Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:33 AM - Re: Headset plug polarity (Peter Laurence)
2. 06:14 AM - Essential buss failure (Ron Schreck)
3. 06:39 AM - LED Position and Anti-collision lighting. (Eric M. Jones)
4. 07:46 AM - B and C SD8 Alternator ()
5. 08:20 AM - Re: Essential buss failure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:20 AM - Re: Z-19 Clarifications (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:23 AM - Re: Headset plug polarity (Rhino)
8. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-Z13/8 ???? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:13 AM - Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator (James Foerster)
10. 10:41 AM - Shower of Sparks ()
11. 11:02 AM - Ess Bus or Engine Failure and proper electrical installation (Terry Miles)
12. 11:52 AM - Re: Headset plug polarity (Jim Streit)
13. 12:12 PM - Re: Z-19 Clarifications (mikef)
14. 03:07 PM - Re: KX155 Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' (Miskelly, Francis G)
15. 03:48 PM - Essential buss failure (Ralph Hoover)
16. 07:53 PM - Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Keith Hallsten)
17. 08:37 PM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Ernest Christley)
18. 08:42 PM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation ()
19. 09:52 PM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Richard Girard)
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: Headset plug polarity |
Mark,
I would be interested in the cad file.
BTW, just recently installed your static ports. My local RV buddies all
have static port envy.
send it to : plaurence@the-beach.net
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset plug polarity
In a message dated 08/17/2007 10:06:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
ceengland@bellsouth.net writes:
There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo connector for
both
stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're
dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
>>>
My understanding as well. I installed mono & stereo jacks on my plane
using a switching mono plug that ties L&R channels together when the
plug is inserted, and used a spring-loaded cover on the stereo jack with
a lable stating "Stereo Only" on it. One way to git a kitty rug!
Diagram available on AutoCAD if interested...
From The PossumWorks in TN
Mark Phillips
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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: | Essential buss failure |
I wrote last week concerning this failure of my essential buss and Bob
suggested I check the connections and replace the diode. I have a diode
on order, but I did find that the faston connections were loose, so I
crimped them down a bit. Well, the bus failed again this morning. I
have found that pressing the push-to-talk switch on the SL-30 seems to
trigger the failure and most of the time it is the first actuation of
the switch after startup. It trips off the essential buss power for a
fraction of a second, then everything returns to normal. Any ideas?
Ron Schreck
RV-8, "Miss Izzy"
Gold Hill Airpark, NC
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: | LED Position and Anti-collision lighting. |
Let's put this discussion where one can find it...
>
> Hello James, You wrote: "Eric himself does not believe that present
> commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do not need to."
> I am questioning your statement that stobe and position lights installed on
> amateur built experimental aircraft do not need to meet FAR requirements. What
is your basis for that statement?
> A) Each amateur built experimental aircraft will have a set of Operating
> Limitations that are part of that aircraft's special airworthiness
> certificate. The Operating Limitations will include the 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."
> B) FAR Sec. 91.205 paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) read:
> "(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following
> instruments and equipment are required:
> (2) Approved position lights.
> (3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on
all U.S.-registered civil aircraft......skip....."
> C) Here is a quote from the introduction to my table on the subject of
> amateur built aircraft equipment requirements:
> "The builder should note that some items required by the FAR's are
> described in the FAR's as needing to be approved, but since there are no
> certification standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft,
> no formal individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical
> Standard Order) or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must
> interface properly with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other
> entities external to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios,
> exterior lighting and ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of
such equipment. Therefore, the builder can expect that the initial airworthiness
inspection of his aircraft will require evidence that this
> type of equipment in the aircraft is acceptable to the FAA."
> D) It would appear that the inspector performing the original airworthiness inspection
of an amateur built experimental aircraft would have the prerogative
of insisting that the strobe and position lights of that
> aircraft (if installed) meet the requirements of FAR Part 23 regarding
> strobe and position light performance. The presumption being made that the installation
of such lights indicates an intention to fly at night on some
> occasions.
>
> Bob wrote: "if one had LED based position and strobes, then perhaps
> night VFR on 8A would be quite comfortably managed."
