AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Wed 09/20/06


Total Messages Posted: 51



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 06:08 AM - Z-19 based block diagrams (Brian Meyette)
     2. 06:13 AM - Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 06:18 AM - Re: Transponder (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 06:22 AM - Re: Re: Gear Indicator Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 08:11 AM - Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     6. 08:12 AM - Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Richard Tasker)
     7. 08:40 AM - Re: Transponder (Dennis Jones)
     8. 08:49 AM - Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Ken)
     9. 08:54 AM - Switched power (Dennis Jones)
    10. 09:17 AM - Garmin Stack (Sam Marlow)
    11. 09:23 AM - Can someone share experience tuning static port? ()
    12. 10:23 AM - tuning static port? (James H Nelson)
    13. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    14. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    15. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    16. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    17. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    18. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    19. 10:31 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    20. 10:31 AM - tuning static port? (James H Nelson)
    21. 10:39 AM - Garmin SL40/GMA 340 - how to control mic volume when TX (Gerry Filby)
    22. 11:35 AM - Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Glaeser, Dennis A)
    23. 11:39 AM - Re: Transmitter Sidetone Adjustment (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    24. 11:58 AM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    25. 12:00 PM - Re: tuning static port? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    26. 12:20 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (Deems Davis)
    27. 12:34 PM - tuning static port? (James H Nelson)
    28. 12:42 PM - Re: Garmin SL40/GMA 340 - how to control mic volume when TX (Tim Olson)
    29. 12:43 PM - Re: tuning static port? (6440 Auto Parts)
    30. 12:43 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (Tim Olson)
    31. 12:50 PM - Re: Re: Transmitter Sidetone Adjustment (Gerry Filby)
    32. 01:08 PM - Re: tuning static port? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    33. 01:15 PM - Re: tuning static port? (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    34. 01:41 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (Brian Meyette)
    35. 01:48 PM - Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Brian Meyette)
    36. 02:02 PM - Re: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Brian Meyette)
    37. 02:26 PM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    38. 04:03 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
    39. 04:09 PM - Re: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (glaesers)
    40. 06:34 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (Sam Marlow)
    41. 06:34 PM - Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es) (Ed)
    42. 06:37 PM - Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port? (Kevin Horton)
    43. 07:03 PM - Re: Z-19 based block diagrams (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    44. 07:11 PM - BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector: More Information (r falstad)
    45. 07:17 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (Bill Schlatterer)
    46. 08:09 PM - Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector: More Information (Richard E. Tasker)
    47. 08:16 PM - kx 155 remote com and nav (Gary G Brock)
    48. 08:22 PM - Re: Transponder "Strobe" Signal (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    49. 10:08 PM - Re: tuning static port? ()
    50. 10:15 PM - Re: Garmin Stack (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
    51. 10:22 PM - Bob, no laptops in OBAMs? (Speedy11@aol.com)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 06:08:40 AM PST US
    From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
    Subject: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes for the bridge diodes. See the 2 block diagrams here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15 The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet. The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches. Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery (while looking for a place to land, of course). With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages passing through the 2 schottky diodes? Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, brian --


    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
    Time: 06:13:16 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> The "Blindmate" connectors are a product of Palco Connectors division of Phoenix Co of Chicago. You can access the products catalog for these devices at: http://www.phoenixofchicago.com/palco.htm It's unfortunate that they didn't craft a series of these connectors that crimp on like a D-Sub connector. Nevertheless, as Richard has noted, you're unlikely to injure these connectors or RG-400 coax with soldering temperatures. The goal will be to get sufficient heat to the joint to get-on, get-off with reasonable dispatch which also means there's sufficient temperature rise to get good solder flow into the joint. Here's another link to info on this product: http://www.bfioptilas.es/Blindmate_Coax-l6049.htm Bob . . . >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker ><retasker@optonline.net> > >I don't know what a "Blindmate" connector is, but if it is the same as or >similar to the right angle one used on the back of the SL-70 the method is >basically the same. However, on the SL-70 connector the braid is slid >onto the outside of the connector. Are you sure yours says to slide it >into the connector? > >As far as getting enough heat, you will need a good 50-60 watt soldering >iron with a large tip and be patient. I used my Weller temperature >controlled iron and it works fine - just take a bit longer than a normal >solder joint. A larger iron would work better or if you have a >heat-shrink hot air gun, you can preheat the assembly to speed things >up. The RG-400 coax and the connector use only metal and teflon, so there >is little problem with harming either unless you go way overboard with >higher temperature than any reasonable soldering iron. > >As far as mechanical strength, this is as strong as you are going to get >if you have a good solder joint. > >Dick Tasker > >r falstad wrote: > >>I'm installing a Garmin transponder in my "OBAM". The installation calls >>for the coax (RG-400) to go into a BNC "Blindmate" connector. >>The instructions call for the exposed braid to be pushed into the >>connector shell and solder melted in to attach it (in addition to >>soldering the center conductor on the inside of the connector). This >>doesn't look like a very mechanically strong connection. Especially >>since some of the braid bunched up when I pushed it into the >>connector. I also had trouble getting enough heat on the connector to >>flow solder without barbequing the connector. Any suggestions, tips or >>tricks to get a sound electrical and mechanical connection? How close to >>the connector do you need to have your first mechanical support for the coax? >> >>Bob >>GlaStar >> >>* >>* > > >-- > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 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
    Time: 06:18:49 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Transponder
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 10:40 PM 9/19/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Jones" ><djones@northboone.net> > >What is a strobe output/input for a transponder/encoder? "Strobe" or "blanking" pins are included in some systems that transmit and/or receive high-power pulses on adjacent frequencies. For example, transponders and DME on airplanes use these signal lines to put temporary earplugs in the ears of another system while it's "shouting" to the ground station. I wish my neighbor's dog came with a strobe signal that would shut off my ears for the duration of each bark. This courtesy signal traded between potentially antagonist/victim systems allows them to co-exist on the same airplane while minimizing degraded performance from receiver overload when one of the transmitters "shouts". Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:22:11 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Gear Indicator Lights
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:44 AM 9/18/2006 -0700, you wrote: >On 9/18/06, Robert L. Nuckolls, III ><<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >><<mailto:nuckollsr@cox.net>nuckollsr@cox.net> >> >> >> I've been working with some LED mounts, an office laminator, >> AutoCAD and Photoshop to craft some fabrication techniques >> for LED indicators/annunicators. One reasonably attractive >> technique is illustrated at: >> >><http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Annunciator_1.jpg>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Lighting/Annunciator_1.jpg > > >Bob, Many times you post links to great pictures, in many cases they seem >to be part of another article, is there a simple way to get from the >picture to the related article? > >Thanks for all your teaching efforts, I know they are a great help to many >of us. Any complete articles are posted to my website. However, some photos may be excerpts from work done for clients or even tid-bits of useful visuals I've encountered in my travels. If you have a question about any specific photo, please ask. The one I posted above is an exemplar arrangement for a new product that's been prototyped and being beta-tested right now. It will show up on my website catalog shortly. Bob . . . --------------------------------------------------------- < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ---------------------------------------------------------


