Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:25 AM - Comments (Matt Dralle)
1. 02:38 AM - Re: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 02:56 AM - Re: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries (Greg Young)
3. 05:29 AM - Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise (Ken)
4. 05:40 AM - Re: New consumer product battery (Bill Boyd)
5. 05:53 AM - Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise (n801bh@netzero.com)
6. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries (rd2@evenlink.com)
7. 07:22 AM - Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests (Kevin Boddicker)
8. 07:31 AM - Re: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 09:01 AM - Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:38 AM - Re: New consumer product battery (Eric M. Jones)
11. 09:45 AM - Re: Fatwire Super-2-CCA (Eric M. Jones)
12. 09:56 AM - Led lighting (Eric M. Jones)
13. 10:28 AM - Re: Re: New consumer product battery (Ken)
14. 03:36 PM - Re: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries (rd2@evenlink.com)
15. 05:29 PM - Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Eric Newton)
16. 05:53 PM - Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
17. 06:29 PM - Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (Michel Creek)
18. 06:34 PM - Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (BobsV35B@aol.com)
19. 07:10 PM - Re: New consumer product battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:18 PM - Re: New consumer product battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 08:28 PM - Re: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection (S. Ramirez)
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 |
|
Dear Listers,
Below are a few more of the nice comments Listers have been making along with their
Contributions in support of the Lists this year. Please make your Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services.
Remember, there is _no advertising budget_ to keep these Lists funded. It is
solely through your generosity that they continue.
Please make a Contribution:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator
------------------------------What Listers Are Saying------------------------------
The list has been invaluable in the building of my Zenith CH701.
George R
Thanks for keeping the lists a non-commercial venue for us
to gather and share knowledge.
Neal G
What a fantastic resource!
Ralph C
It's a pretty cheep troubleshooting tool with and unlimited
resource of personal knowledge.
Bruce G
A full house of Info & Ideas...
Ellery B
I really enjoy the Piet list.
Steven D
The Lists are an indispensable resource for those of us
building OBAM aircraft.
Bret S
..a great service.
Frank D
..all in all it is a great resource if you ask specific
questions.
Richard S
Your list has really helped me in my first build.
Michael W
Always a pleasure to support this great resource...
Richard W
I enjoy the lists very much, they are very beneficial.
Bob L
Great place to chat with other builders and Flyers.
Ellery B
Your lists are a great service to builders and owners!
Richard D
A real good place for someone that is starting to get
interested into flying without investing any money at
first.
Ellery B
The list has been an great help to my building process.
David B
I'm close to finishing my Zenith 601 thanks to you and
the Zenith List.
Jeff D
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: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
Good Morning OC,
I am certain I have missed something on this thread, but isn't the reference
to a 337 rather ambiguous?
If you are going to install something via an STC, you do need to file a 337
showing that they STC'd item was installed. The STC IS the required approved
data.
If you ask for a "local" approval, the local FED MAY sign Block Three and
that becomes the approved data.
In either case, a 337 IS required to be filed.
Or so it seems to me. What is your interpretation?
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 11/23/2007 10:23:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
Note that it says "FAA form 337" OR "FAA approved STC". This means to me
that one or the other is required, but not both.
Since Wilco has STC SA00638WI for all Raytheon / Beech models 24 (My friend
has a C24R)
I don't see why an FAA Form 337 would be required. Can you please provide a
specific reference to the contrary?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
The 337 is the vehicle to document major mods and alterations, which an STC
is by definition. The STC constitutes the approved data for the mod so a 337
referencing one is pretty much a formality. The IA can sign it off without
getting prior FAA approval. Getting that approval on a non-STC 337 can be a
big deal depending on your FSDO but with an STC it is a non event. There's
no reason to fear a 337 for an STC.
Regards,
Greg Young
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of bakerocb@cox.net
> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 10:21 PM
> To: scott klemptner; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries
>
>
> 11/23/2007
>
> Hello Scott, Thank you for your input copied below, but I am
> not entirely convinced. If you will go to this web page:
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/gillbatt.php
>
> you will find this wording: "Installations not shown on
> D.O.T. FAA/PMA listings will require field approval using FAA
> Form 337 or FAA approved STC."
>
> Note that it says "FAA form 337" OR "FAA approved STC". This
> means to me that one or the other is required, but not both.
>
> Since Wilco has STC SA00638WI for all Raytheon / Beech models
> 24 (My friend has a C24R) I don't see why an FAA Form 337
> would be required. Can you please provide a specific
> reference to the contrary?