>
> This is a good point, and opens up the topic of LED position lights. I
> have a Jabiru J400, and the alternator is good for 20 amps max, closer
> to 15 amps continuous. I had planned to put an SD20 alternator on the
> crank splined shaft to get more total power, but the complication of two
> alternators and two batteries seemed far too great for what will be
> mainly a day and night VFR plane with pretensions.
>
> The Whelan strobe and position light system has two lamps per wingtip
> and the strobe supply. Each lamp is two amps, and the strobe supply is
> 6 amps. Yikes! That is 14 amps for running lights. The gold plated
> pins that go into DB connectors and also the circular plastic locking
> connectors are very easy to use, but should not be used for much over 4
> amps. I could parallel these critters, but that gets to be more work.
> By going to the LED system from either Kunzleman or GS, the current draw is between
150 and 300 ma per wingtip. The strobe systems run 2 to 4 amps.
>
> Are these wingtip nav lights equivalent to the Whelan incandescent? I
> have bought both GS and Kunztleman systems for testing. I just made a
> simple turntable marked off in degrees to rotate the wingtip unit to
> measure lux output vs. angle. I'm using the nice primer on lighting
> requirements that Eric Jones posted on his website, Perihelion Designs.
> http://www.periheliondesign.com/
>
> To measure the light output, I got a lux meter, calibrated in lux.
> Photographic light meters can be converted from exposure value to lux,
> but these meters are intrinsically logarithmic in response, and I don't
> trust it.
>
> The horizontal plane measurement will be relatively easy, but the
> vertical plane may be harder. Eric himself does not believe that
> present commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do
> not need to. Of course, the low power strobes don't, but any strobe is
> far better than none, and the logarithmic response of the eye comes to
> our rescue here.
> James Foerster, J400, wiring.
>
> Time: 06:14:24 AM PST US
> From: "Fergus Kyle"
>
> Having read the discussion this topic regarding Running Lights (Nav Lts?)
> and the pro-/anti-Whelen sides, it occurred to me that perhaps another tack be
taken.
> The coloured lights are there so that (like ships) an early estimate
> of direction of travel be made in order to plan evasive manoeuvres if
> needed. In that case, the lights are not just for our protection but for the
> Others out there. That's what I think the U.S. regs require - service to
> other flyers. If they don't satisfy the particular standards drawn up, they
> don't protect other aircraft - and that could be 300 people.....
> That's why I've chosen an approved source for lights.
> Ferg
> Europa 914 mono
I have some concern that the FAA will tighten up exterior lighting requirements,
probably after some very public night accident, but for now you get your airplane
signed off as VFR-day flightworthy and the rest seems up to your good judgement
and the insurance company.
I agree with Ferg that the position and anticollision lights are for the protection
of others, so we should insist that other builders design for safety all
around. Don't be shy. Not just your own life is at risk. I have made offers to
test LED position lights made by other but got no takers.
I state categorically that many LED lighting systems are not per the FAA specs.
See my website for information.
I have sold some position lights that ARE per the FAA specs. One of my customers
landed using only the LED position lights to see the runway. An amazing accomplishment.
But the LEDs were really really bright.
I am planning to reintroduce these later, but others will enter the field with
good systems too. For now I am working on too many other things.
Exceeding the FAA specs would be in the best interest of builders who may want
LEDs but don't want to certificate them or buy certificated parts. It is also
true that the differences in LEDs (soon 4-10X the luminous efficacy, essentially
infinite lifetime, organic LED sheets, etc.) gives rise to vastly different
schemes for placement and operation of exterior lighting.
I am interested in making a flush beacon. Ideas appreciated.
As for James Foerster's testing: It will be great to see your results. We anxiously
await data.
"THE VERY BIG STUPID" is a thing which breeds by eating
The Future. Have you seen it? It sometimes disguises itself as a
good-looking quarterly bottom line, derived by closing the R&D
Department.
--Frank Zappa
--------
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=130238#130238
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: | B and C SD8 Alternator |
8/22/2007
Hello Fergus, Thanks for your input. You wrote: "In that case, the lights
are not just for our protection but for the Others out there. That's what I
think the U.S. regs require - service to other flyers."
