Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:12 AM - Magneto Switches and Wiring (SMITHBKN@aol.com)
2. 03:53 AM - Re: Magneto Switches and Wiring (Kevin Horton)
3. 05:34 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (steveadams)
4. 06:09 AM - Re: Transponders (Brian Lloyd)
5. 06:35 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es (Gary Casey)
6. 06:52 AM - Re: Transponders (Bill Denton)
7. 07:18 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
8. 07:33 AM - Wire Size (Jeff Moreau)
9. 08:13 AM - Re: Wire Size (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:29 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (OldBob Siegfried)
11. 08:32 AM - Re: What I learned today (Eric M. Jones)
12. 09:10 AM - Re: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
13. 09:20 AM - Re: Wire Size (John McMahon)
14. 09:22 AM - Re: Aero Electric-List: Re: What I learned today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
15. 09:29 AM - Re: Transponders (B Tomm)
16. 09:42 AM - Re: Transponders (OldBob Siegfried)
17. 09:42 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Terry Watson)
18. 09:49 AM - Re: Transponders (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
19. 09:52 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 10:10 AM - Re: What I learned today (Speedy11@aol.com)
21. 10:23 AM - Re: What I learned today (Speedy11@aol.com)
22. 10:33 AM - Re: What I learned today (Speedy11@aol.com)
23. 10:35 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (6440 Auto Parts)
24. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (6440 Auto Parts)
25. 11:13 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
26. 11:39 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
27. 11:47 AM - Re: Transponders (Bill Denton)
28. 11:47 AM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Bret Smith)
29. 11:48 AM - Re: Radio shields (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 11:51 AM - Re: Replacement led lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 12:02 PM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Tony Babb)
32. 12:03 PM - Re: Transponders (Kelly McMullen)
33. 12:14 PM - Mic plug / PTT wiring (Deems Davis)
34. 12:22 PM - Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring (Bill Denton)
35. 12:42 PM - Re: Transponders (B Tomm)
36. 12:47 PM - Re: Replacement led lights (B Tomm)
37. 01:03 PM - Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring (John Morgensen)
38. 01:47 PM - Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring (Deems Davis)
39. 01:58 PM - Re: Transponders (djones@northboone.net)
40. 02:01 PM - Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring (Bill Denton)
41. 02:08 PM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Nancy Ghertner)
42. 02:15 PM - Re: Radio shields (djones@northboone.net)
43. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: What I learned today (Rodney Dunham)
44. 02:27 PM - Re: Radio shields (djones@northboone.net)
45. 02:35 PM - Warning alarms into Flightcom403 (Allan Aaron)
46. 03:41 PM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es (Kevin Horton)
47. 03:57 PM - Re: Radio shields (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
48. 04:00 PM - Re: Radio shields (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
49. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: Z13/8 .... relays (Frank Stringham)
50. 04:36 PM - Gear Indicator lights (Greg Young)
51. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: What I learned today (6440 Auto Parts)
52. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: What I learned today (David Carter)
53. 06:52 PM - Re: Radio shields (djones@northboone.net)
54. 07:06 PM - Re: Warning alarms into Flightcom403 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
55. 08:54 PM - Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring (Deems Davis)
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: | Magneto Switches and Wiring |
Listers,
I've read Bob's book and searched the archives but still can't seem to find
answers to confirm that my desired approach on magneto and starter wiring
will work (or maybe there is a simpler way).
I have two traditional magnetos for an IO-360. I would like to have a
toggle switch for each mag, and a momentary toggle for the starter (with a toggle
guard for added protection of inadvertent activation).
I don't fully understand the "impulse" aspect of the magneto. Could someone
help explain such and outline the correct wiring for this setup?
Thanks,
Jeff
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: Magneto Switches and Wiring |
On 14 Sep 2006, at 06:08, SMITHBKN@aol.com wrote:
>
> I don't fully understand the "impulse" aspect of the magneto.
> Could someone help explain such and outline the correct wiring for
> this setup?
>
The impulse function is not electrically controlled. It is
controlled by a mechanical device inside the mag. The mag either has
an impulse coupler, or it doesn't. Typical installations have only
one mag with an impulse coupler. In that case, this is the only mag
that you want to have ON during start. The one with without the
impulse coupler needs to be OFF. That can be accomplished by pilot
switch selections, or the start switch could be wired to disable the
non-impulse mag while the starter is powered.
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "steveadams" <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
The most common causes of fuel exhaustion when there is fuel on board is pilot
error. Switching to the wrong tank or not fully turning a mechanical switch to
a completely on position. Failure of a properly maintained mechanical fuel valve
is extremely rare. Vapor lock in a well designed system running AV gas is
pretty rare in flight. While having seperate wing root pumps on seperate electrical
systems may seem like complete redundancy, in reality it only assures partial
functionality of the fuel system by giving you 2 independant fuel systems
with less capacity. Say you're tooling along enjoying a flight, and forget to
switch tanks. I know it will never happen to us because we are such conscientious
pilots, but let's just imagine it could happen. Maybe you run one tank dry,
or you realize you forgot and switch tanks with minimum fuel in one tank.
You switch on the other pump and nothing happens. You still have a perfectly good
pump on one side, with redundant power supplies, and no risk of vapor lock,
but that side has no fuel. Your redundancy has disappeared and all your additional
fail safe modifications are useless. Adding header tanks, cross feeds etc
only adds to the complexity and introduces additional failure modes. Keep it
simple, stick to proven designs and methods, and keep it maintained properly.
In my non-engineer opinion, you'll have a more reliable system.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61544#61544
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: Transponders |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dennis Jones wrote:
> In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote
> ground when used in the wire harness.
The suppression pin there there to effectively mute the reply from
your transponder when the signal comes from your DME.
The DME is at a frequency very near to that of the transponder. When
the DME transmitter sends out a couple hundred watt pulse the
transponder's receiver is overloaded. It may generate a reply. To get
around this problem the DME puts a pulse on the suppression line when
it is getting ready to transmit. This inhibits the transponder from
responding and sending out a bogus reply.
If you have a DME you should connect its suppression output to the
suppression input of the transponder. No DME? No worry.
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 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es |
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> Fuel system problems are a major cause of engine stoppage in
> homebuilt aircraft. Any fuel system that deviates from the norm, in
> either design or installation details, opens the door to unexpected
> problems. You have made a bunch of assumptions on how the system
> will perform following various types of failures. It would be wise
> to validate those assumptions via actual tests, either on the ground,
> or in the air over a nice long runway.
>
> Kevin Horton
Here is the reply below the reference, as suggested by another lister..
