Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:40 AM - Loran Antenna (Don Curry)
2. 06:05 AM - Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) ()
3. 06:31 AM - Re: Loran Antenna (rampil)
4. 06:45 AM - (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:57 AM - Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) (Mike)
6. 06:58 AM - Re: Re: Loran Antenna (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 07:07 AM - Re: Loran Antenna (Mike)
8. 07:11 AM - Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) (Ernest Christley)
9. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) (Matt Prather)
10. 07:45 AM - Tefzel dielectric strength (Sam Hoskins)
11. 10:37 AM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (rampil)
12. 10:43 AM - Re: Re: Why can't the tower hear me? (Buckaroo Banzai)
13. 10:52 AM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 11:45 AM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (George, Neal E Capt MIL USAF 605TES/TSI)
15. 12:55 PM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 03:24 PM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (Sam Hoskins)
17. 04:54 PM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (rampil)
18. 05:37 PM - Re: Re: Why can't the tower hear me? (Robert Feldtman)
19. 06:58 PM - Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) (Gilles Thesee)
20. 07:10 PM - Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) (Gilles Thesee)
21. 07:16 PM - Re: Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 07:33 PM - Re: Tefzel dielectric strength (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 08:31 PM - Re: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) (Ernest Christley)
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 |
|
Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old, yes;
stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel
project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my
wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is
"ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location
provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT
consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I don't
currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the
option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe
lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of shielding
that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference?
Don
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Mike:
Not sure what your talking about, but I wrote or
should have wrote 460kt (true).
I fly both the 757/767.
I never do more than 250kias below FL100.
We usually climb at about 280-320 kias to FL250.
Than we go to Mach above approx FL270.
Normal econ cruise is about mach 0.82.
Mach 0.82 = about 280 kias, 450 ktas @ FL350.
Indicated a/s depends on altitude.
Red line, Vmo/Mmo is a moving target.
Max Vmo/Mmo is no longer a Boeing Limit
to memorize, because it moves around and
its always displayed on both the mechanical
airspeed indicator and the speed tape on the
EFIS. Off the top of my head @ sea level its
approx 350 kias/M.86 range for the B757. The
limit is the lower of the two limits, Vmo/Mmo.
Kts are for lower altitudes and Mach for higher
altitudes above FL270. Of course we don't do
350 kts on the deck, but it would be fun.
During a pilot oral exam there is no Vmo/Mmo
to remember. You don't have to memorize stuff
that is right in front of you. Good thing, less to
memorize. Other speeds are in the checklist.
My point is the antenna does not care what size
plane it is on. Drag is drag.
Think about it, Mike
Cheers George ATP/757/757/CE500
>From: "Mike" <mlas@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: External antennas on composite plane
>460 kts TAS not indicated. The indicated speed of a
>757 or 767 is 360kias.
>Think about it, Mike
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: Loran Antenna |
Loran IS dead, but still walking.
The sizing mechanics of VLF antenna is completely different than
VHF (com/nav) or Microwave (GPS). In the latter two, a ground plane
should be in the range of 1/4-1/2 wavelength radius , depending on
config of antenna.
In VLF, wavelength may be 100-1000x size of your Tiger.
Best Loran antenna is a trailing wire 1 half mile long ;-) No ground
required!
I have an uninstalled 618, can I sell it to you? Nice paperweight!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164186#164186
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 |
|
Comments/Questions: How many terminals would you say is the max on
the hot side of a batt contactor?(4?)
Ideally, just one. There are two considerations for
stacking things on the single stud.:
(a) the more wires . . . presumably most of them
'fat' wires . . . the greater the torque-moments
that tend to unwind the nut. Obviously, if
the installer makes a considered effort to
insure integrity of the join (thread locker,
locking nut, making up the joint to the
max recommended torque value for the
materials, etc) the lower the probability
of in-service loosening.
Of course, supporting the exiting wires
soon after they depart the nut will reduce
the free-mass waving in the breeze and
reacting on the join.
(b) thread length of the exposed terminal is
an obvious mechanical limit. The books
tell us that we should drive for a minimum
headroom of 1.5 exposed threads sticking
out of the nut when we're finished. Quite
often, this is the biggest limiting factor
for how many terminals get stacked on the
stud.