You are right on target. Whenever we fly we are sharing the airspace and, if
so equipped, the electromagnetic environment with other aircraft and the air
traffic control system. Our own amateur built experimental aircraft, to
varying degrees, must be compatible with the other entities to avoid
creating confusion or unsafe conditions.
Here is an extract from the introduction to my table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT
"The builder should note that some items required by the FAR's are described
in the FAR's as needing to be approved, but since there are no certification
standards established for amateur built experimental aircraft no formal
individual item approval, such as meeting a TSO (Technical Standard Order)
or FAR Part 23, is required. However certain items must interface properly
with ATC (Air Traffic Control), other aircraft, or other entities external
to the aircraft. Transponders, communication radios, exterior lighting and
ELT's (Emergency Locator Transmitters) are examples of such equipment.
Therefore, the builder could expect that the initial airworthiness inspector
of his aircraft may require evidence that this type of equipment in the
aircraft is acceptable to the FAA. But regardless of the actions of the
inspector, the burden for complying with the provisions of the aircraft's
special airworthiness certificate (which includes the Operating
Limitations), and the relevant FAR's, rests with the builder / pilot."
A complete copy of this table can be obtained as an attachment to an email
by request direct to me.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
------------------ RESPONDING TO ------------------------------
Time: 06:14:24 AM PST US
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: B and C SD8 Alternator
Having read the discussion this topic regarding Running Lights (Nav Lts?)
and the pro-/anti-Whelen sides, it occurred to me that perhaps another tack
be taken.
The coloured lights are there so that (like ships) an early estimate
of direction of travel be made in order to plan evasive manoeuvres if
needed.
In that case, the lights are not just for our protection but for the
Others out there. That's what I think the U.S. regs require - service to
other flyers. If they don't satisfy the particular standards drawn up, they
don't protect other aircraft - and that could be 300 people.....
That's why I've chosen an approved source for lights.
Ferg Europa 914 mono
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Essential buss failure |
At 09:13 AM 8/22/2007 -0300, you wrote:
>I wrote last week concerning this failure of my essential buss and Bob
>suggested I check the connections and replace the diode. I have a diode
>on order, but I did find that the faston connections were loose, so I
>crimped them down a bit. Well, the bus failed again this morning. I have
>found that pressing the push-to-talk switch on the SL-30 seems to trigger
>the failure and most of the time it is the first actuation of the switch
>after startup. It trips off the essential buss power for a fraction of a
>second, then everything returns to normal. Any ideas?
It's a simple circuit. One diode, a couple of hunks of wire, a
few terminals. Something's loose.
Bob . . .
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z-19 Clarifications |
At 08:18 PM 8/21/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Hi ,
>
>I am planning to install a Z-19 system and had a couple of clarifying
>questions. Feedback is very much appreciated.
>
>1. Do all of the contactors in the system have to be Amperage rated at or
>above the maximum output of the alternator? I guess this is not a z-19
>specific question but I'm still unsure.
Contactor "ratings" are much like switch ratings. Many
times a device performs quite well even if it appears to
be under-rated. For example, the S701-1 contactors offered
by B&C as battery contactors are rated to switch 70A but will
carry the starter current of several hundred amps when
they're already closed and stable. Suggest you utilize
the contactors recommended in the drawings and don't get
wrapped around the axle on ratings.
>2. How does the E-bus alternate feed relay work, I am not sure of its
>intended purpose? I can see the E-bus is normally fed from the Main power
>bus through a diode but I'm not sure what function the relay provides.
Read chapter 17 in the book. A "lite" e-bus (7A or less) gets
alternate power from the battery bus via direct wire and switch.
Crash safety conventions dictate a "mini" battery contactor located
at the battery bus for larger loads.
>Do you normally start with the E-bus relay switch OFF. Then if your
>alternator dies you manually switch the E-bus ON?
Yes and sorta yes. The main bus should also be shut down during
alternator out operations to maximize endurance in the enroute
phase of flight.
>My E-bus load comes up to 9.5 amps. Do I even need the relay?
See chapter 17.
>3. Should both batteries be connected to the same ground point on the
>airframe, rather than two separate locations? In my case it means
>running about 5' of wire to that designed ground stud.