Yes, perhaps the biggest disadvantage of using two separate fuel
valves is the one you suggest - it deviates from the "norm." And
changing tanks takes two motions - opening the new valve, followed by
closing the old valve. Since the weakest link in any safety system
is usually the operator, what would happen if he (me) did something
wrong? If you shut off one tank before turning the other on the
engine will quit immediately - instant feedback and obviously
correctable. If you turn one on and forget to turn the other off
nothing will immediately happen, but before the engine will suck air
one tank has to go completely empty and in the case of my
installation there are gages and both audio and visual warnings of
that event. I felt these disadvantages are compensated for by the
advantages of being able to shut the fuel off before it enters the
cockpit, reduction in the number of fittings in the cockpit (someone
correctly pointed out that the total number of fittings might not
change), and completely independent fuel controls. But I don't think
I've made any "assumptions" regarding the operation - the failure
modes and results are fairly straightforward - valve off, no flow -
valve on, flow. Perhaps the only unknown is what happens with low
tanks and both valves open, and that has been discovered by others -
the empty tank can allow air into the system, preventing the use of
the fuel in the other tank. To verify this one would have to fly
with one tank empty and the other almost empty, and I am not willing
to do that. Regarding the number of fittings I recall counting the
possible in-cockpit leaks in the standard ES system at something over
30 with one moving seal and quite a number of those remain "wet" even
though the fuel valve is turned off. My system has a total of 7
potential leak paths in the cockpit and no moving seals, all of which
go "dry" with the fuel valves off. The builder with the "electric"
engine and one electric pump in each wing can probably has even
fewer, except he can't positively shut anything off.
Gary Casey
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: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
It's also used in instances where you have two (or more!) transponders in an
aircraft...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dennis Jones wrote:
> In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote
> ground when used in the wire harness.
The suppression pin there there to effectively mute the reply from
your transponder when the signal comes from your DME.
The DME is at a frequency very near to that of the transponder. When
the DME transmitter sends out a couple hundred watt pulse the
transponder's receiver is overloaded. It may generate a reply. To get
around this problem the DME puts a pulse on the suppression line when
it is getting ready to transmit. This inhibits the transponder from
responding and sending out a bogus reply.
If you have a DME you should connect its suppression output to the
suppression input of the transponder. No DME? No worry.
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 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: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Ahh there in lies your assumption....I agree, with AVGAS VL incidences
are very rare...With Mogas they are alarmingly common and a mechanical
fuel pump North side of a hot firewall is in exactly the "hydraulically
incorrect" place.
Yes true, you have to be aware of how much fuel you leave in one tank,
that's the one limitation of the wing root system, but does any of us
really go below half an hour on a tank...Some folks do suck a tank dry
before switching with a standard system, but of course your asking for
it if you did that with my system.
And note there are no cross feeds or any other so called fail safes, its
just one pump for one tank, no cross feeds nothing. I agree with you,
adding complexity is simply adding failure modes. With a simple wingroot
system just don't go below half an hour on each side before switching
pumps.
Works for me
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
steveadams
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:33 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "steveadams"
--> <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
The most common causes of fuel exhaustion when there is fuel on board is
pilot error. Switching to the wrong tank or not fully turning a
mechanical switch to a completely on position. Failure of a properly
maintained mechanical fuel valve is extremely rare. Vapor lock in a well
designed system running AV gas is pretty rare in flight. While having
seperate wing root pumps on seperate electrical systems may seem like
complete redundancy, in reality it only assures partial functionality of
the fuel system by giving you 2 independant fuel systems with less
capacity. Say you're tooling along enjoying a flight, and forget to
switch tanks. I know it will never happen to us because we are such
conscientious pilots, but let's just imagine it could happen. Maybe you
run one tank dry, or you realize you forgot and switch tanks with
minimum fuel in one tank. You switch on the other pump and nothing
happens. You still have a perfectly good pump on one side, with
redundant power supplies,!
and no risk of vapor lock, but that side has no fuel. Your redundancy
has disappeared and all your additional fail safe modifications are
useless. Adding header tanks, cross feeds etc only adds to the
complexity and introduces additional failure modes. Keep it simple,
stick to proven designs and methods, and keep it maintained properly. In
my non-engineer opinion, you'll have a more reliable system.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61544#61544
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
Is there a calculator or simple table that I can use to determine the size of wire
to us for each particular device that I am installing in my airplane?
Perhaps a website that has an online calculator?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Jeff
--------
Jeff Moreau
RV8A
Virginia Beach, VA
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61580#61580
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:32 AM 9/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
>Is there a calculator or simple table that I can use to determine the size
>of wire to us for each particular device that I am installing in my airplane?
>Perhaps a website that has an online calculator?
>Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
This is discussed and tabulated in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/Ch8_R12.pdf
Also, check out the other resources you'll find
at:
http://aeroelectric.com/
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 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: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Frank,
You state: "And note there are no cross feeds or any
other so called fail safes, its just one pump for one
tank, no cross feeds nothing. I agree with you, adding
complexity is simply adding failure modes. With a
simple wingroot system just don't go below half an
hour on each side before switching pumps.
Works for me
Frank"
And I am sure it will work just fine for any other
pilot that never makes a mistake!
Unfortunately, I have found that I am not one of those
pilots. I make an awful lot of mistakes and I often
forget to switch tanks when I should.
I believe the point that Steve wanted to make is that
it is the human pilot who has the higher failure mode.
Happy Skies,
Old bob
--- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde,
> Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Ahh there in lies your assumption....I agree, with
> AVGAS VL incidences
> are very rare...With Mogas they are alarmingly
> common and a mechanical
> fuel pump North side of a hot firewall is in exactly
> the "hydraulically
> incorrect" place.
>
> Yes true, you have to be aware of how much fuel you
> leave in one tank,
> that's the one limitation of the wing root system,
> but does any of us
> really go below half an hour on a tank...Some folks
> do suck a tank dry
> before switching with a standard system, but of
> course your asking for
> it if you did that with my system.
>
> And note there are no cross feeds or any other so
> called fail safes, its
> just one pump for one tank, no cross feeds nothing.
> I agree with you,
> adding complexity is simply adding failure modes.
> With a simple wingroot
> system just don't go below half an hour on each side
> before switching
> pumps.
>
> Works for me
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of
> steveadams
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:33 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> "steveadams"
> --> <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
>
> The most common causes of fuel exhaustion when there
> is fuel on board is
> pilot error. Switching to the wrong tank or not
> fully turning a
> mechanical switch to a completely on position.
> Failure of a properly
> maintained mechanical fuel valve is extremely rare.
> Vapor lock in a well
> designed system running AV gas is pretty rare in
> flight. While having
> seperate wing root pumps on seperate electrical
> systems may seem like
> complete redundancy, in reality it only assures
> partial functionality of
> the fuel system by giving you 2 independant fuel
> systems with less
> capacity. Say you're tooling along enjoying a
> flight, and forget to
> switch tanks. I know it will never happen to us
> because we are such
> conscientious pilots, but let's just imagine it
> could happen. Maybe you
> run one tank dry, or you realize you forgot and
> switch tanks with
> minimum fuel in one tank. You switch on the other
> pump and nothing
> happens. You still have a perfectly good pump on one
> side, with
> redundant power supplies,!
> and no risk of vapor lock, but that side has no
> fuel. Your redundancy
> has disappeared and all your additional fail safe
> modifications are
> useless. Adding header tanks, cross feeds etc only
> adds to the
> complexity and introduces additional failure modes.
> Keep it simple,
> stick to proven designs and methods, and keep it
> maintained properly. In
> my non-engineer opinion, you'll have a more reliable
> system.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61544#61544
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
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: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
The Final Solution:
(Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
First they banned the discourteous,
And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
Then they banned the insubordinate,
And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
Then they came for the passionately contentious,
And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more valuable
than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more civil--and
we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are not above being
jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with you in an intemperate
tone. They react to what they consider your intransigence and arrogance.