Stud length can vary significantly between
brands for similar devices. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/stud_length.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/strtrctr.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/6041_Contactor.jpg
There is no industry-wide practice for
setting limits on how much 'stuff' you
stack on these studs. It's up to the
designer/installer to be cognizant of
the conditions that tend to undo the
design and exercise due diligence
in crafting the joint.
Where can I find the appendix for suppliers?
On the 'net. In early issues of the 'Connection
I offered a listing of handy suppliers for
tools, materials and parts useful to the
OBAM aircraft community. That was an
exceedingly difficult list to keep up to
date so, as the first paragraph of Appendix
Z points out, we deleted appendices A,
C and K in favor of offering those coverages
on the 'net.
And finally, is there a chart of recommended circuit breakers for a specific
AWG, you say 5 amp for 22awg, what are other recommendations?
Breakers protect wires . . . period. Maximum
recommended loads on any given wire are NOT
based on danger to the wire (copper) but to
the insulation. For example, in this slide
taken from my weekend seminar presentation . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
we see a 22AWG wire loaded to 20A on the
bench. The insulation temperature isn't even
close to being over-stressed. It's got another
40C to go! At the other end of the spectrum,
cross country power lines that make up the
nation's distribution grid are oft cited as
being 'dangerously overloaded'. Are they
at risk for parting the line due to melting?
No, their temperature rise is so high that
coefficient of expansion effects are causing
the wires to sag into trees. The risk is
for tripping the line off when system arcs
to ground through a tree. I'm recalling that
the great Northeast Blackout a few years ago
was triggered by a power line dropping into
a tree up in Canada.
Yes, there's a VERY conservative wire rating
table in the book and repeated here:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/Wire_Table.jpg
Here we see that the 22AWG wire is industry
rated (or perhaps de-rated?) to 5A capacity.
This isn't a 'rule of thumb'. It's the product
of a process that says based on our experience
(airplanes with environments that range from
-55C to 100C) and bundles of perhaps hundreds
of wires, running no more than 5A through a
22AWG wire offers a 99.999% degree of confidence
for satisfactory-lifetime-of-the-airframe-performance
(SLOTAP).
Should you choose to tailor your own use
of 22AWG wire, there are innumerable tutorials
on how this is accomplished . . . but I'll
suggest your time is better spent getting
all the rivet heads smooth and the upholstery
seams straight.
Further to this, if I have a 2 amp load on a 22AWG, do I still need
5 amp CB to protect it, or is it OK if the breaker doesn't exceed
5 amps, but is lets say, 3 amps?
As discussed above, you can do about anything
you want in terms of protecting any give
chunk of wire. And based on your considered
analysis of how the wire is used in YOUR airplane,
the breaker might be anything from 1 to 10 amps!
But breakers below 5A are more expensive and
breakers above 5A start pushing out into the
corners of the performance envelope that reduce
your SLOTAP confidence.
Love the book, learned more than in 2 years at college!
I'm pleased that you're getting a good return
on your investment.
Bob . . .
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
George,
I only pointed it out because I assumed that you were trying to
illustrate the speed effect of a higher speed aircraft on an antenna and
its relationship to drag/speed. You wrote 460 knots. I was just trying
to point out that as it relates to the antenna drag, you use indicated
speed not True Airspeed in that speed range (not true for high mach
numbers). I then pointed out that the 757 only does 350=92ish Knots
Indicated.
Mike
The dark side (Airbus)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:02 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Boeing 767 speeds (was External
antennas)
Mike:
Not sure what your talking about, but I wrote or
should have wrote 460kt (true).
I fly both the 757/767.
I never do more than 250kias below FL100.
We usually climb at about 280-320 kias to FL250.
Than we go to Mach above approx FL270.
Normal econ cruise is about mach 0.82.
Mach 0.82 = about 280 kias, 450 ktas @ FL350.
Indicated a/s depends on altitude.
Red line, Vmo/Mmo is a moving target.
Max Vmo/Mmo is no longer a Boeing Limit
to memorize, because it moves around and
its always displayed on both the mechanical
airspeed indicator and the speed tape on the
EFIS. Off the top of my head @ sea level its
approx 350 kias/M.86 range for the B757. The
limit is the lower of the two limits, Vmo/Mmo.
Kts are for lower altitudes and Mach for higher
altitudes above FL270. Of course we don't do
350 kts on the deck, but it would be fun.
During a pilot oral exam there is no Vmo/Mmo
to remember. You don't have to memorize stuff
that is right in front of you. Good thing, less to
memorize. Other speeds are in the checklist.
My point is the antenna does not care what size
plane it is on. Drag is drag.
Think about it, Mike
Cheers George ATP/757/757/CE500
>From: "Mike" <HYPERLINK "mailto:mlas@cox.net"mlas@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: External antennas on composite plane
>460 kts TAS not indicated. The indicated speed of a
>757 or 767 is 360kias.
>Think about it, Mike
_____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribu
tion
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
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: Loran Antenna |
Good Morning Ira,
I suppose this will start an argumentative string, but I agree with you.
For the time being, LORAN as we have used it, is dead.
There may be something new on the horizon, but the best currently available
LORAN set can't hold a candle to a 100 dollar handheld from K-Mart.
The newly proposed eLORAN (Enhanced Loran) is being proposed primarily as
device to back up the timing and coordination capabilities of GPS. It is not
meant to be a primary navigation device. I realize that the engineers will
undoubtedly come up with newer antenna systems, but when eLoran was first
proposed several years ago, the suggested antenna array was bigger than a Bonanza.
The KLN-88 is a very nice component to use with a flight management system.
It does have the capability of feeding data to many sophisticated navigation
devices that were in common use twenty years ago.
My feeling is that it belongs in a museum to be used to point out how much
better are the devices we currently use.
Do Not Archive
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
628 West 86th Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
In a message dated 2/15/2008 8:38:59 A.M. Central Standard Time,
ira.rampil@gmail.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com>
Loran IS dead, but still walking.
The sizing mechanics of VLF antenna is completely different than
VHF (com/nav) or Microwave (GPS). In the latter two, a ground plane
should be in the range of 1/4-1/2 wavelength radius , depending on
config of antenna.
In VLF, wavelength may be 100-1000x size of your Tiger.
Best Loran antenna is a trailing wire 1 half mile long ;-) No ground
required!
I have an uninstalled 618, can I sell it to you? Nice paperweight!
--------
Ira N224XS
**************The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy
Awards. Go to AOL Music.
(http://music.aol.com/grammys?NCID=aolcmp00300000002565)
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 |
|
Don,
A more constructive response would have been something like this, nice
multi-chain (KLN-88) Loran and it works well. Because of the FREQ range
that system works in it is highly susceptible to poor gain and
interference with the short antennas required for aircraft. Many Lorans
require an amplifier/processor to enhance the signal to make it usable
in aircraft. Most of the hard core Loran users have experienced
reception problems with loran in clouds, prcip, ect. I have not seen,
installed, or tested an internally mounted Loran antenna but my Guess is
the performance would be reduced, possibly to less then acceptable.
Mike
And like you I like a GOOD Loran (unlike the 614) for area navigation.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Curry
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:36 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Loran Antenna
<currydon@bellsouth.net>
Many believe Loran is dead technology, but I'm not one of them. Old,
yes;
stale, yes; but dead, no! In fact, I'm including a KLN-88 in a panel
project on a Tiger. Which brings me to my question. I have room in my
wingtips for the KA-84 antenna, but I'm concerned about reception. Is
"ground plane" an issue with Loran? If so, would the wingtip location
provide sufficient ground plane? Are there any other reasons to NOT
consider the wingtips as a location for the antenna? Also, while I
don't
currently have strobe lights in my wingtips, I would like to retain the
option of installing them in the future. Since I'm certain that strobe
lights would interfere with Loran reception, is there some type of
shielding
that I could install along with the strobes to prevent the interference?
Don
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
10/2/2007 11:10 AM
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> My point is the antenna does not care what size
> plane it is on. Drag is drag.
>
>
Drag is drag, and planes are planes; but the relative importance of a
quantity of drag varies from plane to plane.
A Cozy or Quickie can do 150mph to 200mph with 100Hp or less, because
everything imaginable has been done to drop the drag. The drag of the
antennae is no more than it would be on the same 90mph Pietenpol, but it
is a much more significant portion of the entire airplane's drag.
You can't take an antennae and say that it will have a specific speed
penalty. You take the antennae and say how much power will be required
to push it through the air at a specific speed. You have a power budget
set by the engine. Any of that budget spent pushing antennaes through
the air will not be available for pushing the airframe through the air.
It is up to the builder to decide if spending a piece of that limited
budget is worth the effort or degraded performance associated with not
spending it.
A 757 has a rather large power budget (compared to a Quickie). Sticking
another antennae on is unlikely to even register, no matter what speed
the airplane is going. I just isn't worth much effort to try to get it
out of the airstream. Other configurations will differ.
In my case, I know that I tend to be a heavy-handed klutz. No matter
how hard I try, I know I'll break off an antennae every time I was the
plane. My push to clean up my airframe has more to do with what I know
will be a maintenance headache.
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Think about it George,
The antenna doesn't care what size airplane it's on, but different sized
(flat plate drag) airplanes use differing amounts of thrust force to go
the same speed. The thrust-drag balance determines speed. If you add 5
lbs of drag to an airplane that only makes 10lbs of thrust you change the
cruise speed more than you would for an airplane that makes 500lbs of
thrust to go the same speed. A 757 would care not about one more comm
antenna when running 200kts (indicated), but a Lancair Legacy would notice
it quite a bit. It's all about the relative drag vs. thrust balance.
Cheers,
Matt-
Or is that Cheers Matt (to me)?
> Mike:
>
> Not sure what your talking about, but I wrote or
> should have wrote 460kt (true).
>
snip
> My point is the antenna does not care what size
> plane it is on. Drag is drag.
>
> Think about it, Mike
>
> Cheers George ATP/757/757/CE500
>
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: | Tefzel dielectric strength |
I am installing a strobe system with a 50 watt power supply from Nova.
The system comes with a fairly heavy shielded 3-wire 18AWG cable that
has 300V printed on the jacket. It does not appear to be tefzell
coated. (I think it is mostly used in automotive applications, such
as police and fire vehicles).
Due to space constraints, I am unable the pass this thick cable
through the openings in my wing. However, the shielded 3-wire 22AWG,
from B&C will do the trick.
What is my risk for using the 22AWG vs. the 18 AWG?
Thanks
Sam Hoskins Quickie Q-200
Murphysboro, IL
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: Tefzel dielectric strength |
Sam, I would like to try to answer your question, but I am not sure
I understand it. What does dielectric strength have to do it.
Gauge size of wire determines voltage drop across its length
Splicing in a short run of 22g will introduce 6 extra connections to reduce
reliability (but for a strobe, realistically, who cares!)
Is this cable, I presume the hot side of the strobe power, i.e., so the voltage
is 500-1000 or so. Most insulation would be just fine. Dielectric
puncture is not only dependent on the material constant be also the thickness
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164258#164258
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: | Re: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
You might try filing an ASRS. NASA will follow up with the FAA which might get
a real technician out there to check the tower's radios and maybe any dead spots
on the field.
Greg
"H. M. Haught Jr. " <handainc@madisoncounty.net> wrote: Cordiality wasn't
in evidence at KOUN. I was told in no uncertain terms that it wasn't their
fault that my radio was junk, but they would give me light signals to get me out.
I tried to explain that I've had the radio worked on a number of times and
their facility was the only place I was having any trouble, which was true at
the time, and got the reply - "If you want light signals to get out, then tell
me, but don't blame our equipment for your radio problems." I was on a telephone
talking to them from the service office - wouldn't see me face to face.
They see lots of high power stuff and cater to it - my old ratty looking Pacer
was consider "junk". I took the light signals and the radio was working fine
by the time I got to the end of the taxiway. Called up OK City immediately
after leaving the pattern, had radio check and was told "five x five". Next
time I go in, (I've got my hand held set up on an
external antenna as a backup radio ), as soon as I power down, I'm going to call
up tower for radio check on the Icom, and then do the same thing with the handheld
on rubber ducky antenna. Next day, if I have problems, I'll try the rubber
ducky antenna again, as using the external antenna on the hand held also
resulted in unreadable transmissions. Just doesn't make sense that two different
radios are having the same problem on the same day.
M. Haught
Greg Young wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
Behalf Of glen matejcek
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Why can't the tower hear me?
