AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sun 11/19/06


Total Messages Posted: 23



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 06:17 AM - Re: METRIC! (Peter Pengilly)
     2. 06:51 AM - Re: METRIC! (Harold Kovac)
     3. 08:14 AM - Re: METRIC! (Eric M. Jones)
     4. 08:51 AM - NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: METRIC! (Chuck Jensen)
     6. 09:13 AM - Re: Re: METRIC! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 11:35 AM - Re: METRIC! (Eric M. Jones)
     8. 11:44 AM - Re: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... (David M.)
     9. 01:00 PM - ACS Ignition switch install (Mike Speer)
    10. 01:49 PM - Re: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    11. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: METRIC! (Kelly McMullen)
    12. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: METRIC! (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    13. 02:44 PM - Re: METRIC! (Gilles Thesee)
    14. 02:44 PM - Re: ACS Ignition switch install (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    15. 02:50 PM - Re: Units (Gilles Thesee)
    16. 03:10 PM - RG6 coax vx. RG400 coax (Matt Reeves)
    17. 04:00 PM - Re: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey... (David M.)
    18. 04:39 PM - Re: RG6 coax vx. RG400 coax (jetboy)
    19. 05:29 PM - Fw: Re: [OhioValleyRVators] Re: 1st time engine start -- key switch setup with (Bobby Hester)
    20. 06:47 PM - Re: Magneto system checks with ohmmeter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    21. 06:58 PM - Re: RG6 coax vx. RG400 coax (Robert Feldtman)
    22. 07:02 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 11/15/06 (Ron Cox)
    23. 09:30 PM - Units puzzle! (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
 
 
 


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: 06:17:33 AM PST US
    From: "Peter Pengilly" <peter@sportingaero.com>
    Subject: METRIC!
    I've also enjoyed reading this discussion and offer this. I was brought up (in England) on feet & inches, converted to metric at secondary/high school and used metric (mostly) through college. At work we were building two aircraft, one measured in imperial (Harrier) and the other in metric (Hawk), it wasn't a huge deal for me as I was straight out of college. Some of the older folks did struggle, and pretty much all of the older (WWII) vintage machine tools were in inches while the newer ones were metric, or had both scales - of course the NC machines could change at the touch of a button. Now I'm back to imperial as I've been working in the US for 4 years. The biggest single benefit to working in metric is in the engineering department where F=ma actually makes sense using Newtons as a measure of force. Ibf have always been a rather dumb cludge, I never got used to using slugs as a measure of mass when doing stress calcs, and always had to look up the crib sheet for how to work the equations. Yes, there are still traps for the unwary - the basic lift and drag equations are a good example - but the pretty much whole Hawker engineering department adopted the metric system quickly (but there wasn't any choice, they may have been smart enough to realize that!). As the AV-8B Harrier is still imperial the situation hasn't changed 25 years on, but most of the engineering is done in metric and converted at the last moment when required. The other issue is that GA is unlikely to convert to metric any time soon while about 95% of the fleet uses metric hardware. I have owned French and German aeroplanes, obtaining reasonable grade metric hardware (even in Europe) can be difficult. I'm quite happy using either side of the ruler when fixing my RV, sometimes metric is easier, sometimes imperial. I'm sure that many people in the US are comfortable working in metric judging by the number of Japanese cars on the road. Just become ambidextrous and use the most appropriate system for the task at hand. Yours, Pete -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fergus Kyle Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 9:34 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: METRIC! to BOB and ERIC, I enjoy reading your epithets, one and another. It's a bit like watching two goliaths (or mebbe even Universe Wrestling Finals), especially when we read of the difficulties in changing systems. [1] Ontario province followed the Uk in accepting A2 metric paper sizes, and finally abandonned the practice after a number of years - not their money! [2] We've switched to kilometers - the Quebeckers are still trying tell us how to pronounce them (by ignoring English pronunciation rules) - but we still get speeding tickets...... [3] We're on Celsius - so what? Pilots have been translating in their heads for 9 decades..... Try cruising in meters ASL. [4] All these creaking Imperial-based milling machines aren't selling ovewrseas are they? [5] The Brits for all their 'forward-thinking' stance still drive in ....... miles(?) [6] One old Brit sweetheart said, "Why don't they wait until all us old folk are dead?" Ferg Kyle Europa A064 914 Classic


    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: 06:51:51 AM PST US
    From: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    Hi Fergus, Are they still using " x # of yards to the exit" in Wales? That's the one that threw me some years ago. Harold Kovac ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: METRIC! > > to BOB and ERIC, > I enjoy reading your epithets, one and another. It's a bit like > watching two goliaths (or mebbe even Universe Wrestling Finals), > especially > when we read of the difficulties in changing systems. > > [1] Ontario province followed the Uk in accepting A2 metric paper > sizes, > and finally abandonned the practice after a number of years - not their > money! > [2] We've switched to kilometers - the Quebeckers are still trying tell > us how to pronounce them (by ignoring English pronunciation rules) - but > we > still get speeding tickets...... > [3] We're on Celsius - so what? Pilots have been translating in their > heads for 9 decades..... Try cruising in meters ASL. > [4] All these creaking Imperial-based milling machines aren't selling > ovewrseas are they? > [5] The Brits for all their 'forward-thinking' stance still drive in > ....... miles(?) > [6] One old Brit sweetheart said, "Why don't they wait until all us old > folk are dead?" > > Ferg Kyle > Europa A064 914 Classic > > >


    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: 08:14:29 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
    Deciding questions of this nature based on their "economics" is, in general, impossible and INSANE. The most important things are invisible. E.g. Drills: Inch (non-system)= 3, 7/32", 2, 1, A, 15/64", 6 mm, B, C... (okay so that's what's in MY shop and probably most shops). Metric 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7...etc. What is the economic impact? I buy 4 mm titanium sheet to replace a Glastar 3/16 inch stainless part. (P.S. Only my Swiss customers object, everyone else ignores the difference in thickness). There IS no 3/16 titanium sheet. What is the economic impact? All science is done in metric. What is the economic impact if you don't go along? There IS and never was an inch "system". There IS a metric system. What is the economic impact? Metric is based on mass and U.S. weights and measures is based on weight. Now what is the economic impact? Does it matter where you live? If a 1000 kilogram spaceship lands on the Sun (okay, at night) what does it weigh? What's it's mass? "NASA reports that they've found the cause for the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter. One of the engineering teams was using English units and another team was using Metric units." Now what was the economic impact? Saying big grown-up words like "economic impact" makes one LOOK like he actually knows something whereas--they are just boardroom mumbo-jumbos targeted to get knowing nods from the clueless stock-optioned MBAs who run our companies, but are totally BS (and that doesn't mean British Standard or Brown and Sharpe). Most studies of the "economic impact of changes" restrict their scope to very narrow (and short-term) economic issues. --Because that is the only place where those studies are reasonably successful. As you can probably tell, I advocate metrication strongly, but I can't tell you if any particular company or product should change or not. The economic impact in the long term for the hubris of thinking the US can do things however it likes, is very large. "Mankind faces a cross-roads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." --Woody Allen -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75600#75600


