin solder is better since it requires less heat and time duration to melt. Also it fits into many a small solder pin connector. As for the Flux ... Does it say anything such as NA or RMA or RA? Here is where longevity of the connection is concerned. The abbreviations stand for: NA = Non-Activated, RMA = Rosin Mildly Activated and RA = Rosin Activated. The ACTIVATED part is ACID or how corrosive the flux is. Most Rosin is of the RMA type and works quite well. As with ALL solder joints make sure you finish by cleaning the joint with isopropyl alcohol, use a soft toothbrush. Failure to do so will bring about corrosion. Barry "Chop'd Liver" ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 11:50:23 AM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75 models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment. AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000 panels came out. I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B, than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both easier and cheaper. Quoting OldBob Siegfried : > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried > > > Good Morning Kelly, > > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is > required is a log book entry that the pump and > associated plumbing was removed. > > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is > not listed as required, get rid of it! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Stearman N3977A > > --- Kelly McMullen wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly >> McMullen >> >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 >> years. No mention of >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I >> recall, on anything but >> the late model planes as a replacement for the >> standby vacuum pump on >> late models. The earlier models would require >> approval for removal of >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric >> system. >> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert >> L. Nuckolls, III" >> > >> > >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd >> aircraft to get the >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. >> I'm certain that by >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system >> on older airplanes >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or >> perhaps the limited >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the >> first to ask, >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs. >> > >> > Bob . . . >> > >> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave >> N6030X >> >> >> >> >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom >> would I be paying >> >> money to, and for what? >> >> >> >> Dave Morris >> >> >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote: >> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly >> McMullen >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for >> early Mooneys. The >> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum >> pump pad. Unless one has >> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a >> fortune getting it approved. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> > >> > >> > Bob . . . >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- >> > < What is so wonderful about scientific >> truth...is that > >> > < the authority which determines whether >> there can be > >> > < debate or not does not reside in some >> fraternity of > >> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority >> rests > >> > < with experiment. >> > >> > < --Lawrence M. >> Krauss > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> > http://wiki.matronics.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> browse >> Subscriptions page, >> FAQ, >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> >> >> Admin. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:17:36 PM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything? -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75 models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment. AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000 panels came out. I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B, than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both easier and cheaper. Quoting OldBob Siegfried : > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried > > > Good Morning Kelly, > > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is > required is a log book entry that the pump and > associated plumbing was removed. > > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is > not listed as required, get rid of it! > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Stearman N3977A > > --- Kelly McMullen wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly >> McMullen >> >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 >> years. No mention of >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I >> recall, on anything but >> the late model planes as a replacement for the >> standby vacuum pump on >> late models. The earlier models would require >> approval for removal of >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric >> system. >> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert >> L. Nuckolls, III" >> > >> > >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd >> aircraft to get the >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. >> I'm certain that by >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system >> on older airplanes >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or >> perhaps the limited >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the >> first to ask, >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs. >> > >> > Bob . . . >> > >> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave >> N6030X >> >> >> >> >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom >> would I be paying >> >> money to, and for what? >> >> >> >> Dave Morris >> >> >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote: >> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly >> McMullen >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for >> early Mooneys. The >> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum >> pump pad. Unless one has >> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a >> fortune getting it approved. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> > >> > >> > Bob . . . >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- >> > < What is so wonderful about scientific >> truth...is that > >> > < the authority which determines whether >> there can be > >> > < debate or not does not reside in some >> fraternity of > >> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority >> rests > >> > < with experiment. >> > >> > < --Lawrence M. >> Krauss > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> > http://wiki.matronics.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> browse >> Subscriptions page, >> FAQ, >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >> >> >> Admin. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 12:43:28 PM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in the event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the backup alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery would be easier to manage. Dave Morris At 02:13 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the >vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything? > > >-----Original Message----- >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly >McMullen >Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > >Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75 >models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was >standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be >questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all >sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment. >AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all >electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000 >panels came out. >I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like >Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B, >than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both >easier and cheaper. > >Quoting OldBob Siegfried : > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried > > > > > > Good Morning Kelly, > > > > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove > > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to > > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already > > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is > > required is a log book entry that the pump and > > associated plumbing was removed. > > > > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is > > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is > > not listed as required, get rid of it! > > > > Happy Skies, > > > > Old Bob > > AKA > > Bob Siegfried > > Stearman N3977A > > > > --- Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly > >> McMullen > >> > >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 > >> years. No mention of > >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I > >> recall, on anything but > >> the late model planes as a replacement for the > >> standby vacuum pump on > >> late models. The earlier models would require > >> approval for removal of > >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric > >> system. > >> > >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert > >> L. Nuckolls, III" > >> > > >> > > >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd > >> aircraft to get the > >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. > >> I'm certain that by > >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system > >> on older airplanes > >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or > >> perhaps the limited > >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the > >> first to ask, > >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs. > >> > > >> > Bob . . . > >> > > >> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: > >> > > >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave > >> N6030X > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom > >> would I be paying > >> >> money to, and for what? > >> >> > >> >> Dave Morris > >> >> > >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote: > >> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly > >> McMullen > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for > >> early Mooneys. The > >> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum > >> pump pad. Unless one has > >> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a > >> fortune getting it approved. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> > > >> > > >> > Bob . . . > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > < What is so wonderful about scientific > >> truth...is that > > >> > < the authority which determines whether > >> there can be > > >> > < debate or not does not reside in some > >> fraternity of > > >> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority > >> rests > > >> > < with experiment. > >> > > >> > < --Lawrence M. > >> Krauss > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > >> > http://wiki.matronics.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> browse > >> Subscriptions page, > >> FAQ, > >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > >> > >> > >> Admin. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 01:32:13 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: AeroElectric-List: MPJA speed control --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley I read of the MPJA DC motor speed controller kit being used as a light dimmer, so I ordered me one. Had it together in an afternoon and breadboarded up some LEDs to give it a test. I have access to a scope to check what it's doing, but haven't had time to go by Mark's shop yet. So far, I find the light flickers visibly, and there is only a very small change in the brightness as the adjustment knob is turned. Has anyone else attempted to use this device to control the brightness of LEDs, and if so, how successful were you? -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org | ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 01:55:57 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OT-accident over lake MI --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton On 2 Aug 2006, at 11:31, rd2@evenlink.