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:11:02 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:00 AM 9/20/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" ><brianpublic2@starband.net> > >I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had >made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and >simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more >circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes >for the bridge diodes. > >See the 2 block diagrams here: > >http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15 > >The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a >proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT >locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet. > >The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first >one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches. >Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the >voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once >the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will >have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one >battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery >(while looking for a place to land, of course). Why would your battery "get too low"? I presume you subscribe to the notion that careful load analysis, preventative maintenance of the batteries and operational testing is the best way to PREDICT and then MAINTAIN system performance to your DESIGN GOALS. >With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and >each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the >batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case >like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages >passing through the 2 schottky diodes? > >Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general >observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated. Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a process whereby you step through all discernable failures including poor design goals but NOT failure for due diligence in maintenance. Figure out a Plan-B for any failure of a component that might ruin your day and re-design the system for failure to meet design goals. First, I what way did you find Z-19 deficient? An admonishment to "make it simpler" is insufficient. You need to set design goals, operating limits for duration, then craft to those goals using only the parts necessary to comply. "Simplicity" becomes an automatic feature of the finished system because you didn't put a part in that wasn't necessary to the task. So, if Z-19 was attractive as a basis for the beginnings of you deliberations, what feature(s) fail to meet your design goals. Your first diagram appears to be Z-19 with a second fuel pump added. Perhaps all you need beyond Z-19 is a single switch that powers the aux pump (probably never used) from the engine battery bus. Bob . . .


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:12:25 AM PST US
    From: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net> Brian, your second design is almost exactly what I am doing (as you know I am also using the Egg Subaru). It allows control over both system buses and makes sure that there is always power to the engine bus. Yes, the engine bus will always "see" and draw power from whichever battery voltage is higher (less the Schottky drop). I did add one "last resort" switch between the main battery and the engine bus. While the Schottky diodes I am using are as bulletproof as you can get (175A continuous rating), I decided to set it up so I can connect directly to the main battery just in case. I agree that your first design is too complicated. All that said, I am not yet flying. Dick Tasker Brian Meyette wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> > >I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had >made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and >simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more >circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes >for the bridge diodes. > >See the 2 block diagrams here: > >http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15 > >The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a >proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT >locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet. > >The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first >one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches. >Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the >voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once >the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will >have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one >battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery >(while looking for a place to land, of course). > >With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and >each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the >batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case >like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages >passing through the 2 schottky diodes? > >Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general >observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated. >Thanks, >brian > >


    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
    Time: 08:40:45 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Transponder
    From: "Dennis Jones" <djones@northboone.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Jones" <djones@northboone.net> The transponder schematic shows a suppression OUT pin 1 and a EXT. DME suppression IN pin 6. Because I do not have a DME I understand that both of these pins would be empty. Would this be what the encoder schematic is showing as the strobe input? If so then this pin would not be used and would be pigtailed to the ground pin.[/list] Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62770#62770


    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
    Time: 08:49:48 AM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net> Hello Brian I'm not really a proponent of running all the engine supplies through a diode. Redundancy is good but reducing the reliability of the primary system is a tradefoff worthy of careful consideration. I used a slightly different scheme that runs each fuel pump off a different battery with no diodes. If both pumps are running then no further action is required regardless of pump failure, diode failure, fuse blowing, etc. I have the option of running both pumps simultaneously at any time such as when landing or taking off. My first action in the event of an engine problem is to make sure all switches in my engine control row of switches are on. That insures both pumps are on. If I had only one ecm, I'd really REALLY like the fuel pumps wired such that there is no way that a problem with one pump or its wiring could take out the ecm. For example, could a short take out a diode (or two?) before a fuse blows? Diodes have a tendancy to blow faster than fuses in my experience although perhaps you are planning very large diodes. I must admit to not understanding why you'd need 4 pole switches in your first proposal. I can see the attraction of diodes for the ecm supply in your second proposal but I'd probably consider only routing the aux supply through a diode. Granted a short on the main system that did not isolate itself by blowing fuses could then disable your aux supply but I'm having trouble imagining that as a significant risk. Regarding your diode question. It doesn't matter at all if the batteries are different voltages. Whichever is higher will supply the loads. As the voltage drops during discharge, the second battery will gradually share the load. From then on the battery voltages will be approximately equal. The key point is that the good battery will not transfer energy into a discharged battery regardless of whether a diode is present. Ken L. Brian Meyette wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> > >I am working on the wiring for my Eggenfellner Subaru based RV-7A. I had >made up a wiring diagram, but then it was suggested that I redo it and >simplify it. The original is a modified version of Z-19, with a couple more >circuits off each engine bus, and the substitution of Schottky power diodes >for the bridge diodes. > >See the 2 block diagrams here: > >http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep06.htm#sep15 > >The first one is the one I was going to go with, and the second one is a >proposed redesign. As the picture caption states, I already have the 4PDT >locking switches, but I haven't bought the Schottky diodes yet. > >The second one looks simpler, but is it perhaps too simple? In the first >one, I can manually control which busses are "ON" with the 2 4PDT switches. >Normally, they'd both be on. In case of loss of the single alternator, the >voltage will drop and the aux contactor will open (in either diagram). Once >the 2 batteries are not tied together through the aux contactor, they will >have different voltages depending on load. I can run the engine off one >battery it until it gets too low, then switch to using the other battery >(while looking for a place to land, of course). > >With the second diagram, there is just one engine bus, instead of two, and >each battery feeds the bus through the 2 Schottky diodes. But what if the >batteries are at different voltages? How does the Schottky react in a case >like that? Does the engine bus simply "see" the higher of the 2 voltages >passing through the 2 schottky diodes? > >Any feedback or advice on these specific questions or on any general >observations about either block diagram will be greatly appreciated. >Thanks, >brian > >-- > >


    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
    Time: 08:54:55 AM PST US
    Subject: Switched power
    From: "Dennis Jones" <djones@northboone.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Jones" <djones@northboone.net> For the encoder I plan on using a seperate fuse to the POWER IN pin (8)supplied from the a/c power to reduce warm up time and then use pin (14) SWITCHED POWER IN as indicated by the schematic for the switched power back to the transponder. Now for the question. The transponder schematic shows two pins together (8,20) used for SWITCHED POWER OUT. Do both of these get wired to the switched pin number 14 or because I'm powering the encoder pin 8 with its own power is one of these pins left empty? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62775#62775


    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
    Time: 09:17:57 AM PST US
    From: Sam Marlow <sam.marlow@adelphia.net>
    Subject: Garmin Stack
    Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks can go metel to metal. Thanks, Sam Marlow RV10 Avionics


    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
    Time: 09:23:02 AM PST US
    From: <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
    Subject: Can someone share experience tuning static port?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us> I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the wing, it is a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a bit aft of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal. I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a O-Ring, think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet?? Can someone share experience tuning static port? How did you determine when it was correct? What distance was neutral point for O-Ring? Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure? What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference, what was O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place? Thx. Ron Parigoris (I posted to Europa group, no replies)


