AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sun 08/26/07


Total Messages Posted: 10



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
    Time: 06:12:24 AM PST US
    From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
    Subject: Radio problem
    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
    Time: 07:51:57 AM PST US
    From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 08:40:25 AM PST US
    Subject: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation
    From: "Chuck Jensen" <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 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
    Time: 09:32:13 AM PST US
    From: "Richard Girard" <jindoguy@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 04:21:49 PM PST US
    From: frequent flyer <jdhcv@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 04:51:53 PM PST US
    From: Matt Reeves <mattreeves@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 06:30:11 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 06:31:51 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 06:43:31 PM PST US
    From: "Lee Logan" <leeloganster@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 07:43:34 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    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

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --