Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:42 AM - Re: AW: automatic electric trim switch (Bret Smith)
2. 06:14 AM - Re: Off line for a few days . . . (Frank Stringham)
3. 06:15 AM - Re: new to this list (Michael T. Ice)
4. 10:12 AM - Re: Re: Burned out switch (Vern Little)
5. 11:00 AM - Re: automatic electric trim switch (Lloyd, Daniel R.)
6. 11:51 AM - Small audio jack question (Neil Clayton)
7. 12:38 PM - Re: Small audio jack question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 12:48 PM - ELT/CHT cable extension (glennpaulwilkinson)
9. 01:19 PM - Re: Small audio jack question (Bill Denton)
10. 03:40 PM - Re: FAA Part 91.205 ()
11. 04:33 PM - Re: Re: FAA Part 91.205 (Tony Babb)
12. 05:19 PM - Re: ELT/CHT cable extension (David M.)
13. 05:27 PM - Re: Re: FAA Part 91.205 (Kevin Horton)
14. 08:25 PM - Re: Off line for a few days . . .Off line for a few days . . . (Emrath)
15. 08:26 PM - Re: Radio Rack Screws (John Swartout)
16. 10:15 PM - Re: Radio Rack Screws (Bill Maxwell)
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: automatic electric trim switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
It would be really cool if there could be a side-by-side comparison test
with all three solutions. Particularly the functions, strengths and
weaknesses of each product.
Bret
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AeroElectric-List: automatic electric trim switch
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Europa (Alfred Buess) wrote:
>> I use the Matronics Governor -
>> http://www.matronics.com/governor/index.htm -
>> it has the additional advantage of speed regulation of your trim servo.
>
> Thanks for the pointers! I also found one on this site:
>
> http://www.strongpitchtrim.com/
>
> With the rocketboy trim, I now have three to chose from. Most excellent!
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
>
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: | Off line for a few days . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Stringham" <fstringham@hotmail.com>
Bob
My sympathy and prayers are with you and your family. I just lost my 93 year
old father to prostate cancer. He gave me my love of aviation and all things
mechanical.
Frank @ SGU @ SLC wiring a RV7A
>From: "raymondj" <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Off line for a few days . . .
>Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:14:05 -0500
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "raymondj"
><raymondj@frontiernet.net>
>
>Sorry to hear of your loss.
>
>Raymond Julian
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
>L. Nuckolls, III
>Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 8:53 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off line for a few days . . .
>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>My stepmother of some 47 years pass away last Friday
>after nearly 2 years of very uncomfortable wrestling with
>inoperable cancers. She was 90.
>
>There's a gathering of the clan in Medicine Lodge, Kansas
>this week. Given that my father is not in the best of health
>either, I'm the surrogate head of family on my father's
>behalf with number of important but not necessarily unwelcome
>tasks to attend to. Should be back in the saddle on Thursday.
>
>
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: new to this list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo@ak.net>
Bob,
Thanks. Family first. Besides I am in good hands as you say.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: new to this list
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> Mike,
>
> Welcome aboard! You've met a few folks on the List and
> for the short term at least, I'll leave you in good
> hands. I've got some pressing family matters that
> will keep me out of circulation for a few days.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> At 07:57 AM 10/7/2006 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have just completed the fuselage on the RV-9 I am building and am about
>>to begin the process of putting in all things electric. I find myself
>>overwhelmed with the vast unknown pool of knowledge and I just don't know
>>where to jump in or begin.
>>
>>I have the Aeroelectric book on order. I have talked with Bob.
>>
>>Up until this point in the building process I have found pretty clear
>>instructions for each step (ok, sometimes the plans and drawings were a
>>little vague) but not for electric installation.
>>
>>Is there a "cook book" to use to at least have a place to begin?
>>
>>Mike Ice
>>Anchorage, Alaska
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Burned out switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Vern Little <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Many power supplies, especially switching regulator types, exhibit
what's called 'negative resistance'.
This means that if the input voltage to these power supplies increases,
the power supply input current decreases. These types of power supplies
do not work well when powered from a source that has a high
resistance... such as a malfunctioning switch.
