Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:58 AM - Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:07 AM - Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? (Gilles Thesee)
3. 06:32 AM - Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? (Bill Denton)
4. 07:15 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
5. 07:20 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
6. 07:50 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 09/26/06 (Ernest Christley)
7. 08:08 AM - Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? (Jim Baker)
8. 08:10 AM - Re: Grounding Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:51 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Kelly McMullen)
10. 10:54 AM - Stick Transfer function (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
11. 11:26 AM - Re: Stick Transfer function (Dave N6030X)
12. 12:01 PM - Re: Stick Transfer function (Deems Davis)
13. 12:18 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Brian Meyette)
14. 12:29 PM - Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) (Matt Prather)
15. 12:31 PM - Rotax 912S starter relay diode (billmileski)
16. 01:17 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
17. 02:39 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) (David M.)
18. 03:46 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) (Matt Prather)
19. 07:23 PM - Re: Lap solder or D-Sub Pins (Emrath)
20. 08:26 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:35 AM 9/25/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Louis Jasperson"
><vision0241@hotmail.com>
>
>are all the active aviation gps antennas (trimble, king, garmin, lowrance,
>etc) interchangeable?
>
>which specificiation do i need to look at to evaluate the equivalence?
The antennas for which I've seen anecdotal data
have a great deal in common and are probably interchangeable
among some brands. Having said that, I'm unaware of any
"standard" that the industry has embraced in order to
achieve a broad range of plug-n-play compatibility
across product lines for active antennas.
ARINC ( http://www.arinc.com/ ) was set up about 40 years
ago as a sort of "club" of suppliers. One of many common
interface standards agreed upon by the club was the "2 out
of 5" switching protocols for allowing a Narco LOC receiver
to frequency switch an ARC glideslope receiver.
Until and if someone like ARINC offers an active GPS
antenna standard (and manufacturers embrace it) then
you're pretty much on your own to try it. If your
GPS receiver offers a satellite signal strength display,
then you're in a position to do A vs. B comparisons
of two antennas and can tell US what your findings are.
So the sort answer is, "Haven't the foggiest. Phone
calls to the suppliers of equipment under consideration
may be helpful.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Louis Jasperson"
>> <vision0241@hotmail.com>
>>
>> are all the active aviation gps antennas (trimble, king, garmin,
>> lowrance, etc) interchangeable?
>>
>> which specificiation do i need to look at to evaluate the equivalence?
Hi Bob and all,
I'm very satisfied with a Laipac Technology active antenna and a Garmin
Series 400 GPS. Flawless reception, even inside a closed hangar.
Some info at http://contrails.free.fr/gps_en.php
FWIW,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
One point to consider...
With "active" GPS antennas, Garmin and Bendix/King require different "boost"
levels.
Comant offers separate antenna models to accommodate these differences.
Don't know for sure, but it would seem reasonable that an antenna with less
than the required boost would give poor performance...
-----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 27, 2006 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:35 AM 9/25/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Louis Jasperson"
><vision0241@hotmail.com>
>
>are all the active aviation gps antennas (trimble, king, garmin, lowrance,
>etc) interchangeable?
>
>which specificiation do i need to look at to evaluate the equivalence?
The antennas for which I've seen anecdotal data
have a great deal in common and are probably interchangeable
among some brands. Having said that, I'm unaware of any
"standard" that the industry has embraced in order to
achieve a broad range of plug-n-play compatibility
across product lines for active antennas.
ARINC ( http://www.arinc.com/ ) was set up about 40 years
ago as a sort of "club" of suppliers. One of many common
interface standards agreed upon by the club was the "2 out
of 5" switching protocols for allowing a Narco LOC receiver
to frequency switch an ARC glideslope receiver.
Until and if someone like ARINC offers an active GPS
antenna standard (and manufacturers embrace it) then
you're pretty much on your own to try it. If your
GPS receiver offers a satellite signal strength display,
then you're in a position to do A vs. B comparisons
of two antennas and can tell US what your findings are.
So the sort answer is, "Haven't the foggiest. Phone
calls to the suppliers of equipment under consideration
may be helpful.
