Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:12 AM - Radio problem (Fergus Kyle)
2. 07:51 AM - Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation ()
3. 08:40 AM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Chuck Jensen)
4. 09:32 AM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Richard Girard)
5. 04:21 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/23/07 (frequent flyer)
6. 04:51 PM - How to check and alternator?? (Matt Reeves)
7. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/23/07 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:31 PM - Re: How to check and alternator?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:43 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 08/25/07 (Lee Logan)
10. 07:43 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 08/25/07 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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 |
|
Travis,
You said:
"
PROBLEM SOLVED!!! The BNC connector at the antenna was gounding out. I made
a whole new cable for good measure, and all the problems are long gone!!!
Thanks
for all the advice.... Travis"
After about 40 years on an Amateur Radio committee to solve
transmission problems, I've concluded that about 90% of the faults lie
inside the coaxial connector somewhere in the antenna system. They are the
The reason is - coax connector fitting is a science AND an art. Many
folk think they have only to jamb things together and the electrons find the
way. Not so.
Cheers, Ferg
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: | Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
8/26/2007
Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't
lobby.....skip......"
I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied
below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does not
prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with
such organizations -- I used to work for one.
There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real lobbying".
Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned
cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------
Time: 06:26:32 AM PST US
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>
>But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
>
>Mike
Not sure where you are going, but I did a
little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
actually do for experimental amateur built
and flown planes.
Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
represents manufactures and small non-
scheduled commercial operators, as well as
individual private operators (allegedly).
EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
will appreciate what they do.
Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
manufactures of certified aircraft and the
aviation business, the needs of experimental
aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
is all we have and they are best suited to
protect our niche of the aviation world.
There are common goals and interest between
AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
times, but not always.
In California, LA area an airport banned
experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
from a huge block of air space. Behind the
scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
They like to take a quite approach and not
embarrass the FAA. They where successful
in both cases.
EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
went around the RV-list. The main complaint
I had in the past was the magazine was
dummied down and they dropped the Caf
Foundation org reports. I was told they
where too technical for most. They have done
better in the last year or so, but if you
want technical info, go to the internet,
which has replaced most topical print media.
"Contact" magazine is more technical for the
real experimenter and tinkerer.
EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
you have an idea for an article write it, they need
content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
EAA does many things to protect experimental
plane rights, building and use of airspace, fighting
made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
FAA inspectors.
If you have a question about AD compliance,
required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
for members.
The EAA tax records are public record. Not
surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
non-profit. Not a surprise.
Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
1/2 million in total compensation a year as
CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
Airventure does bring in lots of money but
also cost a lot of money to put on.
The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
I guess all the color pictures?
Dues are the big revenue stream.
The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
time being paid for by the EAA. That was
resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
makes about $80k or $160k a year?
EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
lot on office space and professional services.
My EAA membership is based on more than the
magazine and Airventure. They do have good
programs like young eagles, and the local
chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
in building and flying experimental aircraft the
EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
better than the FAA. There are some old bones
in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
our incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
Of course we can always write our DC politicians
directly. May be we should start a quasi political
group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
That would be a good sized voter block. The
economy of the kit plane business and all the support
and part companies is substantial.
Cheers George EAA member since 1985
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: | Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Yes, yes. It's not lobbying...the EAA would just be informing and
educating the Legislator's about the issues. Actually, it would be
educating the Legislator's staff. Congressmen don't know
anything...they are lead around by their nose by their staff. The only
other uses of their nose is to sniff out photo opportunities and to
sniffing the prevailing wind of opinion. Fortunately, they are always
positioned upwind of themselves so the odor is tolerable.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:49 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
8/26/2007
Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't
lobby.....skip......"
I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied
below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does
not
prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with
such organizations -- I used to work for one.
There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real
lobbying".
Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned
cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------
Time: 06:26:32 AM PST US
From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>
>But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
>
>Mike
Not sure where you are going, but I did a
little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
actually do for experimental amateur built
and flown planes.
Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
represents manufactures and small non-
scheduled commercial operators, as well as
individual private operators (allegedly).
EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
will appreciate what they do.
Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
manufactures of certified aircraft and the
aviation business, the needs of experimental
aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
is all we have and they are best suited to
protect our niche of the aviation world.
There are common goals and interest between
AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
times, but not always.
In California, LA area an airport banned
experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
from a huge block of air space. Behind the
scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
They like to take a quite approach and not
embarrass the FAA. They where successful
in both cases.
EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
went around the RV-list. The main complaint
I had in the past was the magazine was
dummied down and they dropped the Caf
Foundation org reports. I was told they
where too technical for most. They have done
better in the last year or so, but if you
want technical info, go to the internet,
which has replaced most topical print media.
"Contact" magazine is more technical for the
real experimenter and tinkerer.
EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
you have an idea for an article write it, they need
content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
EAA does many things to protect experimental
plane rights, building and use of airspace, fighting
made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
FAA inspectors.
If you have a question about AD compliance,
required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
for members.
The EAA tax records are public record. Not
surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
non-profit. Not a surprise.
Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
1/2 million in total compensation a year as
CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
Airventure does bring in lots of money but
also cost a lot of money to put on.
The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
I guess all the color pictures?
Dues are the big revenue stream.
The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
time being paid for by the EAA. That was
resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
makes about $80k or $160k a year?
EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
lot on office space and professional services.
My EAA membership is based on more than the
magazine and Airventure. They do have good
programs like young eagles, and the local
chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
in building and flying experimental aircraft the
EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
better than the FAA. There are some old bones
in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
our incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
Of course we can always write our DC politicians
directly. May be we should start a quasi political
group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
That would be a good sized voter block. The
economy of the kit plane business and all the support
and part companies is substantial.
Cheers George EAA member since 1985
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: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Chuck, You forget the politician's use of his/her nose to pack the rectal
cavity of campaign contributors and lobbyists. :-)
Rick
On 8/26/07, Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com> wrote:
>
> cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Yes, yes. It's not lobbying...the EAA would just be informing and
> educating the Legislator's about the issues. Actually, it would be
> educating the Legislator's staff. Congressmen don't know
> anything...they are lead around by their nose by their staff. The only
> other uses of their nose is to sniff out photo opportunities and to
> sniffing the prevailing wind of opinion. Fortunately, they are always
> positioned upwind of themselves so the odor is tolerable.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> bakerocb@cox.net
> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 10:49 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>
>
>
> 8/26/2007
>
> Hello George, You wrote: "EAA is non profit and therefore can't
> lobby.....skip......"
>
> I agree with the content and thrust of your defense of the EAA (copied
> below), but I assure you that being a not for profit organization does
> not
> prohibit that organization from lobbying. Washington DC is infested with
>
> such organizations -- I used to work for one.
>
> There may be some gray areas regarding what one considers "real
> lobbying".
> Real lobbyists are required to register and file reports, but "concerned
>
> cititzens" are not -- semantic games may be played.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
> understand knowledge."
>
> --------------- RESPONDING TO ---------------
>
> Time: 06:26:32 AM PST US
> From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
>
> >From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
> >Subject: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
> >
> >But today's EAA is just a wanabe competitor to AOPA.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Not sure where you are going, but I did a
> little study of AOPA and EAA and what they
> actually do for experimental amateur built
> and flown planes.
>
> Just for clarity AOPA is a lobby group and
> represents manufactures and small non-
> scheduled commercial operators, as well as
> individual private operators (allegedly).
>
> EAA is non profit and therefore can't lobby
> but they do a lot of legal work clarifying
> the FAR's. If you ever had a DAR tell you
> that your RV-7 needs an A&P sign off because
> the engine is from a certified aircraft, you
> will appreciate what they do.
>
> Since the AOPA is aligned heavily with
> manufactures of certified aircraft and the
> aviation business, the needs of experimental
> aircraft is not a priority for them. The EAA
> is all we have and they are best suited to
> protect our niche of the aviation world.