    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
    Time: 10:23:00 AM PST US
    Subject: tuning static port?
    From: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com> Hi Ron I had a mono wheel also but I put my pitot and static above the tail. In effect, what you have below the wing was above the rudder on my bird.. Why are you considering the issue of tuning the static? The factory provided unit works great. It is only if you have problems that you need to consider "tuning". The O-Ring provides a different boundary layer to obtain the static pressure change. It is rarely needed. Any o-ring will do and IF and when you need to go that route, you can use any epoxy or even super glue to keep it in position. I would then paint the o-ring so it would not deteriate. Rubber will be effected by ozone. Jim Nelson (PS. I had 4 holes, one in each quadrant- 3-6-9-12 o'clock. that way it always had the best static in case one got plugged)


    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
    Time: 10:31:08 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:08 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:08 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:08 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:09 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:09 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:09 AM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 10:31:24 AM PST US
    Subject: tuning static port?
    From: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com> Hi Ron, How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa. Jim Nelson


    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
    Time: 10:39:07 AM PST US
    Subject: Garmin SL40/GMA 340 - how to control mic volume when
    TX
    From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check. When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the radio per se. All other volumes in the headset - intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only when I TX that I get deafened. Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring somewhere ? __g__ ========================================================== Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com ----------------------------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 11:35:55 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
    From: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com> Brian, My E-Sube architecture is shown here: http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm I've put my batteries behind the baggage bulkhead, so the physical layout is different than the diagram shows, but the architecture is the same. I have a hot bus for each battery, instead of an engine bus, but electrically pretty similar to your second diagram. Dennis Glaeser RV7A - finishing kit


    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
    Time: 11:39:20 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Transmitter Sidetone Adjustment
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 10:37 AM 9/20/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> > > >I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in >my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and >wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check. > >When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no >stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's >pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the >headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud >and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the >radio per se. All other volumes in the headset - >intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only >when I TX that I get deafened. > >Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring >somewhere ? Back in WWII, radios were vacuum tube technology, and not terribly robust. It was useful for many voice communications situations for the talker to hear their own voice in the headphones. This served two purposes: (1) a ready check of transmitter operation and (2) folks tend to enunciate more accurately when they could hear themselves speak . . . difficult to do in high noise environments like the cockpit of an airplane. Transmitters were all amplitude modulation and it was common practice to install a "crystal receiver" on the antenna circuit. Detected audio was applied to the intercom system for presentation at the speaker's ears. If you can't hear yourself in the headphones, you KNOW that nobody else is hearing you. Nowadays, the "sidetone" audio is no longer sampled from the transmitter's output signal and instead comes from some point in a transmitter's audio system. As such, the modern sidetone is useful only for purpose (2) above . . . this means that there are cases where you can hear yourself when in fact your transmitter is not functioning properly. Radios that offer the sidetone feature will also have a sidetone level adjust potentiometer. The Microair radios I used to sell had a plastic sticker over a small hole that offered access to the adjustment potentiometer. Someplace in the installation instructions for your equipment you should be able to find instructions for setting up sidetone levels. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 11:58:47 AM PST US
    Subject: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Hello Ed, With a carb you have the advantage that you don't have to mess with the pressure relief valve and tank return...not that you mess with it in flight but is more work to install. You also have a few seconds of reserve fuel in the float bowl plus if somehow you pumped air to the floatbowl it does'nt care because the air gets vented thru the floatbowl harmlessly. Pretty good setup. Yes you can use a Facet solid state pump in your wingroots and I believe these are rated to 30GPH each. There two failure modes that I am not sure of in your suggested setup...I bet it is perfectly OK but I don't know for sure. 1) What happens if the mechanical pump rutures a diaphram...where does the fuel go? 2) Are there any other failure modes that would stop the Facet pump from pumping thru the dead mechanical pump? 3) can you suck thru two dead facet pumps with your mecahnical pump?...I think you can and the point is a little moot anyway. As long as you wire the pumps independantly the chances of loosing both pumps is very unlikely..In a way you triple redundancy. I personally would avoid a selector valve with left and right only selections...One day you will get it wrong and have the wrong pump on with the wrong tank...Simply replace it with an on/off valve, join the outputs of the pumps together with a Tee fitting and make sure there is a check valve in each line...This will stop cross feeding to the no used tank. Ahh...I just seen the issue with this...If you have an on/off valve with a mechanical pump and both facets are offline you will likely suck air to your floatbowl...That wouldn't be good...But should still suck thru the pump you turned off. Hmm seems to me the meachanical pump is not a good idea with this system and will require a selector valve which adds complexity and the very single point of failure you had trouble with before. I wouldn't use this system but it should work. Personally I don't see the advantage over the standard mechanical/electric pump with selector valve...Unless you intend to use Mogas of course. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:30 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hi Frank, I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the fuel system. Just a couple of questions. I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric pumps? Normal Operation: Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. Tanks switched with the pumps. Takeoff and landing. Same as above but both electric pumps on. Failures. Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel is needed. Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the electrical system or an electric pump failure. I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I liked it immediately. Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Exactly! > > And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank > ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks > (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. > > The other advantages are... > > > No selector valves to switch. > Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel > SIMPLE > No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and > battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) > Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? > > Downsides > > Uses more electrical power. > Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure > mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a > radio, tansponder and one fuel pump > Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. > > Frank > RV7a 4 hours > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave > N6030X > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw out > there. > > In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a > NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a > software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled > everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit workload > part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and > bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that there > was a single point of failure that was getting more and more overloaded > with every new complexity: the pilot (me). > > Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures of > the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel > Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing > how much fuel is in the tank, > > >


    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
    Time: 12:00:36 PM PST US
    Subject: tuning static port?
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get your CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't see it would require 100LL? Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson --> <rv9jim@juno.com> Hi Ron, How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa. Jim Nelson


    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
    Time: 12:20:10 PM PST US
    From: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Garmin Stack
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> Sam, I can't remember the exact dimensions, but Garmin has a requirement for minimum spacing between radios on the stack. HOWEVER, If you use their mounting racks (can't think of why you wouldn't want to) they have 'dimples' on the top/bottom that guarantee the mins, so that you can go metal to metal. (I taped all of my racks together to get the final dimensions for cutting the opening in the panel faceplate). Deems Davis # 406 Panel/Fuse/Finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ Sam Marlow wrote: > Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I > need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe > the racks can go metel to metal. > Thanks, > Sam Marlow > RV10 Avionics > >* > > >* >


    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
    Time: 12:34:36 PM PST US
    Subject: tuning static port?
    From: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com> Hi Frank, Its a Lycosorus (SP) not a Rotax. I hope to be able to blend 92 mogas with the regular 100LL after I have around 75 hours or so. Jim