What kind of airplane. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Battery_Grounds/Battery_Grounds.html
>4. Parts - Diodes for the ECU and Fuel pumps - is the B&C Essential Bus
>Diode and the Perihelion Power-Deuce-Schottky Auto-Power Selector Diode
>Assembly essentially the same component.
There are virtually thousands of diodes that will function
as needed in this circuit. The parts offered by B&C and
Perihelion are but two such devices cited for your convenience.
> In the Z-19 the it says 'Note 24', but I cannot find that in my
> Aeroelectric Connection manual or the website.
Note 24 is on page Z-11 of
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Headset plug polarity |
bbradburry(at)bellsouth.n wrote:
> I am amazed at the difficulty in finding the polarity on the internet. Can
> someone help me here?
Try this link:
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/support/APNOTE02.pdf
This is a web page about using an aviation headset with a PC, but it has some pinout
info that may help you:
http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/howto/adapter.htm
Another link that may help:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zorlack/43579792/in/set-800495/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130249#130249
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-Z13/8 ???? |
At 12:53 PM 8/21/2007 -0600, you wrote:
><fstringham@hotmail.com>
>
>I am wiring my RV7A using Z 13/8 as my basic scheme. I did change the
>scheme to use Z-25 as the SD-8 Aux Alternator controller and the B&C LR-3
>as the controller of the main alternator (as shown on Z-12). I also have
>the Dynon EMS-120 which has an ammeter shunt to monitor electrical flow in
>one of three locations. I have choosen to place the shunt in the A
>position to monitor current flow into or out of the battery. Now the ???????
>
>1. With all this said I would like to eliminate the two shunts that
>monitor the SD-8 and Main alternator in in their place use the inticator
>lights. Does this make sense? My argument is I just want to know when the
>failure of an alternator occures and then monitor battery current specifically.
>
>2. Does the indicator light attach to the S704-1 at the NC location
>......assuming that 1 above is ok to do.
The diagrams are recommendations, not requirements.
You can choose to install or any combination of
monitoring and display tools for your electrical
system.
Bob . . .
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: B&C SD 8 Alternator |
OC wrote
8/20/2007
>
> Hello James, You wrote: "Eric himself does not believe that present
> commercial units meet the FARs, but for experimental, they do not need
> to."
>
> I am questioning your statement that stobe and position lights installed
> on
> amateur built experimental aircraft do not need to meet FAR requirements.
> What is your basis for that statement?
My basis was misremembering your original explaination-sorry. Thanks for
setting the record straight once again. That said, I am trying to measure
the available commercial units to see how close they come.
Since that post, my sources tell me that the inspectors for exerimental and
amateur built aircraft are taking a closer, and more jaundiced, look at the
LED position lights. I did see some units molded into the wing at the last
Oshkosh that clearly did not meet the field of view requirements, although
brightness is impossible to judge in the daylight.
Jim
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: | Shower of Sparks |
Bob:
In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick
Start. On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is
only for use with Slick magnetos, not Bendix units. Do you think
there's a technical reason, or that's just certification/lawyer talk?
Thanks,
Tim Dawson-Townsend
tdt@aurora.aero
617-500-4812 (office)
617-905-4800 (mobile)
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: | Ess Bus or Engine Failure and proper electrical installation |
I have done 100 + faston connectors in the last 45 days. Blue ones, red
ones, yellow ones.you name it. One wire to three wires.you name it. .and
some bigger crimps using the B&C #10 to #2 wire masher that they have. It
works great and has been an enormous help.
I have learned, and I am passing it to you, that you do a grab and yank test
on EACH wire in each joint. If you grab all the wires it once, it only
proves that one is in there for keeps. Think about that. Also I have
learned that the blue fastons are a little more loose on the faston ground
or fuse tabs than are the red ones. Be careful if you make your own "forest
of ground tabs" that the rows are not so close together or so out of the way
that you can't see if each and every connector is fully seated.
In my humble opinion (IMHO) any faston going into an electronic ignition
component, or any fuel pumps, be given the utmost of care and attention.
Give equal attention to power, to ground, to any splices..every dam
connector in the chain. Equal attention to data transfer issues.like the
map signal on your Elect Ign. Treat it like torquing the nuts and bolts on
your throttle cable, because it has the same affect.