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com > > Anybody knew these guys? - apparently they were on their way back > from OSH > > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/north/ > chi-0607310170jul31,1,7303150 > .story?coll=chi-newslocalnorth-hed The FAA accident list: http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/ has a bit more info: http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/ events01/media/01_848LC.txt It was an American Legend AL11, which is a Piper Cub "clone". Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:55:57 PM PST US From: Buckaroo Banzai Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a Here's a link to the FAA's site for Type Certificate Data Sheets if anyone wants to do the research: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGMAKEMODEL.NSF/MAINFRAMENETSCAPE4X?OpenFrameSet Greg Dave N6030X wrote: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in the event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the backup alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery would be easier to manage. Dave Morris At 02:13 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > >Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and leave the >vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything? > > >-----Original Message----- >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly >McMullen >Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:49 PM > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > >Bob, I couldn't tell you about the pre-1965 models, but on the '65-75 >models it was required to operate the wing leveler, which was >standard, not optional, equipment. I suspect that it would be >questionable on the later 4-cyl Lycoming models because they were all >sold as IFR certified, with standard IFR equipment. >AFAIK, the Porsche powered model was the 1st Mooney to be all >electric, and probably the only model until the GX series with G1000 >panels came out. >I still think it is a whole lot simpler to install an electric AI like >Sporty's, either as additional instrument, or as replacement for T&B, >than to screw with changing whole systems in a certified plane. Both >easier and cheaper. > >Quoting OldBob Siegfried : > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried > > > > > > Good Morning Kelly, > > > > Are you sure about having to get "approval" to remove > > that vacuum pump? I agree that you need approval to > > add the standby alternator, (Though B&C may already > > have it STC'd) but on the Bonanza, all that is > > required is a log book entry that the pump and > > associated plumbing was removed. > > > > You might check the Mooney TCDSs to see if the pump is > > listed as required or as optional equipment. If it is > > not listed as required, get rid of it! > > > > Happy Skies, > > > > Old Bob > > AKA > > Bob Siegfried > > Stearman N3977A > > > > --- Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly > >> McMullen > >> > >> I've been on the Mooney email list for the last 8 > >> years. No mention of > >> anyone retrofitting a standby alternator that I > >> recall, on anything but > >> the late model planes as a replacement for the > >> standby vacuum pump on > >> late models. The earlier models would require > >> approval for removal of > >> the vacuum pump and installation of a dual electric > >> system. > >> > >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert > >> L. Nuckolls, III" > >> > > >> > > >> > Talk to B&C. The Mooney's were the first TC'd > >> aircraft to get the > >> > SD-20 style alternator on a production aircraft. > >> I'm certain that by > >> > now MANY Mooney owners have installed this system > >> on older airplanes > >> > under a one-time field approval (Form 337 or > >> perhaps the limited > >> > applicability STC). If anyone knows, they'd be the > >> first to ask, > >> > then go to Mooney Type Clubs. > >> > > >> > Bob . . . > >> > > >> > At 02:11 PM 7/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: > >> > > >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave > >> N6030X > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> What do you mean it would cost a fortune? Whom > >> would I be paying > >> >> money to, and for what? > >> >> > >> >> Dave Morris > >> >> > >> >> At 09:48 PM 7/30/2006, you wrote: > >> >>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly > >> McMullen > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> AFAIK, no one has STC'd a standby alternator for > >> early Mooneys. The > >> >>> only place to put one would be on the vacuum > >> pump pad. Unless one has > >> >>> been STC'd for the O-360, you would spend a > >> fortune getting it approved. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > >> >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > >> > > >> > > >> > Bob . . . > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > < What is so wonderful about scientific > >> truth...is that > > >> > < the authority which determines whether > >> there can be > > >> > < debate or not does not reside in some > >> fraternity of > > >> > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority > >> rests > > >> > < with experiment. > >> > > >> > < --Lawrence M. > >> Krauss > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > >> > http://wiki.matronics.com > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> browse > >> Subscriptions page, > >> FAQ, > >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > >> > >> > >> Admin. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- See the all-new, redesigned Yahoo.com. Check it out. ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 02:22:49 PM PST US From: "B Tomm" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: avionics ordering tip --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" I have the understanding that the SL30 is remote tuneable but not the Sl40. Can you confirm that you are using the GRT Efis to tune the SL40. Thanks Bevan -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 10:53 AM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com Here is a small tip for those of you considering ordering a GRT EFIS along with Garmin avionics from Stark Avionics. For a small fee, Stark provided the wiring harnesses for my SL-40 comm, GTX-327 transponder, and PS Engineering intercom with lead lengths I specified. They did a nice neat job and I was glad I did it. However, what I didnt realize at the time was that the EFIS and SL-40 can talk to each other using serial input and output so that multiple airport frequencies can be automatically loaded into the comm for easy access. To do this, you will need to specifically request from Stark that the harness for the comm include the serial input and output pins. Otherwise, if you want to make use of this feature, you will have to undo Starks nice neat job and add the wire leads in yourself. Similarly, as desired, the EFIS can automatically switch the transponder from standby to on when it determines your flight has begun, but this requires an additional serial input lead to the transponder, which also must be specifically requested to be included in the harness. You can obviously do this all yourself after the fact, but if you are having Stark do the harnesses anyway, why mess up his nice neat job and re-do it? The above probably also applies to other EFIS brands, and possibly other avionics vendors, but I have no experience with those. regards, Erich Weaver ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 02:22:49 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is this solder okay? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 2:44 PM, Don Honabach wrote: > For larger diameter solder and switch work, you probably wont need > this, but its helpful if you are working with small diameter > solder (which has limited amounts of flux) or doing any sort of PCB > re-work. I keep a small bottle of Flux at my bench and will add a > small amount to the joint/connection in some cases mostly when > doing de-soldering or if I need to re-wet a joint to remove or > add a component. The only catch is that you absolutely must clean > up the joint with a cleaner afterwards to get rid of the acid left > over. However, it does seem to really help in those cases where the > solder doesnt have enough flux or you need to de-solder/re-solder > a joint. Rosin flux is all you should ever use on electrical connections. It is not acid. While not particularly pretty, it will do no damage to your circuitry if you leave it on there. If you are using acid flux, stop. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:32:32 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Dave N6030X wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > > > The downside to that is that you've got an all-electric airplane > then, with no vacuum backup, and only the battery to save you in > the event of an alternator failure. That's what I was hoping the > backup alternator would solve. Although maybe a second battery > would be easier to manage. The problem with vacuum power is that, if you lose your vacuum source, all your vacuum-driven devices go away. Providing backup power for your vacuum devices is a challenge. Also, your vacuum system has several single-points of failure, among them: 1. vacuum pump, 2. vacuum lines, 3. vacuum regulator. If any of those fail you lose your vacuum system. If you have a properly designed electrical system you will have no single point of failure for electrical power. If the alternator fails your battery will continue to power your instruments. If you are worried about that, install a dynamo or alternator on the vacuum pump pad and now you have three power sources for your gyro instruments, i.e. alternator, backup alternator, and then battery if both alternators fail. And not only will that power your gyros but it will provide backup power for other electrical devices, like navigational instruments and radios. And as for wiring, if your vacuum hose to one gyro fails you will lose the vacuum to the other gyro(s). If the wire fails to one gyro, the others run just fine. We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses electrically-powered gyros. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:36:55 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and > leave the > vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything? We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop working at once. Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going to want FAA buy- in. They are going to want to see the following: 1. no single point of failure; 2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator better); 3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not affect the others. Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:04 PM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" I was thinking more of staying in compliance with the Type Certificate... -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian Lloyd Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:35 PM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and > leave the > vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything? We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop working at once. Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going to want FAA buy- in. They are going to want to see the following: 1. no single point of failure; 2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator better); 3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not affect the others. Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 03:24:17 PM PST US From: OldBob Siegfried Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried Good Evening Bill, Brian and All, I note that Brian has stated that the FAA would like us to have redundancy of power for our instruments used for inflight reference. It is true that they are requiring redundancy for newly certificated flying machines and for anyone who wants to replace a turn coordinator or turn and bank with an attitude gyro, but the basic FARs do NOT require that we have any redundancy at all for our older certificated flying machines. It is up to us to decide just how much risk we wish to take. We can still fly with only one engine, one alternator, one radio, one pilot and one power source for our instruments! The choice of redundant systems is up to us. I think that is the way it should be and I do not feel that the FAA's recent foray into mandating redundancy has improved safety at all. Once they designate what we must have for redundancy of flight instruments, how much longer will it be before they try to tell us under what conditions we can fly single pilot? How long will it take them to require an autopilot? When will they decide we need two engines at night or over water? All of those ideas have