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
In the meantime I'll just run my VL proof fuel delivery system. Of
course what I am guilty of is forgetting that 90% of the GA fleet is
certified and we can't just go swapping stuff out like us experimantal
drivers can.
I knew there was a reason I don't fly a Cessna...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS
>is the vapor pressure issue.
>
>This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.
>
>It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.
>
>It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very
>much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.
>
>If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -
>- we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the
>vapor pressure issue.
>
>It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the
>dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will
>still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.
>
>Regards, George
>
>
>_Nope I can't agree with that George.
>
>It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel
>system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it
>currently is.
>
>To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good
>reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at
>modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be
>reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is
>bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank
>thru some restictions to gurantee your early death.
>
>The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put
>them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest
>place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the
>fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.
>
>My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I
>gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000
>feet...Unlikely.
>
>The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you
>get struck by lightening?
>
>For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would
>agree its hardly ideal though.
Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's
an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever
fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those
limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank
to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming
the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too.
For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1%
(that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the
next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt
to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks
waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL.
The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its
present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The
big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate
the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for
acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The
fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be
different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology
will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be
relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Yeah...it works great..:)
I used it for 400 hours on my carburetted Zodiac and for 25 hours on my
new FI RV7a...The FAA inspector threw a major wobbly though when he saw
it. I thought he was going to not sign it off for a moment, but came
round when I explained it to him.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
George Braly
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:04 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly"
--> <gwbraly@gami.com>
>>_Nope I can't agree with that George.
It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel
system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it
currently is.<<
In an ideal world in which the 90% of the general aviation fleet that is
already flying were able to have their entire fuel system including the
wet wing fuel tanks re-designed - - then your disagreement with the
problem and issues that we are discussing would, in my opinion, be well
founded.
But the reality is that the "fuel problem" is not a problem whose
solution is going to be decided by the experimental community's desires.
The reality is that a solution to the "lead in the fuel" issue will need
to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with, among others, the
following considerations:
1) It will leave no engine in common use "on the ground";
2) It will not require major redesign of aircraft fuel, electrical, or
plumbing systems;
3) It will not require that any engines be "de-rated" due to lower
octane;
4) It will not require re-certification of whole groups of aircraft or
restrict them to benign environmental conditions (ie, you can still
takeoff from Bullhead City, Az, in August.)
The concept of using "in tank" electric boost pumps (however desirable
and however good an idea that may be) is inconsistent with 2, above.
Regards, George
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 42 Msgs - 09/26/06 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>But the reality is that the "fuel problem" is not a problem whose
>solution is going to be decided by the experimental community's desires.
>
>The reality is that a solution to the "lead in the fuel" issue will need
>to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with, among others, the
>following considerations:
>
>1) It will leave no engine in common use "on the ground";
>2) It will not require major redesign of aircraft fuel, electrical, or
>plumbing systems;
>3) It will not require that any engines be "de-rated" due to lower
>octane;
>4) It will not require re-certification of whole groups of aircraft or
>restrict them to benign environmental conditions (ie, you can still
>takeoff from Bullhead City, Az, in August.)
>
>The concept of using "in tank" electric boost pumps (however desirable
>and however good an idea that may be) is inconsistent with 2, above.
>
>
George, the reality is that GA aviation is going against the grain of
what the rest of our society is clamoring for. Right or wrong, leaded
fuel is considered more and more of an environmental hazard. The push
for alcohol in gas is increasing. GA has some fairly effective lobbying
groups, but we can't hope to stand up to the likes of the agricultural
lobbies pushing the alcohol. Eventually, AVGas will disappear and your
list of requirements will simply be ignored. The politicos will
consider all the items on your list a small price to pay and all of them
WILL happen. You may not like it. I may not like it. But they will
ask us what we want, and then ignore us.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Are all active GPS antennas equilvalent? |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
> >are all the active aviation gps antennas (trimble, king, garmin, lowrance,
> >etc) interchangeable?
> >
> >which specificiation do i need to look at to evaluate the equivalence?
A good resource....
http://gpsinformation.net/main/gpsantrev1.htm
An active antenna primarily overcomes coax losses....how long
do you need your cable to be?