And it makes them go bonkers.
When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like my recent
disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I am nonplussed.
You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just thought I would do
you a favor. Fool me once....
Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people, including
me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on you and respect
you.
But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of their horrid
history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson. They learned
to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to believe or
what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth must be scrutinized,
it was a great discovery...."
-- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584
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: Fuel Pump Switch(es) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Certainly can't argue that one...I made a mistake myself once...:)
What I think I was trying to get at though was the 'pump failing just as
you have inadvertantly run out of gas from the other tank'...Is a double
failure...I.e it assumes the pilot forgot to switch tanks when he
should...AND....the pump on the tank with fuel in it has just failed.
That is a VERY unlikely situation...I mean lets say there is a 1 in 1000
chance the dumb*ss pilot (me) will suck a tank dry. Assume also there is
a 1 in 1000 chance a pump will fail on any particular flight.
The risk of both failures occurring concurrently is 1000*1000= 1 in 1
million.....Of course these numbers are completely arbitrary but the
point is clear, double failures are so rare that you almost never plan
for them in both aeronautical or industrial systems.
Of course if the risk so high (like 400 people on a DC10) then there
might be 3 independent hydraulic systems...But for GA its never planned
for as far as I can think of.
So your point about will work fine for any other pilot that never makes
a mistake is not true, if you make a mistake you will not drop out of
the sky...So what our hero sucks a tank dry...then simply switch the
other pump on...I very much doubt you would even have to turn off the
"air pump" to get the engine to run quite happily.
To counter the standard airplane system...Suppose you suck a tank
dry...Are we any more certain that the boost pump will re-prime, i.e
suck the air out of the line before it continues to pump fuel? Or the
handle doesn't suddenly snap off?...It is highly likely it will work as
planned (always has done) but I doubt you could prove it is any more
reliable than the wing root pump system.
Anyway, it really comes down to personal preference. I have run this
system for 410 hours and I like it. It is also done for a specific
purpose, i.e to reduce the risk of vapour lock with MOGAS...Otherwise I
would have just gone with a standard system.
I am not so invested in this solution that I am touting it as the only
way to go. It has its pros and cons, its just that for the specific
purpose (Mogas) its about the best (as an engineer who sometimes designs
pumped systems) I can come up with.
But assuming all is lost because the pilot makes a mistake is a false
assumption.
Young Frank....:)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
OldBob Siegfried
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OldBob Siegfried
--> <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Frank,
You state: "And note there are no cross feeds or any other so called
fail safes, its just one pump for one tank, no cross feeds nothing. I
agree with you, adding complexity is simply adding failure modes. With a
simple wingroot system just don't go below half an hour on each side
before switching pumps.
Works for me
Frank"
And I am sure it will work just fine for any other pilot that never
makes a mistake!
Unfortunately, I have found that I am not one of those pilots. I make an
awful lot of mistakes and I often forget to switch tanks when I should.
I believe the point that Steve wanted to make is that it is the human
pilot who has the higher failure mode.
Happy Skies,
Old bob
--- "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde,
> Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> Ahh there in lies your assumption....I agree, with AVGAS VL incidences
> are very rare...With Mogas they are alarmingly common and a mechanical
> fuel pump North side of a hot firewall is in exactly the
> "hydraulically incorrect" place.
>
> Yes true, you have to be aware of how much fuel you leave in one tank,
> that's the one limitation of the wing root system, but does any of us
> really go below half an hour on a tank...Some folks do suck a tank dry
> before switching with a standard system, but of course your asking for
> it if you did that with my system.
>
> And note there are no cross feeds or any other so called fail safes,
> its just one pump for one tank, no cross feeds nothing.
> I agree with you,
> adding complexity is simply adding failure modes.
> With a simple wingroot
> system just don't go below half an hour on each side before switching
> pumps.
>
> Works for me
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]
> On Behalf Of
> steveadams
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:33 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
> "steveadams"
> --> <dr_steve_adams@yahoo.com>
>
> The most common causes of fuel exhaustion when there is fuel on board
> is pilot error. Switching to the wrong tank or not fully turning a
> mechanical switch to a completely on position.
> Failure of a properly
> maintained mechanical fuel valve is extremely rare.
> Vapor lock in a well
> designed system running AV gas is pretty rare in flight. While having
> seperate wing root pumps on seperate electrical systems may seem like
> complete redundancy, in reality it only assures partial functionality
> of the fuel system by giving you 2 independant fuel systems with less
> capacity. Say you're tooling along enjoying a flight, and forget to
> switch tanks. I know it will never happen to us because we are such
> conscientious pilots, but let's just imagine it could happen. Maybe
> you run one tank dry, or you realize you forgot and switch tanks with
> minimum fuel in one tank. You switch on the other pump and nothing
> happens. You still have a perfectly good pump on one side, with
> redundant power supplies,!
> and no risk of vapor lock, but that side has no fuel. Your
> redundancy has disappeared and all your additional fail safe
> modifications are useless. Adding header tanks, cross feeds etc only
> adds to the complexity and introduces additional failure modes.
> Keep it simple,
> stick to proven designs and methods, and keep it maintained properly.
> In my non-engineer opinion, you'll have a more reliable system.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61544#61544
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Jeff Here is another link to a calculating spreadsheet by Jim Wier that
might work for you.
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/jimsdata/wirecalc.xls
John M.
On 9/14/06, Jeff Moreau <jmoreau2@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Moreau" <jmoreau2@cox.net>
>
> Is there a calculator or simple table that I can use to determine the size
> of wire to us for each particular device that I am installing in my
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, N9637M
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Aero Electric-List: Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Amen! There are several people on this list that make it a whole, even
though it has been created for Bob by Matt, yourself included. There
are also several people that go to a length to make a point when it
could be done in one or two sentences. Talk about mining nuggets.
Michael Sausen
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
M. Jones
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 10:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
--> <emjones@charter.net>
The Final Solution:
(Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
First they banned the discourteous,
And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
Then they banned the insubordinate,
And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
Then they came for the passionately contentious, And I didn't speak up
because I was a follower.
Then they came for the independent technological thinkers, And I didn't
speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times
more valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could
be more civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you
and I are not above being jerks. None of your foils started their
interchanges with you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they
consider your intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers.
When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points
like my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal"
(chapter 8), I am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory.
Hell, I just thought I would do you a favor. Fool me once....
Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people,
including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend
on you and respect you.
But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of
their horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful
lesson. They learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they
were taught to believe or what their egos make them yearn to see. To
know that even truth must be scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
-- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Yes,
Why would you want two (or more) transponders in an your aircraft?
Bevan
RV7A Finishing kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
It's also used in instances where you have two (or more!) transponders in an
aircraft...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
--> <brian-av@lloyd.com>
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dennis Jones wrote:
> In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote ground
> when used in the wire harness.
The suppression pin there there to effectively mute the reply from your
transponder when the signal comes from your DME.
The DME is at a frequency very near to that of the transponder. When the DME
transmitter sends out a couple hundred watt pulse the transponder's receiver
is overloaded. It may generate a reply. To get around this problem the DME
puts a pulse on the suppression line when it is getting ready to transmit.