>
> There are common goals and interest between
> AOPA and EAA, who do work together some
> times, but not always.
>
> In California, LA area an airport banned
> experimental aircraft (tried to) and the Las
> Vegas FSDO tried to restrict experimental's
> from a huge block of air space. Behind the
> scene the EAA solved the issue. Unlike the
> AOPA the EAA did not blow their own horn.
> They like to take a quite approach and not
> embarrass the FAA. They where successful
> in both cases.
>
> EAA is not immune of criticism. This topic
> went around the RV-list. The main complaint
> I had in the past was the magazine was
> dummied down and they dropped the Caf
> Foundation org reports. I was told they
> where too technical for most. They have done
> better in the last year or so, but if you
> want technical info, go to the internet,
> which has replaced most topical print media.
> "Contact" magazine is more technical for the
> real experimenter and tinkerer.
>
> EAA's SA magazine does need contributors. If
> you have an idea for an article write it, they need
> content. Many past articles where "fluff" and seemed
> more like advertisement propaganda than fact.
>
>
> EAA does many things to protect experimental
> plane rights, building and use of airspace, fighting
> made up interpretations of the FAR's by DAR's and
> FAA inspectors.
>
> If you have a question about AD compliance,
> required equip or TSO'ed requirements for
> experimental aircraft, they have brief on it
> for members.
>
> The EAA tax records are public record. Not
> surprising on about $30 mil revenue,
> expenses where almost exactly $30 mil, thus
> non-profit. Not a surprise.
>
> Tom Poberezny makes $418,000, about
> 1/2 million in total compensation a year as
> CEO of the EAA. That seems in-line with CEO
> salaries I suppose, for a $30 organization..
>
> Airventure does bring in lots of money but
> also cost a lot of money to put on.
> The magazine is a huge expense on the budget.
> I guess all the color pictures?
> Dues are the big revenue stream.
>
> The P-51 thing is very old news. It was about his
> dad, Paul, EAA founder and former CEO. There
> was some blow-up I recall about his P-51
> time being paid for by the EAA. That was
> resolved and I recall Paul retired soon
> thereafter. Paul's still on the payroll and
> makes about $80k or $160k a year?
>
> EAA's tax return looks normal to me; the board
> of directors are all volunteers. They spend a
> lot on office space and professional services.
>
> My EAA membership is based on more than the
> magazine and Airventure. They do have good
> programs like young eagles, and the local
> chapters are also a nice thing. If you are active
> in building and flying experimental aircraft the
> EAA is valuable. I have talked to EAA legal
> a few times and they know their stuff, surprisingly
> better than the FAA. There are some old bones
> in the FAA closet that they try to pass as facts.
>
>
> Of all organizations, EAA does the most to protect
> our incredible freedom to build and fly planes we
> make with our own hands. Forces constantly are
> trying to re-write and restrict those freedoms. EAA
> is doing the most of us specifically, IMHO.
>
>
> To be fair AOPA is the only real lobby group on
> capital hill that is representing our "special interest".
> Of course we can always write our DC politicians
> directly. May be we should start a quasi political
> group of all experimental aircraft builders/ owners.
> That would be a good sized voter block. The
> economy of the kit plane business and all the support
> and part companies is substantial.
>
>
> Cheers George EAA member since 1985
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/23/07 |
Hey, I can't find any info about shortening the leads on the EGT and CHT. Is it
ok and do I have to keep them all the same length? Thanks in advance. Jack
AeroElectric-List Digest Server <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> wrote: *
=================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=================================================
Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
such as Notepad or with a web browser.
HTML Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 07-08-23&Archive=AeroElectric
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 07-08-23&Archive=AeroElectric
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Thu 08/23/07: 10
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:00 AM - Re: Shower of Sparks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:03 AM - Shower of Sparks ()
3. 07:08 AM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation ()
4. 07:29 AM - E-Mag P-Mag (Michael T. Ice)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Ernest Christley)
6. 10:35 AM - Re: Shower of Sparks (Richard Tasker)
7. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Richard Girard)
8. 11:35 AM - Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas (rtitsworth)
9. 01:00 PM - Re: Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 05:57 PM - Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Michel Creek)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Time: 06:00:17 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
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 2 _____________________________________
Time: 06:03:24 AM PST US
From:
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
8/23/2007
Hello Tim, Will you permit a non Bob to answer?