The other option is an in-line amplifier, then use any antenna
you wish (without over amplifying the signal)....
http://tinyurl.com/enosm
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Grounding Question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:47 PM 9/26/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thanks for the very helpful new drawing on grounding. It motivated me to
>ask a question that I've been wrestling with for some time.
>
>I'm installing a Grand Rapids Engine Information System (EIS) in my
>composite OBAM aircraft. Many of the engine sensors attach directly to
>the engine itself and therefore ground to the engine. The EIS instruction
>manual says to ground the EIS module to the engine ground. So far, so good.
>
>But the oil pressure sensor is attached to a rubber hose, electrically
>isolated from the engine, and I was planning to ground it to the engine
>side of the firewall, to the "G2 FWL" ground block. The manifold pressure
>sensor is on the cockpit side of the firewall and I was planning to ground
>it to the avionics ground block. The outside air temperature sensor will
>ground to the "G3 PNL" ground block. (There are many more
>"electro-whizzies" connected to the EIS module, but the ones mentioned
>illustrate the point.)
>
>Each individual sensor is grounded to a single spot. But will the EIS
>module, to which they all connect, see the four separate grounds as a
>ground loop?
GREAT question! We tend to be unaware of inalterable
system features that drive the astute system designer's
grounding decisions.
As we've noted, some engine sensors ground to the
engine by design. No practical way to change it. This
suggests that the engine or at least the firewall ground
block is where EVERY ground associated with the engine
instrumentation system should be tied down.
Now, when one uses the a nice fat braided crankcase-
to-firewall ground jumper, the electrical differences
between crankcase, firewall-forward block, and cockpit-side
ground blocks are insignificant. This was the rationale
for the original ground-block and crankcase-jumper concept
cited back in Rev 9 or so.
The idea was that EVERY grounded wire on a small aircraft
would route to the single location tightly bonded to crankcase,
battery (-) and airframe (via the firewall sheet). This single
feature would absolutely eliminate the potential for ground
loops known or unknown.
As the airplane becomes more complex there's no practical
way that EVERY wire can come to ground at the same location.
If we tried that in a Beechjet, we would have a huge wire
bundle of perhaps 100-200 wires trying to share the same
grounding location in the airplane.
So, the idea of distributed grounding as illustrated for
small aircraft in Figure Z-15 offered a useful alternative
to the monster-ground-wire-bundle.
The same rules for grounding all wires common to a single
system be tied to a single point apply with one caveat:
Systems that talk to each other my experience ground loop
issues in spite of the fact that a single ground is use for
each system. One example, a FADEC computer at the tail of
the airplane may have ground loop problems with small signal
wires that run forward to a display system. Solution? Non-
metallic (conducting) signal systems. These include fiber
optics, transformer coupled (a-la Mil-STD-1553), capacitor
coupled (radio frequency modems), etc.
When the system designer picks out major components of
the large airframe, an awareness of potential ground loop issues
need to be part of the consideration. For our little airplanes,
the firewall ground block augmented by the recently proposed
avionics (panel) ground block are part of that thought process.
It's good that you're exercising the gray-matter on this
topic . . . know that taking all EIS grounds to either
forward or aft firewall grounds is an good move.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
I don't know about other locations, but the Mogas in Phoenix and
probably most of Arizona in the summer is RVP 7.0 or lower, which
equals the vapor pressure of 100LL.
Quoting "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
> In the meantime I'll just run my VL proof fuel delivery system. Of
> course what I am guilty of is forgetting that 90% of the GA fleet is
> certified and we can't just go swapping stuff out like us experimantal
> drivers can.
>
> I knew there was a reason I don't fly a Cessna...:)
>
> Frank
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:36 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
> (Corvallis)"
>> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS
>> is the vapor pressure issue.
>>
>> This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.
>>
>> It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.
>>
>> It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very
>
>> much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.
>>
>> If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -
>> - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the
>> vapor pressure issue.
>>
>> It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the
>> dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will
>
>> still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.
>>
>> Regards, George
>>
>>
>>
>> _Nope I can't agree with that George.
>>
>> It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel
>> system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it
>
>> currently is.