    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: 08:51:11 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey...
    At 03:56 PM 11/17/2006 -0500, you wrote: >Eric's comment about NASA reminded me >of a humorous (except to taxpayers) >story which I guarantee is 100% true... > > >I was rooting around at a metal recycling / selling place near >Oakland airport and came across a BIG box with spools >of aviation grade wire. They wanted $1/pound so I started >pulling out all the spools of Teflon & Tefzel wire that looked useful. > >In the same box were a bunch of components in ESD bags. >Those are the silver & pink bags that shield sensitive components >from "ElectroStatic Discharge" damage. I opened a few to see >what was inside (these were $1/pound too ;-) <snip> > >They apparently used the same "bagging & marking" system to ship ALL >the goods provided for the NASA contract. Some ESD bags contained >a 17 page shipping list, and if you looked carefully - you would >eventually find >that line 10 on page 14 listed "Washers, Flat, 8/32 - Qty 2" - >and sure enough, there would be two little flat washers in the bag, or tucked >into the folds of the 17 page shipping list. I could only imagine the >paperwork >that would be required to replace one of the washers if it got lost in the >folds of paper or bags. > >Other items which were dutifully protected by double ESD bags and ample >paperwork included resistors, screws, mounting brackets, etc.. > >This appalled me on one level, and amused on other. As I opened the various >ESD pouches it was a little like Christmas - each was a surprise. And just >like Christmas, the pile of discarded paperwork and ESD bags grew & grew! >In the end, I bought lots of wire (enough for several airplanes), and saved a >few of the circuit boards as souvenier trinkets showing (the miniscule >changes) >from Version 00 to Version 17. But the cheapskate in me couldn't see paying >a $1 per pound for all that paperwork, so I left that behind! The reason for what appears to be organized insanity is relatively simple. I'll suggest that a view from inside-looking- out is illuminating. Most of my tenure at Raytheon (Beech) was in the Missiles Business Unit. We were as close to a skunk works as could be found in Wichita aviation. We did our own aero, structures and systems designs. We did our own software, laid out our own boards, prototyped and flew our own products after a rigorous pass over a hardware-in-the-loop simulation (for software) teamed with 100% shake-n-bake screening (for hardware). We were a small group . . . about 100 folks at our peak. My division vice president was 25 steps from my desk. The folks bucking rivets were immediately under my desk on the floor below. Everyone enjoyed their work as far as I could tell. It was demonstrated by the attitudes displayed in our team meetings. No matter how bad things might be going in some segment of the project, one always walked out of a meeting encouraged by the support and offers for help from others on the team. We all had the same goal. Deliver a working product to a satisfied customer and have fun doing it. One product we crafted was the AQM-37 super-sonic target. Launched at 1.5M and 50,000 feet, it would climb to 125,000 feet, accelerate to 4.0M and dive on ships a sea. It cost about $100,000 and always went into the ocean. But it was JUST a target. It would be used one time only. How much effort should be expended on reliability? The short answer is LOTS. To utilize our $100,000 expendable took months of planning and organization by others to get all the aircraft, ships, men, weapons and test support systems in place. I imagine that when our little player entered the scene from stage right, several $millions$ had already been spent to set the stage. For 1100 or so launches, I think our AQM pooped its pants two or three times. All in all, we felt pretty good about a 99.7 or 99.8 percent reliability number. Our competition was not nearly so good. Nonetheless, there were times that we had to gather up our shovels and buckets and exit the sandbox in disappointment. It may well be that the 6 o'clock news opened with some breathless journotwit telling the locals how some cowtown aerospace company just screwed the taxpayers out of a few $millions$. Static bags? Yeah we used those. But not for washers. Pieces of paper in every bag? Only on some complex items. How did we avoid carrying those practices to the ultimate extreme? Two conditions: (1) smart people and (2) very little "standing in line at windows". More on this later. Now, let's multiply Beech Missiles by 100 or 200 fold. Transplant from Cowpattyville, KS and spread out over places like L.A., Orlando, Trenton, and Seattle. Add to this mix the fact that our mission cost is 20 to 100 $millions$ per shot. Stir in EPA, OSHA, Union, ISO, etc. work rules along with administrators of those rules who have it in their power to bring some segment (and essentially all) of your program to a halt. Finally, add the fact that there are watchdogs throughout the system who are intent not so much on getting the job done right but on insuring traceability and assessing proper assignment of blame should things NOT go right. One might properly conclude, "Well, just staff your operation with smart people and most of your problems go away." True. But in the NASA venue, one is not allowed to be very selective about who touches what and under what circumstances. Further, a 99.8% reliability number is far short of satisfactory. So what's a poor NASA program manager to do? The personnel are handed to you by HR. The materials are handed you my supply chain. The work rules are handed to you by folks who could not care less that your product is successful or even good value. . . you "do it by the rules or else." Hence, every aspect of the program is carved into almost unchangeable stone before the first lathe tool touches a piece of aluminum. Hence, the "safest" thing to do is double-bag everything including the lock washers. Document the pedigree of every rivet all the way back to the bauxite mine. You're driven to stack every precaution one can imagine on top of every effort - not because it makes probability of success greater but because it allows you to show that it wasn't your fault when the product poops its pants. There's an interesting little interview with a modern day Charles Kettering on my website. The man's name is Dr. Virgil Elings. You can get the audio track at: http://tinyurl.com/nudtw This gentleman has demonstrated that the most efficient pathway to success is an exploitation of time, talent and resources of "smart people" who are not encumbered by what I call, "impediments to progress" and he calls, "standing in line at windows". I've worked with some very capable associates and managers but my professional wet-dream would be to have enjoyed an association with the likes of Dr. Elings. Bottom line is that there are really clear (if not sane) reasons for $600 hammers, $400 toilet seats and double static bagged washers. Reasons that breathless infotwits will never understand and the majority of their audiences wont either. Our leadership's (I use the word with reservedly) insatiable quest to codify every aspect of the citizen's existence has become our own worst nighmare of no-value-added overhead. Overhead intended only to absolve most of us of responsibility, relieve us from any self judgement as to the honorability of our behavior and insulate us from blame. Plotting present trends out to the future does not offer an encouraging picture. I'm ALWAYS away from my desk when the ISO audit folks are scheduled to come though the department. It's insurance against embarrassing my company should I succumb to the urge for letting those folks know what I think of their presence in my workplace. 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
    Time: 08:51:25 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
    Eric, In reading your post, my eyes glazed over but I get the idea (I think!). I can answer one of your questions, to wit: "Metric is based on mass and U.S. weights and measures is based on weight. Now what is the economic impact? Does it matter where you live? If a 1000 kilogram spaceship lands on the Sun (okay, at night) what does it weigh? What's it's mass?" So, what does it weigh? Well, therein lies the problem---because it depends. As it travels through space, it will 'weigh' next to nothing, however, as it approaches the sun, it will 'weigh' a humongus amount. However, the mass will never change, even when it is vaporized by the sun (whether it's day or night). I concur with your conclusion (not that anybody cares) that the U.S. standing tall with the English system is counter-productive and probably fool hardy in the long run. The problem is, when 'economic impact' is used to justify change, studies of the cost to change a bolt, washer or nut never results in a justification for change...too costly, too much bother. The flaw in this approach is study of 'micro economic impact' will rarely allow one to properly and adequately assess the 'macro economic impact' of the same phenomena. It's the same problem as inspecting one square inch of an elephant's leg will not tell you much about the elephant. Of course, there is a very good reason why we will never go metric. Can you imagine the game announcer breathlessly exclaiming that "the kick return just ran the ball back for 91.44 meters for a touchdown." Some things are sacred and simply can't be touched, so hands-off all you Metric-Sexuals. Chuck Jensen For goodness sake, Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M. Jones Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: METRIC! --> <emjones@charter.net> Deciding questions of this nature based on their "economics" is, in general, impossible and INSANE. The most important things are invisible. E.g. Drills: Inch (non-system)= 3, 7/32", 2, 1, A, 15/64", 6 mm, B, C... (okay so that's what's in MY shop and probably most shops). Metric 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7...etc. What is the economic impact? I buy 4 mm titanium sheet to replace a Glastar 3/16 inch stainless part. (P.S. Only my Swiss customers object, everyone else ignores the difference in thickness). There IS no 3/16 titanium sheet. What is the economic impact? All science is done in metric. What is the economic impact if you don't go along? There IS and never was an inch "system". There IS a metric system. What is the economic impact? Metric is based on mass and U.S. weights and measures is based on weight. Now what is the economic impact? Does it matter where you live? If a 1000 kilogram spaceship lands on the Sun (okay, at night) what does it weigh? What's it's mass? "NASA reports that they've found the cause for the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter. One of the engineering teams was using English units and another team was using Metric units." Now what was the economic impact? Saying big grown-up words like "economic impact" makes one LOOK like he actually knows something whereas--they are just boardroom mumbo-jumbos targeted to get knowing nods from the clueless stock-optioned MBAs who run our companies, but are totally BS (and that doesn't mean British Standard or Brown and Sharpe). Most studies of the "economic impact of changes" restrict their scope to very narrow (and short-term) economic issues. --Because that is the only place where those studies are reasonably successful. As you can probably tell, I advocate metrication strongly, but I can't tell you if any particular company or product should change or not. The economic impact in the long term for the hubris of thinking the US can do things however it likes, is very large. "Mankind faces a cross-roads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." --Woody Allen -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75600#75600