In fact, they will oscillate quite nicely in certain conditions--
producing oscillating current and voltage at the input side... which can
really mess up other devices tied to the input bus.
I had to deal with this problem on power supplies that I designed for a
nuclear research facility (Cyclotron).
I would expect that the Whelen strobe power supply does not oscillate
under these conditions due to conservative design, but they still will
exhibit the inverse relationship between input voltage and input
current, and can therefore lead to higher than rated input currents as
the source voltage drops... and pop the breaker.
As a side note: This also proves that there is rarely a 'nuisance trip'
of a circuit breaker... it was trying to tell me something was not
right. In the end, the wiring was fine, but the terminals, switch and
circuit breaker were all toasted.
BTW, a new switch, terminals and breaker and everything is now working fine.
V
europa flugzeug fabrik wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
>
> rv-9a-online(at)telus.net wrote:
>> Sorry, Fred... the strobe power supply is a "constant power" as opposed to a
resistive load device. If you decrease the voltage to the power supply (subject
to the lower operating limit), the current increases in order for it to generate
the same strobe output power.
>
> If you are referring to a strobe power supply designed for 14V/28V, well then
yes we do have a different story. Whelen is like that, but I just now put a
4.0 A Whelen PS on the electronics bench, and the 4.0V spec is apparently peak
current, which occurs in a very brief spike. At 12.3V, that spike is 4.5A, and
mostly below 4.0 through the up/down cycle. At 14.1V, it is within spec at
brief peak. For a 7A Whelen supply, that predicts to no more than an extra 1.0
amp at peak run off batt only, verses charging voltage. If we then look at
the trip curves of a breaker, we will see that a 10A breaker (presume you have
that) does not trip instantly at 10A, or even a notable amount above that, except
after many seconds lapsing. So whats causing your problem such as to burn
up fast-ons, I dont know. Perhaps others can help.
>
> Fred F.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=66644#66644
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | automatic electric trim switch |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lloyd, Daniel R." <LloydDR@wernerco.com>
Mickey
How goes the install of the Subaru?
Here is what I got, and they were great to work with, doing custom
configs as necessary to meet my requirements.
http://www.aircraftextras.com/
Dan
RV10E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Mickey Coggins
Sent: Sunday, October 08, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: automatic electric trim switch
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
<mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Hi,
I'm installing a trio avionics altitude hold, and it has a cool feature
where it will trim the aircraft for you when it is on. They recommend a
radio shack bridge rectifier (part number 276-1183) and a DPDT relay
(275-206) to allow the normal trim to work even when the altitude hold
is engaged.
I vaguely recall someone selling a little kit with a the stuff needed so
that the pilot and co-pilot can use the trim without having to switch
manually. I assume this must be the same thing. Anyone have any links
to this product? I'd like to see if it either has better packaging or
other features that might be useful.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: | Small audio jack question |
I bought an Intercom that allows two music inputs (one for the kids,
one for the grownups). I bought small sockets from Radio Shack.
They expect the usual "tip-ring-sleeve" 3-contact arrangement. But
looking at the male jack on an electronic device I own, it has 4
contact surfaces on the male pin.
So what's the forth one for and will I need it?
Many thanks
Neil
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: Small audio jack question |
At 02:49 PM 10/9/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>I bought an Intercom that allows two music inputs (one for the kids, one
>for the grownups). I bought small sockets from Radio Shack.
>They expect the usual "tip-ring-sleeve" 3-contact arrangement. But looking
>at the male jack on an electronic device I own, it has 4 contact surfaces
>on the male pin.
>So what's the forth one for and will I need it?
Wondering if you have what's called a "closed circuit" jack
intended to disconnect a "primary" load (like built
in speaker) when the "secondary" load (like headphones)
is plugged in.
A schematic for such a jack is attached. It has a total of
5 connections right and left inputs, right and left outputs,
plus ground.
f6e8ad.jpg
Does this look like it matches your jack? What's the Radio Shack catalog
number for the part you have?
Bob . . .