    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
    Time: 12:42:04 PM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Garmin SL40/GMA 340 - how to control mic volume
    when TX --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Yes, the SL40 has a setup of the sidetone level. It should be on page 18 of the install manual (at least of the version I have) telling you how to adjust it. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Gerry Filby wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> > > > I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in > my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and > wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check. > > When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no > stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's > pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the > headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud > and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the > radio per se. All other volumes in the headset - > intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only > when I TX that I get deafened. > > Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring > somewhere ? > > __g__


    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
    Time: 12:43:12 PM PST US
    From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
    Subject: Re: tuning static port?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com> I quess 8.70:1 in a fuel injected engine is pushing the limits then. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( > > Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get your > CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't see > it would require 100LL? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James > H Nelson > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson > --> <rv9jim@juno.com> > > > Hi Ron, > How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare > time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger > plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two > guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the > cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( > Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is > one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget > about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa. > > > Jim Nelson > > >


    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
    Time: 12:43:12 PM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Garmin Stack
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com> Hi Sam, Check your install manual where they show stacking the install tubes, but my take on it was that they stack basically on top of eachother. They have the small rounded dents on the bottoms of the tubes that allow for spacing. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying do not archive Sam Marlow wrote: > Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need > to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks > can go metel to metal. > Thanks, > Sam Marlow > RV10 Avionics > > *


    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
    Time: 12:50:07 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Transmitter Sidetone Adjustment
    From: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> RTFM ... found it ... thx Bob :) g > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, > III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 10:37 AM 9/20/2006 -0700, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com> > > > > > >I have a Garmin SL40 COM and a GM340 audio panel installed in > >my RV-9. Got all the wiring finished this past weekend and > >wheeled her out onto the ramp for a radio check. > > > >When I keyed the Mic (actually I grounded the PTT wire - no > >stick installed yet) and called out to my local airport's > >pattern for a radio check, the sound of my own voice in the > >headset was deafening. Folks in the pattern called out "loud > >and clear" so I'm not worried about the functioning of the > >radio per se. All other volumes in the headset - > >intercom/chatter on the frequency - are just fine - its only > >when I TX that I get deafened. > > > >Is there an adjustment somewhere, or have I goofed up my wiring > >somewhere ? > > > Back in WWII, radios were vacuum tube technology, and > not terribly robust. It was useful for many voice > communications situations for the talker to hear their > own voice in the headphones. This served two > purposes: (1) a ready check of transmitter operation > and (2) folks tend to enunciate more accurately when > they could hear themselves speak . . . difficult to > do in high noise environments like the cockpit of an > airplane. Transmitters were all amplitude modulation > and it was common practice to install a "crystal receiver" > on the antenna circuit. Detected audio was applied > to the intercom system for presentation at the speaker's > ears. If you can't hear yourself in the headphones, > you KNOW that nobody else is hearing you. > > Nowadays, the "sidetone" audio is no longer sampled > from the transmitter's output signal and instead comes > from some point in a transmitter's audio system. As > such, the modern sidetone is useful only for purpose > (2) above . . . this means that there are cases where > you can hear yourself when in fact your transmitter is > not functioning properly. > > Radios that offer the sidetone feature will also have > a sidetone level adjust potentiometer. The Microair > radios I used to sell had a plastic sticker over a > small hole that offered access to the adjustment > potentiometer. Someplace in the installation instructions > for your equipment you should be able to find > instructions for setting up sidetone levels. > > Bob . . . > > > > > > -- __g__ ========================================================== Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com ----------------------------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 01:08:20 PM PST US
    Subject: tuning static port?
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> It should be happy on pure 92 oct Mogas. According to GAMI they recommend 25 to 50F LOP or 150ROP up to 75% power and CHTs of 350F or lower. On my 7a I am still above the required CHT but only have 12 hours on it, so I'm hopeful. Apparently all Lycs (within the last 20 years) have the hardened ex valve seats required to withstand unleaded gas. According to Superior, mogas just "wasn't an issue" on the test stand...i would still like to find what regime they ran to say that...I.e what mixtures they ran at what CHT/ Cheers Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James H Nelson Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:30 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson --> <rv9jim@juno.com> Hi Frank, Its a Lycosorus (SP) not a Rotax. I hope to be able to blend 92 mogas with the regular 100LL after I have around 75 hours or so. Jim


    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
    Time: 01:15:41 PM PST US
    Subject: tuning static port?
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Depends...Its a combination of CHT, octane, CR, ignition timing and mixture. If you can get your CHT's down a bit further or run a bit richer then 8.7 will be OK...The question is ...How much richer and how much lower the CHT's need to be? My guess is not much, and maybe you want to stick to 25 deg max advance but the truth is I don't know for sure. FI actually helps, you can balance your individual fuel flows to each cylinder much more accuratly, this allows LOP operations which is a significant fuel saving over a carbed motor which generally cannot be run LOP due to poor fuel distribution. I tried LOP the other evening for the first time...sure, speed dropped but oh my the fule flow fell off the edge. I was doing 180kts Indicated at 100F ROP, 12.3 GPH...pulled back the mix to average 50F LOP and speed dropped to 137kts but fule flow dropped to like 6.7GPH...Pretty impressive! Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 6440 Auto Parts Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:42 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" --> <sales@6440autoparts.com> I quess 8.70:1 in a fuel injected engine is pushing the limits then. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" > <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( > > Why?...Is it certified?.....Turbocharged? High CR?...If you can get your > CHT's under 350F in normal cruise and a CR of 8.5:1 or lower I can't see > it would require 100LL? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James > H Nelson > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: tuning static port? > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson > --> <rv9jim@juno.com> > > > Hi Ron, > How far along are you on your build? I took 5.5 years of spare > time to build mine. I flew it for two years and sold it to get a bigger > plane. I really enjoyed the bird. It was fast, full throttle with two > guys on board would do 140K. (170# and 190#) I think I will miss the > cheep gas to go flying with. My new bird will req. 100LL. :-((( > Please take no offense to my reply on the tunning of the static. It is > one of those problems that occur in "netherland". In other words forget > about it being a problem - doesn't exist in the Europa. > > > Jim Nelson > > >


    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
    Time: 01:41:43 PM PST US
    From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
    Subject: Garmin Stack
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> It's 0.040" and the dimples will give you that. However, keep in mind that Garmin has not updated the UPS line to match their original products, so if your mix includes a former UPS product such as SL30, the dimples won't line up, and you won't have the proper clearance. Simple fix is to super-glue a 1" square of 0.040" sheet onto the SL30 tray where the other trays contact it. http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsFeb06.htm#feb6 Another tip I learned in doing mine is that it's the outside lip of the bottom of the tray that is supposed to be flush, so the rest of the tray is actually a bit behind the panel. http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsFeb06.htm brian -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems Davis Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:19 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> Sam, I can't remember the exact dimensions, but Garmin has a requirement for minimum spacing between radios on the stack. HOWEVER, If you use their mounting racks (can't think of why you wouldn't want to) they have 'dimples' on the top/bottom that guarantee the mins, so that you can go metal to metal. (I taped all of my racks together to get the final dimensions for cutting the opening in the panel faceplate). Deems Davis # 406 Panel/Fuse/Finishing http://deemsrv10.com/ Sam Marlow wrote: > Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I > need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe > the racks can go metel to metal. > Thanks, > Sam Marlow > RV10 Avionics > >* > > >* > -- --