>>
>> To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good
>> reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at
>> modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be
>> reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is
>> bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank
>> thru some restictions to gurantee your early death.
>>
>> The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put
>> them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest
>> place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the
>> fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.
>>
>> My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I
>> gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000
>> feet...Unlikely.
>>
>> The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you
>> get struck by lightening?
>>
>> For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would
>
>> agree its hardly ideal though.
>
> Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's
> an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever
> fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those
> limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank
> to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming
> the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too.
> For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1%
> (that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the
> next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt
> to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks
> waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL.
>
> The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its
> present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The
> big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate
> the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for
> acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The
> fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be
> different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology
> will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be
> relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Stick Transfer function |
Howdy again-
Thanks to all who offered suggestions for the lighted, engraved rocker
switches- now have two sources, Pacific/Gulf Coast and Aerocraft.
Next question. I am investigating how to swap all stick switch functions
from L to R (Infinity grip) by some reliable, safe means. About 8 wires minimum
(4-way trim, CWS, PTT, gnd). I would prefer a simple switch as opposed to
using relays (4PDTx2) but I'm beginning to think there is no source for an 8PDT
switch.
Any suggestions or am I barking up the wrong tree and there's a simpler way
to do this?
THANKS!
Mark Phillips do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Stick Transfer function |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Many of those can just be paralleled as long as you don' t have two
people fighting each other over the use of the switches. And I'm
assuming here you mean you have two Infinity control sticks, one for
pilot and one for copilot. The PTT for each stick would control that
person's PTT connection to the radios, so you don't want to switch
that. Trim you're only going to be using one-at-a-time, so you
should be able to parallel those. etc.
Dave Morris
At 12:53 PM 9/27/2006, you wrote:
>Howdy again-
>
>Thanks to all who offered suggestions for the lighted, engraved
>rocker switches- now have two sources, Pacific/Gulf Coast and Aerocraft.
>
>Next question. I am investigating how to swap all stick switch
>functions from L to R (Infinity grip) by some reliable, safe
>means. About 8 wires minimum (4-way trim, CWS, PTT, gnd). I would
>prefer a simple switch as opposed to using relays (4PDTx2) but I'm
>beginning to think there is no source for an 8PDT switch.
>
>Any suggestions or am I barking up the wrong tree and there's a
>simpler way to do this?
>
>THANKS!
>Mark Phillips do not archive
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Stick Transfer function |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Deems Davis <deemsdavis@cox.net>
Dave, that answers part of a question that I had, as I thought that I
might connect both sticks in this manner (parallel), and add a grandson
switch that broke the grounds on the co-pilot grip to disable it if
desired. I recall that a lot of builders use relays to wire their
control sticks. What is the objective of using relays? Is it to solve
the 'contention' issue between the pilot/co-pilot?
Deems Davis # 406
Panel/Finishing
http://deemsrv10.com/
Dave N6030X wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> Many of those can just be paralleled as long as you don' t have two
> people fighting each other over the use of the switches. And I'm
> assuming here you mean you have two Infinity control sticks, one for
> pilot and one for copilot. The PTT for each stick would control that
> person's PTT connection to the radios, so you don't want to switch
> that. Trim you're only going to be using one-at-a-time, so you should
> be able to parallel those. etc.
>
> Dave Morris
>
> At 12:53 PM 9/27/2006, you wrote:
>
>> Howdy again-
>>
>> Thanks to all who offered suggestions for the lighted, engraved
>> rocker switches- now have two sources, Pacific/Gulf Coast and Aerocraft.
>>
>> Next question. I am investigating how to swap all stick switch
>> functions from L to R (Infinity grip) by some reliable, safe means.
>> About 8 wires minimum (4-way trim, CWS, PTT, gnd). I would prefer a
>> simple switch as opposed to using relays (4PDTx2) but I'm beginning
>> to think there is no source for an 8PDT switch.
>>
>> Any suggestions or am I barking up the wrong tree and there's a
>> simpler way to do this?
>>
>> THANKS!
>> Mark Phillips do not archive
>>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" <brianpublic2@starband.net>
Chris Lowery of Decalin sells a fuel volatility tester (as well as other
good fuel handling chemicals), so you can confirm the vapor pressure of
whatever fuel you are using
http://www.decalinchemicals.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
In the meantime I'll just run my VL proof fuel delivery system. Of
course what I am guilty of is forgetting that 90% of the GA fleet is
certified and we can't just go swapping stuff out like us experimantal
drivers can.
I knew there was a reason I don't fly a Cessna...:)
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:36 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
(Corvallis)"
><frank.hinde@hp.com>
>
>
>Bob,
>
>One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS
>is the vapor pressure issue.
>
>This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.
>
>It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.
>
>It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very
>much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.
>
>If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -
>- we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the
>vapor pressure issue.
>
>It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the
>dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will
>still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.
>
>Regards, George
>
>
>_Nope I can't agree with that George.
>
>It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel
>system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it
>currently is.
>
>To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good
>reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at
>modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be
>reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is
>bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank
>thru some restictions to gurantee your early death.
>
>The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put
>them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest
>place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the
>fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.
>
>My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I
>gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000
>feet...Unlikely.
>
>The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you
>get struck by lightening?
>
>For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would
>agree its hardly ideal though.
Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's
an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever
fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those
limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank
to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming
the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too.
For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1%
(that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the
next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt
to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks
waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL.
The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its
present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The
big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate
the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for
acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The
fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be
different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology
will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be
relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans.
Bob . . .
--
--
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Alright! So, everybody, let's go to AZ to buy our Mogas.. Just kidding
(sort of). :)
There are real concerns about running from a fuel supply which has varying
composition. If you buy fuel in January, but don't use it until June, is
it safe to use in June (once the weather has gotten hot)? If you buy fuel
in Seattle (I don't know how RVP is regulated there, but assume it might
be allowed to have higher values), can you safely use it to fly to
Flagstaff?
Don't get me wrong.. I run Mogas in my 182 whenever it's convenient and
seems prudent. It saves between $10 and $25 per hour depending where you
buy. But, I do consider some of these issues when I decide what to burn..
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I don't know about other locations, but the Mogas in Phoenix and
> probably most of Arizona in the summer is RVP 7.0 or lower, which
> equals the vapor pressure of 100LL.
>
> Quoting "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>> In the meantime I'll just run my VL proof fuel delivery system. Of
>> course what I am guilty of is forgetting that 90% of the GA fleet is
>> certified and we can't just go swapping stuff out like us experimantal
>> drivers can.
>>
>> I knew there was a reason I don't fly a Cessna...:)
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:36 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>> (Corvallis)"
>>> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS
>>> is the vapor pressure issue.
>>>
>>> This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.
>>>
>>> It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.
>>>
>>> It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very
>>
>>> much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.
>>>
>>> If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -
>>> - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the
>>> vapor pressure issue.
>>>
>>> It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the
>>> dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it will
>>
>>> still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.
>>>
>>> Regards, George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _Nope I can't agree with that George.
>>>
>>> It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel
>>> system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it
>>
>>> currently is.
>>>
>>> To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good
>>> reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at
>>> modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be
>>> reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is
>>> bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank
>>> thru some restictions to gurantee your early death.
>>>
>>> The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put
>>> them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest
>>> place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the
>>> fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.
>>>
>>> My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I
>>> gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000
>>> feet...Unlikely.
>>>
>>> The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you
>>> get struck by lightening?
>>>
>>> For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would
>>
>>> agree its hardly ideal though.
>>
>> Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's
>> an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever
>> fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those
>> limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank
>> to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming
>> the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too.
>> For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1%
>> (that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the
>> next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt
>> to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks
>> waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL.
>>
>> The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its
>> present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The
>> big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate
>> the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for
>> acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The
>> fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be
>> different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology
>> will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be
>> relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rotax 912S starter relay diode |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "billmileski" <mileski@sonalysts.com>
Hi,
Does anyone know if the Rotax 912 series starter relay has a built-in shunt diode?