>
> See the page "Wilco held STCs" at this web site.
>
> http://www.wilcoaircraftparts.com/LineCard.htm#
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "scott klemptner" <bmwr606@yahoo.com>
> To: <bakerocb@cox.net>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:01 PM
> Subject: Wilco STC for concorde batteries
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > To be legal in a certified airplane, your friend will need
> the STC from
> > Wilco and a form 337 filed with the FAA.
> >
> > An IA must fill out the 337
> >
> > WIlcom sells the batteries at a fair price ( in my experience) and
> > includes the STC for free
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > bmwr606@yahoo.com (scottk)
> > Y! IM bmwr606
> > http://360.yahoo.com/bmwr606
>
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: | Re: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
FWIW... Unless it has signal processing, I'd expect the same noise on
the radio as on the intercom though once the squelch opens. Presumably
you've tried rotating the Lightspeed mic? My lightspeed mic has a
tendancy to rotate and if left too long, the noise cancelling goes to
pot and you can even find yourself speaking into the backside of the mic
which is very noisy. Next I'd be tempted to reduce the mic gain a bit
if you have an adjustment screw on the mic as per my 15XL. As a wild
guess, since many intercoms use a mechanical relay to switch between
intercom and radio it might even be possible that the relay contacts are
noisy (dirty). If that were the case, on my particular intercom it would
only affect the pilot or the passenger, not both as they each have a
different relay.
The intercom that I use (different manuafacturer) does have signal
processing for the intercom but not the radio. It transmits whatever
background ambient noise that the mic does not cancel but the signal
processing eliminates that noise when using the intercom.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 10:26 PM 11/23/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>
>> It is very loud airplane noise, as if the mics are picking up cabin
>> sounds, I am going to crawl under the panel this afternoon and check
>> connections... Thanks for responding..
>
>
> As I recall, PS engineering's products feature an
> automatic squelch system that differentiates between
> ambient noise and human speech. Most older intercoms
> have a pilot adjustable squelch that needs resetting
> between say ground ops and cruising flight.
>
> If you're hearing "cabin noise" and your intercom
> doesn't have a manual noise squelch adjustment, then
> it may be that this portion of the intercom's
> circuitry has failed.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
I wonder about ease of secure connection to the battery's terminals in
hobby applications... have you worked something out, Bob?
-Bill B
On 11/23/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> Doing some house maintenance this weekend and during
> a trip to Home Depot for some parts and supplies, I
> was "sucked in" by a Black and Decker "VPX Power" display
> at the checkout stand.
>
> http://www.vpxsystem.com/
>
> The battery for this new line of cordless power tools
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_Battery_1.jpg
>
> is LiIon and the battery on display was advertised at 7 volts.
>
> A very compact critter . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Black_and_Decker/VPX_Charger_F1.jpg
>
> but no place on the packaging (or later on the 'net)
> was I able to discover the capacity of this device.
> Sooooo . . . keeping Lord Kelvin's admonition about
> numbers in mind, I purchased a battery/charger
> combination to do some testing.
>
> I've got the battery on charge right now. Will cap-test
> it later today and report the results. This product
> (or a pair of them) might offer some interesting
> solutions to brown-out protection and/or small
> back-up batteries. Watch this space.
>
> In the mean time, I'll get back to making little
> piles of sawdust and drill chips.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
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: Ps Engineering intercom noise |
First of all I want to say a BIG thanks to all who have responded. Here'
s the scenerio. I took the beast up for a pre test flight. As I was gett
ing ready I plugged in the pilot side headphones. The speaker plug went
in with no problem, as I plugged in the smaller mic plug I got alot of s
tatic. Wiggled it and nothing seems to change ,,still scatchy noise. Fle
w the plane and noise issue was present. Rolled it back into its hangar,
crawled under the panel, removed the connector in the back of the inter
com, looked very carefully at the pins and sockets. They all looked good
so I Plugged it back in. Did the pilot side replug in and this time no
scratchy noise, flew it and the intercom worked perfectly. Landed and ro
lled it back in, crawled back under the panel,let me add at this time I
can tell I am getting old because once under there I forgot what all cou
ld start hurting, <G>. Removed the plug again, applied some contact clea
ner and some dielectric grease with a small Qtip. Plugged it back togeth
er and flew the heck out of it, positiveG's negativeG's, a good "firm" l
anding and so far, knock on wood it is back to its old great working con
dition. My gut feeling is it was a intermitant ground issue... Thanks ag
ain to all who chime in. This experimental community and Bob and others
are the BEST . !!!!!!! I am not going to do _ _ _ archive this becaus
e this might happen to someone else and they can search this topic.
Safe flyin guys
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
olls.bob@cox.net>
At 10:26 PM 11/23/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>It is very loud airplane noise, as if the mics are picking up cabin
>sounds, I am going to crawl under the panel this afternoon and check
>connections... Thanks for responding..
As I recall, PS engineering's products feature an
automatic squelch system that differentiates between
ambient noise and human speech. Most older intercoms
have a pilot adjustable squelch that needs resetting
between say ground ops and cruising flight.
If you're hearing "cabin noise" and your intercom
doesn't have a manual noise squelch adjustment, then
it may be that this portion of the intercom's
circuitry has failed.
Bob . . .
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
========================
===========
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
OC,
I'll second the postings of Old Bob and Greg below on the subject 337-STC.
To summarize:
- 337 is always required when there is a "major" mod/alteration (whatever
the definition of major is). The differences are who needs to sign the 337
in which case.
- When there is an STC AND the aircraft is on the AML (Approved Model List)
of the STC, the IA signs the 337 (one copy goes to the FAA, one copy to the
POH or aircraft manual). No need for an additional FAA approval, the
alteration has already been "pre-approved" by the STC and AML. Practically
a nonevent.
- When there is no STC or the aircraft is not on the AML (even if there is
an STC for another model), a "field approval" is needed - the FAA (FSDO)
must sign the 337.
The above are the rules. Here is the leeway: when a field approval is
needed (see preceding paragraph), the differences lie in the subjective
evaluation by local FSDOs of which items constitute acceptable "major
alterations". Approvals become a bigger deal in the following order: STC
present, but aircraft is not on the AML; no STC, but item is not viewed as
such a "major alteration"; no STC and item is viewed as "too major
alteration" (almost impossible to get field approval).
Any other readings or experiences, please advise.
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 05:33 AM
11/24/2007 EST)
________________________________________________________________
Good Morning OC,
I am certain I have missed something on this thread, but isn't the
reference to a 337 rather ambiguous?
If you are going to install something via an STC, you do need to file a 337
showing that they STC'd item was installed. The STC IS the required
approved data.
If you ask for a "local" approval, the local FED MAY sign Block Three and
that becomes the approved data.
In either case, a 337 IS required to be filed.
Or so it seems to me. What is your interpretation?
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 11/23/2007 10:23:24 P.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb@cox.net writes:
Note that it says "FAA form 337" OR "FAA approved STC". This means to me
that one or the other is required, but not both.
Since Wilco has STC SA00638WI for all Raytheon / Beech models 24 (My friend
has a C24R)
I don't see why an FAA Form 337 would be required. Can you please provide a
specific reference to the contrary?
The 337 is the vehicle to document major mods and alterations, which an STC
is by definition. The STC constitutes the approved data for the mod so a 337
referencing one is pretty much a formality. The IA can sign it off without
getting prior FAA approval. Getting that approval on a non-STC 337 can be a
big deal depending on your FSDO but with an STC it is a non event. There's
no reason to fear a 337 for an STC.
Regards,
Greg Young
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: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
Thanks Bob.
At 12=A2 per cell that isn't bad. Using your method of changing cells
before each flight, and keeping the "used" cells for other toys, the
cost per flight is 48=A2. Can't even get a cup of coffee from Mac D's
for that.
Kevin Boddicker
Tri Q 200 N7868B 79.4 hours
Luana, IA.
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:26 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> The tests I promised on the Batteries.com AA
> cells is done. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Bat_dot_Com_AA_Tests.jpg
>
> One of the cells was markedly 'short' compared to
> the other one. Even this cell contained 91% of the
> average energy for all cells tested. The 'hot' cell
> was right in the ball park with some el-cheeso Harbor
> Freight cells I looked at several months ago.
>
> Typically, these "low cost" cells can be had for
> 20 to 25-cents per cell. The cost per watt-hour
> for all devices tested to date have been relatively
> attractive.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
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: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
Good Morning Rumen,
Just a bit of expansion if I may.
The submitting IA will always have to sign that he/she has checked the
installation for conformity.
If he/she also does the installation, they would sign as the certificated
installing agency.
The only time the FAA signs anything is if they sign Block Three. In that
case, the inspector who signs that Block is taking the responsibly as to the
suitability of the installation and that becomes the "approved data".
The installing mechanic or repairman will still sign as the installing
agency and the submitting IA signs for the conformity of the installation to the
approved data whether it is from the Block Three approval of the data submitted
or from the STC.