This inhibits the transponder from responding and sending out a bogus reply.
If you have a DME you should connect its suppression output to the
suppression input of the transponder. No DME? No worry.
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: OldBob Siegfried <oldbob@beechowners.com>
Good Morning Bevan,
For the same reason many aircraft have two VORs or two
GPSs.
Redundancy.
Most air carrier, and many corporate aircraft, have
dual transponders.
If I were based in an area such as the SFO bay area, I
would also consider having two installed. Without a
transponder in such an area, even VFR flight is
difficult.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm"
> <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> Yes,
>
> Why would you want two (or more) transponders in an
> your aircraft?
>
> Bevan
> RV7A Finishing kit
>
>
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: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Obedience? Where did that come from? All Bob -- and I suspect 90% of the
rest of us are asking for -- is simple commonsense courtesy; that
characteristic (also called manners) that allows people to interact for
their common benefit. It requires not turning a technical discussion into a
personal attack; it requires honesty; it requires consideration. It also
requires becoming familiar with the rules of the road for this discussion
group carefully defined and posted by its sponsor, Matt Dralle.
Terry
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
<snip>
But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
In case the pilot forgets to switch one of them on!....:)
Frank
Definatly do not archive
Why would you want two (or more) transponders in an your aircraft?
Bevan
RV7A Finishing kit
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: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:32 AM 9/14/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>The Final Solution:
>
>(Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
>First they banned the discourteous,
>And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
>Then they banned the insubordinate,
>And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
>Then they came for the passionately contentious,
>And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
>Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
>And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
>Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
>The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more
>valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more
>civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are
>not above being jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with
>you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they consider your
>intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers.
Yup, the popular media outlets are loaded with folks who
disagree . . . about everything, but offer no "plan"
of their own. Further, they NEVER answer a direct question
that might illuminate their lack of understanding or
emphasizes their willingness to sacrifice the liberties of everyone
else for the false philanthropy that assuages someone's
discomforts. And yes, when pressed for specific answers, those
individuals DO go bonkers. Disagreement adds value ONLY when more
attractive or more honorable alternatives are offered.
>When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like
>my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I
>am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just
>thought I would do you a favor. Fool me once....
Eric, Eric . . . "very" is non-quantified. Disagree
all you want but the meaning of the phrase is inarguable
unless you're attempting to but quantified bounds on "little,
more, a lot, and gobs". Would you feel better if I simply
wrote, "Copper is a reactive metal"?
>Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people,
>including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on
>you and respect you.
>
>But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
Eric, you don't seem to have a grasp of the issues
here. No society of individuals should even consider themselves
a instrument or benefit of "the people". Every society
has charter, goals, and acceptable modes of behavior which
every member is expected to embrace . . . or leave. Nobody
has a duty to compromise a society's goals to accommodate
anyone's feelings of exclusion; buy in or get out. One
may always gather up a society of like minded individuals
who share alternative goals.
I cannot help that you've glossed over George's blatant
dishonorable behavior and his obfuscation of the
issues. The List IS a society of inclusion but with
LIMITED tolerance for behavior that does not move the
mission forward. You seem to mistake an expectation of
logical, honorable discourse and exchange of simple-ideas
as a demand for obedience. How you "feel" about any
of what transpires is beyond anyone's expectations or
duty to address. However, if you have thoughts or
questions about simple-ideas, new inventions or a novel
philosophy for making our airplanes cost less, fly better,
last longer, work better, etc. . . . you're most welcome
and encouraged to join in.
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: What I learned today |
You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so here is my
question. Out of curiosity what is the actual percentage of requests to
ban George over the entire list membership? Is this another case of the
vocal minority winning out over the silent majority?
I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if it is
veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes.
I agree with Michael Sausen, except that I would add Bob N. to the list of
names above.
George is aggravating sometimes. Occasionally he isn't. I believe his
comments should not be banned from this forum.
Hmmm ... I wonder if I'll be banned now.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
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: What I learned today |
Doug Windhorn
P.S. Now, my pet peeve. My browser opens a message at the top. If one has
important something to say, post it at the top of the message, not the
bottom (I probably have already read the prior messages, that the meaty
content is the resolution of a thread - why should I have to wade through
all the other stuff to get to the conclusion?) Exception: when responding
to several subjects with embedded comments, that is OK, but say you are
doing that at the top.
And now my pet peeve. People trying to impose their pet peeves on others.
The announcement of my pet peeve is likely to have little effect either.
Stan Sutterfield
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: What I learned today |
"Noise" for one may be "nuggets" for another. Sitting through a lecture on
geometry would cause some to search for nuggets while others would cling to
every word. I cling to every word on this forum. I then follow up with research
or forum questions to confirm and clarify my learning.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
It's a poor return on investment
of time to sift through "noise" looking for "nuggets".
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: | Re: What I learned today |
Delete, delete, delete
----- Original Message -----
From: Speedy11@aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
Doug Windhorn
P.S. Now, my pet peeve. My browser opens a message at the top. If
one has
important something to say, post it at the top of the message, not
the
bottom (I probably have already read the prior messages, that the
meaty
content is the resolution of a thread - why should I have to wade
through
all the other stuff to get to the conclusion?) Exception: when
responding
to several subjects with embedded comments, that is OK, but say you
are
doing that at the top.
And now my pet peeve. People trying to impose their pet peeves on
others.
The announcement of my pet peeve is likely to have little effect
either.
Stan Sutterfield
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
Now I suppose we're going to compare a moderators actions to that of
the Nazi's. Bob made a decission right or wrong. I'll bet if George wanted
back on the list he could come up with something creative like rejoining
under another email address. I'm sorry but the poor horse can't stand much
more of a beating. Poor old Rev Niemoeller probably turns over in his grave
every time someone uses his poem in small circumstances. But I'm sure the
christian he was he would forgive and let it be. For me I'm going back
to delete delete delete.
Randy
> (Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
> First they banned the discourteous,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they banned the insubordinate,
> And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
> Then they came for the passionately contentious,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
> And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
> Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
Absolutely! I just assume Bob as it is his forum.
Michael Sausen
Do not archive
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Speedy11@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so here
is my
question. Out of curiosity what is the actual percentage of
requests to
ban George over the entire list membership? Is this another
case of the
vocal minority winning out over the silent majority?
I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if it
is
veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes.
I agree with Michael Sausen, except that I would add Bob N. to the list
of names above.
George is aggravating sometimes. Occasionally he isn't. I believe his
comments should not be banned from this forum.
Hmmm ... I wonder if I'll be banned now.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
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: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I think you are confused. He isn't banned in the sense he is blocked.
Bob simply asked him to leave. He can still post to the list using the
same ole address. Also, none of Matt's lists are moderated in the sense
of approving messages before they are allowed. His lists have been a
very successful experiment in that they are allowed to police
themselves. Unlike some other lists where moderation is rigidly and
strictly enforced, as far as I have seen Matt rarely gets involved.
Actually blocking someone from this list is at the discretion of Bob or
Matt of course.