Terry
Velocity XLRG-5
Final wiring
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Schreck
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 8:14 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Essential buss failure
I wrote last week concerning this failure of my essential buss and Bob
suggested I check the connections and replace the diode. I have a diode on
order, but I did find that the faston connections were loose, so I crimped
them down a bit. Well, the bus failed again this morning. I have found
that pressing the push-to-talk switch on the SL-30 seems to trigger the
failure and most of the time it is the first actuation of the switch after
startup. It trips off the essential buss power for a fraction of a second,
then everything returns to normal. Any ideas?
Ron Schreck
RV-8, "Miss Izzy"
Gold Hill Airpark, NC
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: Headset plug polarity |
Says who?????
Peter Laurence wrote:
> Mark,
>
> I would be interested in the cad file.
>
> BTW, just recently installed your static ports. My local RV buddies
> all have static port envy.
>
> send it to : plaurence@the-beach.net <mailto:plaurence@the-beach.net>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Fiveonepw@aol.com <mailto:Fiveonepw@aol.com>
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> <mailto:aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2007 11:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset plug polarity
>
> In a message dated 08/17/2007 10:06:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
> ceengland@bellsouth.net <mailto:ceengland@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
> There isn't really any practical way to wire a stereo
> connector for both
> stereo & mono. You can set it up with a switch, but then you're
> dependent on remembering to set the switch correctly.
>
> >>>
> My understanding as well. I installed mono & stereo jacks on my
> plane using a switching mono plug that ties L&R channels together
> when the plug is inserted, and used a spring-loaded cover on the
> stereo jack with a lable stating "Stereo Only" on it. One way to
> git a kitty rug!
>
> Diagram available on AutoCAD if interested...
>
> From The PossumWorks in TN
> Mark Phillips
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> title=http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982
> href="http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000982"
> target=_blank>AOL.com.
>
> *
>
> href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
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: Z-19 Clarifications |
Bob,
Thanks for your input. I found most of the answer per your referenced documents.
>> Contactor "ratings" are much like switch ratings. Many
times a device performs quite well even if it appears to
be under-rated. For example, the S701-1 contactors offered
by B&C as battery contactors are rated to switch 70A but will
carry the starter current of several hundred amps when
they're already closed and stable. Suggest you utilize
the contactors recommended in the drawings and don't get
wrapped around the axle on ratings.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130294#130294
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: KX155 Nav/com 'acoustic feedback' |
Discovered today the radio interference is coming from the intercom! I
disconnected the KX155 internal intercom and the problem disappeared!
The radio worked fine. My questions now are:
1. Can anyone explain why the interference arises from the intercom? Is
the intercom esp prone to interference?
2. I'm told the KX155 internal intercom is poor and people often have to
install an external intercom eg. SPA400. Is that correct?
3. If i install an external intercom will that solve the problem?
4. To disconnect the intercom i removed the 'intercom mic' pin. From my
pin-out diagram of the KX155 the 'intercom mic' pin is #8. My radio is
wired with the 'intercom mic' into pin B (B for Bravo). Can someone
confirm the correct pin for the 'intercom mic'? Is it pin 8 or pin B?
Many thanks
Frank
>The KX155 nav/com in my Glastar has 2 problems which may be related.
>1. Inserting the headphone jack i have near perfect reception.
>However, when i insert the microphone jack there is a loud whine
>suggestive of 'acoustic feedback'. Moving the boom away from my mouth
>reduces the whine. With a different headset it appears as lots of
>static noise which again changes with position of the boom. I've
>changed the aerial, power supply and checked all the earths. It occurs
>with either mag and when the generator is disconnected. It only
>happens when the engine is running. The radio's been bench tested and
>passed as good.
>2. Radio reception is good with just the headphone jack inserted.
>However, insert the microphone jack and reception becomes very poor or
>disappears completely. I suspect the 'acoustic feedback' is raising
>the automatic squelch which is cutting off the radio station
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: | Essential buss failure |
Ron,
If you are having difficulty isolating the poor connection visually.
Measure the voltages at the source and any accessible points along the
way to the E-Buss. If you used the Bridge Rectifier with Fastons this
may be 4 points. Take these measurements while the buss is loaded (your
SL30 PTT experience suggests series resistance) you will see a drop of
about 1.2 volts (unless you used a Schottky diode* *then it will be
less)* *across the diode, more than that between any two points will
isolate the poor connection.
