---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 11/18/07: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:08:24 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:30 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wherefore loadmeters? From: "Eric M. Jones" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:12 AM PST US From: Kevin Boddicker Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Batteries 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: > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:31:44 AM PST US From: Jeff Page Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:38:35 AM PST US From: Jeff Page 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 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:41:55 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock From: "Matt Prather" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:55:05 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:01:37 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock From: Ron Quillin 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:05:22 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:51:33 AM PST US From: "George Wells" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Noise 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:51:35 AM PST US From: Vernon Smith Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:33:35 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Regulator Options for ALX8521 From: Ron Quillin 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:58 PM PST US From: Tim Lewis Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:43:10 PM PST US From: "Mike" 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 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:28 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:23:37 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:46 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:34:29 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Noise 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:43 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock From: "Matt Prather" Thanks Bob.. That jogged my memory. The real challenge would be to run multiple transceivers through a single antenna.. Matt- > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:26 PM PST US From: "B Tomm" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio interlock 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse 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.