Unison originaly built the SlickSTART P/N SS1001 for only Slick magnetos. In
1998 they added SlickSTART P/N SS1002 for use with TCM/Bendix magnetos.
So which version of the SlickSTART Magneto Start Booster (solid state
ignition starting vibrator) you use will depend upon which brand of magnetos
you use.
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.
There are some fairly recent postings in the aeroelectric archives that may
be of value or interest to someone considering SlickSTART. I suggest that
you search for SoS Vibrator Recommendations, or Slick Start. You can also
pick out the pertinent items if you search for bakerocb.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: It would be more precise if we used the generic term "starting vibrator"
when writing in general about this subject and reserve "Shower of Sparks"
for referring specifically to the TCM/Bendix mechanical vibrator and
"SlickSTART" for referring specifically to the Unison solid state starting
vibrator.
---------------- RESPONDING TO ----------------------------------------
Time: 10:41:48 AM PST US
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
From:
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 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:08:48 AM PST US
From:
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.
They do need contributors, you and me, to write articles. To
be fair, putting out a magazine to a bunch of eccentric hard-
core crazies like us, who actually build planes we fly, can't
satisfy everyone. (Note: this tongue in-cheek sarcasm.)
Seriously EAA has a lot of folks with wide interest.
The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
should be more than just the magazine.
As far as membership, the magazine is the main benefit
people see. I can see some dropping because they don't
read the magazine. However ALL print media is having
problems, INTERNET and FREE VAST CONTENT.
-Internet has long out paced the detailed content of any
monthly general EAA magazine could ever hope to match by
a huge factor.
-Gas prices are high and people getting out flying
The EAA does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on behalf of
the experimental aircraft community. You really don't think
AOPA will push for kit planes, when they lobby
and represent certified manufactures, corporate and non-
scheduled commercial operators. Sure there's common
ground, but AOPA is not really orientated to our niche of GA.
EAA is all we have. They do a lot and they don't blow their
horn like AOPA. Not an AOPA put down, AOPA has its place
and we need more power on Capital hill for sure. Bad
magazine or not I'll stay a EAA member.
I have 20 years of EAA articles ripped from issues over the
years, lots of good stuff. They should print monthly
electrical, structure and general build/maintenance articles,
not one or five every year, total. Again they need continent, but
the Tony B. days are long gone. I suspect they don't want to
pay for content. From their Tax return the Mag cost them a lot.
As far as the editor firing, an expert pilot or plane builder
might know planes but not make a great editor either. Sure
the editor should have a clue. It's like many businesses
where a good technical guy gets promoted to
management, a line Captain becomes Chief
pilot, once competent technical guys, now are mediocre
managers and bureaucrats. Much a do about nothing.
George RV-7
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
Time: 07:29:39 AM PST US
From: "Michael T. Ice"
Subject: AeroElectric-List: E-Mag P-Mag
Hello Bob,
I hope you enjoyed your trip to Alaska as much as we enjoyed having you here.
Have you had any time to review the recent postings concerning the E-Mag P-Mag
wiring issues?
The folks at Emagair have indicated their willingness to talk with you.
Blue Skies,
Mike Ice
________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________
Time: 08:24:13 AM PST US
From: Ernest Christley
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
> that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
> guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
> every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
> wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
> should be more than just the magazine.
>
I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up. I did
claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up. My
facts may be very much in error. Time will tell.
I am a rotary guy. The one article they publish concerning alternative
engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and
broad-based silliness. They search out one commercial entity that has
done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players
that may actually have a larger impact. That's what makes that crowd
unhappy. Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on
electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise
about having to get replacement components from the original batch used
to manufacture a device. We are unhappy that the magazine that is
supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of nonsense.