Does that agree with your interpretation?
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 11/24/2007 9:06:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2@evenlink.com writes:
- 337 is always required when there is a "major" mod/alteration (whatever
the definition of major is). The differences are who needs to sign the 337
in which case.
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Batteries.com AA Alkaline Cell Tests |
At 09:26 AM 11/24/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob.
>At 12 per cell that isn't bad. Using your method of changing cells before
>each flight, and keeping the "used" cells for other toys, the cost per
>flight is 48. Can't even get a cup of coffee from Mac D's for that.
You got it my friend. Get some "come clean" pricing stickers
from an office supply (they'll come in a box of hundreds but
they're also handy at a garage sale). Put a sticker on each
new cell as you toss it into the flight bag. Before installing
a stickered cell in your hand-held, pull the sticker off.
This makes it easy to separate the fresh cells from used ones
when you are cleaning all the candy wrappers, peanut shells and
old newspapers out of the cabin when you get home from the
trip!
But the most important revelation of this simple experiment
is that MOST of what we pay for when purchasing a so-called
premium cell has little to do with what's inside the cell.
I worked a task for Electro-Mech many moons ago where we
helped a gentleman realize an idea for a product . . . a
device that with the push of a button, slides a cab-over
camper out of a truck and puts it gently on the ground. A
reverse of this action would pick it up, put it back on
the truck and hold it securely in place.
We joined our customer at the Wichita Home, Boat and Travel
show the following spring and did indeed sell a dozen of these
systems for about $400 as I recall. It was this experiment
that illuminated the task before our newly minted entrepreneur.
One could easily project sales of this product in the thousands
of systems per year, each one possibly netting the entrepreneur
$100 each. However, to accomplish that goal he would need to
make its features and availability known to hundreds of
thousands of potential buyers with the notion that he might
capture 1% of those individuals as customers. The profits from
sales at that show did not offset the costs of having the
booth.
A few queries to companies who offered to provide the
necessary promotion revealed that the campaign
would cost perhaps $1,000,000 per year in advertising.
Hmmm . . . that's a burden of $500 each of 2,000 units
sold which would boost the purchase price to $900. Now,
what's the potential market for this product at $900 a
copy? It was perceived "not much" when the average cab-over
camper was selling for $2,500 new.
Last time I was in the attic at Electro-Mech, there were
boxes full of sprockets, shafts, chains, gears and gearboxes
left over from the initial production run of the great
idea that did not have benefit of the Internet for low
cost, mass marketing. Another "plus" would have been access
to a low cost manufacturing facility (Pacific rim?) instead
of that $high$ aerospace engineering and manufacturing
company.
And so it is with AA alkaline cells. If you want to
be the big dog in the hunt for consumers of such
products, you need to advertise to a sufficient number
of folk in sufficiently persuasive words to accomplish
retail sales that exceed your costs of production and
marketing (i.e. profit). Obviously, the glittzy brands
you see pushed on TV have crafted such a recipe for
success or they would not continue to do it. The
unfortunate side of this discovery is that what's being
touted as the best-of-the-best is still a Big Mac in
a fancy wrapper. The fortunate side is that product
like this keeps lots of nice folks employed running
television stations and cable systems and other folks
employed selling and crafting ads. The jury is still out
on folks who craft the programming that goes between
the ads. My perceived worth for most of THAT stuff
is way under the value of my $time$ that it takes to
watch it. The really cool lesson to be learned here
is more about economics than choosing the AA cell
with the right goo inside.
So . . . when you pass that peg board display in the store
festooned with blister packs of shiny, well advertised
cells you can pass them by with the comfortable knowledge
and understanding that you know how to light that
flashlight, spin that CD, or track that satellite for
a whole lot less.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
Sounds great.
I also want to recommend watching Firefly Energy:
http://www.fireflyenergy.com/
In Summer 2008 (6 months!) they plan to sell Oasis(tm) batteries.
Although I stand guilty of believing that this-or-that battery technology was the
Next Big Thing....Caterpillar is behind this deal, and it seems to be real.
Cool....I hope.
"Hey, it ain't rocket surgery!"
--anonymous
--------
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=148259#148259
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: Fatwire Super-2-CCA |
I finally figured out that SteinAir sells a lot of wire and I would do better having
them sell Perihelion Design Super-2-CCA Fatwire.
I still sell the Super-4-CCA for now, but that will be transfered when I run out.
So contact Stein Bruch at SteinAir, Inc. Website www.SteinAir.com
--------
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=148261#148261
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 |
|
I get a fabulous download from Global Sources with mostly Chinese leds. My experience
is that buying them is easy to do and reliable. Quantities requirements
vary...often you can buy a few, often you can get a free sample (if you pay for
shipping), often you need to start a business.
There are MANY assemblies quite suitable for landing lights and general illumination.
Most big LEDs in cool white are now about 100 lumens per watt. I don't
have any plans to sell landing lights right now, so for those who want to explore
this subject, or buy now, please email me and I will forward you the Global
Spec info. (You can register for free yourself if you want).
--------
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=148263#148263
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
Hopefully their graphite foam is more successful than the lead thin film
efforts of a few years ago.
65% of capacity at -20*C may be impressive but - thankfully my
batteries are not quite "inert" at that temperature as per their
brochure claims. Sluggish for sure but many batteries start engines
colder than that.
do not archive
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>Sounds great.
>
>I also want to recommend watching Firefly Energy:
>
>http://www.fireflyenergy.com/
>
>In Summer 2008 (6 months!) they plan to sell Oasis(tm) batteries.
>
>Although I stand guilty of believing that this-or-that battery technology was
the Next Big Thing....Caterpillar is behind this deal, and it seems to be real.
>
>Cool....I hope.
>
>"Hey, it ain't rocket surgery!"
>--anonymous
>
>--------
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge, MA 01550
>(508) 764-2072
>emjones@charter.net
>
>
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: Wilco STC for concorde batteries |
While I am not sufficiently well-versed with Block 3, it sounds logical.
Thanks for the expansion, (Old) Bob.
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 10:26 AM
11/24/2007 EST)
________________________________________________________________
Good Morning Rumen,
Just a bit of expansion if I may.
The submitting IA will always have to sign that he/she has checked the
installation for conformity.
If he/she also does the installation, they would sign as the certificated
installing agency.
The only time the FAA signs anything is if they sign Block Three. In that
case, the inspector who signs that Block is taking the responsibly as to
the suitability of the installation and that becomes the "approved data".
The installing mechanic or repairman will still sign as the installing
agency and the submitting IA signs for the conformity of the installation
to the approved data whether it is from the Block Three approval of the
data submitted or from the STC.
Does that agree with your interpretation?
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 11/24/2007 9:06:36 A.M. Central Standard Time,
rd2@evenlink.com writes:
- 337 is always required when there is a "major" mod/alteration (whatever
the definition of major is). The differences are who needs to sign the 337
in which case.
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: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection
and have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading
information on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the
FAA. My thinking is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted
vertical card compass with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
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: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
In a message dated 11/24/2007 7:32:03 PM Central Standard Time,
enewton57@cableone.net writes:
What do you guys/gals think?
Would be a good idea to ask your Examiner/DAR before he/she shows up and
refuses a pink slip based on their personal interpretation of the rules as to what
constitutes a "magnetic heading indicator".
I just witnessed a pink slip issued on an RV where the only non-electronic
instrument on the plane was the Hula Girl "attitude indicator/G-meter/slip-skid
indicator" clamped to the glareshield! 8-)
Seriously...
Mark
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Hi Eric,
FSDO's differ somewhat, but I asked the Reno, NV office that question and
was told I would still need a whiskey compass. I'm equipped with a GRT
Sport EFIS (with GPS and magnetometer), GPS496, TT AP, and SL30. So that is
two GPS's, two magnetometers, and a VOR; and they still want a whiskey
compass even though they are mostly useless in a tube and rag air frame. Go
figure.
You may want to call your local FSDO and ask; I hope you have better luck
than I did.
A question for the group though, given at least one of us has to install a
compass are there any recommendations for brand/type and for locations in a
tube airframe?
Thanks,
Mike Creek
Bearhawk QB
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Newton
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection and
have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading information
on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the FAA. My thinking
is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted vertical card compass
with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
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: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Good Evening Eric,
I don't really know, but I will bet a milkshake the FAA won't buy it.
The Douglas DC-8 was built without a magnetic compass because it had so many
electronic heading sources available. When it came to certification time,
the FAA would not approve it without a whiskey compass.
Douglas had no good place to mount it up front, so they placed it in the
overhead behind the captain's seat. They then mounted a couple of mirrors on the
glare shield and a mirror behind the compass. By flipping the mirrors up, the
captain and the copilot could look via the mirrors at the compass.
In all the years I flew the DC-8. I never once looked at the compass other
than during the preflight. We checked that it was there and that the light
turned on when the switch was flipped. I only did that because it was a
required preflight check list item.