    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: 09:13:01 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    At 08:13 AM 11/19/2006 -0800, you wrote: > >Deciding questions of this nature based on their "economics" is, in >general, impossible and INSANE. The most important things are invisible. So what is your prescription sir? Assume your assertions about economics and consumer driven marketplaces are as trivial as you suggest. Assume further that the only impediment to progress is fear and ignorance, now what? Nobody is arguing against the elegance of the metric measurement system. You've not answered my questions as to your vision to the path for success. What would you have us do? If you're going to codify an effort to shepherd reluctant grooms to the altar, is it your vision that men with guns should be standing behind them? Short of that, what alternatives would you suggest and by what means would they be accomplished? If your energetic protestations carry any weight sir, they should be supported by workable alternatives. Alternatives permitted in a society where folks still enjoy some degree of freedom and liberty. Bob . . .


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:35:45 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
    Lucky for me, I don't need to have a prescription to know that there IS one. I also know that any prescription I have will be both correct and voted down. It's that Cassandra-thing, and the reason I stay off committees. I realize that some upset will occur. I also know some people in the US are working on the issue--and good luck to them. The European experience of single currency, single laws, no passports gives me hope that miracles happen. I was frankly baffled when the ISO Quality stuff and the NAFTA stuff didn't have a metric provision. That would have been an easy way to go metric. When I converted the last place I worked to metric, I finally did it by a short simple decree, written by me but signed by the big cheese. This seemed the only practical way forward. I distributed NBS metrication literature kits and Bossard catalogs and alerted our fastener vendors and machining vendors. But what we did was worldwide scientific and medical devices so this was pretty straighforward. Some of it was a godsend, since we had spent too much time converting units--some units had gone from Inch to Metric to Inch to Metric several times. We encouraged thinking in metric and it became a little game. We discouraged doing conversions and banned double-dimensioning in most cases. NEW projects were metric; legacy designs were left as-is until major redesign was due. I frankly don't know how other companies would handle the conversion. Aircraft industries might be more difficult than others, but perhaps not. Computers were metric from the beginning with some legacy 6-32 screws here and there. A 5-1/4" diskette is really a 135 mm diskette. A 3-1/2" diskette is really a 90 mm diskette. Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 11:13 am Post subject: METRIC! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At 08:13 AM 11/19/2006 -0800, you wrote: Quote: Deciding questions of this nature based on their "economics" is, in general, impossible and INSANE. The most important things are invisible. So what is your prescription sir? Assume your assertions about economics and consumer driven marketplaces are as trivial as you suggest. Assume further that the only impediment to progress is fear and ignorance, now what? Nobody is arguing against the elegance of the metric measurement system. > You've not answered my questions as to your > vision to the path for success. .....snip > Short of that, what alternatives would you > suggest and by what means would they be > accomplished? Cooler heads than yours and mine can decide. "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement." --John Stuart Mill -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75649#75649