You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see." Everyone I've
ever talked to agrees on this. Wouldn't it follow that the directors of
the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit
was actually a benefit? If they need articles, why do they not request
them, right there in the magazine? How about a few lines of text to
refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to
submit an article? If they're doing something behind the scenes, then
use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of
printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is
to big for any of the planes we're building. (Do any of us really care
that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?) I can't believe
the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves
me with only one explanation. They don't care. In the same way that
TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit
for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.
Well, that's fine. They don't have to care about my sensibilities. If
they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then
they need to tell me about it. Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten
wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home. The EAA is not a
monopoly and never will be "all we have". It's just what we've settled for.
________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________
Time: 10:35:11 AM PST US
From: Richard Tasker
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
Nothing to do with shower of sparks, but you should be aware that the
"gigaflop-fast super-processors" now include over one "billion"
transistors, and fast approaching tens of billions!
Dick
Do not archive
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> chunks of multi-legged plastic offering functionality from
> "simple" amplifiers (20 transistors!) to gigaflop-fast
> super-processors (tens of thousands of transistors).
________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________
Time: 10:51:52 AM PST US
From: "Richard Girard"
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
Ernest, These things happen and I am sympathetic. I, too, have little use
for "Martha Stewart Flying". I always complain each time I re-up that
although the form as many reasons for "Why are you joining/renewing?", not
one of them is "I am building an airplane".
On the other hand, My EAA membership has paid for itself many times over
whether I am renting a car from Hertz or the $1000 of discounts I've gotten
from the various schools I've attended over the last year.
Every once and a while, they do print an informative article. They are few
and far between, but it does happen.
As far as their coverage of alternative engines, I'll paraphrase William
Randolph Hearst, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one" as
"the accuracy of any article in any publication belongs to the man who wrote
it."
Write that article and I, for one, will be happy to read it.
Rick
On 8/23/07, Ernest Christley wrote:
>
> echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
> > that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
> > guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
> > every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
> > wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
> > should be more than just the magazine.
> >
> I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up. I did
> claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up. My
> facts may be very much in error. Time will tell.
>
> I am a rotary guy. The one article they publish concerning alternative
> engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and
> broad-based silliness. They search out one commercial entity that has
> done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players
> that may actually have a larger impact. That's what makes that crowd
> unhappy. Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on
> electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise
> about having to get replacement components from the original batch used
> to manufacture a device. We are unhappy that the magazine that is
> supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of
> nonsense.
>
> You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see." Everyone I've
> ever talked to agrees on this. Wouldn't it follow that the directors of
> the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit
> was actually a benefit? If they need articles, why do they not request
> them, right there in the magazine? How about a few lines of text to
> refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to
> submit an article? If they're doing something behind the scenes, then
> use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of
> printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is
> to big for any of the planes we're building. (Do any of us really care
> that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?) I can't believe
> the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves
> me with only one explanation. They don't care. In the same way that
> TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit
> for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.
>
> Well, that's fine. They don't have to care about my sensibilities. If
> they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then
> they need to tell me about it. Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten
> wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home. The EAA is not a
> monopoly and never will be "all we have". It's just what we've settled
> for.
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________
Time: 11:35:27 AM PST US
From: "rtitsworth"
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas
Bob,
In Ch13 of the Connection you describe how to make a =BC wave Comm
antenna
with 4-10 1=94 copper strips as the ground plane. You also briefly
describe a
center =93commoning disk=94.
Question:
How big can/should the center communing disk be?
What happens if the center disk is ~11=94 radius (~1/2 the size of the
strips)?
Does this tend to mess-up the resonant length/properties of the strips?
If said antenna is being placed on the belly of a composite aircraft
with
various metal items in direct proximity overhead (flap motor, aux fuel
pump,
flap mechanism, avionics bay, etc), is there anything that should be
done to
help =93shield=94 the antenna (and/or ground plane strips) from the
effects of
the metal items overhead?