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: | ELT/CHT cable extension |
Bob,
what is the best method to extend the EGT/CHT cables?
I'm doing a panel upgrade and need to add about 6" to each.
Glenn654
N654RV
RV-4 @ OKZ
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: | Small audio jack question |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
It's not terribly unusual to see a 4-conductor stereo jack/plug wired with
separate grounds for each channel, i.e.
L+
L-
R+
R-
If you need a source for these plugs/jacks, I'll look them up for you...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Small audio jack question
At 02:49 PM 10/9/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>I bought an Intercom that allows two music inputs (one for the kids, one
>for the grownups). I bought small sockets from Radio Shack.
>They expect the usual "tip-ring-sleeve" 3-contact arrangement. But looking
>at the male jack on an electronic device I own, it has 4 contact surfaces
>on the male pin.
>So what's the forth one for and will I need it?
Wondering if you have what's called a "closed circuit" jack
intended to disconnect a "primary" load (like built
in speaker) when the "secondary" load (like headphones)
is plugged in.
A schematic for such a jack is attached. It has a total of
5 connections right and left inputs, right and left outputs,
plus ground.
f6e8ad.jpg
Does this look like it matches your jack? What's the Radio Shack catalog
number for the part you have?
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: | Re: FAA Part 91.205 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
10/09/2006
Hello Rob, The FAA has a back hand way of applying FAR Sec 91.205 to Amateur
Built Experimental Aircraft (ABEA) and it takes a little research and
careful reading of different documents to sort out what applies when.
First, if you are operating the ABEA day VFR then none, I repeat NONE, of
91.205 applies to the instrumentation or equippage of that aircraft. (See
Note 1 below).
Hard to believe isn't it, but that is true because as you noted 91.205
applies to aircraft with standard category US airworthiness certificates and
not to our ABEA's that instead receive special airworthiness certificates.
(This is what permits very simple ABEA's like a Woody Pusher or Breezy to
fly legally day VFR with nothing in the way of 91.205 instruments or
equipment if the builder / pilot chooses to do so).
Second, the instant that you start operating that ABEA at night or under IFR
then 91.205 comes into play, not to the entire extent (See Note 2 below)
that it does for aircraft with standard airworthiness certificates, but
compliance with 91.205 for ABEA's does become extensive. Why is that?
It is because each ABEA has been issued a special airworthiness certificate
that includes a set of Operating Limitations that contain these words "After
completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for
night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is
to be operated under VFR, day only."
The intent and interpretation by the FAA of that sentence is that if the
ABEA is operating VFR at night then paragraphs 91.205 (b) and (c) must be
complied with. If the ABEA is operating under IFR then paragraphs 91.205
(b), (c), and (d) must be complied with. (I suppose that some sea lawyer
could argue that for day IFR one would not have to comply with 91.205 (c)
(1) and thereby not comply with 91.205 (b), but that is not the way that
the FAA interprets the word "appropriately" in that sentence in the
Operating Limitations.)
Because this subject is a bit convoluted I have put together a table that
lays the information out in fairly compact reference form. I will send you a
copy of this table attached to a separate email. If anyone else would like a
copy just email me. This table was also published on page 50 of the June
2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
Note 1: While 91.205 (b) (15) may not apply that does not excuse an ABEA
from complying with 91.207 regarding ELT's.
Note 2: Certain sub paragraphs of 91.205 refer to needing "approved" items.
This issue becomes a bit fuzzy because since there are no certification
criteria published for ABEA how can one determine whether an item is
"approved" or not for installation in an ABEA?
A commonly taken position both by many builders and by FAA and DAR initial
airworthiness inspectors of ABEA's is that if the item can affect operations
by other aircraft as well as the ABEA, such as exterior lighting for
example, then an item which has been approved for installation on standard
airworthiness certified aircraft will be required on the ABEA.
On the other hand arguments have been successfully made that if the item
affects only the internal functioning of the ABEA, such as seat belts and
shoulder harnesses for example, then these items do not have to be
"approved" (by a TSO marking for example). I have been involved in a few of
these discussions and, with the aid of communication from FAA headquarters,
have forced the inspector to back off the TSO marking requirement for both
seat belts and shoulder harness which were already purchased and installed
by the builder. I do not recommend letting it get to that point though.
Instead I recommend coordinating with the inspector before the belts are
purchased to determine his individual requirements.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob" <punchy@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 1:07 PM
Subject: FAA Part 91.205
OC,
I was wondering if you could clearify FAA Part 91.205 for me. As I
understand this FAR it applies to powered civil aircraft with a standard
category U.S. airworthiness certificate. Is our experimental airworthiness
certificate under this catagory? It requires a manifold pressure gauge for
each altitude engine. It does not require a CHT or EGT. This does not
seem right for experimental aircraft. I would much rather have a CHT and
EGT than a manifold pressure gauge although I have all three on my KIS. I
was also wondering if my VFR day only plane needs to have a strobe and nav
lights?
Maybe you could enlighten me.
Thanks,
Rob
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: FAA Part 91.205 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb@alejandra.net>
Hello OC,
I'd appreciate a copy of the table you mentioned
<SNIP>
Because this subject is a bit convoluted I have put together a table that
lays the information out in fairly compact reference form. I will send you a
copy of this table attached to a separate email. If anyone else would like a
copy just email me. This table was also published on page 50 of the June
2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine.
<SNIP>
Thanks,
Tony Babb
Velocity SEFG 62% done, 78% to go
www.alejandra.net/velocity
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: ELT/CHT cable extension |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Get the same exact type of cables you have on each sensor now. IIRC,
the minimum add-on is 12 inches but I don't remember why.
Aircraft Spruce has some at pretty good prices. You could get a 6
footer and cut it down to what you need.
David M.
glennpaulwilkinson wrote:
> Bob,
> what is the best method to extend the EGT/CHT cables?
> I'm doing a panel upgrade and need to add about 6" to each.
>
> Glenn654
> N654RV
> RV-4 @ OKZ
> <<<snip>>>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FAA Part 91.205 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> I was wondering if you could clearify FAA Part 91.205 for me. As I
> understand this FAR it applies to powered civil aircraft with a
> standard
> category U.S. airworthiness certificate. Is our experimental
> airworthiness
> certificate under this catagory? It requires a manifold pressure
> gauge for
> each altitude engine. It does not require a CHT or EGT. This does
> not
> seem right for experimental aircraft. I would much rather have a
> CHT and
> EGT than a manifold pressure gauge although I have all three on my
> KIS. I
> was also wondering if my VFR day only plane needs to have a strobe
> and nav
> lights?
The reference to an "altitude engine" requires a study of FAR 1.1 to
see that it means "a reciprocating aircraft engine having a rated
takeoff power that is producible from sea level to an established
higher altitude." I.e. it means a turbo-charged or super-charged
engine. Anyone who has such an engine really should have a MP gauge,
whether FAR 91.205 applies to them or not.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Off line for a few days . . .Off line for a few |
days . . .
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
My condolences on your loss, Bob.
Marty in Brentwood TN
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: | Radio Rack Screws |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
What am I missing? What difference does it make whether the screws or
nutplates are ferrous metal or not?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
Byrne
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Rack Screws
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Byrne"
<jack.byrne@bigpond.com>
I am assembling my radio stack.
The supports to holding the radio trays together are AL angle.
Do the screws holding the whole assy together have to be brass?
I only have metal.
Regards
Chris
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: | Re: Radio Rack Screws |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Maxwell" <wrmaxwell@bigpond.com>
Electrolysis? Aluminium and brass? Maybe stainless steel might be the
choice.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio Rack Screws
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
> What am I missing? What difference does it make whether the screws or
> nutplates are ferrous metal or not?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris
> Byrne
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Rack Screws
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Byrne"
> <jack.byrne@bigpond.com>
>
> I am assembling my radio stack.
> The supports to holding the radio trays together are AL angle.
> Do the screws holding the whole assy together have to be brass?
> I only have metal.
>
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
>
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! --
|