    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
    Time: 01:48:01 PM PST US
    From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
    Subject: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> About the battery voltage, I was referring to the case where the alternator has died and I'm just trying to get to an airport on battery power. I didn't find Z-19 deficient. Yes, my first diagram is Z-19 with another pump added, 4PDT switches instead of 2PDT, and Schottky diodes replacing the rectifier bridges. It was just suggested to me that I rethink it. I didn't at first, but then I had an epiphany a month or so later, and came up with the second block diagram. In looking at the first diagram again, it does appear that, with the pumps switched with dedicated locking SPST switches, I probably don't need the 4PDT for the pumps circuits, as that just puts 2 switches in series. So that really leaves me with a SPST switch for each of; primary & secondary fule pump and ECM. So that leaves the question of "should I have 2 busses with diode bridges on the output, or better to go with one engine bus with the diode bridge on the input?" -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:08 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 based block diagrams --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Why would your battery "get too low"? I presume you subscribe to the notion that careful load analysis, preventative maintenance of the batteries and operational testing is the best way to PREDICT and then MAINTAIN system performance to your DESIGN GOALS. First, I what way did you find Z-19 deficient? An admonishment to "make it simpler" is insufficient. You need to set design goals, operating limits for duration, then craft to those goals using only the parts necessary to comply. "Simplicity" becomes an automatic feature of the finished system because you didn't put a part in that wasn't necessary to the task. So, if Z-19 was attractive as a basis for the beginnings of you deliberations, what feature(s) fail to meet your design goals. Your first diagram appears to be Z-19 with a second fuel pump added. Perhaps all you need beyond Z-19 is a single switch that powers the aux pump (probably never used) from the engine battery bus. Bob . . . -- --


    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
    Time: 02:02:50 PM PST US
    From: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
    Subject: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> A question for you, Dennis - where did you physically locate your Alt-B current limiter and Hall Effect sensor? I am a bit concerned about running that #8 Alt-B wire all the way back from the alternator, through the firewall and subpanel to the switches panel before it gets a current limiter or breaker. Is your current limiter mounted fwd or aft of the firewall? Right now, I have more length of the Alt-B wire unprotected than protected, and I don't like that. I suppose I could put a breaker or limiter in the wire right after it comes off the alternator, then fasten the breaker/limiter to the top of the intake manifold. How did you do it? My plan calls for a 60a breaker in the Alt-B line at the switches panel. Is the current limiter better for some reason? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Glaeser, Dennis A Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 2:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com> Brian, My E-Sube architecture is shown here: http://www.wideopenwest.com/~glaesers/RV7A/RV7A_Electrical.htm I've put my batteries behind the baggage bulkhead, so the physical layout is different than the diagram shows, but the architecture is the same. I have a hot bus for each battery, instead of an engine bus, but electrically pretty similar to your second diagram. Dennis Glaeser RV7A - finishing kit -- --


    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
    Time: 02:26:56 PM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Hello Ed, > > With a carb you have the advantage that you don't have to mess with the > pressure relief valve and tank return...not that you mess with it in > flight but is more work to install. You also have a few seconds of > reserve fuel in the float bowl plus if somehow you pumped air to the > floatbowl it does'nt care because the air gets vented thru the floatbowl > harmlessly. Pretty good setup. > > Yes you can use a Facet solid state pump in your wingroots and I believe > these are rated to 30GPH each. > > There two failure modes that I am not sure of in your suggested > setup...I bet it is perfectly OK but I don't know for sure. > > 1) What happens if the mechanical pump rutures a diaphram...where does the fuel go? > I thought the electric pump was a backup for the mechanical pump on cert airplanes. Isn't it designed so the electric can pump if the mechanical fails? > 2) Are there any other failure modes that would stop the Facet pump from > pumping thru the dead mechanical pump? > Same as above? > 3) can you suck thru two dead facet pumps with your mecahnical pump?...I > think you can and the point is a little moot anyway. As long as you wire > the pumps independantly the chances of loosing both pumps is very > unlikely..In a way you triple redundancy. > I wasn't sure about this other than it works this way on my cert airplane when the electric is off. Unless a dead pump would be different? > > I personally would avoid a selector valve with left and right only > selections...One day you will get it wrong and have the wrong pump on > with the wrong tank...Simply replace it with an on/off valve, join the > outputs of the pumps together with a Tee fitting and make sure there is > a check valve in each line...This will stop cross feeding to the no used > tank. > Under normal operations you would not move the selector valve. You would use the pumps for tank selection. Remember, this would be an off-left-right-both valve (ACS ANDAIR FUEL VALVE FS20X4M). The advantage of this valve would be in the event of an electrical pump failure, the system would operate much like a cert system so that you could get fuel out of the dead pump tank.. > Ahh...I just seen the issue with this...If you have an on/off valve with > a mechanical pump and both facets are offline you will likely suck air > to your floatbowl...That wouldn't be good...But should still suck thru > the pump you turned off. > If one tank had fuel and the mechanical pump is working, putting the fuel selector on that tank should give fuel. > Hmm seems to me the meachanical pump is not a good idea with this system > and will require a selector valve which adds complexity and the very > single point of failure you had trouble with before. > The mechanical pump becomes the backup. The selector valve is only used in the event of electric pump failure. > I wouldn't use this system but it should work. Personally I don't see > the advantage over the standard mechanical/electric pump with selector > valve...Unless you intend to use Mogas of course. > I don't understand this comment. The advantages would seem to be: Both tanks feeding for critical flight phases such as takeoff and landing. No need to use the selector valve except in an emergency. Could use auto gas if desired. The whole system would be almost identical to the systems in cert planes. You would be adding one extra electric fuel pump and gaining the advantages. Ed > Frank > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:30 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> > > Hi Frank, > > I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the > fuel system. Just a couple of questions. > > I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a > mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric > pumps? > > Normal Operation: > Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). > One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. > Tanks switched with the pumps. > > Takeoff and landing. > Same as above but both electric pumps on. > > Failures. > Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel > is needed. > Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be > checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). > > All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the > electrical system or an electric pump failure. > > > I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light > twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right > engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back > to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I > wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same > plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that > it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the > > valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the > handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily > the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve > > to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? > No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I > liked it immediately. > > > Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George >> > (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > >> Exactly! >> >> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank >> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks >> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. >> >> The other advantages are... >> >> >> No selector valves to switch. >> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel >> SIMPLE >> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and >> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) >> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? >> >> Downsides >> >> Uses more electrical power. >> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure >> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a >> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump >> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. >> >> Frank >> RV7a 4 hours >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> > Dave > >> N6030X >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X >> --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> >> >> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw >> > out > >> there. >> >> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a >> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a >> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled >> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit >> > workload > >> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and >> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that >> > there > >> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more >> > overloaded > >> with every new complexity: the pilot (me). >> >> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures >> > of > >> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel >> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing >> how much fuel is in the tank, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >


    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
    Time: 04:03:08 PM PST US
    From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin@valkyrie.net>
    Subject: Re: Garmin Stack
    Mine are metal to metal and no problems. Tom in Ohio (RV6-A) ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Marlow To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:16 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks can go metel to metal. Thanks, Sam Marlow RV10 Avionics


    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
    Time: 04:09:37 PM PST US
    From: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
    Subject: Re: RE: Re: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com> Well, I haven't done it yet - don't get my engine until December... My plan is to put both the current limiter and Hall effect sensor in the engine compartment. Since the alternator is on the firewall side of the engine, I'll probably run the alternator B lead to a firewall mounted current limiter, and then to the starter (of course, this may change once I get the engine :-) The H sensor will probably be near the current limiter. The only fat wire through the firewall is the starter wire (6AWG). I am going to splice an 8AWG wire on the 6AWG wire between the firewall and the IP subpanel and that will feed the primary bus. Dennis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" A question for you, Dennis - where did you physically locate your Alt-B current limiter and Hall Effect sensor? I am a bit concerned about running that #8 Alt-B wire all the way back from the alternator, through the firewall and subpanel to the switches panel before it gets a current limiter or breaker. Is your current limiter mounted fwd or aft of the firewall? Right now, I have more length of the Alt-B wire unprotected than protected, and I don't like that. I suppose I could put a breaker or limiter in the wire right after it comes off the alternator, then fasten the breaker/limiter to the top of the intake manifold. How did you do it? My plan calls for a 60a breaker in the Alt-B line at the switches panel. Is the current limiter better for some reason?


    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
    Time: 06:34:23 PM PST US
    From: Sam Marlow <sam.marlow@adelphia.net>
    Subject: Re: Garmin Stack
    Great info, just what I needed! Thanks, Sam do not archive Brian Meyette wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net> > >It's 0.040" and the dimples will give you that. However, keep in mind that >Garmin has not updated the UPS line to match their original products, so if >your mix includes a former UPS product such as SL30, the dimples won't line >up, and you won't have the proper clearance. Simple fix is to super-glue >a 1" square of 0.040" sheet onto the SL30 tray where the other trays contact >it. >http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsFeb06.htm#feb6 > >Another tip I learned in doing mine is that it's the outside lip of the >bottom of the tray that is supposed to be flush, so the rest of the tray is >actually a bit behind the panel. >http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsFeb06.htm > >brian > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Deems >Davis >Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:19 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net> > >Sam, I can't remember the exact dimensions, but Garmin has a requirement >for minimum spacing between radios on the stack. HOWEVER, If you use >their mounting racks (can't think of why you wouldn't want to) they have >'dimples' on the top/bottom that guarantee the mins, so that you can go >metal to metal. (I taped all of my racks together to get the final >dimensions for cutting the opening in the panel faceplate). > >Deems Davis # 406 >Panel/Fuse/Finishing >http://deemsrv10.com/ > > >Sam Marlow wrote: > > > >>Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I >>need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe >>the racks can go metel to metal. >>Thanks, >>Sam Marlow >>RV10 Avionics >> >>* >> >> >>* >> >> >> > > >-- > >-- > > > >


    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
    Time: 06:34:38 PM PST US
    From: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuel Pump Switch(es)
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Hello Ed, > > With a carb you have the advantage that you don't have to mess with the > pressure relief valve and tank return...not that you mess with it in > flight but is more work to install. You also have a few seconds of > reserve fuel in the float bowl plus if somehow you pumped air to the > floatbowl it does'nt care because the air gets vented thru the floatbowl > harmlessly. Pretty good setup. > > Yes you can use a Facet solid state pump in your wingroots and I believe > these are rated to 30GPH each. > > There two failure modes that I am not sure of in your suggested > setup...I bet it is perfectly OK but I don't know for sure. > > 1) What happens if the mechanical pump rutures a diaphram...where does the fuel go? > I thought the electric pump was a backup for the mechanical pump on cert airplanes. Isn't it designed so the electric can pump if the mechanical fails? > 2) Are there any other failure modes that would stop the Facet pump from > pumping thru the dead mechanical pump? > Same as above? > 3) can you suck thru two dead facet pumps with your mecahnical pump?...I > think you can and the point is a little moot anyway. As long as you wire > the pumps independantly the chances of loosing both pumps is very > unlikely..In a way you triple redundancy. > I wasn't sure about this other than it works this way on my cert airplane when the electric is off. Unless a dead pump would be different? > > I personally would avoid a selector valve with left and right only > selections...One day you will get it wrong and have the wrong pump on > with the wrong tank...Simply replace it with an on/off valve, join the > outputs of the pumps together with a Tee fitting and make sure there is > a check valve in each line...This will stop cross feeding to the no used > tank. > Under normal operations you would not move the selector valve. You would use the pumps for tank selection. Remember, this would be an off-left-right-both valve (ACS ANDAIR FUEL VALVE FS20X4M). The advantage of this valve would be in the event of an electrical pump failure, the system would operate much like a cert system so that you could get fuel out of the dead pump tank.. > Ahh...I just seen the issue with this...If you have an on/off valve with > a mechanical pump and both facets are offline you will likely suck air > to your floatbowl...That wouldn't be good...But should still suck thru > the pump you turned off. > If one tank had fuel and the mechanical pump is working, putting the fuel selector on that tank should give fuel. > Hmm seems to me the meachanical pump is not a good idea with this system > and will require a selector valve which adds complexity and the very > single point of failure you had trouble with before. > The mechanical pump becomes the backup. The selector valve is only used in the event of electric pump failure. > I wouldn't use this system but it should work. Personally I don't see > the advantage over the standard mechanical/electric pump with selector > valve...Unless you intend to use Mogas of course. > I don't understand this comment. The advantages would seem to be: Both tanks feeding for critical flight phases such as takeoff and landing. No need to use the selector valve except in an emergency. Could use auto gas if desired. The whole system would be almost identical to the systems in cert planes. You would be adding one extra electric fuel pump and gaining the advantages. Ed > Frank > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:30 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ed <ed@muellerartcover.com> > > Hi Frank, > > I've been following this thread for a while. I like your idea for the > fuel system. Just a couple of questions. > > I'm thinking of using a carbed lycoming. Why couldn't I use a > mechanical pump, an off-left-right-both fuel valve, and two electric > pumps? > > Normal Operation: > Fuel valve on both all the time (no valve to switch). > One or the other electric pump on to select tank used. > Tanks switched with the pumps. > > Takeoff and landing. > Same as above but both electric pumps on. > > Failures. > Electric pump failure. Fuel selector switched to that tank if that fuel > is needed. > Mechanical pump failure would NOT be noticed in this system but could be > checked at startup (or in the air if you wanted to turn both pumps off). > > All of the advantages you pointed out but would not be dependent on the > electrical system or an electric pump failure. > > > I like simple systems. I owned and flew a Beech Duchess (light light > twin) for 14 years. Left tank fed left engine, right tank fed right > engine. No switching fuel valves unless an engine failure. Went back > to a single engine three years ago, first time I had to switch tanks I > wasn't happy having to fool with the fuel. A year later in the same > plane, my wife (a pilot also) switched tanks for me but commented that > it didn't feel right going into the left position. I looked down at the > > valve and saw that a loose nut from a screw was lodged between the > handle and the stop preventing the valve from fully engaging. Luckily > the engine continued running , valve back to right, fish nut out, valve > > to left then worked fine. Should there be loose nuts in the airplane? > No, but stuff happens. Therefore when I heard of your system, I > liked it immediately. > > > Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George >> > (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > >> Exactly! >> >> And now back to the one pump in each wingroot solution....left tank >> ...switch left pump on...Right tank switch right pump on... Both tanks >> (TO and landing).. Both switches on. Pretty simple I think. >> >> The other advantages are... >> >> >> No selector valves to switch. >> Highly resistant to Vapour lock...Biggest driver to use auto fuel >> SIMPLE >> No single point of failure anywhere...OK the fuel line, servo and >> battery is (assuming you don't have an isolated twin battery setup) >> Plug a fuel filter...Who cares? >> >> Downsides >> >> Uses more electrical power. >> Have to design the "what happens if the alternator craps out" failure >> mode...I have dual alternaors...8 amp back up is just big enough for a >> radio, tansponder and one fuel pump >> Extra 3 feet of pressurised fuel line in the cockpit. >> >> Frank >> RV7a 4 hours >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of >> > Dave > >> N6030X >> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:45 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Pump Switch(es) >> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X >> --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> >> >> I have a little different point of view that I'd like to just throw >> > out > >> there. >> >> In my experimental Dragonfly, I was gripped for a long time by a >> NASA-like desire to have multiple redundant systems everywhere. I'm a >> software guy, so I love complicated, microprocessor-controlled >> everythingies. But when I started working through the cockpit >> > workload > >> part of dealing with multiple independent pumps and switches and >> bypasses for everything and backup this and that, I realized that >> > there > >> was a single point of failure that was getting more and more >> > overloaded > >> with every new complexity: the pilot (me). >> >> Look at the NTSB reports, and you'll see there are many more failures >> > of > >> the human to throw the switch than of the switch breaking. Fuel >> Starvation due to forgetting how much fuel is in the tank, not knowing >> how much fuel is in the tank, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >


    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
    Time: 06:37:56 PM PST US
    From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
    Subject: Re: Can someone share experience tuning static port?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com> On 20 Sep 2006, at 12:22, <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US> wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us> > > I have a Europa XS Monowheel, it has the static port under the > wing, it is > a tube with a closed nylon bullet at the tip, and 2 holes in it a > bit aft > of the lead edge of the bullet, 1 vertical and 1 horizontal. > > I heard a while back you can tune this static port by installing a > O-Ring, > think start point was an inch or so behind the holes in the bullet?? > > Can someone share experience tuning static port? > > How did you determine when it was correct? > > What distance was neutral point for O-Ring? > > Does moving O-Ring forward from neutral increase static pressure? > > What size O-Ring did you use, did size make much a difference, what > was > O-Ring made out of and how did you permanent bond in place? The first step is to do some very careful ground and flight testing to determine what the current static system errors are, with the static port as it is now. Then we can figure out whether the static port is reading too high, or too low, and go through an iterative process to hopefully improve things. Expect to invest several flights to gather data for each different configuration tested. First, you would need to do ground testing to determine the instrument error in your ASI. You could have an instrument shop do it, or you could make a water manometer. You also need to do careful leak checks in the pitot and static systems. Then, you need to do a bunch of flight tests to determine the error in the airspeed system. A conventional pitot tube, aligned within about 15 degrees of the airflow, clear of the boundary layer, clear of the prop wash, and not in the wake of any obstruction should be very accurate. Any airspeed error has to be either ASI instrument error, or due to static system errors. You use the ground test data to correct for ASI instrument error, and then we can figure out what the static system error is. I've got a lot more details on how to do the above ground and flight testing on my web site. I am also prepared to work with you to help you analyse the flight test results. http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/phplinks/out.php?&ID=31 An O - ring a bit ahead of the static port should decrease the pressure sensed at the static port. An O-ring close behind the port should increase the pressure sensed at the port. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8


    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
    Time: 07:03:19 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Z-19 based block diagrams
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 04:41 PM 9/20/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" ><brianpublic2@starband.net> > >About the battery voltage, I was referring to the case where the alternator >has died and I'm just trying to get to an airport on battery power. Okay. I think you'll find it useful to put bounds on "get to the airport". Too many of our brethren view the situation you've hypothesized as something that doesn't happen often (it doesn't) but is an emergency when it does (doesn't have to be) but is almost never covered by a Plan-B that is both calculated, designed and maintained so that the event is handled solely as a maintenance issue and not something likely to upset the wife and kids. They KNEW you were building death trap when you started the project, let's not prove them right. >I didn't find Z-19 deficient. Yes, my first diagram is Z-19 with another >pump added, 4PDT switches instead of 2PDT, and Schottky diodes replacing the >rectifier bridges. It was just suggested to me that I rethink it. I >didn't at first, but then I had an epiphany a month or so later, and came up >with the second block diagram. > >In looking at the first diagram again, it does appear that, with the pumps >switched with dedicated locking SPST switches, I probably don't need the >4PDT for the pumps circuits, as that just puts 2 switches in series. So >that really leaves me with a SPST switch for each of; primary & secondary >fule pump and ECM. > >So that leaves the question of "should I have 2 busses with diode bridges on >the output, or better to go with one engine bus with the diode bridge on the >input?" Diodes are more dependable than switches. The idea behind Z-19 as-drawn was to provide a plan-b for failure of either switch. Going from 2-pole to 4-pole devices is there wrong direction on the reliability curve. If I understand your system, you have Z-19 as shown plus an extra pump. If it were my airplane, I'd simply add a single-pole AUX PUMP switch to power the rarely (if ever) needed pump. Run it from either battery bus. You don't need a dual power path for this pump unless you're going for Part 25 certification where probability and statistical studies are required to analyze dual failures. Now, how about pre-flight. Is it harmful to power up the AUX PUMP and see that it develops pressure before you start the engine? If not, pre-flight is easy. This maintains the maximum separation of power paths for necessary systems by having them come together at the diodes. Bob . . .


