Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:08 AM - Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... (Matt Dralle)
1. 08:15 AM - Re: Wherefore loadmeters? (Eric M. Jones)
2. 08:24 AM - Re: Batteries (Kevin Boddicker)
3. 08:31 AM - Z13/8 over current protection (Jeff Page)
4. 08:38 AM - Radio interlock (Jeff Page)
5. 09:41 AM - Re: Radio interlock (Matt Prather)
6. 09:55 AM - Re: Radio interlock (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 10:01 AM - Re: Radio interlock (Ron Quillin)
8. 10:05 AM - Re: Radio interlock (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 10:51 AM - Radio Noise (George Wells)
10. 10:51 AM - Regulator Options for ALX8521 (Vernon Smith)
11. 11:33 AM - Re: Regulator Options for ALX8521 (Ron Quillin)
12. 06:11 PM - Pullable 60 Amp Breaker (Tim Lewis)
13. 07:43 PM - Re: Radio interlock (Mike)
14. 08:21 PM - Re: Z13/8 over current protection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:23 PM - Re: Radio interlock (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 08:26 PM - Re: Regulator Options for ALX8521 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 08:34 PM - Re: Radio Noise (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:08 PM - Re: Radio interlock (Matt Prather)
19. 11:06 PM - Re: Radio interlock (B Tomm)
Message 0
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: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
List services!! And pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wherefore loadmeters? |
Whyfor Loadmeters? Am I missing something?
I suggest that unless you can find a really great reason for having a loadmeter.
Don't bother.
My airplane will not have one. One the other hand what my airplane does have (sleeping
in a large box full of stuff....) is a Xantrex XBM battery monitor. This
puppy monitors the health of the battery and tells me how long the battery
will power the airplane at the current load and lots more. MUCH better information.
See: http://www.xantrex.com/support/web/id/1006/support1.asp
and http://www.xantrex.com/web/id/96/p/1/pt/7/product.asp
"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of their horrid
history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson. They learned
to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to believe or
what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth must be scrutinized,
it was a great discovery...."
-- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146873#146873
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 |
|
Bob,
Did you get a chance to try the batteries I sent to you? Just curious.
Kevin
On Nov 9, 2007, at 4:42 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 10:48 AM 11/9/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>> You should receive the batteries Monday or Tuesday via USPS.
>> Kevin Boddicker
>> Tri Q 200 N7868B 78.6 hours
>> Luana, IA.
>
> Very good sir. I'll put them on the precision
> "battery killer" right away.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Z13/8 over current protection |
Based on Bob's previous comments, I have decided that Z13/8 is more
suitable for my aircraft.
Should I include an ANL limiter between the battery contactor and the
main power bus ?
Perhaps the fuselink shown between the endurance bus and the alternate
feed switch might provide more encompassing protection located between
the main power bus and the diode ?
Why both a fuselink and a breaker in the feed from the main power bus
to the regulator ?
Thanks !
Jeff Page
Tundra #10
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 |
|
I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
protection while the other transmits.
This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
to confirm this is indeed the case.
True ??
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
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: Radio interlock |
Huh.. Sounds logical, but I recently got a ride in a Pilatus that had a
comm system that allowed talking/receiving on two different frequencies at
the same time. I was talking to an FBO on the unicom while the pilot was
talking to the SLC approach controller. Not sure how they make that work,
but it seemed to be okay. Possibly each receiver was being relayed-out
while the other transmitter was operating and I just didn't notice it.
Matt-
>
> I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
> keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
> one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
> opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
> An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
> transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
> radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
> radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
> so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
> protection while the other transmits.
> This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
> to confirm this is indeed the case.
> True ??
> Jeff Page
> Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
>
>
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
Good Morning Matt,
Every air carrier aircraft I ever flew that was equipped with VHF
Communication radios allowed simultaneous use of both transmitters. My WAG would
be
that it is, and was, a matter of proper spacing of the antennas.
I wonder if an antenna on the top of a metal airplane would interfere with
one on the belly? My Bonanza Has such an arrangement, but I have never
attempted simultaneous use of the radios.
Inquisitive minds want to know!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/18/2007 11:43:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
Huh.. Sounds logical, but I recently got a ride in a Pilatus that had a
comm system that allowed talking/receiving on two different frequencies at
the same time. I was talking to an FBO on the unicom while the pilot was
talking to the SLC approach controller. Not sure how they make that work,
but it seemed to be okay. Possibly each receiver was being relayed-out
while the other transmitter was operating and I just didn't notice it.