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 11/24/2007 7:32:03 P.M. Central Standard Time,
enewton57@cableone.net writes:
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading information
on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the FAA. My thinking
is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted vertical card compass
with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
At 08:39 AM 11/24/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
>drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
>any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
>the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
>when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
>
>I wonder about ease of secure connection to the battery's terminals in
>hobby applications... have you worked something out, Bob?
The terminals on the battery are "female" designed
to accept a tab on the order of .03" thick and .2"
wide. I'm using pieces of brass shim stock right
now. I would think that a silver plated brass tab
would be the best connection.
The connection could be problematic. If we develop
a way to charge it in situ then sculpturing the
battery case to allow soldering would be an attractive
option. Obviously, as soon as the battery is "modified"
one cannot use the stock drop-in charger. I wasn't
aware of a 14V version. The battery I'm testing is
a 7V device, two would be needed to craft a system
battery.
The first discharge run a 5 amps produced a capacity
of 0.9 A.h. for a total time of .18 hours or 11 minutes.
The second test at 1 amp produced the expected, slightly
better capacity value of 1.0 A.h. and 1 hour to discharge.
I'm recharging the battery now and will repeat the 5 amp
test to see if this technology shows a slight improvement
in capacity when placed into initial service. Then I'll do
the 1 amp test again. The charger that came with this
particular battery takes about 6 hours to do a full
recharge.
When I'm done with the cap checks, we'll do some
pulsed high current loads to look at internal
resistance. These are not going to be engine
cranking batteries . . . but they might be something
to consider for brownout protection for loads of up
to 10A total or so. We'll see.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: New consumer product battery |
At 08:39 AM 11/24/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I've been taken in by the new offering as well, but decided that the
>drill I wanted was the 14volt "2VPX" model, which is not available at
>any WalMart within 50 miles for the past month. All have a place on
>the shelf for the dual battery drill, and all will sell it for $99
>when they come in, but apparently it's a back-order item.
Bill, take a look at
http://tinyurl.com/2347vm
There is a discussion thread below the
promotional data.
I've not found a 14V "2VPX" battery but did
see a two-holer charger offered with a 2VPX
tool. Do you suppose the same battery is used
in both the VPX and 2VPX tools . . . with the
latter requiring two batteries?
After becoming aware of this product line
at Home Depot, I've been watching for it to
pop up in other stores. Haven't seen it
any place else . . . yet.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection |
Dick,
Below is a response to an email on the Aeroelectric List forum. It
discusses whether the whisky compass is required. I claim that the FARs
require a compass that does not need any input except the Earth's magnetic
field. Mike Creek below claims that the Reno FSDO requires a whiskey
compass. Since my airplane is already built, I would not need to go through
a FSDO. Instead, I would have to file a form that says I am going to change
the panel. The real problem comes when I am flying around the country, and
I have either an accident or the FAA ramp checks me. If I go to Nevada and
have an accident, I will be scrooed!
imon Ramirez, Consultant
Synchronous Design, Inc.
Oviedo, FL 32765 USA
407-365-8928: home/office
407-221-8928: mobile
Xilinx Alliance Partner
Copyright C 2007
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michel
Creek
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:23 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
Hi Eric,
FSDO's differ somewhat, but I asked the Reno, NV office that question and
was told I would still need a whiskey compass. I'm equipped with a GRT
Sport EFIS (with GPS and magnetometer), GPS496, TT AP, and SL30. So that is
two GPS's, two magnetometers, and a VOR; and they still want a whiskey
compass even though they are mostly useless in a tube and rag air frame. Go
figure.
You may want to call your local FSDO and ask; I hope you have better luck
than I did.
A question for the group though, given at least one of us has to install a
compass are there any recommendations for brand/type and for locations in a
tube airframe?
Thanks,
Mike Creek
Bearhawk QB
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Newton
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:27 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Compass Requirements for FAA Inspection
I'll soon be getting my Bearhawk ready for final FAA (or DAR) inspection and
have a question.
Does anyone know if the remote compass that displays the heading information
on my Dynon D100 qualifies as the required compass with the FAA. My thinking
is that it isn't too different than a panel mounted vertical card compass
with a remote sender.
What do you guys/gals think?
Thanks,
Eric Newton - Long Beach, MS
BH #682- Mississippi Mudbug
BEARHAWK BUILDER'S MANUALS
http://mybearhawk.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Checked by AVG.
7:39 PM
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|