I am considering adding a diode across my starter switch, but then I came across an application note from Tyco, regarding shunt diodes across their relays. Apparently a zener in series with a diode is better, to allow the relay to develop some EMF, otherwise the opening dynamics can be somewhat thwarted. If so, the starter relay can actually be more likely to fail to open, and/or life can be shortened. Interesting read at http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/appnotes/app_pdfs/13c3264.pdf
Anyway, first thing's first. Anyone know if the 912's starter relay has a built-in
shunt protection system of any sort?
Thanks,
Bill Mileski
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=64327#64327
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 |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Indeed yes are...but do you measure the RVP before you use it?...Even if
the RVP is a little high you can ajust your flying to suit.
As a bit of an aside I probably wouldn't store mogas for 6 months before
using it.
More of a question is wat if ethanol appears in the mix...i have an
invite to phone Todd at Peterson for the low down on why not to use
Ethanol...I'm not convinced on that one...at least not yet.
More to come
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 12:29 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
--> <mprather@spro.net>
Alright! So, everybody, let's go to AZ to buy our Mogas.. Just kidding
(sort of). :)
There are real concerns about running from a fuel supply which has
varying
composition. If you buy fuel in January, but don't use it until June,
is
it safe to use in June (once the weather has gotten hot)? If you buy
fuel in Seattle (I don't know how RVP is regulated there, but assume it
might be allowed to have higher values), can you safely use it to fly to
Flagstaff?
Don't get me wrong.. I run Mogas in my 182 whenever it's convenient and
seems prudent. It saves between $10 and $25 per hour depending where
you buy. But, I do consider some of these issues when I decide what to
burn..
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
> <kellym@aviating.com>
>
> I don't know about other locations, but the Mogas in Phoenix and
> probably most of Arizona in the summer is RVP 7.0 or lower, which
> equals the vapor pressure of 100LL.
>
> Quoting "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>> (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>
>> In the meantime I'll just run my VL proof fuel delivery system. Of
>> course what I am guilty of is forgetting that 90% of the GA fleet is
>> certified and we can't just go swapping stuff out like us
>> experimantal drivers can.
>>
>> I knew there was a reason I don't fly a Cessna...:)
>>
>> Frank
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:36 PM
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Mogas versus 100LL
>>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>> --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>>
>> At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George
>> (Corvallis)"
>>> <frank.hinde@hp.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving
>>> MOGAS is the vapor pressure issue.
>>>
>>> This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.
>>>
>>> It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.
>>>
>>> It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and
>>> very
>>
>>> much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.
>>>
>>> If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in
>>> fuel -
>>> - we will still need a "special" fuel for piston engines due to the
>>> vapor pressure issue.
>>>
>>> It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the
>>> dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires. But it
>>> will
>>
>>> still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.
>>>
>>> Regards, George
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _Nope I can't agree with that George.
>>>
>>> It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel
>>> system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that
>>> it
>>
>>> currently is.
>>>
>>> To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good
>>> reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at
>>> modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be
>>> reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is
>>> bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank
>>> thru some restictions to gurantee your early death.
>>>
>>> The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put
>>> them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the
>>> coolest place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e
>>> INSIDE the fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.
>>>
>>> My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I
>>> gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000
>>> feet...Unlikely.
>>>
>>> The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you
>>> get struck by lightening?
>>>
>>> For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I
>>> would
>>
>>> agree its hardly ideal though.
>>
>> Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's
>> an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever
>> fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those
>> limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank
>> to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming
>> the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too.
>> For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1%
>> (that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the
>> next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt
>> to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks
>> waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL.
>>
>> The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its
>> present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The
>> big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate
>> the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for
>> acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The
>> fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be
>> different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology
>> will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be
>> relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Doesn't mogas purchased at a service station have a much shorter storage
life too?
David M.
Matt Prather wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
>
>Alright! So, everybody, let's go to AZ to buy our Mogas.. Just kidding
>(sort of). :)
>
>There are real concerns about running from a fuel supply which has varying
>composition. If you buy fuel in January, but don't use it until June, is
>it safe to use in June (once the weather has gotten hot)? If you buy fuel
>in Seattle (I don't know how RVP is regulated there, but assume it might
>be allowed to have higher values), can you safely use it to fly to
>Flagstaff?