Matt-
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: Radio interlock |
At 08:35 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>
>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>keep them farther apart.
Anetnna separation is indeed a factor, but not the only one. Small
A/C inherently have a more difficult time due to the difficulties
encountered in achieving separation. Small composite or fabric makes
it even more difficult due to the lack of metal ground plane
area. OTOH, large metal A/C can take advantage of both separation,
as well as the RF shadow created by the ground referenced skin, and
place antennae on the top and bottom; thus achieving both separation
and shielding. This type of an installation can be quiet effective
for satisfactory, simultaneous com usage.
>The idea was that two pilots could each use
>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
This is a supported function, split, on at least some of the PS audio
panels, with caveats mentioned above perhaps necessary for a
successful outcome.
>An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
>transmit simultaneously.
>The intense field strength produced by one
>radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
>radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
>so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
>protection while the other transmits.
Some radios do have an interlock function to prevent inadvertent
transmissions from one interfering with reception on the other. This
is an option, not a requirement, and not all radios or audio panels
have this 'feature'.
>This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
>to confirm this is indeed the case.
>True ??
>Jeff Page
>Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
Ron Q.
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: Radio interlock |
Just another thought.
My recollection is that we were told to avoid transmitting on the same
frequency that the other radio was receiving. Other than that caution, I recall
no
difficulties involved.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 11/18/2007 11:57:30 A.M. Central Standard Time,
BobsV35B@aol.com writes:
Every air carrier aircraft I ever flew that was equipped with VHF
Communication radios allowed simultaneous use of both transmitters. My WAG would
be
that it is, and was, a matter of proper spacing of the antennas.
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a problem of reported background noise and a weak transmission
when I ask for a radio check which just started about 3 weeks ago. Prior
to that checks were loud and clear.
My engine is a Rotax 912ULS and I am sure it's engine noise that I am
getting.
My reception is fine on all channels I have tried. When I transmit, the
red light on the Microair 760 Radio sort of blinks in time to a beep -
beep in the headset. As I increase RPM on the 912 the beeps increase
until they are almost a solid tone at around 5000 RPM.
I am stumped so any suggestions to solve this you have are welcomed.
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: | Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt alternator I w
ould like to use on my RV project. What are the options for a regulator? VR
166 (generic Ford) with OV protection, B&C, or what? I've gone through the
AeroElectric book and the archives but haven't found a definitive answer, m
aybe the answer is too obvious. Any insights will be helpful.
Thanks,
Vern Smith
_________________________________________________________________
You keep typing, we keep giving. Download Messenger and join the i=92m Init
iative now.
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
At 10:48 11/18/2007, you wrote:
>I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt
>alternator I would like to use on my RV project. What are the
>options for a regulator? VR166 (generic Ford) with OV protection,
>B&C, or what? I've gone through the AeroElectric book and the
>archives but haven't found a definitive answer, maybe the answer is
>too obvious. Any insights will be helpful.
>Thanks,
>
>Vern Smith
Might want to look at some of the offerings here:
http://zeftronics.com/
R15V00RevA is about the same as B&C LR3C-14 for less $$$.
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted down
the part number, and found several sources on the net. The part number
is 413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast Avionics
(part number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the alternator is
putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V = L*di/dt, I
suppose).
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Jeff,
We use more then one VHF transmitter on the airliners all the time. I
have used both VHF transmitters on my Lancair at the same time with only
36" between antennas without a problem.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Page
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
protection while the other transmits.
This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
to confirm this is indeed the case.
True ??
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z13/8 over current protection |
At 11:28 AM 11/18/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Based on Bob's previous comments, I have decided that Z13/8 is more
>suitable for my aircraft.
>
>Should I include an ANL limiter between the battery contactor and the
>main power bus ?
There is not one shown because this pathway has
not been demonstrated to benefit from adding the
protection . . . in fact, the FARS exempt this piece
of wire from getting such protection in TC aircraft.
>Perhaps the fuselink shown between the endurance bus and the alternate
>feed switch might provide more encompassing protection located between
>the main power bus and the diode ?
?? the purpose of this link is to protect the wire
between the battery bus and the switch. Moving it
someplace else would not help that wire . . .
>Why both a fuselink and a breaker in the feed from the main power bus
>to the regulator ?