merit, but statistics do not support the need. Back to the FAA ideas of redundancy. By the time they decide something meets their interpretation of redundancy, there are many forms of redundancy available that are far superior to the devices finally approved by the FEDs. The beauty of the way it was is that we had almost as much flexibility to evaluate risk for our certificated airplanes as do those folks who build and fly OBAM aircraft. Lets not add difficulties beyond those that the FAA has already foisted upon us. Happy Skies, Old Bob Stearman N3977A --- Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill > Denton" > > I was thinking more of staying in compliance with > the Type Certificate... > > -----Original Message----- > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On > Behalf Of Brian > Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:35 PM > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > > > On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill > Denton" > > > > > > Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI > and DG, and > > leave the > > vacuum system in place, but not connected to > anything? > > We can talk about the details but let's look at the > spirit of the > thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power > sources for the > gyros so that no single failure will cause all the > gyros to stop > working at once. > > Since it is a type certified airplane, you are going > to want FAA buy- > in. They are going to want to see the following: > > 1. no single point of failure; > 2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, > second alternator > better); > 3. justification for a claim that a failure to one > gyro will not > affect the others. > > Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in > your TC aircraft. > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline > Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 > (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny > of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 03:30:17 PM PST US From: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: avionics ordering tip --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com Bevan: I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40 myself yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose and have had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it, but admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and SL-30 capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number call-outs in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that. You should be able to easily confirm what Im saying on your own if it is influencing a purchase decision regards Erich Weaver ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 03:41:11 PM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X Thanks to all of you who have commented, some also privately. I'm just a rebel who spends most of his time outside the box. Dave Morris At 04:35 PM 8/2/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > >On Aug 2, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" >> >> >>Would it be possible to just put in an electric AI and DG, and >>leave the >>vacuum system in place, but not connected to anything? > >We can talk about the details but let's look at the spirit of the >thing. The FAA wants to see that there are two power sources for the >gyros so that no single failure will cause all the gyros to stop >working at once. > >Since it is a type certified airplane, you are >going to want FAA buy- in. They are going to want to see the following: > >1. no single point of failure; >2. a second source of power (battery probably OK, second alternator >better); >3. justification for a claim that a failure to one gyro will not >affect the others. > >Keep that in mind when crafting a system to put in your TC aircraft. > >Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way >brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 >+1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > >I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:03 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 5:52 PM, Bill Denton wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" > > > I was thinking more of staying in compliance with the Type > Certificate... Old Bob made a good point. Many of these aircraft were certified without gyro instruments and the regs covering IFR instrumentation are pretty loose. You should be able to drop in an electric AI. But the points I made were correct. The FAA (and you if you aren't stupid) want to see that there is no way that all your gyros can fail at the same time. They want to not have to bother with yet more "wrecked airplane, dead pilot, dead passengers, new lawsuit" paperwork. So rather than argue the number of angels needed to keep your vacuum pump running, talk to the FSDO and get started on a 337 for a well- designed electrical source for your all-electric gyros. There are still some not-stupids at the FAA who will help you do what you want. So just remember, the goal is a system that is more reliable and will be less likely to fail when you need it most. And if it does fail, it fails softly, i.e. without the wholesale loss of big chunks of your gyro panel. So don't argue, think. This is not rocket science. This is common sense. If you can really show the FAA guys (the smart ones - work on finding the smart ones) that you have a better way, they will probably go along with you and grant their blessings. And a Mooney that has the old vacuum-powered wing leveler will probably have to keep that vacuum-powered wing leveler as it was specifically part of the TC. But that doesn't preclude making things better for everything else. Heck, my 1960 Comanche has an e-bus with a second battery. There were no hassles getting that approved. Work on it. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 04:00:28 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to each gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery will be available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a single point of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any place one system interconnects with the other is also a single point of failure that can take out both systems. Smoke from the electrical system will have you killing all electrics. Now where are you??? Turn system back on and risk cockpit fire? I don't think so. Truly independent...AI on one system, DG and TC on the other? You still lose pitch if that side fails. Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe. About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, if they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only real point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum and one electric AI you will have far better redundancy and reliability than all electric. Quoting Brian Lloyd : > We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system > that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses > electrically-powered gyros. > > ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:07 PM PST US From: "Bill Denton" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" Again allow me to point out that the Sporty's and the Mid-Continent "backup" attitude indicators have an internal battery backup; they can operate without any ship's power whatsoever. And while they were originally designed for backup purposes, couldn't they also be used in place of the primary attitude indicators in cases where an electric unit is permitted? -----Original Message----- [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:58 PM --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to each gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery will be available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a single point of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any place one system interconnects with the other is also a single point of failure that can take out both systems. Smoke from the electrical system will have you killing all electrics. Now where are you??? Turn system back on and risk cockpit fire? I don't think so. Truly independent...AI on one system, DG and TC on the other? You still lose pitch if that side fails. Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe. About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, if they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only real point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum and one electric AI you will have far better redundancy and reliability than all electric. Quoting Brian Lloyd : > We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system > that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses > electrically-powered gyros. > > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:17 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: avionics ordering tip --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com > > > Bevan: > > I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40 > myself > yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose > and have > had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on > this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it, > but > admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and > SL-30 > capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number > call-outs > in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by > including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that. The comm section of the SL-30 and SL-40 are identical. If you open up an SL-40 you will find it half empty -- the half that would otherwise hold the nav section of the SL-30 or the GPS section of the SL-60. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 04:51:03 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: STC for standby generator on a --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:58 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen > > > You ASSUME two totally separate electrical systems available to > each gyro, which is a physical impossiblity, and that the battery > will be available if that fails. Each master switch you have is a > single point of failure, as well as the relay it operates. Any > place one system interconnects with the other is also a single > point of failure that can take out both systems. Smoke from the > electrical system will have you killing all electrics. Now where > are you??? Turn system back on and risk cockpit fire? I don't think > so. Truly independent...AI on one system, DG and TC on the other? > You still lose pitch if that side fails. > Vacuum regulators fail about 0.5 times in the life of an airframe. > About the most reliable mechanical device on the airframe. Hoses, > if they are replaced with the pump never fail. Pumps are your only > real point of failure. If you equip the aircraft with one vacuum > and one electric AI you will have far better redundancy and > reliability than all electric. > Quoting Brian Lloyd : > >> We could go on and on here but there is just no way to make a system >> that uses vacuum-powered gyros as reliable as a system that uses >> electrically-powered gyros. I see we have reached an impasse. Clearly you have not worked with electrical systems nor have you read Bob's book. But I will address your point about switches. Yes if the battery master switch fails and/or the battery contactor fails, you lose the main bus. That is why there is a second path from the battery to your e-bus which drives your gyros. You can feed the e-bus from either the main bus or the battery directly. You would now need a chain of failures to cause your gyros to go away. The e-bus is simplicity itself. In my Comanche it started out as an avionics bus but became the e-bus by virtue of adding a second battery, a separate charging path from primary battery to backup battery, a separate path from backup battery to e-bus, and separate circuits from e-bus to each load, each with its own current limiter. It even has a backup switch to connect to the e-bus to the main bus should the main switch fail. (I didn't want to add that but the FAA wanted it and it was cheaper and faster to add it than to argue. What's the cost of one switch and two wires.) A failure of a single circuit causes that current limiter to open and protect the wiring for that circuit without taking out everything else. The only common point is the e-bus itself and that was just a piece of bus bar. I trust a piece of bus bar a lot more than I trust a vacuum pump. As a suggestion, perhaps you ought to look at the current crop of airlines plying our skies. I think that, no matter how hard you look, you won't find a single vacuum pump or air-driven gyro in the lot. That might suggest something to you. But you are sold on having a vacuum pump. More power to you. I have owned many, many airplanes and my experience is that the vacuum pump and its related components were less reliable than electrical systems. That is my experience. When I finish restoring my Nanchang CJ6A there will be no air-powered gyros in it. When I build my F1 Rocket there will be no vacuum pumps and no air-powered gyros. I am willing to bet my life on an all-electric panel in hard IFR. You should do what makes you most comfortable. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 05:06:20 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: CB Power Source I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system. I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of the CBs. However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed to remove only one CB. SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide power to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load. Has anyone done that? Any issues? Stan Sutterfield ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 05:14:57 PM PST US From: "Carl Morgan" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: GRT/ SL-40 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Carl Morgan" Hi, Although the inners may be identical (I don't know), I'm fairly sure there were some protocol differences between the SL-30 and SL-40. The SL-40 is now a specific option on the GRT EFIS and AFAIK it provides functional control the same as SL-30. I think the SL-30/SL-40 differences information was via the GRT yahoo group Carl -- ZK-VII - RV 7A QB - finishing? - New Zealand http://www.rvproject.gen.nz/ > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian > Lloyd > Sent: Thursday, 3 August 2006 11:24 a.m. > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: avionics ordering tip > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > > On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Erich_Weaver@URSCorp.com > > > > > > Bevan: > > > > I have not actually used the frequency-loading feature on the SL-40 > > myself > > yet as I am not yet flying, but I have wired it for this purpose > > and have > > had conversations with the tech guys at both GRT and Stark Avionics on > > this, so Im confident its true. The EFIS manual also refers to it, > > but > > admittedly does a poor job of distinguishing between the SL40 and > > SL-30 > > capabilities in the text, and may be missing the key pin number > > call-outs > > in their tables. Obviously the EFIS / SL30 combo goes beyond this by > > including NAV interactions, but I decided I could do without that. > > The comm section of the SL-30 and SL-40 are identical. If you open up > an SL-40 you will find it half empty -- the half that would otherwise > hold the nav section of the SL-30 or the GPS section of the SL-60. > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way > brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 > +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) > > I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . > Antoine de Saint-Exupry > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > -- ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 06:38:42 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: GRT/ SL-40 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Aug 2, 2006, at 8:13 PM, Carl Morgan wrote: > Although the inners may be identical (I don't know), I'm fairly > sure there > were some protocol differences between the SL-30 and SL-40. Different firmware revs. The early SL-30 was not remotely channelable either. All it could get was a set of 10 most likely frequencies from the GX-60. You still had to control the SL-30 from its own front panel. > The SL-40 is > now a specific option on the GRT EFIS and AFAIK it provides functional > control the same as SL-30. > > I think the SL-30/SL-40 differences information was via the GRT > yahoo group The comm section of the two radios are identical as far as I have been able to discern. The functional differences seem to be a function of the firmware loaded into the microprocessor that controls the radio. Now Garmin may be limiting the functionality of the firmware in the SL-40 but that doesn't mean it isn't capable. (Well, yeah it does because that is what you get from Garmin and I don't know anyone who has hacked the firmware ... yet.) I am really hoping that, when I get to doing the panel in the CJ6A, I will be able to fully control the function of the SL30 remotely from a display in the back seat. OTOH, by then it will probably be a different product that makes the most sense. I sure as heck will not be buying any avionics until I am down to the very final assembly of the panel. The functionality of the boxes just changes too much with time to go out and buy anything before you really need it. Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak AT lloyd DOT com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . Antoine de Saint-Exupry ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:01 PM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CB Power Source --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 8/2/06 8:09:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Speedy11@aol.com writes: > I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system. > I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of the > CBs. > However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed to > remove only one CB. > SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide > power > to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load. > Has anyone done that? Any issues? > Stan Sutterfield ============================ Stan: There is nothing wrong with that, the procedure works very well. A little trick is to use one continuous length of wire, no cuts, no splices. Leave enough bare wire between each CB to form a nice loop and so that you can fold it back on itself and insert it into a ring lug. Low resistance, solid mechanical connection, looks good and as you said, easy to maintain. Barry "Chop'd Liver" "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third time." Yamashiada ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 08:22:44 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: CB Power Source --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:03 PM 8/2/2006 -0400, you wrote: >I am using circuit breakers in my electrical system. >I had planned to use copper bars to provide power to the "line" side of >the CBs. Suggest brass strip available from hobby shops. MUCH easier to work with than copper. >However, it seems that would make maintenance more difficult if I needed >to remove only one CB. >SO, what do you think about using jumper wires from CB to CB to provide >power to the CBs? Maybe use #12 AWG to carry the load. >Has anyone done that? Yup . . . > Any issues? Yup . . . the definition of a "bus" is a conductor with multiple taps for power distribution that are totally independent of each other. Loss of one tap has no effect on the remainder of the system. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_3.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/Bus_Bar_Not_2.jpg Here's an example of a non-bussed assembly taken from an old Piper. Note the 3-piece "bus bar" . . . if a screw loosens at one of these joints, you loose not only the breaker fed with the loose screw but every thing downstream as well. A "real" bus is a contiguous conductor with holes for each tap that feeds and affects one and only one breaker. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > --------------------------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 10:29:05 PM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator failure quits engine --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Do not arcive Here is a story from Europa Newsgroup figured may be of interest. Ron Parigoris Full Headers: Display Headers Attachments: Part 1 noname (TEXT/PLAIN quoted-printable 4648 bytes) Hide Part 2 noname (TEXT/HTML quoted-printable 5759 bytes) View -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our recently rebuilt Europa G-BWCV is again in pieces after we put only 30 more flying hrs on this engine to add to the 50hrs it had done in the hands of the previous owner. We had just received the new full permit to fly when recently, heading for Lundy Island just South of Bristol Docks , the cockpit filled with smoke as if a smoke bomb had gone off and the engine stopped! I could not discern whether the smoke was electrical in origin but assumed as the engine had stopped it had to be. The cause and subsequent sequence of events has now been established. Alternator bearing seizure initiated dual rubber v-belt slip at the crankshaft pulley. In 2-3 seconds 50 cruise hp turned both rubber belts into smoke and vulcanised them instead of driving the now freewheeling prop (no flywheel effect to snap belts). The alternator was switched off immediately but to no benefit since its load was not the issue. So instead of the crankshaft pulley driving the alternator, the alternator now seized was now driving the engine to a stop! A relatively minor accessory failure had initiated a cascade of events equivalent or even worse than a major engine failure. Ofcourse this should not happen should it? Little did I know I had become an involuntary test pilot!!!!!!!with an observer!!!!! The idea of a re-start attempt was not surprisingly quickly rejected. However, as I now know it would obviously have been a futile exercise, the engine stopped from 50hp running so the starter did not have a chance. Two other aspects of this incident made for an extremely high workload. 1. I had to switch off all electrics to prevent any further risk of smoke (if only to be able to see out for a forced landing) or worse still fire. This meant I lost the electric trim. This may appear a small thing but believe me, this meant the constant use of one hand flying the stick without feel and as a consequence one eye glued to the ASI. A workload I did not need at this time. Mechanical trim would have helped enormously. Try your practice forced landings in cruise trim to see what I mean. "It could be you." 2. The other aspect which is a little more difficult to practice was the free wheeling prop. All practice forced landings to date had been with the engine at idle as is usual. In this condition increasing speed, by diving, increases engine rpm so the sprag clutch is effectively connecting engine and propeller like any other engine. When the engine stopped, I was quickly aware of an abnormally high rate of descent. The prop ran away like a wind generator in hurricane, the feel of the stick was abnormal due to the out of trim load and I think also the braking effect on the airflow over the tail.of the prop now in drag parachute mode. The location was far from ideal for a forced landing and with the high rate of descent meaning short time for descent we could easily have come off far worse especially since the area was well populated with power lines of different sizes forcing a late rejection of the primary field selection. Having taken the diagonal in anticipation of the limited field size We hit the far hedge in a 290 meter 30+ Celcius almost max gross with wind light and variable as the sea breeze was backing up the Severn valley. The near hedge incidentally was a 6 foot steep bank from a wide drainage canal. This, coupled with the unusual deck angle in the glide which only got worse of course when I put the coupled gear and flap down on the Mono, requiring an unusually long duration flare as if landing up hill, put our aiming point considerably before the actual touch down point so we were going to hit the hedge. The last trick I had up my sleeve from my cross country gliding days was to drop the gear in order to minimise the ground roll. This in retrospect, although it did no such thing, probably stopped us flipping upside down. I never considered applying the brake but the wheel just keeps turning judging by our grass marks.Which fortunately I was able to pace out having vacated the aircraft. I am giving a talk to Gloucester strut about the Europa rebuild and now have a new chapter. It is in the Aeros flying club building next Tuesday at 07.30 pm and would welcome anyone especially Subaru owners to come along. I still like the Subaru engine and would be happy to fly it again once this single point failure has been addressed. If the Europa flies again it will be called hedgehog!