Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:34 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Rob Turk)
2. 01:31 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Bill Maxwell)
3. 06:07 AM - Shower of Sparks ()
4. 06:15 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor life (Ken)
5. 06:42 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:59 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor life (Rob Turk)
7. 07:06 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:56 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Ernest Christley)
9. 08:46 AM - Radio problem! (Travis)
10. 09:02 AM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
11. 09:40 AM - Re: Radio problem! (Matt Prather)
12. 09:41 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Walter Fellows)
13. 10:06 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 10:18 AM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (John W. Cox)
16. 01:52 PM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Mike)
17. 02:59 PM - KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question (David & Elaine Lamphere)
18. 06:39 PM - Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor life (Charlie England)
19. 07:08 PM - Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question (Ron Quillin)
20. 07:21 PM - Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question (Kenneth Melvin)
21. 07:52 PM - Re: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question (Mike)
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: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article |
In the radio tube era (when Lycoming engines were designed ;-) this was true
for equipment that was shelved for many years, but with modern parts this is
not true anymore. Elco's are indeed getting worse when left without power
for extended periodes of time, but not in the 'weeks or months' timeframe.
All electronic equipment has electrolytic capacitors in them, and if this
was the general timespan for elco's then you'd also have to replace your ELT
transmitter every so many weeks or months. They have elco's too, and I hope
for your sake you do not have to run them every six months...
I think the article has been inspired by an over-active marketing department
who would like to see you replace perfectly good parts. Can you imagine
their revenue increase if their 'rule' would be mandatory? Every owner who
doesn't fly their plane for 6 months (winter or so) replacing all
electronics with elco's in them? I'm gonna buy me some stock...
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>
>
> The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights. I'm curious
> as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
>
> "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks
> or
> months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic
> capacitors
> used in the device will loose polarity formation. As a rule, a strobe
> that
> has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
> failure"
>
> I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
> and have since been waiting for final installation. Do I need to
> "exercise"
> this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Creek
>
>
>
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article |
I doubt it. The message is greatly exaggerated. Electrolytic capacitors
will eventually lose their capacitor ability if left on a shelf for a long
time, but that is many years in my experience. They rely upon being
connected in circuit with a voltage across them, so an oxide layer can form
on the aluminium foil from which they are constructed. It provides the
necesary dielectric layer. However, a capacitor which has lost that layer
can be re-formed by connecting them up andprogressively increasing the
voltage to the rated working voltage.
If the LPM article were correct, every set of strobes would need to carry an
"instal by" date. I imagine that most would have a period between
manufacture and sale of greater than 12 months.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>
>
> The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights. I'm curious
> as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
>
> "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks
> or
> months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic
> capacitors
> used in the device will loose polarity formation. As a rule, a strobe
> that
> has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
> failure"
>
> I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
> and have since been waiting for final installation. Do I need to
> "exercise"
> this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Creek
>
>
>
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: | Shower of Sparks |
8/24/2007
Hello Bob,
1) You wrote: "Perhaps someone on the List has a lead on the details of this
systems design and operation."
Looking at the patent for the Unison SlickSTART Magneto Start Booster may
provide some helpful information. See this link:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=5630384.PN.&OS=PN/5630384&RS=PN/5630384
If that doesn't work just Google "US Patent 5630384" (thanks to Eric).
2) You wrote: "My present understanding of the product suggests that it does
not require a second set of points. From this I infer the device is fitted
with some intelligence that delays delivery of battery enhanced pulses by
some amount which emulates the delayed-timing points common to the earlier
system."
You are correct that the solid state SlickSTART unit does not require a
second set of points, but it does not incorporate any internal delayed
timing.
To explain: To take best advantage of the SlickSTART's longer duration and
higher peak voltage sparking over that provided by just an impulse coupled
magneto a magneto with a set of retard breaker points is required. However,
if the SlickSTART unit is used with an impulse coupled magneto with a single
set of points there will still be an increase in both peak output voltage
and sparks per sequence over that which would be provided by the impulse
coupling acting alone.
A copy of Unison's SlickSTART brochure and its claims can be found at this
link:
http://www.unisonindustries.com/docs/Slickstartflyer_1493.pdf
3) You wrote: "Assuming my understanding is correct, then I can deduce no
reason why the product (or one exceedingly similar to it) wouldn't function
with any brand of magneto."
I can't offer any technical reason, but can only repeat what I posted
earlier on this specific point:
"The Unison Service Letter L-1492 (Revision D is current) contains a
caution
that says using P/N SS1001 with Bendix/TCM magnetos may result in magneto
damage and engine stoppage."
Unison does provide SlickSTART P/N SS1002 for use with the TCM/Bendix
magnetos.
Some general comments:
A) I have been operating my amateur built experimental aircraft equipped
with a TCM IO-240 B9B engine and a SlickSTART P/N SS1001 magneto start
booster for over 185 hours.
B) The left magneto is a Slick P/N 4310 with a set of retard breaker points.
The SlickSTART booster is connected to this magneto. The right magneto is a
Slick P/N 4309 direct drive with no impulse coupling or retard breaker
points.
C) The engine is cranked with the right magneto grounded out during
cranking.
D) I had difficulty in obtaining enough information on the functioning of
the SlickSTART unit from Unison to make my initial wiring installation. This
was because all of their installation information was based on the
assumption that one was removing a TCM/Bendix "Shower of Sparks" unit and
replacing it with the SlickSTART unit. It was difficult to reverse engineer
their instructions into a "start from scratch" situation. After a false
start response from the Unison marketing department, and follow up detailed
correspondence with their tech support people, I was able to make the
installation.
E) I am very satisfied with the performance of my SlickSTART unit and would
highly recommend it to anyone using conventional magnetos instead of
electronic ignition in their Lycoming or TCM engine.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
------------------ RESPONDING
TO ----------------------------------------------
Time: 06:00:17 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
At 01:40 PM 8/22/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>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,
Shower of Sparks or "SOS" enhancement to magneto performance
still stands out in my mind as one of those extra-ordinary
examples of clever design from the CSP era (copper, steel
phenolic). Contemporary designers can select from millions
of commercial off the shelf parts and in particular, little
chunks of multi-legged plastic offering functionality from
"simple" amplifiers (20 transistors!) to gigaflop-fast
super-processors (tens of thousands of transistors).
In the time when Shower of Sparks was crafted, the catalog
of materials available to our creative ancestors was limited
to a relatively few, rudimentary components. Yet, by understanding
the simple-ideas for the materials at hand and the task to
be accomplished, devices like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/ALTREG2.jpg
were produced with out-the-door performance on a par with
the later . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_SS_Reg_open.jpg
or most modern incarnations like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Alternator_Regulators.jpg
Shower of sparks was conceived as a melding of magneto
and Kettering ignition systems for battery enhancement
of spark energy during low speed operations (cranking).
The enhancement had two important features . . . a
battery excited, electromechanical "buzzer" that would
supply the magneto primary with a rapidly repeating
pulse of energy from the battery and a second set of
delayed-timing, cranking-points temporarily switched
in parallel with the advanced-timing, running-points.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
I've not been made privy to the simple-ideas that support
functionality of the Slick Start. My present
understanding of the product suggests that it does not
require a second set of points. From this I infer
the device is fitted with some intelligence that
delays delivery of battery enhanced pulses by some
amount which emulates the delayed-timing points common
to the earlier system.
Assuming my understanding is correct, then I can
deduce no reason why the product (or one exceedingly
similar to it) wouldn't function with any brand
of magneto. But without the support of the designers
or a cognizant technician, we'll not have enough
information to craft a definitive answer to your
question. Perhaps someone on the List has a lead
on the details of this systems design and operation.
Bob . . .
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor |
life
Yes absolutely but...
Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I
personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. IIRC
aeroflash did recommend that. However I'm sensitive to the issue
because I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics in
as little as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little used
photocopier. Previous to that was a DVD player. One of my favorite
troubleshooting tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent
series resistance) tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from Bob
Parker for well under a $100.
Ken
Bill Maxwell wrote:
> <wrmaxwell@bigpond.com>
>
> I doubt it. The message is greatly exaggerated. Electrolytic
> capacitors will eventually lose their capacitor ability if left on a
> shelf for a long time, but that is many years in my experience. They
> rely upon being connected in circuit with a voltage across them, so an
> oxide layer can form on the aluminium foil from which they are
> constructed. It provides the necesary dielectric layer. However, a
> capacitor which has lost that layer can be re-formed by connecting
> them up andprogressively increasing the voltage to the rated working
> voltage.
>
> If the LPM article were correct, every set of strobes would need to
> carry an "instal by" date. I imagine that most would have a period
> between manufacture and sale of greater than 12 months.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Creek"
> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:52 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
>
>
>> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>>
>>
>> The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights. I'm
>> curious
>> as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
>>
>> "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods -
>> weeks or
>> months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic
>> capacitors
>> used in the device will loose polarity formation. As a rule, a
>> strobe that
>> has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
>> failure"
>>
>> I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six
>> months ago
>> and have since been waiting for final installation. Do I need to
>> "exercise"
>> this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mike Creek
>>
>>
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: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article |
At 05:52 PM 8/23/2007 -0700, you wrote:
><mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>
>
>The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights. I'm curious
>as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
>
>"A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks or
>months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic capacitors
>used in the device will loose polarity formation. As a rule, a strobe that
>has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
>failure"
>
>I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
>and have since been waiting for final installation. Do I need to "exercise"
>this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
There have been some excellent responses to this
so I'll offer only the following:
Articles like this are a disservice to the community
because they are non-quantified. I.e., no data followed
with logical deductions which lead to repeatable experiments
(recipes for success). This topic has been raised many
times over the years on the various aviation forums. On
one occasion in years past, I scrounged around in my
junk box for a high voltage electrolytic capacitor that I
KNEW had not been powered up for decades.
I connected it to a supply equal to it's rated voltage
(450 volts if I recall correctly). On initial power up,
the capacitor did what every capacitor does . . . draw
whatever current the source will deliver until equilibrium
is achieved. After several seconds, the capacitor's
"draw" was measured in a hand-full of milliamps and
after a minute, charging was essentially complete
and "leakage" was under 1 mA. After ten minutes,
leakage dropped to about 100 microamps.
I then did a measurement of apparent capacity. The
device was within 10% of rated value. I left the
capacitor connected to the power supply for several
days and measured apparent capacity again. It's
increase was so tiny as to make measurement
problematic.
Bottom line: In days of yore when capacitor
technology and fabrication techniques were in a
relative state of infancy, the devices were indeed
subject to deleterious effects of long term,
dormant storage.
But "modern" capacitors (meaning those built in
the last 20 or so years) have exhibited great strides
in operating performance and service life. Here's
an exemplar article on the topic:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Long_Term_Stability_Aluminum_Electrolytics.pdf
This article addresses an expected elevation of
leakage currents in the first few minutes of a long
term storage but that, "no damage to the capacitor
is to be expected".
This article is consistent with my own experience
and in particular, with an experiment conducted on
the bench. If anyone has data from an experiment arguing
with the foregoing deductions, it would be interesting
and useful for us to examine it for new understanding.
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: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor |
life
This could be a different issue altogether. A couple years ago an Asian
manufacturer was caught when they stole a new formula for elco's. They
happened to steal a flawed version, which caused millions of bad elco's to
be produced. They ended up in a lot of PC motherboards and other consumer
goods and they all failed after six months to a year or so . See:
http://www.geek.com/capacitor-failures-plague-motherboard-vendors/
I thought by now those should have all been weeded out, apparently not.
These failures however are not the same as ageing failures.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <klehman@albedo.net>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance
Article-capacitor life
>
> Yes absolutely but...
> Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I
> personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. IIRC
> aeroflash did recommend that. However I'm sensitive to the issue because
> I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics in as little
> as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little used photocopier.
> Previous to that was a DVD player. One of my favorite troubleshooting
> tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent series resistance)
> tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from Bob Parker for well under
> a $100.
> Ken
>
> Bill Maxwell wrote:
>
>> <wrmaxwell@bigpond.com>
>>
>> I doubt it. The message is greatly exaggerated. Electrolytic capacitors
>> will eventually lose their capacitor ability if left on a shelf for a
>> long time, but that is many years in my experience. They rely upon being
>> connected in circuit with a voltage across them, so an oxide layer can
>> form on the aluminium foil from which they are constructed. It provides
>> the necesary dielectric layer. However, a capacitor which has lost that
>> layer can be re-formed by connecting them up andprogressively increasing
>> the voltage to the rated working voltage.
>>
>> If the LPM article were correct, every set of strobes would need to carry
>> an "instal by" date. I imagine that most would have a period between
>> manufacture and sale of greater than 12 months.
>>
>> Bill
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michel Creek"
>> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:52 AM
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article
>>
>>
>>> <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights. I'm
>>> curious
>>> as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
>>>
>>> "A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks
>>> or
>>> months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic
>>> capacitors
>>> used in the device will loose polarity formation. As a rule, a strobe
>>> that
>>> has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
>>> failure"
>>>
>>> I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months
>>> ago
>>> and have since been waiting for final installation. Do I need to
>>> "exercise"
>>> this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike Creek
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
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: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor |
life
At 09:16 AM 8/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Yes absolutely but...
>Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I
>personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying. IIRC
>aeroflash did recommend that. However I'm sensitive to the issue because
>I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics in as little
>as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little used photocopier.
>Previous to that was a DVD player. One of my favorite
>troubleshooting tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent
>series resistance) tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from Bob
>Parker for well under a $100.
>Ken
. . . but was dormant, long term storage the proximate cause
of failure? I've replaced a ton of capacitors in my career
but I can recall no situation where I might have attributed
the part's demise to long term inactivity followed by an
indiscriminate power up.
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> This article is consistent with my own experience
> and in particular, with an experiment conducted on
> the bench. If anyone has data from an experiment arguing
> with the foregoing deductions, it would be interesting
> and useful for us to examine it for new understanding.
>
>
The electrolytics I have had to replace have been cheap ones in consumer
products that experience continuous elevated temperatures. Computer
motherboards and stereo equipment stored in closed cabinets, for the
most part. This is consistent with the article Bob presented. Cheap
caps could be expected to possibly include more defect producing
contaminants, and the article makes note that high heat tends to be
detrimental.
-A strobe power supply may or may not be stored in a way to control
temperature. Ambient temps have exceeded the 25C that the article
suggest for weeks now here in NC. If it were buried in a wing stored in
the rafters of a hanger, the temps could be much higher still. Could
that be the nexus of the problem?
-If the strobe is using cheap caps...well, I'd just be upset about that one.
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 |
|
I have an XCom radio in my RV-7A and I am having some problems transmitting. I
seem to receive just fine. When I push the PTT button on the pilot control stick
I get a static in my headset. If I push the PTT button on the passenger
control stick I get the same static (in the pilot headset) with the same intensity.
When I switch headsets to my backup headset I don't hear the static when
I push the PTT. HOWEVER, the problem is much worse in flight (possibly due
to a louder environment); on the ground with the engine shut down the static is
minimal. I have not tried the backup headset in flight. I will fly tonight
with the other headset to see if this eliminates the problem, but I don't think
it will. Since it only happens when transmitting I am starting to think there
is a problem with the PTT wiring?? Any ideas to start me out? I will report
back with the results of using a different headset. Could this be a gain
adjustment needed (I can adjust the gain)?
Travis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130771#130771
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
If I want to find out all about general aviation, I read AOPA's magazine,
which has good content usually. To learn about the latest bizjet or how to fly
IFR back east in the dead of winter in a Cessna, I flip thru "Flying" at the
newstand.
Experimental Aviation? Just can't wait for the next issue of "Kitplanes",
lots of really good content, often from names familiar to us, like Stein.
EAA's "Sport Aviation"? Says it all right on the cover..."The Magazine of
Recreational Aviation". Looks like an appeal to a broader audience than just a
few scraggly experimenters... Just like Oshkosh has morphed into.
OK, got that off my shoulders...
Jerry Cochran
In a message dated 8/23/2007 11:58:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com writes:
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation magazine, a
few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year. Actually I
thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this
year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P.
I was upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and
short on facts; I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe
Foundation Org group and their articles. I was told they
where too technical. They also asked me to write articles.
Clearly month to month they are desperate to get content.
<snip>
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio problem! |
If you speak into the mic while transmitting, do you hear your voice (from
the sidetone) through the headphones? Are other stations able to hear
your transmission? With good quality? In addition to adjusting the gain,
you might be able to adjust the sidetone volume if everything else appears
to be working properly.
Regards,
Matt-
> <travishamblen@gmail.com>
>
> I have an XCom radio in my RV-7A and I am having some problems
> transmitting. I seem to receive just fine. When I push the PTT button on
> the pilot control stick I get a static in my headset. If I push the PTT
> button on the passenger control stick I get the same static (in the pilot
> headset) with the same intensity. When I switch headsets to my backup
> headset I don't hear the static when I push the PTT. HOWEVER, the problem
> is much worse in flight (possibly due to a louder environment); on the
> ground with the engine shut down the static is minimal. I have not tried
> the backup headset in flight. I will fly tonight with the other headset
> to see if this eliminates the problem, but I don't think it will. Since
> it only happens when transmitting I am starting to think there is a
> problem with the PTT wiring?? Any ideas to start me out? I will report
> back with the results of using a different headset. Could this be a gain
> adjustment needed (I can adjust the gain)?
>
> Travis
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=130771#130771
>
>
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: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Let's be fair now and not forget the great t-shirts and bomber jackets they
sell for your ride in the B-17. And all of the US taxpayer supplied jet fuel
for the endless F-15 flybys while we are trying to hear the forum speakers
attending the forums at OSH. I heard a rumor the CEO has flies an EAA
sponsored P-51 for promotion, I hope that is just a rumor (can anyone shed
light on this?)
On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing the
OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There seems
to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace companies to
severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I still find
the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put on by
really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we continue to
support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate professional
management thinking that has crept in there.
On 8/24/07, Jerry2DT@aol.com <Jerry2DT@aol.com> wrote:
>
> If I want to find out all about general aviation, I read AOPA's magazine,
> which has good content usually. To learn about the latest bizjet or how to
> fly IFR back east in the dead of winter in a Cessna, I flip thru "Flying" at
> the newstand.
>
> Experimental Aviation? Just can't wait for the next issue of "Kitplanes",
> lots of really good content, often from names familiar to us, like Stein.
>
> EAA's "Sport Aviation"? Says it all right on the cover..."The Magazine of
> Recreational Aviation". Looks like an appeal to a broader audience than just
> a few scraggly experimenters... Just like Oshkosh has morphed into.
>
> OK, got that off my shoulders...
>
> Jerry Cochran
>
> In a message dated 8/23/2007 11:58:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> aeroelectric-list@matronics.com writes:
>
> From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>
> I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation magazine, a
> few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year. Actually I
> thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this
> year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P.
> I was upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and
> short on facts; I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe
> Foundation Org group and their articles. I was told they
> where too technical. They also asked me to write articles.
> Clearly month to month they are desperate to get content.
>
> <snip>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> .
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
At 09:41 AM 8/24/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing the
>OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There
>seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace companies
>to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I still
>find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put on
>by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we continue
>to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate
>professional management thinking that has crept in there.
Astute observation. I've dropped my EAA membership and no
longer write for SA for reasons cited in the past. However,
in spite of what ever EAA is or is not, how does one replace
OSH? I attend that event not to promote (or badmouth) EAA
but to meet folks who gather there annually. I've attended
many a regional fly-in that produced zero or a tiny fraction
of return on investment for the $time$ expended compared to
a few days at OSH.
EAA's inarguable value is the opportunity to network with folks of
like interests. We could endlessly debate whether or not the organization
has lost the vision of the founding fathers. However, I'll suggest
the organization has little or nothing to do with the vision of those who
make the annual pilgrimage to aviation's Mecca.
Bob . . .
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article |
At 10:54 AM 8/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
><echristley@nc.rr.com>
<snip>
>-A strobe power supply may or may not be stored in a way to control
>temperature. Ambient temps have exceeded the 25C that the article suggest
>for weeks now here in NC. If it were buried in a wing stored in the
>rafters of a hanger, the temps could be much higher still. Could that be
>the nexus of the problem?
>
>-If the strobe is using cheap caps...well, I'd just be upset about that one.
Which speaks to the value of conducting tests per DO-160.
One cannot attract many customers in the type certificated
aircraft world without jumping these hoops. Further, given
the exceedingly small fraction of the world represented by
aviation circles, it's impossible to keep the astute mechanics
from knowing about poorly crafted products or less than
helpful customer support. Stack these notions with the
idea that really good capacitors are not that much more
expensive than mediocre devices. Given the blood, sweat and
tears sacrificed to the altars of regulation, it's
unlikely that a company like Grimes or Whelen is going
to compound their grief-to-market by cutting corners in
the selection of components.
Bob . . .
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Bob, your contribution is unmistakable here and from your days writing
EAA articles I hold you in high esteem.
EAA however, has clearly found a new and enlightened profitable path.
Politic, Posturing and Self Promotion. I have heightened my enjoyment of
OSH each year by just digging in with Warbirds and enjoying the view.
They, the EAA Board, has been clearly absent as Phil Boyer has
ceaselessly pounded the drum for relief from User Fees, while Tom tells
us Marion Blakely is our friend. EAA makes a small fortune on OSH and
rightly so, they decide where their money goes. The EAA is right now
co-sponsoring a committee entering its second secret year, made up of
the FAA and the wolves guarding our hen house. Can anyone inform me of
what the EAA is doing to protect individual kit builders against user
fees and clean the Hen House of corporate Build To Suit operators who
are driving a wedge through Owner Built and Maintained aircraft rules?
The group I affiliate with is getting older and older (faster than the
calendar) and the cost to sustain is getting more and more difficult to
hang onto. It is all about Quick Build and selling more kits regardless
of the individual builder. I love Young Eagles but let's see a marked
increase in pilots certificates issued under 30, joining he active
ranks.
Those with money make the rules.
I continue paying my EAA dues but am not about to concede they are
headed a direction that is in the best interest of the individual
builder. If they were listening, they would post the secret iterations
from within the 51% committee, wouldn't they? You would think the
committee should represent the builders and not the kit manufacturers.
John - nearing VNE and 60.
Do not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:41 AM 8/24/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing
the
>OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There
>seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace
companies
>to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I
still
>find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put
on
>by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we
continue
>to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate
>professional management thinking that has crept in there.
Astute observation. I've dropped my EAA membership and no
longer write for SA for reasons cited in the past. However,
in spite of what ever EAA is or is not, how does one replace
OSH? I attend that event not to promote (or badmouth) EAA
but to meet folks who gather there annually. I've attended
many a regional fly-in that produced zero or a tiny fraction
of return on investment for the $time$ expended compared to
a few days at OSH.
EAA's inarguable value is the opportunity to network with folks of
like interests. We could endlessly debate whether or not the
organization
has lost the vision of the founding fathers. However, I'll suggest
the organization has little or nothing to do with the vision of
those who
make the annual pilgrimage to aviation's Mecca.
Bob . . .
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
As to you Bob, astute observation as well! If it wasn't for OSH I don't
think I would be doing much with the EAA. I will always support the EAA
for their interests into homebuilt aviation but the future for us
homebuilder's looks to be about Money. I agree OSH is a great value for
everyone in aviation. It is a much better value then Sun & Fun for
example. I'm 44 and have 3 experimental airplanes (credit to the EAA of
days gone bye). But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA
(with a lot of improvement needed). The last big thing I can remember
the EAA doing that was important to real EAAers was the auto fuel STC.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:41 AM 8/24/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>On a more serious note, we seriously need EAA's help for representing
the
>OBAM aircraft interests before congress and the administration. There
>seems to be a lot of sentiment among the established aerospace
companies
>to severely limit the scope of the amateur builder's rights. Also, I
still
>find the EAA forums and weekend workshops to be excellent value and put
on
>by really dedicated and capable people. My suggestion is that we
continue
>to support them but work to remove a lot of the mindless corporate
>professional management thinking that has crept in there.