    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: 11:44:08 AM PST US
    From: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
    Subject: Re: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey...
    Very well said. However, you might be preaching to the choir here :). As most of my working life has been for, and in, gov't., I can relate 100% and do attest that everything you say is true. If you try to fix it, regardless of your personal grade (rank), you are called Don Quixote and subsequently ignored. David M. Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 03:56 PM 11/17/2006 -0500, you wrote: > >> Eric's comment about NASA reminded me >> of a humorous (except to taxpayers) >> story which I guarantee is 100% true... >> >> >> I was rooting around at a metal recycling / selling place near >> Oakland airport and came across a BIG box with spools >> of aviation grade wire. They wanted $1/pound so I started >> pulling out all the spools of Teflon & Tefzel wire that looked useful. >> >> In the same box were a bunch of components in ESD bags. >> Those are the silver & pink bags that shield sensitive components >> from "ElectroStatic Discharge" damage. I opened a few to see >> what was inside (these were $1/pound too ;-) > > > <snip> > >> >> They apparently used the same "bagging & marking" system to ship ALL >> the goods provided for the NASA contract. Some ESD bags contained >> a 17 page shipping list, and if you looked carefully - you would >> eventually find >> that line 10 on page 14 listed "Washers, Flat, 8/32 - Qty 2" - >> and sure enough, there would be two little flat washers in the bag, >> or tucked >> into the folds of the 17 page shipping list. I could only imagine >> the paperwork >> that would be required to replace one of the washers if it got lost >> in the >> folds of paper or bags. >> >> Other items which were dutifully protected by double ESD bags and ample >> paperwork included resistors, screws, mounting brackets, etc.. >> >> This appalled me on one level, and amused on other. As I opened the >> various >> ESD pouches it was a little like Christmas - each was a surprise. >> And just >> like Christmas, the pile of discarded paperwork and ESD bags grew & >> grew! >> In the end, I bought lots of wire (enough for several airplanes), and >> saved a >> few of the circuit boards as souvenier trinkets showing (the >> miniscule changes) >> from Version 00 to Version 17. But the cheapskate in me couldn't see >> paying >> a $1 per pound for all that paperwork, so I left that behind! > > > The reason for what appears to be organized insanity is > relatively simple. I'll suggest that a view from inside-looking- > out is illuminating. > > Most of my tenure at Raytheon (Beech) was in the Missiles > Business Unit. We were as close to a skunk works as could be found > in Wichita aviation. We did our own aero, structures and > systems designs. We did our own software, laid out our own > boards, prototyped and flew our own products after a rigorous > pass over a hardware-in-the-loop simulation (for software) > teamed with 100% shake-n-bake screening (for hardware). We > were a small group . . . about 100 folks at our peak. My division > vice president was 25 steps from my desk. The folks bucking rivets > were immediately under my desk on the floor below. Everyone > enjoyed their work as far as I could tell. It was demonstrated > by the attitudes displayed in our team meetings. No matter how > bad things might be going in some segment of the project, > one always walked out of a meeting encouraged by the support > and offers for help from others on the team. We all had the > same goal. Deliver a working product to a satisfied customer > and have fun doing it. > > One product we crafted was the AQM-37 super-sonic target. > Launched at 1.5M and 50,000 feet, it would climb to 125,000 > feet, accelerate to 4.0M and dive on ships a sea. It cost about > $100,000 and always went into the ocean. > > But it was JUST a target. It would be used one time > only. How much effort should be expended on reliability? > The short answer is LOTS. To utilize our $100,000 expendable > took months of planning and organization by others to get > all the aircraft, ships, men, weapons and test support systems > in place. I imagine that when our little player entered the > scene from stage right, several $millions$ had already > been spent to set the stage. > > For 1100 or so launches, I think our AQM pooped its pants > two or three times. All in all, we felt pretty good about > a 99.7 or 99.8 percent reliability number. Our competition > was not nearly so good. Nonetheless, there were times that > we had to gather up our shovels and buckets and exit the > sandbox in disappointment. It may well be that the 6 o'clock > news opened with some breathless journotwit telling the > locals how some cowtown aerospace company just screwed the > taxpayers out of a few $millions$. > > Static bags? Yeah we used those. But not for washers. > Pieces of paper in every bag? Only on some complex items. > How did we avoid carrying those practices to the > ultimate extreme? Two conditions: (1) smart people and > (2) very little "standing in line at windows". More > on this later. > > Now, let's multiply Beech Missiles by 100 or 200 fold. > Transplant from Cowpattyville, KS and spread out over > places like L.A., Orlando, Trenton, and Seattle. Add to > this mix the fact that our mission cost is 20 to 100 > $millions$ per shot. Stir in EPA, OSHA, Union, ISO, > etc. work rules along with administrators of those rules > who have it in their power to bring some segment (and > essentially all) of your program to a halt. > > Finally, add the fact that there are watchdogs throughout > the system who are intent not so much on getting the job > done right but on insuring traceability and assessing > proper assignment of blame should things NOT go right. > One might properly conclude, "Well, just staff your operation > with smart people and most of your problems go away." > > True. But in the NASA venue, one is not allowed to be > very selective about who touches what and under what > circumstances. Further, a 99.8% reliability number > is far short of satisfactory. So what's a poor NASA > program manager to do? The personnel are handed to you > by HR. The materials are handed you my supply > chain. The work rules are handed to you by folks > who could not care less that your product is > successful or even good value. . . you "do it by the > rules or else." Hence, every aspect of the program > is carved into almost unchangeable stone before the > first lathe tool touches a piece of aluminum. > > Hence, the "safest" thing to do is double-bag everything > including the lock washers. Document the pedigree of > every rivet all the way back to the bauxite mine. You're > driven to stack every precaution one can imagine > on top of every effort - not because it makes > probability of success greater but because it allows > you to show that it wasn't your fault when the product > poops its pants. > > There's an interesting little interview with a modern > day Charles Kettering on my website. The man's name > is Dr. Virgil Elings. You can get the audio track at: > > http://tinyurl.com/nudtw > > This gentleman has demonstrated that the most efficient > pathway to success is an exploitation of time, talent > and resources of "smart people" who are not encumbered > by what I call, "impediments to progress" and he calls, > "standing in line at windows". I've worked with some > very capable associates and managers but my professional > wet-dream would be to have enjoyed an association with > the likes of Dr. Elings. > > Bottom line is that there are really clear (if not sane) > reasons for $600 hammers, $400 toilet seats and double static > bagged washers. Reasons that breathless infotwits > will never understand and the majority of their audiences > wont either. Our leadership's (I use the word > with reservedly) insatiable quest to codify every > aspect of the citizen's existence has become our > own worst nighmare of no-value-added overhead. Overhead > intended only to absolve most of us of responsibility, > relieve us from any self judgement as to the honorability > of our behavior and insulate us from blame. Plotting present > trends out to the future does not offer an encouraging > picture. > > I'm ALWAYS away from my desk when the ISO audit folks > are scheduled to come though the department. It's > insurance against embarrassing my company should I > succumb to the urge for letting those folks know what > I think of their presence in my workplace. > > 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
    Time: 01:00:37 PM PST US
    From: Mike Speer <m.speer@shaw.ca>
    Subject: ACS Ignition switch install
    I'm using the ACS keyed ignition switch in my electrical installation ... ya I know, but made the decision a long time ago before I knew any better ... anyway now that I'm wiring this switch I don't understand the results I'm seeing. I have voltage to the BAT position of the switch once the master is on, no voltage to R, L, or Both positions and voltage to the starter relay when the start position is selected with the key, is this all normal? Also is it necessary to ground the shielded magneto wires at the ignition switch or only at the magneto, I have read where both are suggested... Many thanks