Rick
________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________
Time: 01:00:15 PM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas
At 02:32 PM 8/23/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>
>In Ch13 of the Connection you describe how to make a wave Comm antenna
>with 4-10 1 copper strips as the ground plane. You also briefly describe
>a center commoning disk .
>
>
>Question:
>
>How big can/should the center communing disk be?
What ever is convenient. A commoning disk with a
radius equal to height of antenna, then you have
a contiguous, "ideal" ground plane. If you make
it too small, it serves no purpose as a doubler.
Someplace between ideal and too small, it provides
a convenient point to tie off the radials -AND-
=== message truncated ==
---------------------------------
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: | How to check and alternator?? |
I have a 35 amp alternator and a 12 volt concorde battery and a Linear Voltage
Regulator. Lycoming 160hp
I have noticed the voltage reads just under 14 volts with the engine running.
I also noticed the ammeter stays at zero unless I turn on something such as the
nav lights or strobe lights. Then it goes to the negative about 1/16 of an
inch on a +40/-40 amp guage. This remains the same even at high throttle settings.
No change at low or high power settings.
I have a shunt. I checked all the wiring an it is correct from Bingelis' book
so I am wondering if my alternator is bad.
What is the best way to check an alternator on an airplane? Can't really take
it to my neighborhood Advance AutoParts. They might wonder what the big fan
is for.
Thanks!!
---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 08/23/07 |
At 04:18 PM 8/26/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Hey, I can't find any info about shortening the leads on the EGT and CHT.
>Is it ok and do I have to keep them all the same length? Thanks in
>advance. Jack
Modern thermocouple measurement systems have high-impedance instrument
inputs and are immune to variability in thermocouple length. The
self powered instruments of WWII era used (1) either fixed length
thermocouples
of a specific type of wire or included a compensating resistor in the system
for calibrating an instrument to a thermocouple.
You may adjust the length of the leads as you see fit as long as you
observe the "splicing rules" outlined in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/excerpt.pdf
When you "reply" to a digest posting it would be a good idea
to cut away all the text that is not pertinent to your
topic.
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: How to check and alternator?? |
At 04:51 PM 8/26/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a 35 amp alternator and a 12 volt concorde battery and a Linear
>Voltage Regulator. Lycoming 160hp
>
>I have noticed the voltage reads just under 14 volts with the engine running.
>
>I also noticed the ammeter stays at zero unless I turn on something such
>as the nav lights or strobe lights. Then it goes to the negative about
>1/16 of an inch on a +40/-40 amp guage. This remains the same even at
>high throttle settings. No change at low or high power settings.
>
>I have a shunt. I checked all the wiring an it is correct from Bingelis'
>book so I am wondering if my alternator is bad.
>
>What is the best way to check an alternator on an airplane? Can't really
>take it to my neighborhood Advance AutoParts. They might wonder what the
>big fan is for.
Sounds like your alterantor is working. You can't have a bus votlage
greater than about 12.8 if the alternator is not picking up ship's loads.
Where is your ammeter in the system? If you have a -0+ reading ammeter,
then it suggests a battery ammeter which is almost useless as a
diagnostic tool.
Suggest that you convert the ammeter to a +only alternator load
meter. Then you'll see the alternator functioning as expected . . .
picking up loads as they are added to the 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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 08/25/07 |
Why did you say that Oshkosh was a much better value than Sun n Fun? Not
argueing, just wondering...
Lee...
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 08/25/07 |
At 09:42 PM 8/26/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Why did you say that Oshkosh was a much better value than Sun n Fun? Not
>argueing, just wondering...
>
>Lee...
I can drive to OSH in one day. I have principals who subsidize
my attendance. The volume of networking contacts and depth of
access to new technologies is better. I sell 30-40 books at OSH.
It takes two days to drive to Florida for 1/10th the exposure and
access. I think I sold 5 books the first and only time I was there.
The return on investment for $time$ spent at OSH is, for me at least,
the hands-down winner.
Bob . . .
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! --
|