Astute observation. I've dropped my EAA membership and no
longer write for SA for reasons cited in the past. However,
in spite of what ever EAA is or is not, how does one replace
OSH? I attend that event not to promote (or badmouth) EAA
but to meet folks who gather there annually. I've attended
many a regional fly-in that produced zero or a tiny fraction
of return on investment for the $time$ expended compared to
a few days at OSH.
EAA's inarguable value is the opportunity to network with folks of
like interests. We could endlessly debate whether or not the
organization
has lost the vision of the founding fathers. However, I'll suggest
the organization has little or nothing to do with the vision of
those who
make the annual pilgrimage to aviation's Mecca.
Bob . . .
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
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: | KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question |
I'm in the process of rewiring the connectors on a used King KX125 nav/com
and am puzzled by a couple of pins that were previously wired.
Connector P501 pins H and J are labeled (according to pinout I got from the
aeroelectric website):
(H) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE IN and (J) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE OUT
These were previously jumpered together with a wire leading off from the
pair..
Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what these pins
are used for and a guess as to where they could have been connected to (in
it's previous life)??
Thanks,
Dave
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: Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article-capacitor |
life
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 09:16 AM 8/24/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes absolutely but...
>> Several people seemed to have problems shortly after first flight so I
>> personally did power up my strobes every 6 months prior to flying.
>> IIRC aeroflash did recommend that. However I'm sensitive to the issue
>> because I have replaced failed electrolytics in consumer electronics
>> in as little as 3 years from manufacture. Last week it was a little
>> used photocopier. Previous to that was a DVD player. One of my favorite
>> troubleshooting tools has become a little in circuit ESR (equivalent
>> series resistance) tester for capacitors. I think it was a kit from
>> Bob Parker for well under a $100.
>> Ken
>
> . . . but was dormant, long term storage the proximate cause
> of failure? I've replaced a ton of capacitors in my career
> but I can recall no situation where I might have attributed
> the part's demise to long term inactivity followed by an
> indiscriminate power up.
>
> Bob . . .
I rather doubt that this is relevant with today's technology, but back
in the '70's the Crown DC-300 was a very popular pro-grade audio power
amplifier with very large (for the time) electrolytic capacitors used
for brute-force DC supply filtering. If an amp wasn't powered up for
many months (unfortunately, no specific count), it was not unusual for
it to take out its protective fuses upon power-up. It would continue to
do so until the big filter caps were either replaced or 'conditioned' by
plugging the amp's power cord into a variac and bringing up the voltage
slowly over many hours. Supposedly, this had the effect of reforming the
capacitors so that the bridge rectifier was no longer looking at a dead
short.
I might consider this an old hangar tale if I hadn't experienced it myself.
Your tidbit of the day...
Charlie
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: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question |
At 14:54 8/24/2007, you wrote:
>Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what
>these pins are used for and a guess as to where they could have
>been connected to (in it's previous life)??
External RMI perhaps?
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question |
The wiring diagram for the KX125 shows these connections drive an external
indicator such as KI208, KI209.
Kenneth Melvin
N669TJ
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 |
|
Subject: | KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question |
Those pins are used to drive certin CDIs, RMIs or HSIs that accept a
single composite line. Older unites require the older style of direct
analog signaling. With the composite signal you can send the
information over one wire instead of the 6-10 from the analog style.
Both sides have to be able to interpret a composite signal. Hope this
helps!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
& Elaine Lamphere
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: KX125 Wiring / Nav Com Question
<lamphere@vabb.com>
I'm in the process of rewiring the connectors on a used King KX125
nav/com
and am puzzled by a couple of pins that were previously wired.
Connector P501 pins H and J are labeled (according to pinout I got from
the
aeroelectric website):
(H) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE IN and (J) VOR/LOC COMPOSITE OUT
These were previously jumpered together with a wire leading off from the
pair..
Would someone who is familiar with NAV/COMS please explain what these
pins
are used for and a guess as to where they could have been connected to
(in
it's previous life)??
Thanks,
Dave
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
7/29/2007 11:14 PM
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! --
|