    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: 01:49:25 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey...
    At 01:42 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, you wrote: > >Very well said. However, you might be preaching to the choir here :). > >As most of my working life has been for, and in, gov't., I can relate 100% >and do attest that everything you say is true. > >If you try to fix it, regardless of your personal grade (rank), you are >called Don Quixote and subsequently ignored. > >David M. I have absolutely no illusions about fixing anything. My personal heros are those who figured out work-arounds for accomplishing personal goals and let those mired in their own tar pits extract themselves to join you or live with the alternatives. It isn't JUST government. However, government is the obvious role model for many in industry. I'm watching a small company I used to work for being strangled by managers suffering from what appears to be ignorance of what it takes to bring new products into existence. To them, the creative minds in their engineering departments are plug-n-play commodities that one acquires by publishing the right ads and filtering applicants through the HR selection process. Actually, much of my experience with government (Pt. Mugu Missiles guys) was really quite pleasant. They were sharp, knowledgable folk who knew their jobs, understood my job and were never an impediment to progress. The FAA is an entirely different matter and I'm sure NASA (for understandable reasons) is far worse yet. That's why it takes the likes of Burt Rutan and crew to go do the spectacular thing first on 1/10th the budge and staff with a high probability of success right out of the box! He, and the people who work with him set their own standards for getting it done right as professional goals. They don't need the work rules either for guidance or excuses. Bob . . .


    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: 02:27:30 PM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    As usual, Bob was/is right. There is virtually NO metric in electricity, and very little in US made aircraft. Your wire gauge is what?? Something like AWG? Your metric volts and amps and ohms are what? So it is kinda pointless to argue further, at least on this list. Eric M. Jones wrote: > > Deciding questions of this nature based on their "economics" is, in general, impossible and INSANE. The most important things are invisible. >


    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: 02:36:37 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    At 11:34 AM 11/19/2006 -0800, you wrote: > >Lucky for me, I don't need to have a prescription to know that there IS >one. I also know that any prescription I have will be both correct and >voted down. It's that Cassandra-thing, and the reason I stay off committees. > >I realize that some upset will occur. I also know some people in the US >are working on the issue--and good luck to them. The European experience >of single currency, single laws, no passports gives me hope that miracles >happen. > >I was frankly baffled when the ISO Quality stuff and the NAFTA stuff >didn't have a metric provision. That would have been an easy way to go metric. Really? You say you don't need to have a prescription but suggest that the ISO or NAFTA decrees would be "an easy way to go metric". So your suggestion is to mandate by regulation. Who are the guardians of the rules? Who are the enforcers? Who will be the judges and how is punishment for transgression to be handed out? >When I converted the last place I worked to metric, I finally did it by a >short simple decree, written by me but signed by the big cheese. This >seemed the only practical way forward. I distributed NBS metrication >literature kits and Bossard catalogs and alerted our fastener vendors and >machining vendors. But what we did was worldwide scientific and medical >devices so this was pretty straighforward. Some of it was a godsend, since >we had spent too much time converting units--some units had gone from Inch >to Metric to Inch to Metric several times. We encouraged thinking in >metric and it became a little game. We discouraged doing conversions and >banned double-dimensioning in most cases. NEW projects were metric; legacy >designs were left as-is until major redesign was due. If the task was to convert a single business where the customer base didn't care how you measured things, yes . . . it would be very easy. >I frankly don't know how other companies would handle the conversion. >Aircraft industries might be more difficult than others, but perhaps not. Not perhaps . . . it IS so. In spite of the fact that one faction of government may embrace and even decree the language by which its subjects measure things, there are other factions that will make it exceedingly laborious (read $expensive$). And that still leaves us with a legacy fleet of aircraft with some models pushing 50 years old. ISO was decreed the way to go and made defacto law by European companies that vowed to buy no more of our products again until we did the ISO-thing. Here we are about 10-12 years later. We proudly inscribe our sales literature with the Good ISO-keeping Seal of Approval but do our airplanes fly better, cost less to own and operate or last longer? Not such as I can see. In fact, the prices continue to go up for reasons unrelated to the creative or customer service efforts. A component of those increases included achievement and maintenance of the ISO blessings. There might be some value in the ISO-label. If some folk are inclined to buy a $100 pair of sneakers 'cause some ball player says they're good, there are probably folks who would feel better about buying our airplanes because the ISO stickers are found on them somewhere. ISO is an example of how market pressures brought about an almost world-wide change in manufacturing group-think. Punishment was a reduction in marketability of one's product not because it suddenly fails to meet demands of the user but because the PROCESS by which it was produced didn't meet the demands of an organization. How's that for back-door totalitarianism shrouded in "quality assurance" terms? Had the ISO package included a go-metric provision I suppose US aviation and most other industries would have toed the line. After all, their competitors were having to do it too so at least all boats were burdened with the same ballast. But for all the new and expense layers of bureaucracy generated, the service value of our products would not have changed one bit. I wonder if Dr. Eling's microscopes bore the Good ISO-keeping Seal of Approval. I'd almost bet they didn't because it wasn't necessary. His goal was to be the best there was at doing his thing and if you wanted the best, here it is . . . and ISO blessings, metric or otherwise wouldn't have made it any better. So if there are no universal recipes for success and no prescriptions that a free society would tolerate, then perhaps all the cabbage tossing is about as useful as railing about the cancer, earthquakes, or tornadoes. Certainly accusing a non-compliant of being un-washed and suffering from ignorance or fear is shallow, disingenuous and patently incorrect. Bob . . .