    Message 44


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:11:41 PM PST US
    From: "r falstad" <bobair8@msn.com>
    Subject: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector: More Information
    Folks, I neglected to include some information in my original post on this. The "blindmate" connector that Garmin provides for its transponder calls for a 50 ohm match bushing which goes inside the connector after the coax cable is soldered up. That is why I can't use a regular BNC connector. I also took another look at the instructions. While not absolutely explicit, I believe the instructions do call for the braid to go inside, not outside, the connector and for the connector to be heated up to flow solder between the inside of the connector and the braided shield. You can read the installation instructions by going to Garmin's web site, then to "Support", then drilling down to the GTX 320A transponder and clicking on Installation Manual "Download". The instructions for the blindmate connector are on document pages/pdf pages 7/11 and 8/12. Does this additional information trigger any other suggestions? I think I'll just have to keep applying heat until I "git 'er done". Best regards, 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
    Time: 07:17:15 PM PST US
    From: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
    Subject: Garmin Stack
    Sam, I didn't see it in the 430 manual but on page 5 of the SL40 Installation Manual, it specifically says "for typical installations, the SL40 requires no external cooling BUT leave a 1/8 to 1/4 inch clearance between avionics". I would assume that the SL30 puts out more heat and would be subject to the same clearances. Others mount them metal to metal and seem to have no problems. Your call ;-) Bill S 7a Ark _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Marlow Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:16 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin Stack Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks can go metel to metal. Thanks, Sam Marlow RV10 Avionics


    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
    Time: 08:09:00 PM PST US
    From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
    Subject: Re: BNC "Blindmate" Coax Connector: More Information
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net> r falstad wrote: > Folks, > > I neglected to include some information in my original post on this. > The "blindmate" connector that Garmin provides for its transponder > calls for a 50 ohm match bushing which goes inside the connector after > the coax cable is soldered up. That is why I can't use a regular BNC > connector. > > I also took another look at the instructions. While not absolutely > explicit, I believe the instructions do call for the braid to go > inside, not outside, the connector and for the connector to be heated > up to flow solder between the inside of the connector and the braided > shield. > > You can read the installation instructions by going to Garmin's web > site, then to "Support", then drilling down to the GTX 320A > transponder and clicking on Installation Manual "Download". The > instructions for the blindmate connector are on document pages/pdf > pages 7/11 and 8/12. > > Does this additional information trigger any other suggestions? I > think I'll just have to keep applying heat until I "git 'er done". > > Best regards, > > Bob Okay, I took a look and the GTX-320A directions are similar to the UPS SL-70 installation. Again, I don't know the exact dimensions of your connector but the directions for the SL-70 says to spread the outer braid and push the coax (center conductor, insulator and inner shield braid) into the recess with the outer brain formed around the outside of the entrance, then solder the braid to the connector after soldering the center conductor to the post. My connector also includes the ferrule and the matching chunk of metal. The pictures look almost identical except mine does not mention the ferrule. Dick Tasker -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. --


    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
    Time: 08:16:34 PM PST US
    From: "Gary G Brock" <kf4hbd@intrstar.net>
    Subject: kx 155 remote com and nav
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary G Brock" <kf4hbd@intrstar.net> I am using the approach system fast stack in my rv9a. I have a kx 155 and like to know how to wire the remote nav and com leads to my yoke that has a left and right buttom. I have all the wiring from the yoke wired to a terminal block. Does the leads have to have power to them. The remote will alllow me to flip/flop the nav and com from the yoke. New to the list. Thanks Gary


    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
    Time: 08:22:41 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Transponder "Strobe" Signal
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 08:39 AM 9/20/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Jones" ><djones@northboone.net> > >The transponder schematic shows a suppression OUT pin 1 and a EXT. DME >suppression IN pin 6. Because I do not have a DME I understand that both >of these pins would be empty. Would this be what the encoder schematic is >showing as the strobe input? If so then this pin would not be used and >would be pigtailed to the ground pin. STROBE input to the encoder is not the same as blanking or suppression signals exchanged between Transponders, DME, TCAS, etc. The strobe input to an encoder is a remnant of the older transponder technology that requested altitude data periodically by means of the "strobe" signal to an encoder. I've not seen this signal used in along time. I belive you use this pin hanging open on the encoder if it's not needed. The encoder installation manual should tell you what to do with the un-needed signal. I found a copy of an Ameri-King AK-350 that I used to sell on Ameri-King's wegsite at: http://www.ameri-king.com/pdf/9.1.23.pdf Note that on page 24 of the manual it speaks to an pulling up on the encoder's strobe signal to make it active and pulling it down to disable the encoder. It's probably fitted with an internal pull-up resistor such that leaving the pin open makes the encoder active all the time. Other pages speak to wiring this pin to certain transponders (all out of production). 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 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
    Time: 10:08:01 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: tuning static port?
    From: <rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us> Hello Jim Thx. for the info on static tube. Why did you put your pitot / static on top of rudder instead of below wing? I think the reason there are 4 holes on bullet is to net out to static pressure if not going direct into wind. If lets say slipping to left, the 9 would be high and the 3 would be low, netting to static. Same goes for climbing. "How far along are you on your build?" Started build 06-2003. Getting close to bonding on top, wings complete except top skins not bonded on, undercarriage in. Panel is populated but not wired, figure a few more years to go, not including build of long wings. Spent better part of a year setting straight unacceptable supplied components. N4211W XS Mono/914/Airmaster Ron Parigoris


    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
    Time: 10:15:08 PM PST US
    From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Garmin Stack
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com In a message dated 9/20/06 12:21:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sam.marlow@adelphia.net writes: > Can someone with a Garmin stack give me an idea on how much space I need > to allow between units, 340, 430, sl30 ect? I'm thinging maybe the racks > can go metel to metal. > Thanks, > Sam Marlow > RV10 Avionics ======================== Sam: Nothing is metel to metal, as long as trays are used; you can stack as close at the trays will allow. For cooling the 340 has a fitting for the cooling fan hose to connect to. I suspect the other Garmin units do also. Barry "Chop'd Liver" "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third time." Yamashiada


    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
    Time: 10:22:41 PM PST US
    From: Speedy11@aol.com
    Subject: Bob, no laptops in OBAMs?
    Is The Burning Battery Problem Solved? Never Fear... PRBA Is On The Case The Portable Rechargeable Battery Association, or PRBA -- did you even know there was such an organization? -- says all the problems with burning batteries of late... in their words... most likely relates to aircraft charging systems. They describe the risk of using batteries -- even those recalled but not yet returned -- is low, and can be further mitigated by either using the electronic device on battery power alone, or plugging the device into the aircraft power system without the battery installed. Apparently, PRBA told the FAA about the danger of charging batteries inflight using an aircraft's electrical system almost 10 years ago. In a 1997 letter sent to the airlines and the FAA, the association highlighted the need for stable voltage and an instantaneous cut-off system in the event of an over-heat or over-charge condition. Most electronic equipment with rechargeable batteries already employ a cut-off system, but they might not work if the user replaces the original battery with one not supplied by the manufacturer... so onboard electrical systems should have a redundant cut-off capability. They don't. PRBA stresses that even if a battery does catch fire, UK Civil Aviation Authority testing has conclusively proven that standard aviation fire extinquishers can douse the flames. FMI: http://www.prba.org/




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --