Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:40 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Bruce Gray)
2. 03:38 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Kevin Horton)
3. 04:44 AM - Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 04:46 AM - Re: Flap switches/relay wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 05:15 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Bill Denton)
6. 05:26 AM - Re: PWRgate (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 05:32 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee)
8. 05:58 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (George Braly)
9. 07:21 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Matt Prather)
10. 07:35 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Matt Prather)
11. 07:40 AM - Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? (Sam Marlow)
12. 07:42 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee)
13. 07:44 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Brian Lloyd)
14. 07:46 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 07:49 AM - flap deployment above Vfe (Brian Lloyd)
16. 07:51 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 07:57 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee)
18. 08:08 AM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (OldBob Siegfried)
19. 08:19 AM - Re: and relay coil spike suppression (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 08:33 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (dsvs@comcast.net)
21. 08:59 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (OldBob Siegfried)
22. 09:22 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 08/23/06 (Michael Pereira)
23. 09:25 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (Bill Denton)
24. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Paul Messinger)
25. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: MOV's (Paul Messinger)
26. 09:44 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 08/23/06 (wgill10@comcast.net)
27. 09:55 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (dsvs@comcast.net)
28. 09:56 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (dsvs@comcast.net)
29. 10:36 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (Gilles Thesee)
30. 11:16 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (OldBob Siegfried)
31. 11:41 AM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
32. 12:53 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 08/23/06 (Paul Messinger)
33. 12:53 PM - Re: Re: and relay coil spike suppression (Paul Messinger)
34. 02:14 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Kevin Horton)
35. 02:47 PM - Re: flap deployment above Vfe (Brian Lloyd)
36. 02:55 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Brian Lloyd)
37. 03:06 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (OldBob Siegfried)
38. 03:11 PM - Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual (Bill Denton)
39. 03:16 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Gilles Thesee)
40. 03:29 PM - Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual (Gilles Thesee)
41. 03:30 PM - Re: Re: and relay coil spike suppression (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
42. 04:32 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Olen Goodwin)
43. 04:50 PM - Paul (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
44. 04:50 PM - Nexus M9177/4-1 (Michael Hinchcliff)
45. 05:24 PM - Re: Paul (Bruce Bell)
46. 05:33 PM - Re: Paul (Harold)
47. 05:38 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
48. 05:47 PM - Re: Paul (Richard Dudley)
49. 05:47 PM - Re: PROBABLE SPAM> Paul (Paul McAllister)
50. 06:04 PM - Re: Re:Flap ACAD (Peter Laurence)
51. 06:20 PM - Re: Paul (Paul Messinger)
52. 06:26 PM - Re: Nexus M9177/4-1 (Bob White)
53. 07:40 PM - Re: Re:Flap ACAD (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
54. 07:50 PM - Re: Your book etc. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
55. 07:54 PM - Re: Iso Amp (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
56. 07:59 PM - Off to California (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
57. 08:00 PM - Re: Problem with Power Sources (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
58. 08:24 PM - Re: Ergonomics (was: Flap switches/relay wiring) (Olen Goodwin)
59. 08:40 PM - Old Man's Musings (OldBob Siegfried)
60. 08:57 PM - Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual (6440 Auto Parts)
61. 09:52 PM - Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual (DonVS)
62. 10:44 PM - Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual (Gilles Thesee)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
My speed brake deployment has been tested to Vne. Accendital deployment only
causes the airplane to slow down.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having the flap
control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake control on
the stick pose a similar hazard?
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
What happens if there is an accidental deployment during the landing
flare?
Kevin Horton
On 23 Aug 2006, at 09:05, Bruce Gray wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
> <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> My speed brake deployment has been tested to Vne. Accendital
> deployment only
> causes the airplane to slow down.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bill
> Denton
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:23 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/
> relay wiring)
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having
> the flap
> control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake
> control on
> the stick pose a similar hazard?
>
>
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:40 PM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>I've searched in vain for a flap position switch which has a wide broad
>flat paddle for the toggle, similar to what Cessna uses. anybody know
>where you can pick one of the up?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/FLAPS3.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/FLAPS2.JPG
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/FLAPS1.JPG
I could give you a part number for the switch used on
Bonanzas but you'd have to mortgage the dog to afford
it. Best you consider the DIY project.
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 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Beware of "bells and whistles" that add complexity. More than
once I've encountered costly field service issues with
so called "enhancements" to performance that became problem
children for at least some owners. A part that is NOT on your
airplane will never be a failure/performance issue.
Bob . . .
At 03:49 PM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jon & Kathryn Hults
><legacy@speedband.com>
>
>Aircraft Extras in Ohio ( http://www.aircraftextras.com ) has a system that
>will disable your flap switch at whatever speed you want...presumably the
>top of the white arc. That way, inadvertent activation of your flap switch
>in cruise would do nothing. Inadvertent activation below flap speed would
>not be prevented, but would cause no harm either.
>
>I too am going to have a flap switch on my stick, but I'm also going to
>install Aircraft Extra's accidental flap deployment protection system.
>
>Jon Hults
>Legacy
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- 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 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
I was thinking more in terms of the other end of the spectrum...
What would happen if the speed brakes were accidentally deployed on short
final?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
wiring)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
My speed brake deployment has been tested to Vne. Accendital deployment only
causes the airplane to slow down.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having the flap
control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake control on
the stick pose a similar hazard?
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:41 PM 8/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob@gmail.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>West Mountain Radio http://www.westmountainradio.com/SuperPWRgate.htm
>makes a product call "Super PWRgate" that looks like a reasonable
>device to support a two battery (one large - one smaller) environment.
>
>My total load with lights etc. on is about 45-50A . . . critical load
>< 20A . . . really critical load < 10A?
>
>Please take a look and give your opinion.
The question to be asked/answered is: "How does this
product deliver a return on invesetment either for
cost or performance over the use of simple battery
contactors for each battery wired as suggested in Z-30."
The same question was explored on the topic of
battery isolators some years ago at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
It's not clear from the West Mountain Radio
instruction manual how this would be usef in
an airplane.
http://www.westmountainradio.com/pdf/PG40Smanual.pdf
It's purpose seems to be for the "more accurate"
charging of one battery and to power some accessory
from either battery or AC mains as the situation
dictates. This is a bit different than the philosophy
offered for the installation and management of dual
batteries.
Be wary of "bells and whistles" that seem to offer
some whizzy features. Make sure they first address
REQUIREMENTS you have established for how your system
needs to operate. Then evaluate return on investment
for the proposed product as compared with alternatives
with an eye on (1) parts count reduction - parts not on
the airplane are not going to break, (2) maintainability -
if it breaks in Podunk TN, how hard will it be to
get it fixed?, (3) weight - a pound of airplane saved
is a pound of payload earned, (4) volume - no airplane
has too much room to put stuff, (5) $time$ to install -
here's your "investment" and (6) operability - does it
increase workload? Does it demand special words in the
POH that your fellow pilots would have to stop and think
about. Finally (7) how does it affect your failure
mode effects analysis. How will you KNOW it's broke?
Are potential failures pre-flight detectable? Is a
plan-B procedure for failure called for in the POH?
This may seem like I'm making a mountain out of a
mole-hill but these are the rudimentary foundations for
systems design decisions on "real" airplanes that have
served us well for nearly a century. I've not been
made privy to an alternative philosophy that has proven
useful. In fact, failure to observe this recipe for
success has cost many of my clients and their customers
bucket-loads of money and $time$ wasted on ill-conceived
systems design decisions.
Your own return-on-investment study will determine
the usefulness of any particular feature under
consideration. Use this List as your critical design
review. It's a win-win. Either you shut off the computer
grinning ear-to-ear and run off to the store to buy some
whippy electro-whizzie or you keep a poorly considered
idea from going into your airplane.
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bill Denton a crit :
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> I was thinking more in terms of the other end of the spectrum...
>
> What would happen if the speed brakes were accidentally deployed on short
> final?
>
>
The end result would be "interesting" ;-)
Fighters have speed brakes on the throttle, because they need it for
formation flying, in-flight refuelling, etc. Their jet engines do not
allow for quick speed reduction.
On other types, airliners or gliders, the speed brakes do have a
dedicated and (hopefully) unmistakeable lever.
On a piston single, unless the owner is a nostalgic ex-fighter pilot, is
a throttle switch really desirable ? Piston engines and props allow for
quick speed reduction for formation flying, for instance.
Any time you add a switch on the stick or throttle, provision must be
made to avoid inadvertent actuation.
I know of at least one clever guy who installed the starter switch on
the throttle...
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>
We have installed several dozen sets of speed brakes on aircraft as an
option with the turbo normalizing systems for the Bonanzas.
There have been lots of variations in the locations of the activation
switches.
I have flown all of these different locations - - from the yoke to the
panel.
My thoughts:
Don't put anything on the stick that you will normally use once or twice
during each flight. That is a mistake and generates more problems.
Things that will be used multiple times - - trim, mic button, are the
two most important - - are appropriate.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:14 AM
Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
wiring)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
<bdenton@bdenton.com>
I was thinking more in terms of the other end of the spectrum...
What would happen if the speed brakes were accidentally deployed on
short
final?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce
Gray
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
wiring)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
<Bruce@glasair.org>
My speed brake deployment has been tested to Vne. Accendital deployment
only
causes the airplane to slow down.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
wiring)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
<bdenton@bdenton.com>
Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having the
flap
control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake control
on
the stick pose a similar hazard?
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Speed brakes are usually very small drag producers that provide energy
control while at high indicated airspeeds. Once slowed to a low airspeed,
speed brakes represent a very small portion of airframe drag. Sometimes,
takeoff performance isn't even particularly degraded with the brakes
extended.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> I was thinking more in terms of the other end of the spectrum...
>
> What would happen if the speed brakes were accidentally deployed on short
> final?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:06 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
> wiring)
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> My speed brake deployment has been tested to Vne. Accendital deployment
> only
> causes the airplane to slow down.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Denton
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:23 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
> wiring)
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> Given that this started as a discussion of the hazards of having the flap
> control mounted on the stick, wouldn't mounting the speed brake control on
> the stick pose a similar hazard?
>
>
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Mr. Thesee,
I just posted another message. Yours reminds me that I didn't mention a
few things...
Early (modern?) fighter jets often flew their final approach with speed
brakes at least partially extended. This allowed them to carry nearly
full power on the engine while on approach. If they had to abort an
approach, the speed brakes could be stowed much more quickly than climb
power could be attained from the jet. The speed brakes were relatively
large, and not designed to be deployed at high airspeeds.
Gliders often have truly enormous speed brakes/spoilers which allow steep
approaches to be flown - drastically reducing their glide ratio. All of
the ones I have seen are mechanically actuated by a large lever in the
cockpit.
The speed brakes that I was thinking of are like the Precise Flight units
commonly installed on higher performance piston singles like Mooney's,
Lancairs, Glassairs, Bonanzas and Cessna 210's. These are electrically
actuated. Mounting the control switch either near/on the throttle or on
the control wheel/stick might make the most sense. These units are
approved for airspeeds up to Vne.
http://preciseflight.com/viewpage.php?pID=10
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Bill Denton a crit :
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
>> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>>
>> I was thinking more in terms of the other end of the spectrum...
>>
>> What would happen if the speed brakes were accidentally deployed on
>> short
>> final?
>>
>>
>
> The end result would be "interesting" ;-)
>
> Fighters have speed brakes on the throttle, because they need it for
> formation flying, in-flight refuelling, etc. Their jet engines do not
> allow for quick speed reduction.
> On other types, airliners or gliders, the speed brakes do have a
> dedicated and (hopefully) unmistakeable lever.
>
> On a piston single, unless the owner is a nostalgic ex-fighter pilot, is
> a throttle switch really desirable ? Piston engines and props allow for
> quick speed reduction for formation flying, for instance.
> Any time you add a switch on the stick or throttle, provision must be
> made to avoid inadvertent actuation.
>
> I know of at least one clever guy who installed the starter switch on
> the throttle...
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "Paddle Type" Flap position switch? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sam Marlow <sam.marlow@adelphia.net>
Gulf Coast Avionics in Florida.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 06:40 PM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
>> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>> I've searched in vain for a flap position switch which has a wide
>> broad flat paddle for the toggle, similar to what Cessna uses.
>> anybody know where you can pick one of the up?
>
>
> See:
>
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/FLAPS3.JPG
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/FLAPS2.JPG
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Switches/FLAPS1.JPG
>
> I could give you a part number for the switch used on
> Bonanzas but you'd have to mortgage the dog to afford
> it. Best you consider the DIY project.
>
> 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
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Matt and all,
> Speed brakes are usually very small drag producers that provide energy
> control while at high indicated airspeeds. Once slowed to a low airspeed,
> speed brakes represent a very small portion of airframe drag. Sometimes,
> takeoff performance isn't even particularly degraded with the brakes
> extended.
>
>
Thanks for the info.
This type of speed brakes must be particular to some type of airplanes ?
High drag but bigger engine ?
I'm flying sleek airplanes with low over all drag when flaps are up, so
in my opinion, even you low drag brakes would make a difference with them.
Some slower airplanes with weak flap action, or even without flaps,
resort to speed brakes to increase drag during approach.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> What happens if there is an accidental deployment during the
> landing flare?
Remember, this is a speed brake, not a spoiler. It increases drag but
has very little effect on lift. The effect of a speed brake decreases
as IAS decreases. The airplane slows down but not as much as at Vne.
I doubt that speed brake would really have any significant effect in
the landing flare.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:03 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>I have long ago given up trying to challenge every industry position. I do
>not have the time or interest to do so. When I do run across something in
>a design that is not consistent with the industry I do, and have
>investigated just what is different.
I don't think I suggested it. Obviously, industry
publishes a great deal of data that is need for
the make/buy/ignore decision along with information
vital to integrating a device into a new design.
Challenges are warranted when words taken from
what appears to be well grounded, widely distributed
ideas that cause readers to invest both $time$
and emotional capital for adoption of some product
or idea.
It's incumbent upon the astute designer (and advisor)
to evaluate and understand the return on investment. It's
not so much a challenge as it is a quest for understanding.
The unfortunate condition is that potential customers
are oft encouraged to spend $time$ on a product or activity
that fails to deliver . . . or delivers a feature that's
not really useful.
>The industry papers of the time were from relay manufacturers who had no
>reason to support one suppressor method or the other as they did not sell
>suppressors of any type (at the time) Their interest appeared to be to
>show how to get the most reliable use of their products which ranged from
>very small relays to huge ones and thus the recommendations were designed
>to be general and not always apply to any specific case.
Yup . . . the universe is long on generalized recipes
for success but it's not uncommon that such recipes are
short on detailed explanations for applicability and
return on investment . . .
>In the case of transorbs; many years ago I noted that a designer had used
>a diode and there were unwanted noise introduced into the system. It was
>determined that the opening delay and more important showed start to
>finish contact opening time was part of the problem. At that time I want
>into the EMI lab and with expert help we determined that part of the
>required fix was to quicken the opening contact time (not the delayed
>start of opening but the duration of contact opening).
>
>PART of the solution was replacing the Diode with a Transorb. There was
>more required that evolved contact arc suppression.
>
>The general conclusion was an across the board replacement of diodes with
>transorbs as it did not hurt and in rare cases prevent problems. No
>retrofit was made just new design used transorbs.
>
>I agree that your documented test of a small relay showed no significant
>time of contact opening but that is not necessarily so with power
>contactors seen in aircraft.
I tested battery contactors too.
Your decisions to take some action based on data
acquired during an investigation cannot be faulted
or argued with. At the same time, recommendation of
broad prescriptions for applying a design technique
because it mitigated a problem so specific as to
required detailed investigation is not good science
or business.
>Now in the case of experimental aircraft I have discovered one case the
>"B" lead contactor can require a transorb as a partial solution to contact
>arcing and continued arcing in one failure mode of the alternator.
Yup, but that's a new situation arising from an especially
antagonistic load switched by the contactor. Here the load
is not inductive, resistive, or lamp . . . it's an engine
driven energy source with dynamics that were never considered
when all the coil suppression techniques were crafted and
described in the oft cited documents. I.e., those documents
have almost no significance for solving the problem.
>I only intended to point out that case not make a big deal of it.
I wasn't making a big deal out of it either. My offering
was in response to recommendations were made based on
no better data than one gets for choosing laundry
soap because it says "new and improved" on the box.
> BTW I am not the only you have gotten up set with but perhaps the most
> memorable.
Really? Perhaps I need to be more skilled with the
use of emoticons . . . Folks often misinterpret my state
of being. When I am really upset about something, I'll
make it known. When someone offers an opinion about
things I've said or done, the input falls in one of
two categories (1) it's a valid observation worthy of
consideration and modification of future action - i.e.
good critical review -OR- (2) "noise" that contains
no data and should be ignored so that attention to
simple-ideas is not distracted or diluted. It's relatively
easy to make that determination without emotional
investment. But I've readily admitted to being really
wound up when individuals insert themselves between me and
my customers such that I am deprived of the opportunity
to keep them satisfied with their decision to use my
products and services.
Bob . . .
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
There seems to be some worry about flap deployment above Vfe.
Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most aircraft can deploy
partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to deploy a small amount
of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a pinch.
Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
brian HYPHEN av 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 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:47 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Yes I remember that interchange and its a wonderful example how selective
>cut and paste can change what I was saying and its context.
>
>Its a masterpiece.
>
>Paul
Really? There was no intention on my part to distort
any meaning in your words. If there was distortion,
it was accidental. I'd be pleased to supply you the
original for any editing you might wish to do that
would clarify of your intent.
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 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Brian and all,
> I doubt that speed brake would really have any significant effect in
> the landing flare.
Yes they have. Used them on a Citation to shorten the float and firmly
plant the wheels on landing.
Now, what if the flare is a bit high and slow, or balloons, and a white
knuckle pilot actuates the speed-brakes ? Macho contact with Mother
Earth at best....
Best regards,
Gilles, no speed-brakes
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Matt,
This is something of a "Me Too" message. Please allow
an old man to add a bit of trivia.
We had Rolls Royce engines on the Caravelle that
needed fourteen seconds to get from idle to full
thrust. Consequently, standard operating procedure was
to use full dive brake and full flap on all
approaches. That allowed about sixty-five to seventy
percent power to be carried on the approach. In the
event of a go around, we retracted the speed brakes
and took the flaps to departure setting immediately.
As you stated earlier, the speed brakes didn't provide
an awful lot of drag at those low speeds, but every
little bit did help. By maintaining the approach speed
as high as the departure speed, we could rotate the
aircraft as the flaps were retracted and avoid any
loss of lift from the flap retraction. (Works just as
well in a Cessna 152 as it does in the Caravelle). As
soon as a positive rate of climb was attained, the
landing gear would be retracted.
As another minor point, during the acceptance tests
for the Caravelle, one of our pilots asked how the
aircraft would perform if the speed brakes failed to
retract. The French test pilot extended the speed
brakes, took off and made a complete circuit around
the field without ever retracting them!
As to glider operation with speed brakes, we once
owned a Schweitzer 2-32. As you probably already know,
it has monstrous terminal velocity limiting dive
brakes. With the brakes extended, it is impossible to
get the speed above the redline.
As a hot rod show off maneuver, we would use full dive
brake and make an approach to a twenty five hundred
foot runway holding about one hundred MPH. Over the
threshold, we could either leave the speed brakes out
and land comfortably in the landing length available
or retract the speed brakes and make another circuit
of the field for a normal landing.
Drag that you can get rid of is just another source of
available power!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
--- Matt Prather <mprather@spro.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt
> Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
> Mr. Thesee,
>
> I just posted another message. Yours reminds me
> that I didn't mention a
> few things...
>
> Early (modern?) fighter jets often flew their final
> approach with speed
> brakes at least partially extended. This allowed
> them to carry nearly
> full power on the engine while on approach. If they
> had to abort an
> approach, the speed brakes could be stowed much more
> quickly than climb
> power could be attained from the jet. The speed
> brakes were relatively
> large, and not designed to be deployed at high
> airspeeds.
>
> Gliders often have truly enormous speed
> brakes/spoilers which allow steep
> approaches to be flown - drastically reducing their
> glide ratio. All of
> the ones I have seen are mechanically actuated by a
> large lever in the
> cockpit.
>
> The speed brakes that I was thinking of are like the
> Precise Flight units
> commonly installed on higher performance piston
> singles like Mooney's,
> Lancairs, Glassairs, Bonanzas and Cessna 210's.
> These are electrically
> actuated. Mounting the control switch either
> near/on the throttle or on
> the control wheel/stick might make the most sense.
> These units are
> approved for airspeeds up to Vne.
>
> http://preciseflight.com/viewpage.php?pID=10
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles
> Thesee
> > <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
> > Bill Denton a crit :
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill
> Denton"
> >> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> >>
> >> I was thinking more in terms of the other end of
> the spectrum...
> >>
> >> What would happen if the speed brakes were
> accidentally deployed on
> >> short
> >> final?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The end result would be "interesting" ;-)
> >
> > Fighters have speed brakes on the throttle,
> because they need it for
> > formation flying, in-flight refuelling, etc. Their
> jet engines do not
> > allow for quick speed reduction.
> > On other types, airliners or gliders, the speed
> brakes do have a
> > dedicated and (hopefully) unmistakeable lever.
> >
> > On a piston single, unless the owner is a
> nostalgic ex-fighter pilot, is
> > a throttle switch really desirable ? Piston
> engines and props allow for
> > quick speed reduction for formation flying, for
> instance.
> > Any time you add a switch on the stick or
> throttle, provision must be
> > made to avoid inadvertent actuation.
> >
> > I know of at least one clever guy who installed
> the starter switch on
> > the throttle...
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gilles Thesee
> > Grenoble, France
> > http://contrails.free.fr
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: and relay coil spike suppression |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:15 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>You missed my point and I am sorry.
>
>I was looking for a statement from industry where the uni-directional
>transorb was NOT to be used. That its not mentioned to me says its OK as
>it is really a zener or a simple diode if properly connected and the
>voltage ratings recognized.
>
>I know of no such statement as while it may be a silly application it will
>work just fine.
I guess I misunderstood the term "work". If one selects a zener
diode for some application, it's easy to assume that the designer
needs the functionality of the device as a zener.
>I was expecting a simple " its a stupid application but you are right"
>from you.
I thought we were discussing the pros/cons of recommended
techniques and the idea that your argument was offered as
an off-topic ringer didn't occur to me. You wrote:
>Please tell the LIST (specific link please) where a 50V uni-directional
>Transorb device (properly connected) is different from a 50v diode
>in coil suppression or forward conduction for that matter.
>Of course if you use a Transorb alone as a diode its no better
>than a diode so that configuration is not addressed.
I missed the significance of the last sentence so
I went off and crafted . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Relay_Coil_Suppression.pdf
which illustrates the point. My suggestion is that
thrashing this little tid-bit added no value for those
who choose to follow this thread. I will offer the following
revision to what I wrote to wit:
WAS: "In fact, you cannot use a uni-directional Transorb (or
plain vanilla zener) unless combined with a diode to
prevent forward conduction as shown in multitudes of
catalogs and literature on relays."
NOW: There is no practical value in utilization of a single
unidirectional Transorb (or plain vanilla zener) because
its functionality is limited to behavior that mimics
the use of an ordinary diode as illustrated in cases
3/4 and 5/6 in the link cited above.
The industry wide practice for using a zener
in the coil suppression network of relays is illustrated
in cases 7/8 were the zener is turned over and a
diode added to prevent forward conduction. In this
instance, the zener's unique qualities as a voltage
clamping device provide the desired spike suppression
characteristics while minimizing effects on relay
drop out delay.
Bob . . .
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Brian,
In addition to your comment, I would add that the flap deployment takes some time.
If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the sticck)
the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the switch down.
This would go beyound accidental deployment. There is also a notable reaction
to deployment of flaps, and unless the pilot was overloade to the point of not
having situational awareness should note that the flaps are being deployed.
This will not stop every inadvertant flap deployment, but I doubt that the situation
is any where as common or dangerous as some imply. Don
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
>
> There seems to be some worry about flap deployment above Vfe.
> Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most aircraft can deploy
> partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to deploy a small amount
> of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a pinch.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian HYPHEN av 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 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Don,
All that you say makes sense, but I fail to see the
advantage to having so many switches on the control
stick.
In fact, I don't see the need for many of them to be
on the throttle either.
I like having a trim switch on the control stick or
wheel.
I think a transmit button there is very handy, but I
like it even better on the throttle! I do like the
idea of having an Ident button on the stick, but I
have never had one so mounted. May not be worth the
trouble.
An autopilot disconnect switch on the control unit
makes sense, but most autopilots can be easily
overridden if that becomes necessary.
My thought is to keep the number of switches on the
stick to the absolute minimum and and place the other
needed control devices in a comfortable position
relative to my throttle hand.
Isn't it great that we have the choice?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Stearman N3977A
Downers Grove, Illinois
--- dsvs@comcast.net wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> dsvs@comcast.net
>
> Brian,
> In addition to your comment, I would add that the
> flap deployment takes some time. If one accidently
> touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the
> sticck) the flaps would only deploy slightly unless
> the pilot held the switch down. This would go
> beyound accidental deployment. There is also a
> notable reaction to deployment of flaps, and unless
> the pilot was overloade to the point of not having
> situational awareness should note that the flaps are
> being deployed. This will not stop every
> inadvertant flap deployment, but I doubt that the
> situation is any where as common or dangerous as
> some imply. Don
> -------------- Original message
> ----------------------
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian
> Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> >
> > There seems to be some worry about flap deployment
> above Vfe.
> > Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most
> aircraft can deploy
> > partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to
> deploy a small amount
> > of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a
> pinch.
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline
> Way
> > brian HYPHEN av 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
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 08/23/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michael Pereira <mjpnj@yahoo.com>
Hey Paul,
> Yes I remember that interchange and its a wonderful example how selective
> cut and paste can change what I was saying and its context.
You know, Paul, it's clear that both you and Bob know more about electronics
than I could ever know or for that matter probably would ever want to know.
The thing is in Bob's posts he writes in such a way that dang near 100% of
it makes sense to a electronics near-luddite like me. In addition, his
explanations tend to highlight the underlying basic concepts well enough that
I can start to figure out other things for myself. People with high technical
skills that can actually teach are rare, those that are willing to do it for
peanuts are almost non-existant.
The only thing I've gotten out of this diode vs transorb thingy is that a
transorb may be like a diode and zener together or two zener's back to back.
It seems that even if it's technically better we're probably talking about a 1%
optimization. Even I'm not anal enough to worry about that small an improvement.
My understanding of the purpose of this list is to help people setup their
electrical systems in their homebuilt airplanes. This diode vs transorb,
transorb vs crowbar mental masturbation has contributed nothing to my understanding
of how to setup a homebuilt. It could be that i'm just stupid (but I suspect not)
and that it's greatly helped other members on the list, I just don't know.
I know Bob invites a high level of debate but i'm at a lost of why you continue
to post when on one hand you accuse Bob of twisting your arguments through editing
and on the other hand you're looking for his approval in other posts. ie paraphrasing
-
"i know it's a silly application but I expected you to tell me i was right".
Please make your posts more constructive if you want mere mortals like me to respect
your opinion.
> Its a masterpiece.
> Paul
c'ya,
Mike
__________________________________________________
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
"If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the sticck)
the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the switch down."
That is not necessarily correct...
With many of the "flap controllers" which have been previously mentioned,
each "bump" of the flap switch lowers the flaps a pre-programmed amount.
For example the first "bump" would take the flaps to 10 degrees, the next
"bump" to 20 degrees, another "bump" to 30 degrees. And typically, a single
"bump" on the "up" switch fully retracts the flaps.
And at least one of these controllers can be programmed to automatically
adjust pitch trim as flaps are deployed/retracted.
So, even a little carelessness could cause a quick and possibly dangerous
reconfiguration of the aircraft...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
dsvs@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flap deployment above Vfe
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Brian,
In addition to your comment, I would add that the flap deployment takes some
time. If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the
sticck) the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the
switch down. This would go beyound accidental deployment. There is also a
notable reaction to deployment of flaps, and unless the pilot was overloade
to the point of not having situational awareness should note that the flaps
are being deployed. This will not stop every inadvertant flap deployment,
but I doubt that the situation is any where as common or dangerous as some
imply. Don
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
>
> There seems to be some worry about flap deployment above Vfe.
> Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most aircraft can deploy
> partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to deploy a small amount
> of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a pinch.
>
> Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> brian HYPHEN av 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 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
couple of snips
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:46 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's
> At the same time, recommendation of
> broad prescriptions for applying a design technique
> because it mitigated a problem so specific as to
> required detailed investigation is not good science
> or business.
Sorry but in business documentation and stocking two parts when one is only
needed is sound business decisions. In aerospace its thousands of dollars
saved, just on the paperwork etc. In this case either part cost over $50
each. 10 cents for the part and $49.90 for screening, packaging,
identifying, paper etc etc.
There was no way to determine how often a specific case might pop up where
the transorb might be required and if one happened again the $20,000 spent
on analysis of the first problem might be repeated for no good reason. If I
had not taken action to switch from a diode to the transorb (across the
board) and another similar problem came up there would have been hell to pay
directed at me.
I do not think it was bad science (but GOOD science) to use a better or more
universal product and it clearly was the right business decision
When we found a better solution we jumped to use it. Thus my dismay at your
hard rejection of using a part that is equal or better than a diode. Perhaps
its that my background is different where no failure is acceptable and a
design error typically can cost more that the typical light aircraft.
I have an example as you like to tell. A satellite system had a minor
electrical design change that required a simple one line change ( in 6
places) in the automated system level test. One of the 6 was missed and the
cost was over $1,500,000 in hardware damage.
To a large extent it applies everywhere as the transorb vs the diode is a
clear cut case of the transorb always works and the diode usually always
works.
Perhaps I missed it but I do not recall you ever saying the transorb was bad
just that a diode was good enough or the transorb was not required based on
your knowledge and experience.
My point is the transorb is more universal and can help with unsuspecting
cases now and the future when new technology might produce issues we cannot
think of right now..
Surely at 15 cents each its not cost that is a factor here.
snip------------------------------
>> BTW I am not the only you have gotten up set with but perhaps the most
>> memorable.
>
> But I've readily admitted to being really
> wound up when individuals insert themselves between me and
> my customers such that I am deprived of the opportunity
> to keep them satisfied with their decision to use my
> products and services.
>
> Bob . . .
Here I was given the decision of either not reporting the failures at all or
protecting the owners demands of not being quoted by name. I do not like
being in the middle but I felt then (and now) its better to report problems
(specifically when it appears to be a basic design problem) than not say
anything IF that is the only two choices available.
The "customers" had already decided to not use that product anymore even if
you gave them a replacement as well in that case a new alternator and paid
the cleaning bill for their pants.
In this case it was the home built version of the OV crowbar (per your
plans) that false tripped and often damages the GOOD alternator when the "B"
lead contactor opened. Old news now as you have changed the design. I first
determined that when I built two my self it false tripped 100% of the time
when I tested it. See my recent post on contact bounce and the transient I
found on a full up mockup of an aircraft electrical system. BTW My OV crow
bar was on a 1" by 1.5" pcb so no long leads etc.
I ask you which is better. No feed back at all? or second hand feedback? I
suggest that second hand feedback often results in others willing to be
known by name and to step forward. IT was as I recall this that eventually
led to the redesign. Personally I do not like the design concept of the use
of a crowbar as used in this case so I was not interested in fixing what I
felt and continue to feel is the wrong approach to the problem but that is
an issue I do not wish to discuss here or in the future.
I have now decided not to report any second hand failures of your products
to you or the list however, because of your response to me in the past with
these reports.
In any event I suggest we drop the subjects and move on.
Paul
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Its history and best left alone.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MOV's
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 07:47 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>><paulm@olypen.com>
>>
>>Yes I remember that interchange and its a wonderful example how selective
>>cut and paste can change what I was saying and its context.
>>
>>Its a masterpiece.
>>
>>Paul
>
> Really? There was no intention on my part to distort
> any meaning in your words. If there was distortion,
> it was accidental. I'd be pleased to supply you the
> original for any editing you might wish to do that
> would clarify of your intent.
>
> 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 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 08/23/06 |
I concur...we're not bulding rocket launchers here.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Michael Pereira <mjpnj@yahoo.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michael Pereira
>
> Hey Paul,
>
> > Yes I remember that interchange and its a wonderful example how selective
> > cut and paste can change what I was saying and its context.
>
> You know, Paul, it's clear that both you and Bob know more about electronics
> than I could ever know or for that matter probably would ever want to know.
>
> The thing is in Bob's posts he writes in such a way that dang near 100% of
> it makes sense to a electronics near-luddite like me. In addition, his
> explanations tend to highlight the underlying basic concepts well enough that
> I can start to figure out other things for myself. People with high technical
> skills that can actually teach are rare, those that are willing to do it for
> peanuts are almost non-existant.
>
> The only thing I've gotten out of this diode vs transorb thingy is that a
> transorb may be like a diode and zener together or two zener's back to back.
> It seems that even if it's technically better we're probably talking about a
1%
> optimization. Even I'm not anal enough to worry about that small an improvement.
>
> My understanding of the purpose of this list is to help people setup their
> electrical systems in their homebuilt airplanes. This diode vs transorb,
> transorb vs crowbar mental masturbation has contributed nothing to my
> understanding
> of how to setup a homebuilt. It could be that i'm just stupid (but I suspect
> not)
> and that it's greatly helped other members on the list, I just don't know.
>
> I know Bob invites a high level of debate but i'm at a lost of why you continue
> to post when on one hand you accuse Bob of twisting your arguments through
> editing
> and on the other hand you're looking for his approval in other posts. ie
> paraphrasing -
> "i know it's a silly application but I expected you to tell me i was right".
>
> Please make your posts more constructive if you want mere mortals like me to
> respect
> your opinion.
>
> > Its a masterpiece.
>
> > Paul
>
> c'ya,
> Mike
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>I concur...we're not bulding rocket launchers here.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bill</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Michael Pereira
<mjpnj@yahoo.com> <BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Michael Pereira <MJPNJ@YAHOO.COM><BR>> <BR>> Hey Paul, <BR>> <BR>>
> Yes I remember that interchange and its a wonderful example how selective
<BR>> > cut and paste can change what I was saying and its context.
<BR>> <BR>> You know, Paul, it's clear that both you and Bob know more
about electronics <BR>> than I could ever know or for that matter probably
would ever want to know. <BR>> <BR>> The thing is in Bob's posts he
writes in such a way that dang near 100% of <BR>> it makes sense to a electronics
near-luddite like me. In addition, his <BR>> explanations tend to highlight
the underlying basic concepts well enough that <BR>> I can start to
figure out other things for myself. People with high
techn
ical <BR>> skills that can actually teach are rare, those that are willing to
do it for <BR>> peanuts are almost non-existant. <BR>> <BR>> The only
thing I've gotten out of this diode vs transorb thingy is that a <BR>> transorb
may be like a diode and zener together or two zener's back to back. <BR>>
It seems that even if it's technically better we're probably talking about
a 1% <BR>> optimization. Even I'm not anal enough to worry about that small
an improvement. <BR>> <BR>> My understanding of the purpose of this
list is to help people setup their <BR>> electrical systems in their homebuilt
airplanes. This diode vs transorb, <BR>> transorb vs crowbar mental masturbation
has contributed nothing to my <BR>> understanding <BR>> of how
to setup a homebuilt. It could be that i'm just stupid (but I suspect <BR>>
not) <BR>> and that it's greatly helped other members on the list, I just
don't know. <BR>> <BR>> I know Bob invites a
high l
Q, <BR
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Bob,
I was not trying to justify the addition of any switch to the stick, just commenting
on the overblown percieved danger of such a switch. And yes it is great
that we have the choices. Don
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
> Good Morning Don,
>
> All that you say makes sense, but I fail to see the
> advantage to having so many switches on the control
> stick.
>
> In fact, I don't see the need for many of them to be
> on the throttle either.
>
> I like having a trim switch on the control stick or
> wheel.
>
> I think a transmit button there is very handy, but I
> like it even better on the throttle! I do like the
> idea of having an Ident button on the stick, but I
> have never had one so mounted. May not be worth the
> trouble.
>
> An autopilot disconnect switch on the control unit
> makes sense, but most autopilots can be easily
> overridden if that becomes necessary.
>
> My thought is to keep the number of switches on the
> stick to the absolute minimum and and place the other
> needed control devices in a comfortable position
> relative to my throttle hand.
>
> Isn't it great that we have the choice?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Stearman N3977A
> Downers Grove, Illinois
>
> --- dsvs@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> > dsvs@comcast.net
> >
> > Brian,
> > In addition to your comment, I would add that the
> > flap deployment takes some time. If one accidently
> > touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the
> > sticck) the flaps would only deploy slightly unless
> > the pilot held the switch down. This would go
> > beyound accidental deployment. There is also a
> > notable reaction to deployment of flaps, and unless
> > the pilot was overloade to the point of not having
> > situational awareness should note that the flaps are
> > being deployed. This will not stop every
> > inadvertant flap deployment, but I doubt that the
> > situation is any where as common or dangerous as
> > some imply. Don
> > -------------- Original message
> > ----------------------
> > From: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian
> > Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> > >
> > > There seems to be some worry about flap deployment
> > above Vfe.
> > > Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most
> > aircraft can deploy
> > > partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to
> > deploy a small amount
> > > of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a
> > pinch.
> > >
> > > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline
> > Way
> > > brian HYPHEN av 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
> >
> > Web Forums!
> >
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Mabe so but these usually have the control circuit built into the switch and that
precludes stich mounting them.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> "If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the sticck)
> the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the switch down."
>
> That is not necessarily correct...
>
> With many of the "flap controllers" which have been previously mentioned,
> each "bump" of the flap switch lowers the flaps a pre-programmed amount.
>
> For example the first "bump" would take the flaps to 10 degrees, the next
> "bump" to 20 degrees, another "bump" to 30 degrees. And typically, a single
> "bump" on the "up" switch fully retracts the flaps.
>
> And at least one of these controllers can be programmed to automatically
> adjust pitch trim as flaps are deployed/retracted.
>
> So, even a little carelessness could cause a quick and possibly dangerous
> reconfiguration of the aircraft...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> dsvs@comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:32 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flap deployment above Vfe
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
>
> Brian,
> In addition to your comment, I would add that the flap deployment takes some
> time. If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the
> sticck) the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the
> switch down. This would go beyound accidental deployment. There is also a
> notable reaction to deployment of flaps, and unless the pilot was overloade
> to the point of not having situational awareness should note that the flaps
> are being deployed. This will not stop every inadvertant flap deployment,
> but I doubt that the situation is any where as common or dangerous as some
> imply. Don
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> >
> > There seems to be some worry about flap deployment above Vfe.
> > Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most aircraft can deploy
> > partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to deploy a small amount
> > of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a pinch.
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> > brian HYPHEN av 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 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Bob and all,
I sure do agree with your whole message.
Just a question.
> I do like the
> idea of having an Ident button on the stick, but I
> have never had one so mounted. May not be worth the
> trouble.
>
I'm not familiar with US ATC, but is the Ident button used so often ?
After all, once you've displayed your XPDR code and the controller sees
you on his radar, what is the point in pushing ident again and again ?
And he (she) would not ask you to Ident while you're performing some
delicate maneuver, would he (or she) ?
Or am I missing something ?
> My thought is to keep the number of switches on the
> stick to the absolute minimum and and place the other
> needed control devices in a comfortable position
> relative to my throttle hand.
>
> Isn't it great that we have the choice?
>
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Afternoon Gilles,
I think my comment to your comment will be:
It All Depends!
Most of my Stearman flying is VFR in the local Chicago
area. Every time I go to a local towered airport, I
will be asked to ident.
On very rare occasions when IFR, I will be asked to
ident when changing from one control center to
another. That doesn't happen anywhere near as often as
it did twenty to thirty years ago.
I am sure that the need for an ident is somewhat
variable depending on the area being flown and whether
or not the aircraft is in continuous contact with
officialdom. I tend to fly VFR with no flight plan and
no flight following whenever that is practical.
Therefore, anytime I do decide to join into the
"system" I will almost always be asked for an ident.
However, it doesn't happen often enough such that I
would make much effort to add that capability to my
control column!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles
> Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Bob and all,
>
> I sure do agree with your whole message.
> Just a question.
>
> > I do like the
> > idea of having an Ident button on the stick, but I
> > have never had one so mounted. May not be worth
> the
> > trouble.
> >
> I'm not familiar with US ATC, but is the Ident
> button used so often ?
> After all, once you've displayed your XPDR code and
> the controller sees
> you on his radar, what is the point in pushing ident
> again and again ?
> And he (she) would not ask you to Ident while you're
> performing some
> delicate maneuver, would he (or she) ?
> Or am I missing something ?
>
> > My thought is to keep the number of switches on
> the
> > stick to the absolute minimum and and place the
> other
> > needed control devices in a comfortable position
> > relative to my throttle hand.
> >
> > Isn't it great that we have the choice?
> >
> Regards,
> Gilles
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
The aircraft extra FPS system does not, it allows the builder to wire whatever
switch they want, including a grip switch, but what they do have is an airspeed
cutout, and this would solve it when in cruise but not during approach.
Dan
40269
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of dsvs@comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: flap deployment above Vfe
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
Mabe so but these usually have the control circuit built into the switch and that
precludes stich mounting them.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
> "If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the sticck)
> the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the switch down."
>
> That is not necessarily correct...
>
> With many of the "flap controllers" which have been previously mentioned,
> each "bump" of the flap switch lowers the flaps a pre-programmed amount.
>
> For example the first "bump" would take the flaps to 10 degrees, the next
> "bump" to 20 degrees, another "bump" to 30 degrees. And typically, a single
> "bump" on the "up" switch fully retracts the flaps.
>
> And at least one of these controllers can be programmed to automatically
> adjust pitch trim as flaps are deployed/retracted.
>
> So, even a little carelessness could cause a quick and possibly dangerous
> reconfiguration of the aircraft...
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> dsvs@comcast.net
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:32 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: flap deployment above Vfe
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: dsvs@comcast.net
>
> Brian,
> In addition to your comment, I would add that the flap deployment takes some
> time. If one accidently touches the flap switch (the kind mounted on the
> sticck) the flaps would only deploy slightly unless the pilot held the
> switch down. This would go beyound accidental deployment. There is also a
> notable reaction to deployment of flaps, and unless the pilot was overloade
> to the point of not having situational awareness should note that the flaps
> are being deployed. This will not stop every inadvertant flap deployment,
> but I doubt that the situation is any where as common or dangerous as some
> imply. Don
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
> >
> > There seems to be some worry about flap deployment above Vfe.
> > Remember, Vfe is for *full* flap deployment. Most aircraft can deploy
> > partial flaps at much higher speeds. I used to deploy a small amount
> > of flaps on my RV-4 to help me slow down in a pinch.
> >
> > Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way
> > brian HYPHEN av 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
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs - 08/23/06 |
Interesting that this message (from Michael) never arrived at my computer.
And no you are not (building rocket launchers) but if there had been a
transorb on the aircraft bus (different application than the relay, but
another one of the Paul vs. Bob arguments (where Paul; says there is a
transient and Bob: says no because I have never seen one) where the
alternator was damaged by the defectively designed OV crow bar, dozens of
pilots would not have had to replace the alternator and remove the faulty OV
device. I recently posted a pix of a repeatable transient that 100% of the
time tripped the OV device falsely in my own testing.
As you may recall Vans strongly asked builders to REMOVE the OV device as it
was damaging the alternators with false trips. Told to me by the GM at Vans
at the time.
This was discussed at length a couple of years ago so there is no need to
recycle it now.
My point is on other lists a simple " yes a transorb as Eric suggests is a
safer way to go and a better solution". No need to get into a thrashing
session etc. That is as technical as it ever needed to get.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: wgill10@comcast.net
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs -
08/23/06
I concur...we're not bulding rocket launchers here.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Michael Pereira <mjpnj@yahoo.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michael Pereira
>
> Hey Paul,
Message 33
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: and relay coil spike suppression |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The end.
Clearly you are unwilling to say the bi-transorb is just as good as a diode
and in some cases better.
Its time to say good by to this line of discussion
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:15 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: and relay coil spike suppression
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 07:15 AM 8/23/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>><paulm@olypen.com>
>>
>>You missed my point and I am sorry.
>>
>>I was looking for a statement from industry where the uni-directional
>>transorb was NOT to be used. That its not mentioned to me says its OK as
>>it is really a zener or a simple diode if properly connected and the
>>voltage ratings recognized.
>>
>>I know of no such statement as while it may be a silly application it will
>>work just fine.
>
> I guess I misunderstood the term "work". If one selects a zener
> diode for some application, it's easy to assume that the designer
> needs the functionality of the device as a zener.
>
>
>>I was expecting a simple " its a stupid application but you are right"
>>from you.
>
> I thought we were discussing the pros/cons of recommended
> techniques and the idea that your argument was offered as
> an off-topic ringer didn't occur to me. You wrote:
>
> >Please tell the LIST (specific link please) where a 50V uni-directional
> >Transorb device (properly connected) is different from a 50v diode
> >in coil suppression or forward conduction for that matter.
>
> >Of course if you use a Transorb alone as a diode its no better
> >than a diode so that configuration is not addressed.
>
> I missed the significance of the last sentence so
> I went off and crafted . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Relay_Coil_Suppression.pdf
>
> which illustrates the point. My suggestion is that
> thrashing this little tid-bit added no value for those
> who choose to follow this thread. I will offer the following
> revision to what I wrote to wit:
>
> WAS: "In fact, you cannot use a uni-directional Transorb (or
> plain vanilla zener) unless combined with a diode to
> prevent forward conduction as shown in multitudes of
> catalogs and literature on relays."
>
> NOW: There is no practical value in utilization of a single
> unidirectional Transorb (or plain vanilla zener) because
> its functionality is limited to behavior that mimics
> the use of an ordinary diode as illustrated in cases
> 3/4 and 5/6 in the link cited above.
>
> The industry wide practice for using a zener
> in the coil suppression network of relays is illustrated
> in cases 7/8 were the zener is turned over and a
> diode added to prevent forward conduction. In this
> instance, the zener's unique qualities as a voltage
> clamping device provide the desired spike suppression
> characteristics while minimizing effects on relay
> drop out delay.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 34
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 24 Aug 2006, at 10:43, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-
> av@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
>> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>> What happens if there is an accidental deployment during the
>> landing flare?
>
> Remember, this is a speed brake, not a spoiler. It increases drag
> but has very little effect on lift. The effect of a speed brake
> decreases as IAS decreases. The airplane slows down but not as much
> as at Vne. I doubt that speed brake would really have any
> significant effect in the landing flare.
Sorry, I thought that the Glasair installation was likely on the
wing, and its deployment would reduce the lift, as well as produce
extra drag. I was wondering if the loss of lift at low speed at a
critical flight phase could be a problem.
Air Canada had a fatal accident with a DC-8 at Toronto many, many
years ago. There was a screw up in the flight deck, which resulted
in the ground spoilers being deployed at about 60 ft AGL. No survivors.
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700705-0
If the Glasair speedbrakes are not on the wing, then my original
question was not relevant.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 35
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: flap deployment above Vfe |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
Gilles Thesee wrote:
> I'm not familiar with US ATC, but is the Ident button used so often ?
No, it isn't. I just finished putting 75 hours on my Aztec in the last
two months. (Sacramento to Dominica via Texas and Florida, much flying
in Florida, and return to Sacramento via Texas and Boise.) Every flight
was "in the system". I made 20+ hops. I don't think I was asked to
"squawk IDENT" more than three or four times. You are correct in
assuming that once you enter your assigned code, ATC rarely requests
that you squawk IDENT.
BTW, the times I was asked to squawk IDENT were always on an initial
call-up and the facility or sector was trying to determine whether I was
in their airspace prior to assigning me a discrete code.
Like you, I see absolutely no need for an IDENT button my stick.