    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: 02:44:27 PM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: METRIC!
    Kelly and all, > There is virtually NO metric in electricity, I beg to differ. The system you call "metric" is in fact named "Systeme International" or SI. Volts, amperes, ohms are part of SI. The SI comprises of 7 fundamental units : meter, kilogram, second, ampere, kelvin, mole, candela. The others (volt, ohm, siemens, farad...) are derived units. As far as I know, electricity happens to be one branch of physics where everyone in the world uses the same units ;-) Best regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr


    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: 02:44:27 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: ACS Ignition switch install
    I'm using the ACS keyed ignition switch in my electrical installation ... ya I know, but made the decision a long time ago before I knew any better ... anyway now that I'm wiring this switch I don't understand the results I'm seeing. I have voltage to the BAT position of the switch once the master is on, no voltage to R, L, or Both positions and voltage to the starter relay when the start position is selected with the key, is this all normal? Also is it necessary to ground the shielded magneto wires at the ignition switch or only at the magneto, I have read where both are suggested Magnetos don't get voltage from the battery in ANY switch position. You're confusing the function of the ACS keyswitch with having similarities to your car's ignition switch. The only thing they have in common is the need for a key to operate it and the fact that it controls the starter. See figure Z-27 in http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf for an explanation of switching functions for the ACS switch. The shield is best grounded at the engine end only and the shield used to PROVIDE a ground at the switch end as shown in Figure Z-27. This is the configuration that produces the least risk for ignition noise from the p-leads and least risk of alternator noise being coupled to wiring behind the panel by the ground loop fabricated when p-lead shields are grounded at both ends. 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
    Time: 02:50:27 PM PST US
    From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
    Subject: Re: Units
    Hi all, Updated and corrected the drill bit chart http://contrails.free.fr/article_drill_size_en.php Whereas I meant it mainly for European homebuilders, I'm pleased to see that American visitors are by far the most numerous. Best regards, Gilles http://contrails.free.fr


    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: 03:10:56 PM PST US
    From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves@yahoo.com>
    Subject: RG6 coax vx. RG400 coax
    I built a whole lancair with RG6 cable cause the guy at Radio Shack said it was better than RG58U - then, when it came time to install a Garmin 430, I noticed the RG6 is 75ohm cable and it calls for 50ohm cable. I fiberglassed the comm antenna into the tail of the aircraft. I could just add another antenna in the baggage area and run RG400 cable but am wondering if there is really a whole lot of difference and if it's worth the weight. I'm hoping for some opinions. I also used RG6 on a Nav antenna in the roof of the airplane all glassed in. Maybe the RG6 is okay on a receive signal rather than a send? Hoping some of you guys smarter than me can respond. Thanks. Matt --------------------------------- Degrees online in as fast as 1 Yr - MBA, Bachelor's, Master's, Associate - Click now to apply


    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: 04:00:33 PM PST US
    From: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
    Subject: Re: NASA and the Electrostatic (ESD) monkey...
    Remember too, that since the gov't wages are so low, essentially the personnel are also the lowest bidder. People who try to make things work for the country are quickly shut down. One thing I did accomplish while there was to save us nearly $18 M over the course of 5 years, simply by adopting new technology. I worked in an Army R&D group for many years. Let me tell you some of the worlds brightest were there, BUT the constraints they had to work with choke all creativity. At first I was a contractor so I did it anyway. Then, when I was hired direct, I could literally feel the walls of the cages coming down. Back in the late 80's, for example, to buy 1 or 100 desktop pc's required nearly $12,000 in overhead on the gov't side. Also, the place was extremely top heavy in order to keep up with congressional and pentagon bullshit paperwork overhead. I lovd the challenges, though. David M. just call me Mr. Quixote Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 01:42 PM 11/19/2006 -0600, you wrote: > >> >> Very well said. However, you might be preaching to the choir here :). >> >> As most of my working life has been for, and in, gov't., I can relate >> 100% and do attest that everything you say is true. >> >> If you try to fix it, regardless of your personal grade (rank), you >> are called Don Quixote and subsequently ignored. >> >> David M. > > > I have absolutely no illusions about fixing anything. > My personal heros are those who figured out work-arounds > for accomplishing personal goals and let those mired > in their own tar pits extract themselves to join you > or live with the alternatives. It isn't JUST government. > However, government is the obvious role model for many in industry. > > I'm watching a small company I used to work for being > strangled by managers suffering from what appears to be > ignorance of what it takes to bring new products into > existence. To them, the creative minds in their engineering > departments are plug-n-play commodities that one acquires > by publishing the right ads and filtering applicants through > the HR selection process. > > Actually, much of my experience with government (Pt. Mugu Missiles > guys) was really quite pleasant. They were sharp, knowledgable folk > who knew their jobs, understood my job and were never an impediment > to progress. The FAA is an entirely different matter and I'm sure > NASA (for understandable reasons) is far worse yet. > > That's why it takes the likes of Burt Rutan and crew to go do > the spectacular thing first on 1/10th the budge and staff with > a high probability of success right out of the box! He, and the > people who work with him set their own standards for getting it > done right as professional goals. They don't need the work rules > either for guidance or excuses. > > Bob . . . > >