--> <aerobubba@earthlink.net> Hi All- Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone
calls to the tower chief to make sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that
gets no results, a letter to the regional office. Make sure to delineate
all the steps you guys have taken to verify your own equipment ops. You can
also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO arrival. Just
be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember to keep you Piet
under 200 KIAS ;-) As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has
provided me with various insights. Included in those were that although
they can't upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud
of the system. glen matejcek aerobubba@earthlink.net
---------------------------------
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: Tefzel dielectric strength |
At 09:42 AM 2/15/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>
>I am installing a strobe system with a 50 watt power supply from Nova.
> The system comes with a fairly heavy shielded 3-wire 18AWG cable that
>has 300V printed on the jacket. It does not appear to be tefzell
>coated. (I think it is mostly used in automotive applications, such
>as police and fire vehicles).
>
>Due to space constraints, I am unable the pass this thick cable
>through the openings in my wing. However, the shielded 3-wire 22AWG,
>from B&C will do the trick.
>
>What is my risk for using the 22AWG vs. the 18 AWG?
The wire supplied with strobe kits is "Beldfoil" shielded
trio of PVC insulated wires. This is a grand-fathered wire
that was the best we could buy in 1967. Indeed, it's
quite suitable for this task and should not be held a
arm's length just because someone holds their nose over
it.
We did some calculations several years ago about the
potential for reduced light output for having switched
to 22AWG wires. It may have been so long ago that the
discussion was pre-matronics . . . on Compuserve's
AVSIG bulletin board!
The consensus was that it would probably be difficult
to measure the difference and you probably wouldn't "see"
it.
I think several folks tried it and reported satisfactory
performance. It would be REALLY interesting to wire up
a kit of strobes with the heads separated by a distance
of 30 feet or so. Wire the right side with 18AWG and
the other with 22AWG. Stand off about a mile and see
if the observer can perceive any difference in the two
flashes.
If someone would loan me their kit of strobe goodies,
I'll go do the experiment. I'll get a group of observers
unaware of which side is small wire to tell me if they
think one is noticeably different from the other.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Tefzel dielectric strength |
Bob -
You can use mine, if they ever come back from Whelen.
Neal
If someone would loan me their kit of strobe goodies,
I'll go do the experiment. I'll get a group of observers
unaware of which side is small wire to tell me if they
think one is noticeably different from the other.
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: | Tefzel dielectric strength |
At 01:42 PM 2/15/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>605TES/TSI" <Neal.George@Hurlburt.AF.MIL>
>
>Bob -
>
>You can use mine, if they ever come back from Whelen.
>
>Neal
Okay, let's plan on it. It would be a short evening
of fun work to do the experiment. I'm only a few miles
from quiet country roads. No hurry . . .it's not going
to be warm enough to be enjoyable for a few more
weeks.
Bob. . .
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: Tefzel dielectric strength |
That sounds like logical information. What about the 300V rating on
the wire? Would the tefzel be similar? Here is the wire at B&C:
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?8X358218#s906-3-22
Sam
On Feb 15, 2008 12:49 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
>
> At 09:42 AM 2/15/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >
> >I am installing a strobe system with a 50 watt power supply from Nova.
> > The system comes with a fairly heavy shielded 3-wire 18AWG cable that
> >has 300V printed on the jacket. It does not appear to be tefzell
> >coated. (I think it is mostly used in automotive applications, such
> >as police and fire vehicles).
> >
> >Due to space constraints, I am unable the pass this thick cable
> >through the openings in my wing. However, the shielded 3-wire 22AWG,
> >from B&C will do the trick.
> >
> >What is my risk for using the 22AWG vs. the 18 AWG?
>
> The wire supplied with strobe kits is "Beldfoil" shielded
> trio of PVC insulated wires. This is a grand-fathered wire
> that was the best we could buy in 1967. Indeed, it's
> quite suitable for this task and should not be held a
> arm's length just because someone holds their nose over
> it.
>
> We did some calculations several years ago about the
> potential for reduced light output for having switched
> to 22AWG wires. It may have been so long ago that the
> discussion was pre-matronics . . . on Compuserve's
> AVSIG bulletin board!
>
> The consensus was that it would probably be difficult
> to measure the difference and you probably wouldn't "see"
> it.
>
> I think several folks tried it and reported satisfactory
> performance. It would be REALLY interesting to wire up
> a kit of strobes with the heads separated by a distance
> of 30 feet or so. Wire the right side with 18AWG and
> the other with 22AWG. Stand off about a mile and see
> if the observer can perceive any difference in the two
> flashes.
>
> If someone would loan me their kit of strobe goodies,
> I'll go do the experiment. I'll get a group of observers
> unaware of which side is small wire to tell me if they
> think one is noticeably different from the other.
>
> 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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
OK Bob,
Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a log-sensitive
scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure the voltage
spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
fun)
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=164332#164332
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: RE: Why can't the tower hear me? |
Filing the NASA safety form is the BEST idea you can do. I'd also make a
copy and send it to the closest Fed Communication Commision (FCC) field
office. Just cause they are both fed gov't doesn't necessarily mean they
will "cover" for each other. A bad transmitter is a bad transmitter. FCC
might jack 'em up a notch or two - at least make them uncofmortable in the
new leather chairs as they talk on their vaccuum tube jurassic radios.
I'm not kiddin.
bobf
On 2/14/08, glen matejcek <aerobubba@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi All-
>
> Sounds like perhaps it's time for phone calls to the tower chief to make
> sure that he/she knows of the issue. If that gets no results, a letter to
> the regional office. Make sure to delineate all the steps you guys have
> taken to verify your own equipment ops.
>
> You can also call them to let them on the phone to coordinate a NORDO
> arrival. Just be sure to review the light gun signals. Also, remember to
> keep you Piet under 200 KIAS ;-)
>
> As an aside, I've a good friend who is a controller who has provided me
> with various insights. Included in those were that although they can't
> upgrade equipment, they do get new leather furniture. Makes one proud of
> the system.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Ernest Christley a crit :
> Drag is drag, and planes are planes; but the relative importance of a
> quantity of drag varies from plane to plane.
>
> A Cozy or Quickie can do 150mph to 200mph with 100Hp or less, because
> everything imaginable has been done to drop the drag. The drag of the
> antennae is no more than it would be on the same 90mph Pietenpol, but
> it is a much more significant portion of the entire airplane's drag.
> You can't take an antennae and say that it will have a specific speed
> penalty. You take the antennae and say how much power will be
> required to push it through the air at a specific speed. You have a
> power budget set by the engine. Any of that budget spent pushing
> antennaes through the air will not be available for pushing the
> airframe through the air. It is up to the builder to decide if
> spending a piece of that limited budget is worth the effort or
> degraded performance associated with not spending it.
Ernest, Matt,
Couldn't agree more with you. I built a low drag airplane (MCR four
seater), and indeed, hiding the antennas made quite a difference. The
present cruise is 130-1135 kt on 100 hp with four on board at low
altitude. We still have some cleaning to perform on the airframe.
I remember having a long discussion with George on this issue some
months ago.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Gilles Thesee a crit :
> The present cruise is 130-1135 kt
130-135 kt would more accurate ;-)
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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: | Re: Tefzel dielectric strength |
At 04:50 PM 2/15/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>
>OK Bob,
>
>Just remember that the human optical receiver system uses a log-sensitive
>scale, so even a doubling of intensity (double the number of photons)
>would be imperceptible. It would probably be easier to just measure the
>voltage spike on scope with the appropriate probe (admittedly not as much
>fun)
But the 'real' question is not wether some techno-wienie can
measure the differences on a visual attention-getting/warning
system . . . but whether the guy expected to see and react
to it can see a difference. I plan to do both.
Bob . . .
Message 22
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: Tefzel dielectric strength |
At 05:21 PM 2/15/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>
>That sounds like logical information. What about the 300V rating on
>the wire? Would the tefzel be similar? Here is the wire at B&C:
>http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?8X358218#s906-3-22
I don't recall any of the tefzel wires being rated at less
than 600v. You can check through the listings for 22759 in
ETFE in the catalog at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Wire/Standard_Wire_and_Cable/Std_Wire_Cable.pdf
I suspect B&C's shielded trio is 22759/16 or 22759/34
both of which are 600v insulations.
Bob . . .
Message 23
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: Boeing 767 speeds (was External antennas) |
Gilles Thesee wrote:
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
> Gilles Thesee a crit :
>> The present cruise is 130-1135 kt
>
> 130-135 kt would more accurate ;-)
>
> Best regards,
Dang-it!!
I was about to send a request for a set of plans. 8*)
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
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! --
|