You may also try pulling hard on each of the fastons. If you can
pull them off with moderate force they are not crimped properly.
Diodes are typically not intermittent, they generally open or short and
usually only when abused (over temp or mechanical stress)
Bad crimps are common, good crimp tools, properly sized (wire and
terminal) and high quality connectors (AMP PIDG or Molex Avikrimp) with
metal insulation support sleeves and careful installation will resolve
this.
Other things to look for are partially cut wires (rare if properly
installed), corrosion on terminals, fuse blocks, fuses.
It may be helpful to load the E-Buss with a high current device (landing
lights, pitot heat, both?) in my installation this only requires moving
a connection a few inches on a split fuse block. That will obviate the
need to key the transmitter to get the current up and thus the IR drop.
(The voltage drop is equal to the Current I * R Resistance plus any
diode junction drops that are in series)
Good luck.
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
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: | Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/. It
may be of interest to
EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
============================
Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,
Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not
renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to
soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not
argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine
this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.
The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.
Now, I hate to see anyone lose their job, but here is how I understand
the situation. The guy took a job editing what should be an intensely
hardcore aviation publication, and he didn't have so much as a PP-SEL.
It appears that he had no interest in flying airplanes, and even less in
building one. He was in the wrong place. That's sad; both for him and
the EAA membership. Over the past year, EAA membership dropped 20%.
Sport Aviation content was cited most often as the reason. That is sad;
both for him and the membership. He is being replaced. I wish him luck
in finding a position better suited for him, but the bigger issue for
EAA members (past and present) is why he was replaced.
The board of directors saw the 20% drop in membership and started asking
why. Have you seen the makeup of the board? Sport Aviation printed the
nominees for the next year a couple months back. There weren't but a
couple that had ever worked on an airplane, and I believe only one
nominee that had ever built anything. The rest were bean counters and
management types, with a couple academics thrown in. While bean
counters and management types are both necessary and useful, I think it
wouldn't be that hard to find a few that had built at least one airplane
and would know what is wrong with the EAA's focus. Instead, they, being
bean counters and management types, do what bean counters and management
types do. They look at spreadsheets and charts and try to draw a
picture of reality from the summarization. Spreadsheets and charts
leave out a lot of data and twist reality all to easily. Until the
membership started dropping, they assumed everything was hunky-dory, and
all the talk about losing focus was just background noise. Now the
moaning has risen to a roar. Members are leaving.
So, we've punched them in the nose to get their attention. It is time
for a come to Jesus meeting where we calmly and clearly explain what the
problem is. If you've left the EAA without an explanation, please send
a quick email to editorial@eaa.org and state why you left. Just a few
polite lines so that they will know. If you're considering not renewing
your membership, let them know that. If you've tried to make your voice
heard before, but feel you were rebuked, please try again. I believe
the microphone is turned your way now. If you know someone who is
trying to fix the EAA from the inside, please mention their efforts so
that the board will have insiders to turn to for advise.
It's not often that an organization as large as the EAA will see one in
five members drop out in a single year. This is an historic opportunity
to set thing straight. The people in charge will be paying attention
like never before. It may be that the editor will just be a scapegoat,
and it will be back to business as usual in a few months. I think it
more likely that the board is genuinely concerned, but they just don't
understand. If we speak up and the situation is the former, then we can
say, "We told you so" next year when the membership drops another 20%.
If the situation is the latter then speaking up now will help draw back
the 20% that left and insure that they stay.
It is my opinion that the problem with the EAA is that the leadership
has forgotten why we are building airplanes. It is NOT, by any means,
simply to have an airplane. The analysis has been done all over the
place, and everyone agrees it would be more economical and less labor
intensive to get a second job, buy an airplane now, and be in the air
immediately. *WE* as builders know that. We're not stupid...DANG-IT!
The reason we build airplanes is....get this....PRIDE!
Plane (har-har) and simple. We want to say, "I built that." We want to
compare our workmanship to the guy on the next row, and marvel at the
simplicity/uniqueness/complexity/workmanship of the guy on the next.