Because if the main bus is a fuse block -AND- it's remotely mounted
for convenience of installation and maintenance then it's also
remote to the panel where the 5A breaker needs to go. This puts a
longer-than-6-inches hot wire between the fuse block and the
breaker that is part of the crowbar ov protection system and should
be mounted on the panel. This piece of wire is best protected with
a fusible link having a fault-reaction response-time that is
longer than for the breaker. If you used a fuse here, the fuse
would open before the breaker does and negate the convenience
of putting the breaker on the panel. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/spanel.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Switch_Panels/Switches.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
At 11:35 AM 11/18/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
>An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
>transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
>radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
>radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
>so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
>protection while the other transmits.
>This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
>to confirm this is indeed the case.
Not true. Depending on the quality of the receivers
in each radio, the "listening" transceiver may be
overloaded by an adjacent "talking" radio but the further
apart they are in frequency of interest, you may be able
to carry on dual conversations. I've never found it
necessary to "protect" a non-transmitting radio from
one that is transmitting.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Regulator Options for ALX8521 |
At 11:48 AM 11/18/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>I have a Electro-Systems (Prestolite) ALX8521 70 amp 12 volt alternator I
>would like to use on my RV project. What are the options for a regulator?
>VR166 (generic Ford) with OV protection, B&C, or what? I've gone through
>the AeroElectric book and the archives but haven't found a definitive
>answer, maybe the answer is too obvious. Any insights will be helpful.
>Thanks,
Your options are varied and numerous. You can
go the generic route and assemble regulator, ov
protection and lv warning from individual components
or go the Cadillac rout with the B&C LR3 series
controllers with everything in one package. There
is no one choice inherently superior to others
beyond avoiding products with demonstrably poor
service lives (i.e. poor return on investment).
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
At 10:47 AM 11/18/2007 -0800, you wrote:
I have a problem of reported background noise and a weak transmission when
I ask for a radio check which just started about 3 weeks ago. Prior to that
checks were loud and clear.
My engine is a Rotax 912ULS and I am sure it's engine noise that I am getting.
My reception is fine on all channels I have tried. When I transmit, the red
light on the Microair 760 Radio sort of blinks in time to a beep - beep in
the headset. As I increase RPM on the 912 the beeps increase until they are
almost a solid tone at around 5000 RPM.
I am stumped so any suggestions to solve this you have are welcomed.
You need to investigate quality of your
power on the electrical system. With a
good battery in place and a properly
functioning alternator/regulator-rectifier,
there should be no way for the engine's
rpm to reflect upon your transmitter's
operation.
Check your alternator's output voltage under
full and light loads . . . make sure it's
stable. Put a known good "test" battery in
parallel with the ship's battery, or temporarily
replace the ships battery to see if it makes
a difference.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Radio interlock |
Thanks Bob.. That jogged my memory. The real challenge would be to run
multiple transceivers through a single antenna..
Matt-
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 11:35 AM 11/18/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>
>>I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to
>>keep them farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use
>>one of the radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as
>>opposed to merely monitoring the second channel).
>>An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to
>>transmit simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one
>>radio transmitting would damage the receive section of the other
>>radio. Thus there is a lockout connection wired between the radios,
>>so that the non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self
>>protection while the other transmits.
>>This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios
>>to confirm this is indeed the case.
>
> Not true. Depending on the quality of the receivers
> in each radio, the "listening" transceiver may be
> overloaded by an adjacent "talking" radio but the further
> apart they are in frequency of interest, you may be able
> to carry on dual conversations. I've never found it
> necessary to "protect" a non-transmitting radio from
> one that is transmitting.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
If transmitting simultaneously on two radios was dangerous for the radios,
why would the high end audio panels allow this?
Bevan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
Jeff,
We use more then one VHF transmitter on the airliners all the time. I have
used both VHF transmitters on my Lancair at the same time with only 36"
between antennas without a problem.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock
I had interesting plans to install my com antennas on each wing to keep them
farther apart. The idea was that two pilots could each use one of the
radios simultaneously - say to talk with ATC and FSS (as opposed to merely
monitoring the second channel).
An avionics tech I talked with recently said there was no way to transmit
simultaneously. The intense field strength produced by one radio
transmitting would damage the receive section of the other radio. Thus
there is a lockout connection wired between the radios, so that the
non-transmitting radio grounds its antenna as self protection while the
other transmits.
This sounds quite logical and valid, but I have no pinouts for radios to
confirm this is indeed the case.
True ??
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
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! --
|