And sorry, but jumping all the way to the other side with the Nazi
comment is just wacky. We have plenty of references in our current
government so there is no sense in dredging things up from that far back
in history. :-D
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 6440
Auto Parts
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
--> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
Now I suppose we're going to compare a moderators actions to that
of the Nazi's. Bob made a decission right or wrong. I'll bet if George
wanted back on the list he could come up with something creative like
rejoining under another email address. I'm sorry but the poor horse
can't stand much more of a beating. Poor old Rev Niemoeller probably
turns over in his grave every time someone uses his poem in small
circumstances. But I'm sure the
christian he was he would forgive and let it be. For me I'm going
back
to delete delete delete.
Randy
> (Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
> First they banned the discourteous,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they banned the insubordinate,
> And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
> Then they came for the passionately contentious, And I didn't speak up
> because I was a follower.
> Then they came for the independent technological thinkers, And I
> didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
> Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Dunno, but Piper offers them in their "big" aircraft, and I think they may
be used in the turboprop world...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of B Tomm
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Yes,
Why would you want two (or more) transponders in an your aircraft?
Bevan
RV7A Finishing kit
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 6:52 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton"
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
It's also used in instances where you have two (or more!) transponders in an
aircraft...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Brian
Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:08 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd
--> <brian-av@lloyd.com>
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dennis Jones wrote:
> In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote ground
> when used in the wire harness.
The suppression pin there there to effectively mute the reply from your
transponder when the signal comes from your DME.
The DME is at a frequency very near to that of the transponder. When the DME
transmitter sends out a couple hundred watt pulse the transponder's receiver
is overloaded. It may generate a reply. To get around this problem the DME
puts a pulse on the suppression line when it is getting ready to transmit.
This inhibits the transponder from responding and sending out a bogus reply.
If you have a DME you should connect its suppression output to the
suppression input of the transponder. No DME? No worry.
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 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: | Re: What I learned today |
Come on, Stan.
If George had just submitted his vulgar and abusive retorts to Bob via
his PERSONAL email, things would have been fine...But he chose to show
his A## to the entire list, time and time again.
His verbage was clearly a violation of the List ettiquite. And I have
no interest is reading anyone's diatribes.
I subscribe to learn how to safely and efficiently wire an airplane.
I'm interested in everyone's ideas, methods and techniques. George just
doesn't "play well with others".
Do not archive and don't ban Stan....
Bret
----- Original Message -----
From: Speedy11@aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
You want this to be a list of the people, so to speak, so here is
my
question. Out of curiosity what is the actual percentage of
requests to
ban George over the entire list membership? Is this another case of
the
vocal minority winning out over the silent majority?
I for one think George, Paul, and others add value even if it is
veiled in a load of rhetoric and even BS sometimes.
I agree with Michael Sausen, except that I would add Bob N. to the
list of names above.
George is aggravating sometimes. Occasionally he isn't. I believe
his comments should not be banned from this forum.
Hmmm ... I wonder if I'll be banned now.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
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: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:21 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 12:12 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>I m wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is the
>>interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic. key and
>>the headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the daisy chain
>>system shown by Bob, however I m confused about the shields connecting
>>into the ground wire itself or do they connect to the shield of the
>>ground wire?
>
> Can you scan the wiring from the instruction manual
> and send it to me?
>
> It would be useful to see how they've depicted their
> suggestions for the installation.
Okay, got the scans. Great.
I guess I'm not sure what the question is. The schematic shows
two aircraft ground (A/C Ground) connections to pins 4 and 15.
Wires that the manufacturer recommends be shielded have their
shield grounds returned to specific pins. They also show how
the shield can double as a ground return for mic, headphone,
speaker leads, etc. Further, their wiring suggests exactly
the same daisy-chaining technique I described in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
OOPS! I just re-read your question and I think missed
something the first time. You talk about a "shield of
the ground wire".
The drawings show single strands of wire from pins 4 and
15 to ground. Your pigtails would either solder onto the
shared solder cups or splice into the ground wires immediately
adjacent to where they drop into the crimped on pin pocket.
The ground wires are not shielded.
Bob . . .
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: Replacement led lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:09 PM 9/13/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>
>Do you have a suggestion for a source for reasonably priced LED replacement
>bulbs for my non aircraft related project. T3-1/4 and T1-3/4 cases, 14 or
>28V.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A finish kit
I guess I don't know what you mean by "reasonably priced". We're
evaluating some devices at RAC but I think they're quite expensive.
Probably over $10 each in production lots.
If you're going to LED, consider removing the lamp sockets and
replacing with application led-resistor combos specific to the
task. The lamps are getting DIRT cheap. See Ebay.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb@alejandra.net>
Good morning all,
I'm electronically challenged but have been lurking on this list for a
couple of years now, it's invaluable to me, I learn something from most
posts and the discussions when disagreements occur so thanks to all
especially Bob and the regular contributors like Brian, Eric et al. I agree
with Terry's comments below. It seems to me that if anyone is really
offended by asking GMC and Paul to take off they can always unsubscribe from
this list and maybe start their own. The rest of us I suspect would like to
get back to our electrical systems.
Cheers,
Tony
Velocity SEFG 62% done, 78% to go
www.alejandra.net/velocity
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Terry
Watson
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson"
--> <terry@tcwatson.com>
Obedience? Where did that come from? All Bob -- and I suspect 90% of the
rest of us are asking for -- is simple commonsense courtesy; that
characteristic (also called manners) that allows people to interact for
their common benefit. It requires not turning a technical discussion into a
personal attack; it requires honesty; it requires consideration. It also
requires becoming familiar with the rules of the road for this discussion
group carefully defined and posted by its sponsor, Matt Dralle.
Terry
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
<snip>
But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
So that when you are in the middle of the DC ADIZ and one quits
squawking you don't get interecpted by F-16s.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> Yes,
>
> Why would you want two (or more) transponders in an your aircraft?
>
> Bevan
> RV7A Finishing kit
>
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: | Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to the
Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the control/
grip rather than to the mic plug common?
Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
Panel/wiring
http://deemsrv10.com/
>
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: | Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
A properly installed aircraft mic jack uses an insulating washer (or other
means) to ensure that the jack is NOT connected to a common ground...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 2:12 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mic plug / PTT wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to the
Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the control/
grip rather than to the mic plug common?
Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
Panel/wiring
http://deemsrv10.com/
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
I guess it depends on where you fly. Where I fly, transponders are
mandatory but quite often ATC tells us they can't "see" it. We tell them
it's still turned on and they clear us to where we want to go anyway. It
makes me think its mandatory to have but intermittent operation is OK.
Incidentally the transponders check out fine in the shop. The general
consensus is that Act's system is unreliable due to various factors.
Bevan
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly
McMullen
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:02 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Transponders
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
--> <kellym@aviating.com>
So that when you are in the middle of the DC ADIZ and one quits squawking
you don't get interecpted by F-16s.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm"
> --> <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> Yes,
>
> Why would you want two (or more) transponders in an your aircraft?
>
> Bevan
> RV7A Finishing kit
>
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: | Replacement led lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Yip $10 each is about the best price I have seen (Newark) but still too
pricing because of the quantity I would need, Also, the sockets on some are
not changeable because they are special lighted switches that are tough
enough as it is to get. I would have to completely redo the applications to
replace the sockets.
I'll look on ebay. Hadn't thought of that. Thanks.
Bevan
RV7A finishing kit
-----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, September 14, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Replacement led lights
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:09 PM 9/13/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm"
>--> <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>
>Do you have a suggestion for a source for reasonably priced LED
>replacement bulbs for my non aircraft related project. T3-1/4 and
>T1-3/4 cases, 14 or 28V.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A finish kit
I guess I don't know what you mean by "reasonably priced". We're
evaluating some devices at RAC but I think they're quite expensive.
Probably over $10 each in production lots.
If you're going to LED, consider removing the lamp sockets and
replacing with application led-resistor combos specific to the
task. The lamps are getting DIRT cheap. See Ebay.
Bob . . .
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: Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen <john@morgensen.com>
Hope I can contribute here. I encountered an FBO Cessna that was not
grounded properly. The symptoms were PTT produced a side-tone with old
cheap headsets but no side-tone with brand new ANR headsets.
John Morgensen RV-9A QB
Deems Davis wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
> The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to the
> Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
> key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
> control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the control/
> grip rather than to the mic plug common?
>
> Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
> Panel/wiring
> http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I think I understand the need to isolate the mic plug with the
insulating washers. My question which remains is does the PTT switch
need to be wired directly to the common terminal (as depicted on the web
site example) on the mic plug? In my case this will be difficult as I
plan to use a switch on a control stick which already is wired with a
common ground. I'm 'assuming' that I can wire the control grip switch to
the mic plug 'key' terminal, and the common/ground will be through the
common/ground in the control grip wiring. (?)
Deems Davis RV10 # 406
Panel/wiring
http://deemsrv10.com/
John Morgensen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> Hope I can contribute here. I encountered an FBO Cessna that was not
> grounded properly. The symptoms were PTT produced a side-tone with old
> cheap headsets but no side-tone with brand new ANR headsets.
>
> John Morgensen RV-9A QB
>
> Deems Davis wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
>> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>> The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to
>> the Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
>> key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
>> control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the
>> control/ grip rather than to the mic plug common?
>>
>> Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
>> Panel/wiring
>> http://deemsrv10.com/
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: Transponders |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
Thank you Brian
What is the remote ground used for?
Quoting Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:03 PM, Dennis Jones wrote:
>
>> In a transponder what is considered suppression out and remote
>> ground when used in the wire harness.
>
> The suppression pin there there to effectively mute the reply from
> your transponder when the signal comes from your DME.
>
> The DME is at a frequency very near to that of the transponder. When
> the DME transmitter sends out a couple hundred watt pulse the
> transponder's receiver is overloaded. It may generate a reply. To get
> around this problem the DME puts a pulse on the suppression line
> when it is getting ready to transmit. This inhibits the transponder
> from responding and sending out a bogus reply.
>
> If you have a DME you should connect its suppression output to the
> suppression input of the transponder. No DME? No worry.
>
> 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 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: | Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
What brand of control stick are you using?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems
Davis
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic plug / PTT wiring
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
I think I understand the need to isolate the mic plug with the
insulating washers. My question which remains is does the PTT switch
need to be wired directly to the common terminal (as depicted on the web
site example) on the mic plug? In my case this will be difficult as I
plan to use a switch on a control stick which already is wired with a
common ground. I'm 'assuming' that I can wire the control grip switch to
the mic plug 'key' terminal, and the common/ground will be through the
common/ground in the control grip wiring. (?)
Deems Davis RV10 # 406
Panel/wiring
http://deemsrv10.com/
John Morgensen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> Hope I can contribute here. I encountered an FBO Cessna that was not
> grounded properly. The symptoms were PTT produced a side-tone with old
> cheap headsets but no side-tone with brand new ANR headsets.
>
> John Morgensen RV-9A QB
>
> Deems Davis wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
>> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>> The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to
>> the Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
>> key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
>> control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the
>> control/ grip rather than to the mic plug common?
>>
>> Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
>> Panel/wiring
>> http://deemsrv10.com/
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Nancy Ghertner <nghertner@verizon.net>
Bob, put a stop to this banter; you guys are driving me nuts.
Lory Ghertner
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: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
Thanks Bob
If one solders the wire to the cup, would the pig tail solder literally
onto the
side of the cup or in the cup and would you join the wires first? If I splice
the wires using the pin pocket what would be the best way to splice the wires
together prior to installing into the pocket, i.e. wrapped, soldered?
Dennis
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 06:21 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> At 12:12 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>> I m wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is
>>> the interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic.
>>> key and the headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the
>>> daisy chain system shown by Bob, however I m confused about the
>>> shields connecting into the ground wire itself or do they connect
>>> to the shield of the ground wire?
>>
>> Can you scan the wiring from the instruction manual
>> and send it to me?
>>
>> It would be useful to see how they've depicted their
>> suggestions for the installation.
>
> Okay, got the scans. Great.
>
> I guess I'm not sure what the question is. The schematic shows
> two aircraft ground (A/C Ground) connections to pins 4 and 15.
> Wires that the manufacturer recommends be shielded have their
> shield grounds returned to specific pins. They also show how
> the shield can double as a ground return for mic, headphone,
> speaker leads, etc. Further, their wiring suggests exactly
> the same daisy-chaining technique I described in:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
> OOPS! I just re-read your question and I think missed
> something the first time. You talk about a "shield of
> the ground wire".
>
> The drawings show single strands of wire from pins 4 and
> 15 to ground. Your pigtails would either solder onto the
> shared solder cups or splice into the ground wires immediately
> adjacent to where they drop into the crimped on pin pocket.
> The ground wires are not shielded.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Eric,
What could you POSSIBLY be thinking???
While you're apologizing to the Rev. Martin Niemoeller, you might just try
apologizing to Bob for inexplicably losing your sense of decorum on the web
group created for and moderated by him!
Something along the lines of "Gee. I don't know what I could have been
thinking when I compared you to the fascist demon that murdered tens of
millions of people and caused the killing of millions more who liberated the
world from his evil grip! Gulp. Brain fart. Gulp. I'm SO ASHAMED. Gulp.
Could you see it in your heart to forgive me?????"
That would be a good start. You might regain some small bit of respect from
the list readers. But then again, fool me once...
What could you POSSIBLY be thinking???
Rodney in Tennessee
Enough of this Bob bashing! Let's get back to 'lectrics guys.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
>From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
>Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:32:09 -0700
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
><emjones@charter.net>
>
>The Final Solution:
>
>(Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
>First they banned the discourteous,
>And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
>Then they banned the insubordinate,
>And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
>Then they came for the passionately contentious,
>And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
>Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
>And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
>Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
>The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more
>valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more
>civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are
>not above being jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with
>you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they consider your
>intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers.
>
>When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like
>my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I
>am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just thought
>I would do you a favor. Fool me once....
>
>Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people,
>including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on
>you and respect you.
>
>But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
>
>"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of
>their horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson.
>They learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to
>believe or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth
>must be scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
> -- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
>
>--------
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge, MA 01550
>(508) 764-2072
>emjones@charter.net
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
Bob
When you speak of the "shield grounds return to specific pins" are you talking
about pins 4 and 15? The shield doubling as a ground return are you
refering to
the shield attaching to the mic and headphone jack lugs?
Dennis
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 06:21 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> At 12:12 PM 9/13/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>> I m wiring the harness for a Terra TX-760D radio. My question is
>>> the interconnect diagram shows the shield for the mic. audio, mic.
>>> key and the headphone attach to the ground. I plan on using the
>>> daisy chain system shown by Bob, however I m confused about the
>>> shields connecting into the ground wire itself or do they connect
>>> to the shield of the ground wire?
>>
>> Can you scan the wiring from the instruction manual
>> and send it to me?
>>
>> It would be useful to see how they've depicted their
>> suggestions for the installation.
>
> Okay, got the scans. Great.
>
> I guess I'm not sure what the question is. The schematic shows
> two aircraft ground (A/C Ground) connections to pins 4 and 15.
> Wires that the manufacturer recommends be shielded have their
> shield grounds returned to specific pins. They also show how
> the shield can double as a ground return for mic, headphone,
> speaker leads, etc. Further, their wiring suggests exactly
> the same daisy-chaining technique I described in:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/pigtail/pigtail.html
>
> OOPS! I just re-read your question and I think missed
> something the first time. You talk about a "shield of
> the ground wire".
>
> The drawings show single strands of wire from pins 4 and
> 15 to ground. Your pigtails would either solder onto the
> shared solder cups or splice into the ground wires immediately
> adjacent to where they drop into the crimped on pin pocket.
> The ground wires are not shielded.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Warning alarms into Flightcom403 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
I would like to pipe the warning tones from my EIS4000, my transponder
and my GPS into my intercom (FC403D). I have an IPOD jack set up to go
through the auxiliary audio input and thought I would simply use one of
the unused mic inputs for the warning tones. I realize that this may not
be ideal if the pilot isolate switch is on ... I can live with that. The
mic has two wires into the intercom but the warning outputs just have
single wires out of the devices. How would I go about wiring up the
mike jack in this configuration? Thanks for the advice.
Allan
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es |
On 14 Sep 2006, at 09:33, Gary Casey wrote:
>
>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
>>
>> Fuel system problems are a major cause of engine stoppage in
>> homebuilt aircraft. Any fuel system that deviates from the norm, in
>> either design or installation details, opens the door to unexpected
>> problems. You have made a bunch of assumptions on how the system
>> will perform following various types of failures. It would be wise
>> to validate those assumptions via actual tests, either on the ground,
>> or in the air over a nice long runway.
>>
>> Kevin Horton
>
> Here is the reply below the reference, as suggested by another
> lister..
> Yes, perhaps the biggest disadvantage of using two separate fuel
> valves is the one you suggest - it deviates from the "norm." And
> changing tanks takes two motions - opening the new valve, followed
> by closing the old valve. Since the weakest link in any safety
> system is usually the operator, what would happen if he (me) did
> something wrong? If you shut off one tank before turning the other
> on the engine will quit immediately - instant feedback and
> obviously correctable. If you turn one on and forget to turn the
> other off nothing will immediately happen, but before the engine
> will suck air one tank has to go completely empty and in the case
> of my installation there are gages and both audio and visual
> warnings of that event. I felt these disadvantages are compensated
> for by the advantages of being able to shut the fuel off before it
> enters the cockpit, reduction in the number of fittings in the
> cockpit (someone correctly pointed out that the total number of
> fittings might not change), and completely independent fuel
> controls. But I don't think I've made any "assumptions" regarding
> the operation - the failure modes and results are fairly
> straightforward - valve off, no flow - valve on, flow. Perhaps the
> only unknown is what happens with low tanks and both valves open,
> and that has been discovered by others - the empty tank can allow
> air into the system, preventing the use of the fuel in the other
> tank. To verify this one would have to fly with one tank empty and
> the other almost empty, and I am not willing to do that. Regarding
> the number of fittings I recall counting the possible in-cockpit
> leaks in the standard ES system at something over 30 with one
> moving seal and quite a number of those remain "wet" even though
> the fuel valve is turned off. My system has a total of 7 potential
> leak paths in the cockpit and no moving seals, all of which go
> "dry" with the fuel valves off. The builder with the "electric"
> engine and one electric pump in each wing can probably has even
> fewer, except he can't positively shut anything off.
I've worked full time in the flight test world since 1987. I've seen
numerous cases where aircraft systems did not perform as expected.
In every case the system designer had an apparently solid analysis
that predicted how the system should perform, yet he overlooked some
aspect, and tests showed that the system did not perform as
expected. If this is not a critical system, then it doesn't really
matter. But, here we have a critical system, and you have based the
decision on the system architecture on some assumptions about how the
system will work. Someday those assumptions will be tested. If you
test the assumptions during the flight test program, you can
structure the test so you are still safe even if the system does not
perform as expected. If you don't do the test then, someday you may
stumble across that condition when you hadn't planned it. If the
system works as expected, then everything is OK. But if the system
does not perform, then you may lose the aircraft.
For example, what is the engine restart procedure after you have shut
one tank down, and were slow opening the other fuel valve, resulting
in engine stoppage? When would you rather try out your planned
restart procedure for the first time? Overhead a long runway at
5,000 ft when you were mentally prepared for problems? Or over rough
country with no fields or runways in sight when a stoppage would be a
complete surprise?
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
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: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:26 PM 9/14/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
>
>Bob
>
>When you speak of the "shield grounds return to specific pins" are you talking
>about pins 4 and 15?
Yes . . . the schematic clearly shows that both shield grounds -and-
power grounds to airframe connect to pins 15 and 4.
> The shield doubling as a ground return are you refering to
>the shield attaching to the mic and headphone jack lugs?
Yes . . . the outer shield braid doubles as electrostatic
shield -AND- signal ground for the remote components.
This is a common technique. I use it several places in
the wiring diagrams shown in.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700J.pdf
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:14 PM 9/14/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
>
>Thanks Bob
>
>If one solders the wire to the cup, would the pig tail solder literally
>onto the
>side of the cup or in the cup and would you join the wires first? If I splice
>the wires using the pin pocket what would be the best way to splice the wires
>together prior to installing into the pocket, i.e. wrapped, soldered?
The cups are obviously too small to accept a pair of wires.
I usually tack solder the shield pigtails to the side of the
cup after the main wire is installed inside the cup.
For crimped pins, I'd probably include the airframe ground wires
into the inner-most cluster of the daisy chain so that shields
and ground wire all come together at the end of the shielded wire.
Then, the pigtail for the shields can do double duty and crimp
into the d-sub pin.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Z13/8 .... relays |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
Bob and all you electric heads
I am wiring my aircraft (RV7A) according to Z 13/8.
It dawned on me that maybe I may have either the wrong "Z" or just not
thinking straight or both!
The panel I envision and am working towards will have the Dynon 100 EFIS/ D
150 EMS, Garmin centric Nav/Com/transponder/announciator panel, Trio EZ
pilot and altitude hold, rocky mountian u encoder. The panel will be backed
up by a hand held nav/com and garmin 396 or PDA of some sort.
Now the questions. Is the endurance bus really necessary, in my case,
considering alot of the panel devices will have their own internal power
source (Dynon's, 396, u encoder, hand held)? Wouldn't it be simpler to have
a main power bus and an avionics bus. In the event of one or both
alternators going south just shut down the main bus leave on the avionics
bus. Allow the internally regulated devices to do their thing. Shut off
unessential devices at their source. And if worst came to worst shut down
the avioncs bus and use the hand held and the PDA? I am old school and still
would like to beable to turn the avionics bus on at the panel.
ON the other hand I do like Z 13/8 with all it brings to the wiring table in
terms of few switches to change in the event of an alterntor melt down.
Question 2? What function do relays give to the process of wiring up the
stick with trim/flap/ppt/etc/etc/........I can wire them up....monkey see
monkey do.....But would like to kown why these relays (switches) are
necessary and what purpose they serve. My notion is to have each of the
functions on the stick as well as right side panel.
Thanks in advance for your comments and please pass the towel I notice I am
dripping from behind the ears.
Frank @ SGU and SLC
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 |
|
Subject: | Gear Indicator lights |
I need some help finding suitable gear indicator lights for a certified ai
rcraft, my Navion. I'm doing some cleanup and want to cut a new panel with
the gear lights repositioned. The current lights would work except they are
circa 1959 and the lenses are disintegrating. They are press-to-test with
a sort of mushroom shaped lense. I've gotten a couple replacement lenses fr
om my avionics shop junk drawer but would rather source new lights (or lens
es if they are still made) rather than depend on the "luck of the drawer" w
hen they break again. Anything with Mil, PMA or mfg blessing would make it
a logbook entry per my IA but I'm not adverse to doing a 337 to get LED's o
r something more modern and aestetically pleasing than MS25041 (ugly and ex
pensive). Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Greg Young
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
Absolutely agree. This has even changed thread names. My fingure
got so tired of delete I finally had to say something but was informed I was
confused about the word banned. Banned is banned ! Yep I am dazed and
confused and getting more delirious. Let's talk plane lectric's. I somehow
wish George was here he would get us lined out. lol
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nancy Ghertner" <nghertner@verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Nancy Ghertner
> <nghertner@verizon.net>
>
> Bob, put a stop to this banter; you guys are driving me nuts.
>
> Lory Ghertner
>
>
>
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: What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter11@sbcglobal.net>
Eric, I'm sorry I read your pseudo-nice knife-in-the-ribs babble before I
remembered to hit "delete". This is really getting old. Why don't you guys
who don't like Bob's ways go somewhere else with your pseudo-morality and
leave us normal folks alone?
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What I learned today
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> The Final Solution:
>
> (Apologies to Rev. Martin Niemoeller)
>
> First they banned the discourteous,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they banned the insubordinate,
> And I didn't speak up because I was easily cowed by authority.
> Then they came for the passionately contentious,
> And I didn't speak up because I was a follower.
> Then they came for the independent technological thinkers,
> And I didn't speak up because I wasn't an independent thinker.
> Then they came for me, And by that time no one was left to speak up.
>
> The REAL issue Bob, is that people who disagree are a thousand times more
> valuable than those who merely follow--albeit the discussion could be more
> civil--and we seek not to confuse the beginner too much. But you and I are
> not above being jerks. None of your foils started their interchanges with
> you in an intemperate tone. They react to what they consider your
> intransigence and arrogance. And it makes them go bonkers.
>
> When I see that you are prepared to fight seemingly innocuous points like
> my recent disagreement that "copper is a very active metal" (chapter 8), I
> am nonplussed. You obviosly fight to defend territory. Hell, I just
> thought I would do you a favor. Fool me once....
>
> Bob, you are obviously a man of exceptional talents and a lot of people,
> including me, and I would guess your difficult list characters, depend on
> you and respect you.
>
> But don't look for obedience...some of us just can't do it.
>
> "What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of
> their horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful
> lesson. They learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were
> taught to believe or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that
> even truth must be scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
> -- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones@charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=61584#61584
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
For crimped pins with the ground wires as the inermost wouldn't the
pigtail and
ground wire ends come together and then crimp into the d-sub pin.
Dennis
Quoting "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 04:14 PM 9/14/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: djones@northboone.net
>>
>> Thanks Bob
>>
>> If one solders the wire to the cup, would the pig tail solder
>> literally onto the
>> side of the cup or in the cup and would you join the wires first? If
>> I splice
>> the wires using the pin pocket what would be the best way to splice
>> the wires
>> together prior to installing into the pocket, i.e. wrapped, soldered?
>
> The cups are obviously too small to accept a pair of wires.
> I usually tack solder the shield pigtails to the side of the
> cup after the main wire is installed inside the cup.
>
> For crimped pins, I'd probably include the airframe ground wires
> into the inner-most cluster of the daisy chain so that shields
> and ground wire all come together at the end of the shielded wire.
> Then, the pigtail for the shields can do double duty and crimp
> into the d-sub pin.
>
> 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: Warning alarms into Flightcom403 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:34 AM 9/15/2006 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
>
>I would like to pipe the warning tones from my EIS4000, my transponder
>and my GPS into my intercom (FC403D). I have an IPOD jack set up to go
>through the auxiliary audio input and thought I would simply use one of
>the unused mic inputs for the warning tones. I realize that this may not
>be ideal if the pilot isolate switch is on ... I can live with that. The
>mic has two wires into the intercom but the warning outputs just have
>single wires out of the devices. How would I go about wiring up the
>mike jack in this configuration? Thanks for the advice.
Using the microphone jack for anything other than aircraft
style mic input is a bit iffy. Suggest you consider some form
of audio isolation amplifier (mixing amp) to combine one
of the intercom headset outputs like shown on page 1.10 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-700J.pdf
This data package describes the parts and wiring for crafting
an amplifier from scratch . . . you can buy a bare board if you
wish at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
artwork for the board is at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9009/9009-301-1.pcb
should you choose to order your own boards from
http://expresspcb.com
This will 'cleaner' and offer very predictable results.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Mic plug / PTT wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
CH products
http://www.chproducts.com/retail/aircraft.html
Deems
Bill Denton wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
>
>What brand of control stick are you using?
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems
>Davis
>Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:46 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mic plug / PTT wiring
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>
>I think I understand the need to isolate the mic plug with the
>insulating washers. My question which remains is does the PTT switch
>need to be wired directly to the common terminal (as depicted on the web
>site example) on the mic plug? In my case this will be difficult as I
>plan to use a switch on a control stick which already is wired with a
>common ground. I'm 'assuming' that I can wire the control grip switch to
>the mic plug 'key' terminal, and the common/ground will be through the
>common/ground in the control grip wiring. (?)
>
> Deems Davis RV10 # 406
>Panel/wiring
>http://deemsrv10.com/
>
>John Morgensen wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Morgensen
>><john@morgensen.com>
>>
>>Hope I can contribute here. I encountered an FBO Cessna that was not
>>grounded properly. The symptoms were PTT produced a side-tone with old
>>cheap headsets but no side-tone with brand new ANR headsets.
>>
>>John Morgensen RV-9A QB
>>
>>Deems Davis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis
>>><deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>>
>>>The example on Bob's web site shows that the PTT switch is wired to
>>>the Ground/common on the Mic plug recepticle (in addition to the
>>>key/terminal) is there any reason why the PTT switch (in my case on a
>>>control stick/grip) can't be wired to a common ground for the
>>>control/ grip rather than to the mic plug common?
>>>
>>>Deems Davis RV-10 # 406
>>>Panel/wiring
>>>http://deemsrv10.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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! --
|