But ergonomics is an issue. Sure a button on the stick is convenient but
a button on the panel needn't be inconvenient. If you are building a
tandem aircraft think about locating your radios on the left side of
your panel so you can leave your right hand on the stick and can use
your left hand to manipulate the knobs. Likewise put your switches over
there too.
And think about putting your PTT on the throttle in a tandem aircraft.
That is how most military aircraft are configured. It may seem strange
at first but later it becomes very comfortable. That is now how I prefer
things.
Brian
Message 36
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
Kevin Horton wrote:
>> Remember, this is a speed brake, not a spoiler. It increases drag but
>> has very little effect on lift. The effect of a speed brake decreases
>> as IAS decreases. The airplane slows down but not as much as at Vne. I
>> doubt that speed brake would really have any significant effect in the
>> landing flare.
>
> Sorry, I thought that the Glasair installation was likely on the wing,
> and its deployment would reduce the lift, as well as produce extra
> drag. I was wondering if the loss of lift at low speed at a critical
> flight phase could be a problem.
Probably not as the speed brake tends to be well aft of the point of
maximum thickness and very little of the span. It has very little impact
on lift.
> Air Canada had a fatal accident with a DC-8 at Toronto many, many years
> ago. There was a screw up in the flight deck, which resulted in the
> ground spoilers being deployed at about 60 ft AGL. No survivors.
Yeah, well, the ground spoilers are supposed to kill ALL lift. That is a
completely different story.
>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700705-0
>
> If the Glasair speedbrakes are not on the wing, then my original
> question was not relevant.
And even if they are, I think you will find they have very little effect
if deployed while in landing configuration.
Regardless, don't take my word for it. Be sure to try it yourself.
Brian
Message 37
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Afternoon Kevin,
This may have little or no bearing on the subject at
hand, but the DC-8 had no speed brake at all!
They originally designed one that came out of the
fuselage at the wing root. It was totally ineffective
and the design was too far along to incorporate a
speed brake in the wing structure. They fixed it by
making the engine reversers usable in flight. If you
wanted a speed brake function in the DC-8, you used
inflight thrust reversing.
They did employ ground spoilers which were designed to
kill as much lift as possible. They were located along
the trailing portion of the primary wing structure.
Speed brakes that are intended to provide inflight
drag tend to be mounted further forward on the wing
and be designed so they destroy very little of the
lift being developed by the wing. Obviously, there are
many variations. Boeing tends to use sections of the
trailing edge that also serve as ground spoilers The
Caravelle a had a beautiful set of brakes that looked
like big brothers of those used on gliders.
In general, the inflight speed brakes have a
relatively small effect on the lift being produced.
The ground spoilers are designed to kill as much of
the lift as is possible.
No doubt many of our listers can point to exceptions
where the functions are mixed even more so than on the
Boeings, but the DC-8 had NO speed brakes at all
within the aircraft structure. Just the inflight
reversing capability. That actually worked quite well.
but it sure made a lot of noise and a lot of
vibration!
Happy Skies,
Old (Once upon a time DC-8 captain) Bob
--- Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
> Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> On 24 Aug 2006, at 10:43, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian
> Lloyd <brian-
> > av@lloyd.com>
> >
> >
> > On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
> Horton
> >> <khorton01@rogers.com>
> >>
> >> What happens if there is an accidental deployment
> during the
> >> landing flare?
> >
> > Remember, this is a speed brake, not a spoiler. It
> increases drag
> > but has very little effect on lift. The effect of
> a speed brake
> > decreases as IAS decreases. The airplane slows
> down but not as much
> > as at Vne. I doubt that speed brake would really
> have any
> > significant effect in the landing flare.
>
> Sorry, I thought that the Glasair installation was
> likely on the
> wing, and its deployment would reduce the lift, as
> well as produce
> extra drag. I was wondering if the loss of lift at
> low speed at a
> critical flight phase could be a problem.
>
> Air Canada had a fatal accident with a DC-8 at
> Toronto many, many
> years ago. There was a screw up in the flight deck,
> which resulted
> in the ground spoilers being deployed at about 60 ft
> AGL. No survivors.
>
>
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700705-0
>
> If the Glasair speedbrakes are not on the wing, then
> my original
> question was not relevant.
>
> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> Ottawa, Canada
> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
Message 38
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Does anyone know where I can find a .pdf of a Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual?
Thanks!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=57097#57097
Message 39
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> In general, the inflight speed brakes have a
> relatively small effect on the lift being produced.
> The ground spoilers are designed to kill as much of
> the lift as is possible.
>
When on the wings, "drag only" speed-brakes tend to look like fences
lifted at a distance from the wing skin, in order to preserve the
airflow on the wing upper surface.
If they block part of the airflow on the wing, then they'll kill lift as
well as increase drag.
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 40
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Does anyone know where I can find a .pdf of a Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual?
>
> Thanks!
>
Have you tried
http://contrails.free.fr/gps_manuels.php ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 41
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: and relay coil spike suppression |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:34 PM 8/24/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>The end.
>
>Clearly you are unwilling to say the bi-transorb is just as good as a
>diode and in some cases better.
>
>Its time to say good by to this line of discussion
My sincere apologies . . . if that's what you were arguing, then
no problem. I thought I made it clear that I had no argument with
using ANY of the coil suppression techniques suggested by a whole
variety of authors INCLUDING the bi-transorb, bi-filar coils, cap-resistor,
resistor, diode-zener, diode or any other technique one wishes to
embrace.
The sum and substance of my position was (and still is) that I can
demonstrate no reason for anyone to FAVOR any of those techniques over
the others for the purpose of increasing relay life. In particular,
I was objecting to a "new and improved" approach to selling coil
suppression when, like laundry soap, the ultimate choice of any
flavor would perform just fine. Under those circumstances, there's
no reason for anyone to jerk out existing technologies based on concerns
for shortened relay life . . . and similarly no reason not to
use the most inexpensive or convenient technology at hand. That's
what I meant by "practical value". Beyond that, anything that
floats your personal boat will work just fine too. My head is
always calculating the return-on-investment/cost-of-ownership
considerations so my personal boat floats just fine on diodes.
Bob . . .
Message 42
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Right you are about the DC8, Bob. I too flew it (about 12 years straight).
It always seemed an unnatural act to deliberately use reverse in flight....
An exception to what you say about speed brakes not having much effect on
lift is the Boeing 727, an all around wonderfully capable airplane. The
speed brakes (flight spoilers) were so effective you could actually lose
10,000 feet in less than 10 miles or slow from 350 IAS to 250 in about 4
miles, not something you'd want to do in a pax airplane (the descent
anyway), but lots of fun with boxes. Two fine airplanes, either of which I
wish I was still flying.
Olen Goodwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob@BeechOwners.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring)
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
>
>
> Good Afternoon Kevin,
>
> This may have little or no bearing on the subject at
> hand, but the DC-8 had no speed brake at all!
>
> They originally designed one that came out of the
> fuselage at the wing root. It was totally ineffective
> and the design was too far along to incorporate a
> speed brake in the wing structure. They fixed it by
> making the engine reversers usable in flight. If you
> wanted a speed brake function in the DC-8, you used
> inflight thrust reversing.
>
> They did employ ground spoilers which were designed to
> kill as much lift as possible. They were located along
> the trailing portion of the primary wing structure.
> Speed brakes that are intended to provide inflight
> drag tend to be mounted further forward on the wing
> and be designed so they destroy very little of the
> lift being developed by the wing. Obviously, there are
> many variations. Boeing tends to use sections of the
> trailing edge that also serve as ground spoilers The
> Caravelle a had a beautiful set of brakes that looked
> like big brothers of those used on gliders.
>
> In general, the inflight speed brakes have a
> relatively small effect on the lift being produced.
> The ground spoilers are designed to kill as much of
> the lift as is possible.
>
> No doubt many of our listers can point to exceptions
> where the functions are mixed even more so than on the
> Boeings, but the DC-8 had NO speed brakes at all
> within the aircraft structure. Just the inflight
> reversing capability. That actually worked quite well.
> but it sure made a lot of noise and a lot of
> vibration!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old (Once upon a time DC-8 captain) Bob
>
> --- Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
>> Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>
>> On 24 Aug 2006, at 10:43, Brian Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian
>> Lloyd <brian-
>> > av@lloyd.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
>> >
>> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
>> Horton
>> >> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>> >>
>> >> What happens if there is an accidental deployment
>> during the
>> >> landing flare?
>> >
>> > Remember, this is a speed brake, not a spoiler. It
>> increases drag
>> > but has very little effect on lift. The effect of
>> a speed brake
>> > decreases as IAS decreases. The airplane slows
>> down but not as much
>> > as at Vne. I doubt that speed brake would really
>> have any
>> > significant effect in the landing flare.
>>
>> Sorry, I thought that the Glasair installation was
>> likely on the
>> wing, and its deployment would reduce the lift, as
>> well as produce
>> extra drag. I was wondering if the loss of lift at
>> low speed at a
>> critical flight phase could be a problem.
>>
>> Air Canada had a fatal accident with a DC-8 at
>> Toronto many, many
>> years ago. There was a screw up in the flight deck,
>> which resulted
>> in the ground spoilers being deployed at about 60 ft
>> AGL. No survivors.
>>
>>
> http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700705-0
>>
>> If the Glasair speedbrakes are not on the wing, then
>> my original
>> question was not relevant.
>>
>> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
>> Ottawa, Canada
>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>> Web Forums!
>>
>>
>> Admin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 43
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs -
08/23/06
Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.394 [268.11.3/423]
Interesting that this message (from Michael) never arrived at my computer.
And no you are not (building rocket launchers) but if there had been a
transorb on the aircraft bus (different application than the relay, but
another one of the Paul vs. Bob arguments (where Paul; says there is a
transient and Bob: says no because I have never seen one) . . .
Correction: never been able to "capture" a starter induced
transient in spite of years of specific tests to see if such
animals exist . . . It wasn't as if I were standing around
waiting for one to walk by.
. . . where the alternator was damaged by the defectively designed OV
crow bar, dozens of pilots would not have had to replace the alternator and
remove the faulty OV device.
You know, it's difficult to "fix" anything when the people
having problems don't talk to the supplier of the "problem"
device. Out of about 4 thousand crowbar ov systems now in service
both OBAM and TC, we've been made aware of and fixed about
a dozen cases in the past 20 years. Two of the situations
revealed new data that prompted changes to the design.
I recently posted a pix of a repeatable transient that 100% of the time
tripped the OV device falsely in my own testing.
Yeah, some fuzzy scope traces with no test setup data
and no description of the test procedure. No definition
of the OV device in question. Obviously no contact with
the original designer in any spirit of curiosity or
helpful transfer of useful data. How am I or anyone else
to interpret what you've shared? How do we make use of
this data to improve on any design?
As you may recall Vans strongly asked builders to REMOVE the OV device as
it was damaging the alternators with false trips. Told to me by the GM at
Vans at the time.
This was discussed at length a couple of years ago so there is no need to
recycle it now.
You have just recycled it yourself, not as a point of
useful information but as a hammer with an intent to
injure . . .
My point is on other lists a simple " yes a transorb as Eric suggests is a
safer way to go and a better solution". No need to get into a thrashing
session etc. That is as technical as it ever needed to get.
Hmmmm "safer" . . . does it also ward of evil demons and
bird flu?
That sir is an excellent example of your lack of understanding
and re-enforces the notion I've long suspected that your
participation in this discussion has little to do with
the art and science of building airplanes and a much to
do with attempts to discredit me. Since you can't win
with logic and good science, you're now reduced to dragging
out old canards.
The alternators in question were failed due to load-dump
effected by b-lead disconnection for one of TWO reasons.
(1) the pilot operated the alternator ON-OFF switch
while the alternator was under load . . .
-OR-
(2) the ov system tripped for what-ever reason and
opened the b-lead contactor.
These events would have taken place irrespective of
the technology behind the OV sensing and control. If
it had been a simple zener-comparator that was overexcited
and had dumped the relay, the end result would have been
the same. You have, and continue to denigrate my work
with exaggeration and hyperbole and never offered to
assist in chasing out any bugs, real or imagined.
So the "fix" was to bury heads in the sand and state
our internally regulated alternators never fail in an
runaway condition so we'll take that pesky control system
off.
Vans (like your mythical disgruntled AeroElectric
Connection customers) never bothered to contact me about
their problems whereupon they would have been greeted
with instant cooperative and enthusiastic assistance or
at least a refund of their money. It's this kind of
communication and cooperation that makes things BETTER.
Instead, I hear about the problems from you when you
wave the news around to re-enforce your obviously
dismal opinions of me.
Permit me to offer a calm and well considered opinion
based on years of observations (and dodging your
mudballs). Hmmmm . . . I wonder if you remember your
very first phone call to me a long time ago where
I got a very agitated claim that you'd tried to order
my book several times and you were tired of being
ignored. As I recall, I could not find your order(s)
in the system but shipped you a free book anyhow.
Now here we are, 12-15 years later and you're still
accusing me of disrespect, incompetence, dishonorable
behavior, and any number of evil traits.
A couple of years ago you (and Eric as I recall) went
off to do some tests. I was delighted with the notion that
kindred spirits with an interest in promoting OBAM
aviation had the tools and time to get some badly needed
data for the purposes of improving upon the best-we-know-
how-to-do. At least here on the List, nothing came out
of those tests but ammunition for attacking what had gone
before . . . and contributed nothing to what could go
on in the future.
So now we come to it. You are not a teacher sir, you
explain nothing. Your factual contributions to the list
have been limited and punctuated with reports (which
I will now call fabricated) of how unhappy or abused my
customers are. You've never offered critical review
of my work based on your own knowledge and understanding.
You've supported your version of "science" with references
to the work of others and never with work of your own.
Your demonstrated behavior is the engineering manager's
worst nightmare: lot's of noise, manufactured discontent
and and zero work-product that one would be proud to pass
along to a paying customer. Your conduct here on the List
is demonstrably contrary to the spirit and intent of those
who gather here to learn, to be of assistance to others
and to advance the state of our art and science.
On behalf of my customers to spend their $time$ to exploit
my $time$, talent and resources . . . and for myself
now weary of the joust . . . I will ask in what I assure
you is a very calm and most polite tone to please vacate
the AeroElectric-List.
Bob . . .
Message 44
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Can somebody tell me where I can buy a single Nexus TJT-102 also known
as a M9177/4-1 female adapter? These are used by
Allied-Signal/Honeywell panel-mounted GPS products as a data loader
port. I have the PC data cable with the male end, but I need the female
end to mount in the instrument panel. I contacted the manufacturer and
they won't sell me less than 50 at a time. Their direct distributors
are the same. Here are the manufacturer's specs:
http://nexinc.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/telephone-jacks/tjt-102?&
seo=110 If I can't find one, I'll just hard-wire an 9 pin sub-d port
instead.
Thanks,
Michael H.
Message 45
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Bell" <brucebell74@sbcglobal.net>
Hi Bob,
I second that!
Regards,
Bruce Bell
Lubbock, Texas
RV-4 N23BB (FLYING)
DO NOT ARCHIVE!!
Message 46
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
Bravo, Well said
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Paul
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs -
> 08/23/06
> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:55:14 -0700
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
> Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.394 [268.11.3/423]
>
>
> Interesting that this message (from Michael) never arrived at my computer.
>
> And no you are not (building rocket launchers) but if there had been a
> transorb on the aircraft bus (different application than the relay, but
> another one of the Paul vs. Bob arguments (where Paul; says there is a
> transient and Bob: says no because I have never seen one) . . .
>
> Correction: never been able to "capture" a starter induced
> transient in spite of years of specific tests to see if such
> animals exist . . . It wasn't as if I were standing around
> waiting for one to walk by.
>
> . . . where the alternator was damaged by the defectively designed OV
> crow bar, dozens of pilots would not have had to replace the alternator
> and remove the faulty OV device.
>
> You know, it's difficult to "fix" anything when the people
> having problems don't talk to the supplier of the "problem"
> device. Out of about 4 thousand crowbar ov systems now in service
> both OBAM and TC, we've been made aware of and fixed about
> a dozen cases in the past 20 years. Two of the situations
> revealed new data that prompted changes to the design.
>
> I recently posted a pix of a repeatable transient that 100% of the time
> tripped the OV device falsely in my own testing.
>
> Yeah, some fuzzy scope traces with no test setup data
> and no description of the test procedure. No definition
> of the OV device in question. Obviously no contact with
> the original designer in any spirit of curiosity or
> helpful transfer of useful data. How am I or anyone else
> to interpret what you've shared? How do we make use of
> this data to improve on any design?
>
> As you may recall Vans strongly asked builders to REMOVE the OV device as
> it was damaging the alternators with false trips. Told to me by the GM at
> Vans at the time.
>
> This was discussed at length a couple of years ago so there is no need to
> recycle it now.
>
> You have just recycled it yourself, not as a point of
> useful information but as a hammer with an intent to
> injure . . .
>
> My point is on other lists a simple " yes a transorb as Eric suggests is a
> safer way to go and a better solution". No need to get into a thrashing
> session etc. That is as technical as it ever needed to get.
>
> Hmmmm "safer" . . . does it also ward of evil demons and
> bird flu?
>
> That sir is an excellent example of your lack of understanding
> and re-enforces the notion I've long suspected that your
> participation in this discussion has little to do with
> the art and science of building airplanes and a much to
> do with attempts to discredit me. Since you can't win
> with logic and good science, you're now reduced to dragging
> out old canards.
>
> The alternators in question were failed due to load-dump
> effected by b-lead disconnection for one of TWO reasons.
>
> (1) the pilot operated the alternator ON-OFF switch
> while the alternator was under load . . .
>
> -OR-
>
> (2) the ov system tripped for what-ever reason and
> opened the b-lead contactor.
>
> These events would have taken place irrespective of
> the technology behind the OV sensing and control. If
> it had been a simple zener-comparator that was overexcited
> and had dumped the relay, the end result would have been
> the same. You have, and continue to denigrate my work
> with exaggeration and hyperbole and never offered to
> assist in chasing out any bugs, real or imagined.
>
> So the "fix" was to bury heads in the sand and state
> our internally regulated alternators never fail in an
> runaway condition so we'll take that pesky control system
> off.
>
> Vans (like your mythical disgruntled AeroElectric
> Connection customers) never bothered to contact me about
> their problems whereupon they would have been greeted
> with instant cooperative and enthusiastic assistance or
> at least a refund of their money. It's this kind of
> communication and cooperation that makes things BETTER.
> Instead, I hear about the problems from you when you
> wave the news around to re-enforce your obviously
> dismal opinions of me.
>
> Permit me to offer a calm and well considered opinion
> based on years of observations (and dodging your
> mudballs). Hmmmm . . . I wonder if you remember your
> very first phone call to me a long time ago where
> I got a very agitated claim that you'd tried to order
> my book several times and you were tired of being
> ignored. As I recall, I could not find your order(s)
> in the system but shipped you a free book anyhow.
> Now here we are, 12-15 years later and you're still
> accusing me of disrespect, incompetence, dishonorable
> behavior, and any number of evil traits.
>
> A couple of years ago you (and Eric as I recall) went
> off to do some tests. I was delighted with the notion that
> kindred spirits with an interest in promoting OBAM
> aviation had the tools and time to get some badly needed
> data for the purposes of improving upon the best-we-know-
> how-to-do. At least here on the List, nothing came out
> of those tests but ammunition for attacking what had gone
> before . . . and contributed nothing to what could go
> on in the future.
>
> So now we come to it. You are not a teacher sir, you
> explain nothing. Your factual contributions to the list
> have been limited and punctuated with reports (which
> I will now call fabricated) of how unhappy or abused my
> customers are. You've never offered critical review
> of my work based on your own knowledge and understanding.
> You've supported your version of "science" with references
> to the work of others and never with work of your own.
>
> Your demonstrated behavior is the engineering manager's
> worst nightmare: lot's of noise, manufactured discontent
> and and zero work-product that one would be proud to pass
> along to a paying customer. Your conduct here on the List
> is demonstrably contrary to the spirit and intent of those
> who gather here to learn, to be of assistance to others
> and to advance the state of our art and science.
>
> On behalf of my customers to spend their $time$ to exploit
> my $time$, talent and resources . . . and for myself
> now weary of the joust . . . I will ask in what I assure
> you is a very calm and most polite tone to please vacate
> the AeroElectric-List.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 47
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
OK. Off topic but the 727 seems like THE plane to FLY. I know a retired 747 pilot
who said the most fun he ever had, the best plane and routes he ever had were
with 727s. You got to go to a lot of places not serviced by the larger planes
including some class d airports and the plane itself was fun/sporty to fly.
Lots of "interesting" central, south american spots too. But of course the
retirement is based on final salary years so you "have to" move up to 747s if
you can work it out...
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin"
>
> Right you are about the DC8, Bob. I too flew it (about 12 years straight).
> It always seemed an unnatural act to deliberately use reverse in flight....
>
> An exception to what you say about speed brakes not having much effect on
> lift is the Boeing 727, an all around wonderfully capable airplane. The
> speed brakes (flight spoilers) were so effective you could actually lose
> 10,000 feet in less than 10 miles or slow from 350 IAS to 250 in about 4
> miles, not something you'd want to do in a pax airplane (the descent
> anyway), but lots of fun with boxes. Two fine airplanes, either of which I
> wish I was still flying.
>
> Olen Goodwin
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "OldBob Siegfried"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring)
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
> >
> >
> >
> > Good Afternoon Kevin,
> >
> > This may have little or no bearing on the subject at
> > hand, but the DC-8 had no speed brake at all!
> >
> > They originally designed one that came out of the
> > fuselage at the wing root. It was totally ineffective
> > and the design was too far along to incorporate a
> > speed brake in the wing structure. They fixed it by
> > making the engine reversers usable in flight. If you
> > wanted a speed brake function in the DC-8, you used
> > inflight thrust reversing.
> >
> > They did employ ground spoilers which were designed to
> > kill as much lift as possible. They were located along
> > the trailing portion of the primary wing structure.
> > Speed brakes that are intended to provide inflight
> > drag tend to be mounted further forward on the wing
> > and be designed so they destroy very little of the
> > lift being developed by the wing. Obviously, there are
> > many variations. Boeing tends to use sections of the
> > trailing edge that also serve as ground spoilers The
> > Caravelle a had a beautiful set of brakes that looked
> > like big brothers of those used on gliders.
> >
> > In general, the inflight speed brakes have a
> > relatively small effect on the lift being produced.
> > The ground spoilers are designed to kill as much of
> > the lift as is possible.
> >
> > No doubt many of our listers can point to exceptions
> > where the functions are mixed even more so than on the
> > Boeings, but the DC-8 had NO speed brakes at all
> > within the aircraft structure. Just the inflight
> > reversing capability. That actually worked quite well.
> > but it sure made a lot of noise and a lot of
> > vibration!
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old (Once upon a time DC-8 captain) Bob
> >
> > --- Kevin Horton wrote:
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
> >> Horton
> >>
> >> On 24 Aug 2006, at 10:43, Brian Lloyd wrote:
> >>
> >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian
> >> Lloyd > >> > av@lloyd.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
> >> Horton
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> What happens if there is an accidental deployment
> >> during the
> >> >> landing flare?
> >> >
> >> > Remember, this is a speed brake, not a spoiler. It
> >> increases drag
> >> > but has very little effect on lift. The effect of
> >> a speed brake
> >> > decreases as IAS decreases. The airplane slows
> >> down but not as much
> >> > as at Vne. I doubt that speed brake would really
> >> have any
> >> > significant effect in the landing flare.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I thought that the Glasair installation was
> >> likely on the
> >> wing, and its deployment would reduce the lift, as
> >> well as produce
> >> extra drag. I was wondering if the loss of lift at
> >> low speed at a
> >> critical flight phase could be a problem.
> >>
> >> Air Canada had a fatal accident with a DC-8 at
> >> Toronto many, many
> >> years ago. There was a screw up in the flight deck,
> >> which resulted
> >> in the ground spoilers being deployed at about 60 ft
> >> AGL. No survivors.
> >>
> >>
> > http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700705-0
> >>
> >> If the Glasair speedbrakes are not on the wing, then
> >> my original
> >> question was not relevant.
> >>
> >> Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
> >> Ottawa, Canada
> >> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >> Web Forums!
> >>
> >>
> >> Admin.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>OK. Off topic but the 727 seems like THE plane to FLY. I know a
retired 747 pilot who said the most fun he ever had, the best plane and
routes he ever had were with 727s. You got to go to a lot of places not
serviced by the larger planes including some class d airports and the plane itself
was fun/sporty to fly. Lots of "interesting" central, south american
spots too. But of course the retirement is based on final salary years
so you "have to" move up to 747s if you can work it out...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Olen Goodwin"
<ogoodwin@comcast.net> <BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List message
posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <OGOODWIN@COMCAST.NET><BR>> <BR>> Right you are
about the DC8, Bob. I too flew it (about 12 years straight). <BR>> It always
seemed an unnatural act to deliberately use reverse in flight.... <BR>>
<BR>> An exception to what you say about speed brakes not having much effect
on <BR>> lift is the Boeing 727, an all around wonderfully capable airplane.
The <BR>> speed brakes (flight spoilers) were so effective you could actually
lose <BR>> 10,000 feet in less than 10 miles or slow from 350 IAS to
250 in about 4 <BR>> miles, not something you'd want to do in a pax airplane
(the descent <BR>> anyway), but lots of fun with boxes. Two fine airplanes,
either of which I <BR>> wish I was still flyi
ng. <B
R>> <BR>> Olen Goodwin <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From:
"OldBob Siegfried" <OLDBOB@BEECHOWNERS.COM><BR>> To: <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM><BR>>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:03 PM <BR>> Subject:
Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay wiring) <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
<BR>> > <OLDBOB@BEECHOWNERS.COM><BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
> Good Afternoon Kevin, <BR>> > <BR>> > This may have little
or no bearing on the subject at <BR>> > hand, but the DC-8 had no speed
brake at all! <BR>> > <BR>> > They originally designed one that
came out of the <BR>> > fuselage at the wing root. It was totally ineffective
<BR>> > and the design was too far along to incorporate a <BR>>
> speed brake in the wing structure. They fixed it by <BR>> > making
the engine reversers usable in flight. If you <BR>&
gt; &g
t; wanted a speed brake function in the DC-8, you used <BR>> > inflight thrust
reversing. <BR>> > <BR>> > They did employ ground spoilers which
were designed to <BR>> > kill as much lift as possible. They were located
along <BR>> > the trailing portion of the primary wing structure.
<BR>> > Speed brakes that are intended to provide inflight <BR>> >
drag tend to be mounted further forward on the wing <BR>> > and be designed
so they destroy very little of the <BR>> > lift being developed by
the wing. Obviously, there are <BR>> > many variations. Boeing tends to
use sections of the <BR>> > trailing edge that also serve as ground spoilers
The <BR>> > Caravelle a had a beautiful set of brakes that looked
<BR>> > like big brothers of those used on gliders. <BR>> > <BR>>
> In general, the inflight speed brakes have a <BR>> > relatively
small effect on the lift being produced. <BR>> >
; The
ground spoilers are designed to kill as much of <BR>> > the lift as is possible.
<BR>> > <BR>> > No doubt many of our listers can point to
exceptions <BR>> > where the functions are mixed even more so than on the
<BR>> > Boeings, but the DC-8 had NO speed brakes at all <BR>> >
within the aircraft structure. Just the inflight <BR>> > reversing capability.
That actually worked quite well. <BR>> > but it sure made a lot
of noise and a lot of <BR>> > vibration! <BR>> > <BR>> > Happy
Skies, <BR>> > <BR>> > Old (Once upon a time DC-8 captain) Bob
<BR>> > <BR>> > --- Kevin Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM>wrote: <BR>>
> <BR>> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin
<BR>> >> Horton <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM><BR>> >> <BR>> >>
On 24 Aug 2006, at 10:43, Brian Lloyd wrote: <BR>> >> <BR>> >>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: Br
ian <BR>> >> Lloyd <BRIAN- <BR>> >> > av@lloyd.com> <BR>>
>> > <BR>> >> > <BR>> >> > On Aug 24, 2006,
at 3:36 AM, Kevin Horton wrote: <BR>> >> > <BR>> >>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin <BR>> >> Horton
<BR>> >> >> <KHORTON01@ROGERS.COM><BR>> >> >>
<BR>> >> >> What happens if there is an accidental deployment
<BR>> >> during the <BR>> >> >> landing flare? <BR>>
>> > <BR>> >> > Remember, this is a speed brake, not
a spoiler. It <BR>> >> increases drag <BR>> >> > but has
very little effect on lift. The effect of <BR>> >> a speed brake <BR>>
>> > decreases as IAS decreases. The airplane slows <BR>> >>
down but not as much <BR>> >> > as at Vne. I doubt that speed
brake would really <BR>> >> have any <BR>
> &
gt;> > significant effect in the landing flare. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Sorry, I thought that the Glasair installation was <BR>> >> likely on the <BR>> >> wing, and its deployment would reduce the lift, as <BR>> >> well as produce <BR>> >> extra drag. I was wondering if the loss of lift at <BR>> >> low speed at a <BR>> >> critical flight phase could be a problem. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> Air Canada had a fatal accident with a DC-8 at <BR>> >> Toronto many, many <BR>> >> years ago. There was a screw up in the flight deck, <BR>> >> which resulted <BR>> >> in the ground spoilers being deployed at about 60 ft <BR>> >> AGL. No survivors. <BR>> >> <BR>> >> <BR>> > http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700705-0 <BR>> >> <BR>> >> If the Glasair speedbrakes are not on the wing, then <BR>> >> my
origin
nload,
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 48
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1@bellsouth.net>
Hey Bob,
Well said - again. However, the receiver has a tin ear
You have my vote!!!!!!
RHDudley
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs
> - 08/23/06
> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:55:14 -0700
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869
> Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.394 [268.11.3/423]
>
>
> Interesting that this message (from Michael) never arrived at my
> computer.
>
> And no you are not (building rocket launchers) but if there had been a
> transorb on the aircraft bus (different application than the relay,
> but another one of the Paul vs. Bob arguments (where Paul; says there
> is a transient and Bob: says no because I have never seen one) . . .
>
> Correction: never been able to "capture" a starter induced
> transient in spite of years of specific tests to see if such
> animals exist . . . It wasn't as if I were standing around
> waiting for one to walk by.
>
> . . . where the alternator was damaged by the defectively designed OV
> crow bar, dozens of pilots would not have had to replace the
> alternator and remove the faulty OV device.
>
> You know, it's difficult to "fix" anything when the people
> having problems don't talk to the supplier of the "problem"
> device. Out of about 4 thousand crowbar ov systems now in service
> both OBAM and TC, we've been made aware of and fixed about
> a dozen cases in the past 20 years. Two of the situations
> revealed new data that prompted changes to the design.
>
> I recently posted a pix of a repeatable transient that 100% of the
> time tripped the OV device falsely in my own testing.
>
> Yeah, some fuzzy scope traces with no test setup data
> and no description of the test procedure. No definition
> of the OV device in question. Obviously no contact with
> the original designer in any spirit of curiosity or
> helpful transfer of useful data. How am I or anyone else
> to interpret what you've shared? How do we make use of
> this data to improve on any design?
>
> As you may recall Vans strongly asked builders to REMOVE the OV device
> as it was damaging the alternators with false trips. Told to me by the
> GM at Vans at the time.
>
> This was discussed at length a couple of years ago so there is no need
> to recycle it now.
>
> You have just recycled it yourself, not as a point of
> useful information but as a hammer with an intent to
> injure . . .
>
> My point is on other lists a simple " yes a transorb as Eric suggests
> is a safer way to go and a better solution". No need to get into a
> thrashing session etc. That is as technical as it ever needed to get.
>
> Hmmmm "safer" . . . does it also ward of evil demons and
> bird flu?
>
> That sir is an excellent example of your lack of understanding
> and re-enforces the notion I've long suspected that your
> participation in this discussion has little to do with
> the art and science of building airplanes and a much to
> do with attempts to discredit me. Since you can't win
> with logic and good science, you're now reduced to dragging
> out old canards.
>
> The alternators in question were failed due to load-dump
> effected by b-lead disconnection for one of TWO reasons.
>
> (1) the pilot operated the alternator ON-OFF switch
> while the alternator was under load . . .
>
> -OR-
>
> (2) the ov system tripped for what-ever reason and
> opened the b-lead contactor.
>
> These events would have taken place irrespective of
> the technology behind the OV sensing and control. If
> it had been a simple zener-comparator that was overexcited
> and had dumped the relay, the end result would have been
> the same. You have, and continue to denigrate my work
> with exaggeration and hyperbole and never offered to
> assist in chasing out any bugs, real or imagined.
>
> So the "fix" was to bury heads in the sand and state
> our internally regulated alternators never fail in an
> runaway condition so we'll take that pesky control system
> off.
>
> Vans (like your mythical disgruntled AeroElectric
> Connection customers) never bothered to contact me about
> their problems whereupon they would have been greeted
> with instant cooperative and enthusiastic assistance or
> at least a refund of their money. It's this kind of
> communication and cooperation that makes things BETTER.
> Instead, I hear about the problems from you when you
> wave the news around to re-enforce your obviously
> dismal opinions of me.
>
> Permit me to offer a calm and well considered opinion
> based on years of observations (and dodging your
> mudballs). Hmmmm . . . I wonder if you remember your
> very first phone call to me a long time ago where
> I got a very agitated claim that you'd tried to order
> my book several times and you were tired of being
> ignored. As I recall, I could not find your order(s)
> in the system but shipped you a free book anyhow.
> Now here we are, 12-15 years later and you're still
> accusing me of disrespect, incompetence, dishonorable
> behavior, and any number of evil traits.
>
> A couple of years ago you (and Eric as I recall) went
> off to do some tests. I was delighted with the notion that
> kindred spirits with an interest in promoting OBAM
> aviation had the tools and time to get some badly needed
> data for the purposes of improving upon the best-we-know-
> how-to-do. At least here on the List, nothing came out
> of those tests but ammunition for attacking what had gone
> before . . . and contributed nothing to what could go
> on in the future.
>
> So now we come to it. You are not a teacher sir, you
> explain nothing. Your factual contributions to the list
> have been limited and punctuated with reports (which
> I will now call fabricated) of how unhappy or abused my
> customers are. You've never offered critical review
> of my work based on your own knowledge and understanding.
> You've supported your version of "science" with references
> to the work of others and never with work of your own.
>
> Your demonstrated behavior is the engineering manager's
> worst nightmare: lot's of noise, manufactured discontent
> and and zero work-product that one would be proud to pass
> along to a paying customer. Your conduct here on the List
> is demonstrably contrary to the spirit and intent of those
> who gather here to learn, to be of assistance to others
> and to advance the state of our art and science.
>
> On behalf of my customers to spend their $time$ to exploit
> my $time$, talent and resources . . . and for myself
> now weary of the joust . . . I will ask in what I assure
> you is a very calm and most polite tone to please vacate
> the AeroElectric-List.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 49
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Bob,
We are kindred sprits in one aspect.....we calmly deliver facts in a
pragmatic manner.
It amazing how some people react so emotionally to this.
Regards,
Paul McAllister
N378PJ
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:49 PM
Subject: PROBABLE SPAM> AeroElectric-List: Paul
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 31 Msgs -
08/23/06
Sender: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 7.1.394 [268.11.3/423]
Interesting that this message (from Michael) never arrived at my computer.
And no you are not (building rocket launchers) but if there had been a
transorb on the aircraft bus (different application than the relay, but
another one of the Paul vs. Bob arguments (where Paul; says there is a
transient and Bob: says no because I have never seen one) . . .
Correction: never been able to "capture" a starter induced
transient in spite of years of specific tests to see if such
animals exist . . . It wasn't as if I were standing around
waiting for one to walk by.
. . . where the alternator was damaged by the defectively designed OV
crow bar, dozens of pilots would not have had to replace the alternator and
remove the faulty OV device.
You know, it's difficult to "fix" anything when the people
having problems don't talk to the supplier of the "problem"
device. Out of about 4 thousand crowbar ov systems now in service
both OBAM and TC, we've been made aware of and fixed about
a dozen cases in the past 20 years. Two of the situations
revealed new data that prompted changes to the design.
I recently posted a pix of a repeatable transient that 100% of the time
tripped the OV device falsely in my own testing.
Yeah, some fuzzy scope traces with no test setup data
and no description of the test procedure. No definition
of the OV device in question. Obviously no contact with
the original designer in any spirit of curiosity or
helpful transfer of useful data. How am I or anyone else
to interpret what you've shared? How do we make use of
this data to improve on any design?
As you may recall Vans strongly asked builders to REMOVE the OV device as
it was damaging the alternators with false trips. Told to me by the GM at
Vans at the time.
This was discussed at length a couple of years ago so there is no need to
recycle it now.
You have just recycled it yourself, not as a point of
useful information but as a hammer with an intent to
injure . . .
My point is on other lists a simple " yes a transorb as Eric suggests is a
safer way to go and a better solution". No need to get into a thrashing
session etc. That is as technical as it ever needed to get.
Hmmmm "safer" . . . does it also ward of evil demons and
bird flu?
That sir is an excellent example of your lack of understanding
and re-enforces the notion I've long suspected that your
participation in this discussion has little to do with
the art and science of building airplanes and a much to
do with attempts to discredit me. Since you can't win
with logic and good science, you're now reduced to dragging
out old canards.
The alternators in question were failed due to load-dump
effected by b-lead disconnection for one of TWO reasons.
(1) the pilot operated the alternator ON-OFF switch
while the alternator was under load . . .
-OR-
(2) the ov system tripped for what-ever reason and
opened the b-lead contactor.
These events would have taken place irrespective of
the technology behind the OV sensing and control. If
it had been a simple zener-comparator that was overexcited
and had dumped the relay, the end result would have been
the same. You have, and continue to denigrate my work
with exaggeration and hyperbole and never offered to
assist in chasing out any bugs, real or imagined.
So the "fix" was to bury heads in the sand and state
our internally regulated alternators never fail in an
runaway condition so we'll take that pesky control system
off.
Vans (like your mythical disgruntled AeroElectric
Connection customers) never bothered to contact me about
their problems whereupon they would have been greeted
with instant cooperative and enthusiastic assistance or
at least a refund of their money. It's this kind of
communication and cooperation that makes things BETTER.
Instead, I hear about the problems from you when you
wave the news around to re-enforce your obviously
dismal opinions of me.
Permit me to offer a calm and well considered opinion
based on years of observations (and dodging your
mudballs). Hmmmm . . . I wonder if you remember your
very first phone call to me a long time ago where
I got a very agitated claim that you'd tried to order
my book several times and you were tired of being
ignored. As I recall, I could not find your order(s)
in the system but shipped you a free book anyhow.
Now here we are, 12-15 years later and you're still
accusing me of disrespect, incompetence, dishonorable
behavior, and any number of evil traits.
A couple of years ago you (and Eric as I recall) went
off to do some tests. I was delighted with the notion that
kindred spirits with an interest in promoting OBAM
aviation had the tools and time to get some badly needed
data for the purposes of improving upon the best-we-know-
how-to-do. At least here on the List, nothing came out
of those tests but ammunition for attacking what had gone
before . . . and contributed nothing to what could go
on in the future.
So now we come to it. You are not a teacher sir, you
explain nothing. Your factual contributions to the list
have been limited and punctuated with reports (which
I will now call fabricated) of how unhappy or abused my
customers are. You've never offered critical review
of my work based on your own knowledge and understanding.
You've supported your version of "science" with references
to the work of others and never with work of your own.
Your demonstrated behavior is the engineering manager's
worst nightmare: lot's of noise, manufactured discontent
and and zero work-product that one would be proud to pass
along to a paying customer. Your conduct here on the List
is demonstrably contrary to the spirit and intent of those
who gather here to learn, to be of assistance to others
and to advance the state of our art and science.
On behalf of my customers to spend their $time$ to exploit
my $time$, talent and resources . . . and for myself
now weary of the joust . . . I will ask in what I assure
you is a very calm and most polite tone to please vacate
the AeroElectric-List.
Bob . . .
Message 50
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" <PLaurence@the-beach.net>
Bob,
I have your flap schematics in the pdf format. Would you point me to the
ACAD files?
Thanks
Peter Laurence
Message 51
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
It was not a starter but a simple relay 10 amp on off load but I am sorry I
have pulled your chain.
By By
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Message 52
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Nexus M9177/4-1 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
Hi Michael,
I did a froogle search on TJT-102 and found it at skygeek
http://stylespilotshop.stores.yahoo.net/jb-11v.html for $18.95.
I don't know anything about the company.
Hope this helps,
Bob W.
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:48:56 -0500
"Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi@conwaycorp.net> wrote:
> Can somebody tell me where I can buy a single Nexus TJT-102 also known as a M9177/4-1 female adapter? These are used by Allied-Signal/Honeywell panel-mounted GPS products as a data loader port. I have the PC data cable with the male end, but I need the female end to mount in the instrument panel. I contacted the manufacturer and they won't sell me less than 50 at a time. Their direct distributors are the same. Here are the manufacturer's specs: http://nexinc.thomasnet.com/item/all-categories/telephone-jacks/tjt-102?&seo=110 If I can't find one, I'll just hard-wire an 9 pin sub-d port instead.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael H.
>
--
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
Message 53
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:02 PM 8/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence"
><PLaurence@the-beach.net>
>
>
>Bob,
>I have your flap schematics in the pdf format. Would you point me to the
>ACAD files?
Try:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Flaps/Flaps.dwg
Bob . . .
Message 54
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Your book etc. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:28 PM 8/19/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Bob,
> After reading your book I am wanting to redo my aircraft wiring. I
> have re read much of your book and have some questions:
>
>
> 1, What is your main reason for using the heavy duty contactor
> ? It does require some current to hold it down and a switch uses a spring.
> 2, I also use a knife switch in the negative side of the battery
> with a mechanical link to the panel. It seems to work ok and makes it
> easy to take the battery out of the circuit which I like. It will have
> some resistance but not much. It is one used in cars and trucks and is
> available from several sources. What would you say about this?
Any means you might devise to serve as a battery master
disconnect is certainly possible and even encouraged in
the OBAM aircraft community. The contactor is convenient
and works in about any situation irrespective of the aircraft
or battery location and it's easy.
Many production aircraft in times past had manuall operated
switches of one kind or another. I took lessons in a Piper
Tri-Pacer about 45 years ago that had manual battery switch
and manual starter switches.
> 3. I have replaced the Rotax engine with a Corvair engine made by
> William Wynne which uses two coils and a dual set of breaker points for
> almost a dual ignition system, but uses only one set of plugs. I have it
> running now but would like to do a rewire with an E buss and another
> battery. To justify the added weight I may have to lose some weight
> myself but I like the idea.
I've met Mr. Wynne and read his publications. He's done
some impressive work with the Corvair conversions. Why
do you think you need dual batteries?
> 4, Does B&C Electronics sell kits?
Not that I know of.
> 5. Thanks for writing a good book (may I expect some more pages?)
Sure. Keep an eye on the What's New? section of our website.
You buy the book only one time and you can download future
updates from the website as they are published.
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 55
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:03 AM 8/24/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Removed U114, jumpered 2 & 3 together. Now when I apply power nothing is
>amplified. That is, in stereo configuration you could hear music without
>power but it was much louder with power. Now in the "mono" configuration
>with the above changes, no difference can be heard in loudness when power
>is applied.
>
Are you sure you've wired it right? Which side of the board has
the connector on it? Note there are two pinout configurations
depending on how the connector is mounted. See latest instruction
manual for an amplification of this situation. It was recently
updated and posted at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700H.pdf
Check out note 14 on Page 2
Message 56
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Off to California |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
I had hoped to get to many more messages before we
left but I'm out of time and need to pack the bags.
Dr. Dee and I are headed to Auburn (Sacremento), CA
for a weekend of "airplanespeak" and other good conversations.
Hope to meet some of you there in person.
Be back on Monday.
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 57
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Problem with Power Sources |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:02 PM 8/15/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>I just finished my RV-4 and used Bob's Z-11 plan with a Battery Bus, Main
>Bus and E Bus. Somehow I have them isolated so that the main works of the
>Master, the E bus switch lights the avionics, but I can't get the Main bus
>to feed the E Bus without turning it on.
>
>At first I thought I had miswired and blown the Diode, but I replaced that
>and still have the same squawk. The plane's electrical systems all work,
>but I wonder what I did wrong. I also wonder if I'm placing the whole
>system in jeopardy by using both switches to hot up everything. Appreciate
>any troubleshooting ideas.
>Ron
Did you get this figured out okay?
Bob . . .
Message 58
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Flap switches/relay wiring) |
Too bad the old airplanes that required "piloting" are all being
retired. I enjoyed them, and I think lots of the guys that liked flying
for it's own sake did. Interesting what you said about the 747...that's
where I'm headed in October. Bittersweet indeed.
Apologies for the off topic.
Olen
----- Original Message -----
From: lucky
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List: Flap switches/relay
wiring)
OK. Off topic but the 727 seems like THE plane to FLY. I know a
retired 747 pilot who said the most fun he ever had, the best plane and
routes he ever had were with 727s. You got to go to a lot of places not
serviced by the larger planes including some class d airports and the
plane itself was fun/sporty to fly. Lots of "interesting" central, south
american spots too. But of course the retirement is based on final
salary years so you "have to" move up to 747s if you can work it out...
Message 59
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Old Man's Musings |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Sorry guys, this will be WAY off topic.
Good Evening Olen,
Are you going to the 400 or a rope start?
I have never flown the 400, but I spent my last five
years flying the rope start version. It was one of my
all time favorites. Very gentle and easy to fly.
Unlike the 727, you can close the throttles at a
couple of hundred feet and just float on down to a
landing. Not only can you close the throttles, it is
still using full flaps for landing!
The 727 is a fine airplane, but give me an icy runway
and I'll take the 747 everytime.
I never did figure out how to maintain directional
control on an icy runway with the B-727 and I hated to
see them landed with partial flap and power on!
Happy Skies.
Awfully Old Bob
Do Not Archive
--- Olen Goodwin <ogoodwin@comcast.net> wrote:
> Too bad the old airplanes that required "piloting"
> are all being retired. I enjoyed them, and I think
> lots of the guys that liked flying for it's own sake
> did. Interesting what you said about the
> 747...that's where I'm headed in October.
> Bittersweet indeed.
>
> Apologies for the off topic.
>
> Olen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: lucky
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Ergonomics (was: AeroElectric-List:
> Flap switches/relay wiring)
>
>
> OK. Off topic but the 727 seems like THE plane to
> FLY. I know a retired 747 pilot who said the most
> fun he ever had, the best plane and routes he ever
> had were with 727s. You got to go to a lot of
> places not serviced by the larger planes including
> some class d airports and the plane itself was
> fun/sporty to fly. Lots of "interesting" central,
> south american spots too. But of course the
> retirement is based on final salary years so you
> "have to" move up to 747s if you can work it out...
>
Message 60
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
Garmin no longer shows they're install manual's from that site
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>>
>> Does anyone know where I can find a .pdf of a Garmin GNS 530 Installation
>> Manual?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> Have you tried
>
> http://contrails.free.fr/gps_manuels.php ?
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
>
Message 61
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Try Stark Avionics. They have most of them on PDF and may e-mail you one
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of 6440
Auto Parts
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
<sales@6440autoparts.com>
Garmin no longer shows they're install manual's from that site
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>>
>> Does anyone know where I can find a .pdf of a Garmin GNS 530 Installation
>> Manual?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> Have you tried
>
> http://contrails.free.fr/gps_manuels.php ?
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
>
Message 62
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Garmin GNS 530 Installation Manual |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> >
>
> Garmin no longer shows they're install manual's from that site
>
>>>
>> Have you tried
>>
>> http://contrails.free.fr/gps_manuels.php ?
There are about one dozen installation manuals, except the 530
installation manual, I'm afraid.
Have you tried Ebay ?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Garmin-Avionics-Install-Manuals-CD-New-Complete-Set_W0QQitemZ290020993542QQihZ019QQcategoryZ26436QQcmdZViewItem
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|