>
>Don't get me wrong.. I run Mogas in my 182 whenever it's convenient and
>seems prudent. It saves between $10 and $25 per hour depending where you
>buy. But, I do consider some of these issues when I decide what to burn..
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt-
>
>
>
>
>>--
>>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Right... Yes. Another valid concern. I suspect that old mogas has lower
octane - the lighter aromatics used to raise octane evaporate sooner than
the base fuel, leaving a lower octane blend.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>
> Doesn't mogas purchased at a service station have a much shorter storage
> life too?
>
> David M.
>
>
> Matt Prather wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
>> <mprather@spro.net>
>>
>>Alright! So, everybody, let's go to AZ to buy our Mogas.. Just kidding
>>(sort of). :)
>>
>>There are real concerns about running from a fuel supply which has
>> varying
>>composition. If you buy fuel in January, but don't use it until June,
>> is
>>it safe to use in June (once the weather has gotten hot)? If you buy
>> fuel
>>in Seattle (I don't know how RVP is regulated there, but assume it might
>>be allowed to have higher values), can you safely use it to fly to
>>Flagstaff?
>>
>>Don't get me wrong.. I run Mogas in my 182 whenever it's convenient and
>>seems prudent. It saves between $10 and $25 per hour depending where you
>>buy. But, I do consider some of these issues when I decide what to
>> burn..
>>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Matt-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lap solder or D-Sub Pins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
Thanks Bob, Just the encouragement I needed to go "experimenting" by cutting
off the existin connectors and getting the soldering iron going.
Marty
Time: 05:54:37 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lap solder or D-Sub Pins
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:27 PM 9/25/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
>
>Bob:
>I am in the process of wiring some K type thermal couples for my EGT
>and CHT gage, the UBG-16 from Electronics International. The problem is
>the supplied thermal couple type K wire is 6' and I really only need 3'
>or so between the gage and the sensor. The ends of the wires came with
>pre-crimped 1/4" fast-on connectors. The cable may be shorted as needed
>per EI and new connectors crimped on. I was thinking cutting the wires
>to length and then cutting off the mating connector and putting on some
>solid D-sub pins and cover with heat shrink in order to avoid the
>"snake swallowed the mouse" look. However, I'm wondering if just a
>"lap joint" as you show on your shop articles isn't perhaps more robust
>for the job. I know that thermal couple K wire is different from copper
>somehow, but can they be soldered like normal copper wires? This will
>all be under the cowling.
Type J thermocouples will solder nicely with 63/37 with a
reasonably active flux like Kester "44" or "285". You can
try whatever solder you have to see if you can first "tin"
the bare strand(s) and then twist them together and see how
the solder flows over the twisted wires.
Type K is best silver soldered or you can use the crimped
d-sub pins mated together under a sleeve of heat-shrink
as a splicing technique.
Finally, consider cutting the existing fast-on terminals off,
shortening the wires and installing new terminals. Use
PIDG terminals and a ratchet-handled installation tool. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
for additional info on thermocouples.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
Nope...Just need to redesign the fuel system so it won't vapour
lock..Pretty easy.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Trigo
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
Thanks Rob
for your crystal clear explanation!
So, every MOGAS is unleaded fuel, right?
Hence the vapor pressure problem, is it?
Can I conclude that all we need is to find an additive other than lead,
to have the ideal aviation fuel?
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: Rob Housman <mailto:robh@hyperion-ef.us>
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:46 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL
It is an idiomatic use of English (that probably won't translate
to Portuguese).
AViation GAS is contracted to AVGAS and MOtor GAS becomes MOGAS.
In English we probably use the word MOTOR in this contraction instead of
AUTOMOBILE or AUTO, and GAS rather than FUEL, simply because it sounds
better to say MOGAS rather than MOFUEL and there is one less syllable
than AUTOFUEL. We also would rather be consistent and call both gas
instead of calling one gas and the other fuel.
As is typical for spoken English, we say MOGAS only when
referring to the fuel when it is used in an aircraft engine. When we
use it in a car it is just plain gas.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|