    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: 04:39:03 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: RG6 coax vx. RG400 coax
    From: "jetboy" <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz>
    you can probably still use the installation by trimming the com cable to a tuned length, and connecting to the 430 at this point. to find the correct length requires use of a reflectometer - also known as VSWR meter - such as Bird model 43 or equivalent, or a modern ramp test set. A radio ham or VHF tech may be more experienced at doing this. start with about 36" more cable than you need, temporarily connecting the end to the output terminal on the reflectometer (an adaptor and rewirable F connector for the RG6 cable would simplify this). the input of the reflectometer is connected to the com Tx and the Tx is keyed on highest, mid, lowest frequencies of the band. The reflected power readings need to be noted (ratio of forward to reflected power if the forward power is not always same). then cut off around 3" cable and repeat. At some point you will find the reflected power to have reached its lowest reading on the low frequency, and cutting off more cable will bring the minimum reflected power to occur around the mid frequency. When this happens put the connector on the cable and record all 3 readings. I think VSWR spec for a com antenna is for 3:1 which equates to 25% reflected power. If the cable is too short make up the balance with 50 ohm to the com Tx. an alternate method would be to cut the RG6 at 32" from the antenna (roughly a half wavelength for foam type cable) and fit a BNC connector and run new RG58 back to the com Tx. I would not be concerned for the nav cable, so long as its not required to be certified. it is likely that both cables will meet the spec, just as they are. Some com antennas have a 12 ohm resistor in the base to give a better match, and you loose a third of your signal this way. similarly, a long run of lossy cable helps. The most important issue is not damaging the transmitter and immunity from overload in receivers, the actual coverage range when airborne is seldom affected. -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=75720#75720


    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: 05:29:47 PM PST US
    From: "Bobby Hester" <bobbyhester@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [OhioValleyRVators] Re: 1st time engine start
    -- key switch setup with --- In OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com, Bobby Hester <bobbyhester@...> wrote: Below is what I used to wire my key switch to work with my ignition setup. I have one mag LH and one Lightspeed Ignition RH. Today I checked my mag to insure it was grounding properly. What I found out and you'll read about below is this. If you check the mag lead wire while it is disconnected from the mag you will see that when the key is off and when it is turned to right, the lead is grounded. But the kicker here is that when you connect the lead to the mag and then check the stud on the mag this is what you will find. Key off mag is grounded, key turned to right mag is grounded, key turned to left the mag is still grounded. You wound think that it should not be, so that will make you think that it is not going to work, but do an engine run up and then a mag check and you will find that everthing works like it should. As far as timing the mag and timing the LSI I just followed the directions for each one. Message: #127548 From: Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> Subject: Lightspeed with Keyswitch and 1 Mag Wiring <http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=162052513?KEYS=lightspeed_with_keyswitch?LISTNAME=RV?HITNUMBER=1?SERIAL=1926137529?SHOWBUTTONS=NO> This is a repost of previous info. I had a builder ask me about it and I couldn't find it in the archives well, so I thought I'd resend it with a good subject line. ----- Wiring a Keyswitch Ignition - Lightspeed Plasma III/II+ ignition and a Mag Another non-RV10 builder, Dave Sundberg passed this on to me previously, and I wired mine this way and it indeed works fine. It does seem a bit like black magic, but seeing as it works fine I won't be complaining. Test it out before and after you run the engine, but it should work fine. The configuration is a Mag on the Left side, feeding the lower plugs, and a Lightspeed Plasma III (or II+) feeding the top plugs as the Right system. Note that allthough Lightspeed calls it a keyswitch "Option", it's always on the system, just optional to connect. * The P-Lead from the Mag goes to the L-Terminal on the Switch with the shield connected to the GRN terminal on the mag and not connected to anything on the switch end. * The P-Lead from the LS (Pin 1) goes to the R-Terminal on the switch and the shield (Pin 9) goes to the GRN-Terminal in the center of the switch. * Do not connect the jumper from the R-Term to the GRN-Terminal next to it. * Do not connect the center GRN-Terminal on the switch to aircraft ground. Both ignitions are grounded out with the switch in the OFF position. Dave had been flying and it was working for him. I am flying too and it's working great for me. I had previously spent time hooking mine up and ohming things out and was confused as heck. I also was confused in that the P-Lead on the mag is seemingly shorted to ground even with the wire disconnected, so I couldn't easily tell that it would be grounded by the switch. (Turns out this is normal) If you hook it all up, except for the mag P-Lead, you can indeed see that they ground the way their supposed to by using your ohmmeter. I also have this posted on my Electrical Tips section on my site. Tim -- Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying ------ Surfing the web from my laptop in Hopkinsville, KY Visit my RV7A site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/ Tom Webster wrote: > Bobby, > I checked your website and see you got > your engine timed and running. > Great news, I know it was a big deal for me. > > I didn't want to bother you a few days ago > when you were having timing problems, but when > you find the time I would like to know more > about your ignition setup. > I couldn't find any details on your website. > > I have two mags, but am considering installing > one electronic ignition in the future. My engine > has too much power now, but feel variable timing > might buy some fuel economy. > I am also following Nordo's ignition problems. > > I feel others might also like to know about > your ignition setup, so have kept this on our > Yahoo list. > > Thanks, > Tom Webster > > --- In OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:OhioValleyRVators%40yahoogroups.com>, Bobby Hester > <bobbyhester@> wrote: > > > > Even for the first engine start? I am planning on starting the > engine > > and running it for about 5 min. to insure no leaks and that > everything > > works. > > > > ------ > > Surfing the web from my laptop in Hopkinsville, KY > > Visit my RV7A site: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/ > <http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/> > > > > > > > > Al Grajek wrote: > > > > > -Get a copy of Lycomings "key reprints". Its free on the website. > It > > > explains all the ground run, and break in procedures very well. > make > > > sure you DON'T run it on the ground with the cowling off. > > > Nordo > > > > > > -- In OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:OhioValleyRVators%40yahoogroups.com> > > > <mailto:OhioValleyRVators%40yahoogroups.com>, Bobby Hester > > > <bobbyhester@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm hoping to start my XP O-360 engine for the first time > Wedensday. > > > I > > > > remember some discussion a while back about ground runs. This > is a > > > new > > > > engine and I know that when I fly it I should fly it fast til > the > > > rings > > > > seat and oil consumption stabilizes. I think someone said that > during > > > > the inital ground runs that you should keep the cylinder temps > below > > > a > > > > certain temp untill it flys. So what is that temp? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ------ > > > > Surfing the web from my laptop in Hopkinsville, KY > > > > Visit my RV7A site: http://www.geocities.com/hester- > <http://www.geocities.com/hester-> > hoptown/RVSite/ > > > <http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/ > <http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] --- End forwarded message ---


    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: 06:47:18 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Magneto system checks with ohmmeter
    At 01:28 AM 11/20/2006 +0000, you wrote: ><bobbyhester@charter.net> > >--- In OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com, Bobby Hester ><bobbyhester@...> wrote: > >Below is what I used to wire my key switch to work with my ignition >setup. I have one mag LH and one Lightspeed Ignition RH. Today I checked >my mag to insure it was grounding properly. What I found out and you'll >read about below is this. If you check the mag lead wire while it is >disconnected from the mag you will see that when the key is off and when >it is turned to right, the lead is grounded. But the kicker here is that >when you connect the lead to the mag and then check the stud on the mag >this is what you will find. Key off mag is grounded, key turned to right >mag is grounded, key turned to left the mag is still grounded. You wound >think that it should not be, so that will make you think that it is not >going to work, but do an engine run up and then a mag check and you will >find that everthing works like it should. As far as timing the mag and >timing the LSI I just followed the directions for each one. An ordinary ohmmeter will not generally show whether a mag switch is closed or not while still connected to the mag. The mag switch is connected in parallel with the magneto's primary winding which is also in parallel with the points. With the points closed, the p-lead is definitely grounded. With the points open the DC resistance of the primary winding is so low that most ohmmeters won't reliably indicate it. This is why the magneto "timing box" is an ac current generating device that readily detects the point opening during a timing operation were a dc ohmmeter is not useful. Bob . . .


    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: 06:58:10 PM PST US
    From: Robert Feldtman <bobf@feldtman.com>
    Subject: Re: RG6 coax vx. RG400 coax
    Before you tear it up - get a ham to show you how to check "SWR" I bet it will be less than 2:1 - I bet it will work okay, just not "perfectly" So what if your comm output is 4 watts instead of 5 watts.. The problem is the dipole is 50 ohms so the mismatch is there, but really not all that bad. try it before you tear it up. Bobf W%RF - amateur Matt Reeves wrote: > I built a whole lancair with RG6 cable cause the guy at Radio Shack said > it was better than RG58U - then, when it came time to install a Garmin > 430, I noticed the RG6 is 75ohm cable and it calls for 50ohm cable. > > I fiberglassed the comm antenna into the tail of the aircraft. I could > just add another antenna in the baggage area and run RG400 cable but am > wondering if there is really a whole lot of difference and if it's worth > the weight. > > I'm hoping for some opinions. I also used RG6 on a Nav antenna in the > roof of the airplane all glassed in. Maybe the RG6 is okay on a receive > signal rather than a send? > > Hoping some of you guys smarter than me can respond. > > Thanks. > > Matt > > * > > > *


    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: 07:02:34 PM PST US
    From: "Ron Cox" <flyboyron@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 11/15/06
    > Time: 05:28:25 PM PST US > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Temperature units puzzle > From: "Barlow, Jim D" <jim.d.barlow@intel.com> > > > This article explains the lack of conversion. > > http://capitalastronomers.org/ReganMeasurements.html But what explains the lack of spelling ability of the website's creator? <g> The late former president's name is spelled REAGAN. There's just something poetic about someone who's trying to make another out to look like a moron, instead doing it for him/herself... <g> Ron


    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: 09:30:38 PM PST US
    From: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
    Subject: Units puzzle!
    Please tell us Carlos: Would the rest of the world be happier if we just caved in to radical Islam and all wore burkas. Which Islam would that be, Shiite....we'd get suicide bombed by the radical Kurds, Sunni....we'd get suicide bombed by the radical Shiite's. Which would you prefer? Or would you like us to invite them all in to the USA and treat them like second class citizens so that they could work to pay for our retirement and our 6 week holiday on the Riviera like the French, British and Germans have done? This is not a personal attack on you Carlos, but I do get sick and tired of the gutless Europeans who want to appease every tin-pot dictator just so their Holidays to the Riviera are not interrupted and their lives aren't inconvenienced! Especially when the USA pays for most of the charity around the world, protects a good bit of the world with it's own military at a GREAT EXPENSE to its taxpayers, covers over half of the UN budget only to have most of the members vote against it and have mud thrown in its face when terrorist countries like Syria and Iran get voted in as members of the human rights commission, what a joke. What worries me the most though Carlos (and Gilles) is the potential for all those Islamic second class citizens in the French ghettos to take over the French government and its cold war era NUCLEAR WEAPONS and use them on the USA. Given the French affinity for appeasement it will likely be without firing a shot. From what I have heard there will be lots of French folks happy about that, they shouldn't get too happy though because the USA would have to retaliate and given our Yankee tendencies it's doubtful there'd be much left of Napolean's old stomping grounds. Sorry to pick on your country Gilles but your fellow Frenchmen just haven't given me any reason whatsoever to think that they have any sense of justice left in their heads. Please, you folks are a lot closer to radical Islam than we in the USA are, you've experienced the bombing, rioting and other acts of terrorism first hand and some even more so than we in the USA. How can you possibly come to the conclusion that, if you just TALK to these people and be nice to them they will stop. HOW CAN ANY REASONBABLE THINKING PERSON POSSIBLY BELIEVE THAT APPEASMENT IS THE ANSWER? HOW? Explain it to me, I'm all ears! The main stream US news media and leftist press around the world have everyone believing that "cowboy" Bush just woke up one day and decided to attack Iraq. I beg to differ, Bill Clinton went ALL OVER THE WORLD for 8 years as president, made "nice" with everyone, sang Kumbaiya and partied with them and what did the USA get? September 11, 2001 that's what we got! So don't go giving me this garbage about appeasement works, we tried that and now North Korea and Iran will have Nuclear weapons. And, give them to the rest of the terrorists around the world and, a bunch more "civilized people" will have to die before the Europeans decide that they can give up a week or two on the Riviera and be inconvenienced for a short time in order to stop these kooks. Please gentleman, I'm just waiting with baited breath to hear the great solution you have to this problem, I'm waiting! I make no apologies for my statements, I have a real passion about this and the truth is, if more people don't wake up there won't be any more holidays on the Riviera or worries about life being inconvenienced because you can't be inconvenienced when you're DEAD (or persecuted under radical Islam, or did we already forget what Saddam did to his own people not so long ago). Personally, it's fine with me if the rest of the world does not want to be bothered by terrorists killing people in their own countries, unfortunately it spills over into my country and I'm not going to live with that if I can possibly stop it! Lock and load! Dean "Yankee" Psiropoulos ___________________________Original Message_________________________________ Time: 04:37:48 AM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Units puzzle ...... the text you wrote is an excellent example of expression of a typical "Yankee-Uncle Sam" position which makes the USA to be hated by the rest of the world. Carlos _______________________________________________________________




    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
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 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/contribution

    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! --