The more bolt-on, manufactured goods are added, the less pride is
involved. The more the leadership has forgotten that PRIDE is the
driving force and been lured astray by advertising dollars from
manufactured goods, the more they've eaten away at the heart of the
organization. Now, I've got nothing against manufactured goods, or
their advertising. There are some parts of my project that I just had
no interest in making, wheel hubs, for example, so I chose to buy those
off the shelf. The problem is that I often get the feeling from the EAA
organization that my project is lessened by it not being a kit, or by me
making my own strobes or marker lights. If I'm building out of pride,
and you look down your nose at me for building...well, that's just a
punch in the gut, and I don't really care to be around you. You can't
go around punching your members and expect them to keep coming back.
Ernest Christley
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Keith Hallsten wrote:
> This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
>
> Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/. It
> may be of interest to
> EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
> ============================
>
I open my big mouth to much.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
(sigh)
As you and the others likely know, the "grapevine" seldom can be relied upon
for accurate dissemination of news.
I looked at the published, audited financial statement for EAA. It compares
the most recent audited years ending February 28, 2006 and 2007. While the
report does not give the number of members, it does show the revenue from
membership dues (same rate for both years @ $40). There was a $143,667
increase in revenue in 2007 over 2006. Based on that, it seems membership
increased. For membership to have dropped by 20% in the last year, the
membership dues revenue would have to show a decrease of more than $1.2
million.
As for Mr. David Hipschman, he is still listed as the Editor of Sport
Aviation magazine in the August issue. Even if he is leaving, there is no
way to know if he was fired. I also looked up David Hipschman in the FAA
database - he is a PP-ASEL for three years now and lives in WI.
It may still be a good idea to suggest that members write EAA with their own
ideas for change or improvement of the organization, but I'm not sure that
we can take the so-called "change" as a given - or the validity of this
email for that matter.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Hallsten" <KeithHallsten@quiknet.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:52 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
> This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
>
> Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.
> It
> may be of interest to
> EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
> ============================
>
> Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,
> Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not
> renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to
> soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not
> argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine
> this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.
>
> The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.
(snip)
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Golly gosh, everything printed on the internet isn't always true? I'm
shocked, truly shocked. Maybe Elvis really is dead.
Rick
On 8/22/07, berkut13@berkut13.com <berkut13@berkut13.com> wrote:
>
>
> (sigh)
>
> As you and the others likely know, the "grapevine" seldom can be relied
> upon
> for accurate dissemination of news.
>
> I looked at the published, audited financial statement for EAA. It
> compares
> the most recent audited years ending February 28, 2006 and 2007. While
> the
> report does not give the number of members, it does show the revenue from
> membership dues (same rate for both years @ $40). There was a $143,667
> increase in revenue in 2007 over 2006. Based on that, it seems membership
> increased. For membership to have dropped by 20% in the last year, the
> membership dues revenue would have to show a decrease of more than $1.2
> million.
>
> As for Mr. David Hipschman, he is still listed as the Editor of Sport
> Aviation magazine in the August issue. Even if he is leaving, there is no
> way to know if he was fired. I also looked up David Hipschman in the FAA
> database - he is a PP-ASEL for three years now and lives in WI.
>
> It may still be a good idea to suggest that members write EAA with their
> own
> ideas for change or improvement of the organization, but I'm not sure that
> we can take the so-called "change" as a given - or the validity of this
> email for that matter.
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Hallsten" <KeithHallsten@quiknet.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 9:52 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>
>
> > This was just posted to another list I watch, & may be seen at:
> >
> > Mr. Ernest Christley posted the following to http://www.flyrotary.com/.
> > It
> > may be of interest to
> > EAA'rs disappointed with the current state of the organization.
> > ============================
> >
> > Following the lead of a fellow member of the Dyke Delta Yahoo group,
> > Bernie, I sent the editors at EAA an email explaining why I was not
> > renewing my membership. It looks like Bernie and I either spoke to
> > soon, or our actions are finally having the intended effect. I'll not
> > argue the point either way, but I got some news through the grapevine
> > this weekend that is very encouraging concerning the EAA.
> >
> > The editor of Sport Aviation has been fired.
> (snip)
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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! --
|