Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:55 AM - VOR Diplexer (Terry Frazier)
2. 08:12 AM - RG-400 vs. RG-142? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
3. 09:30 AM - Re: VOR Diplexer (Dawson, Bill)
4. 11:06 AM - static system leak check procedure (Ken)
5. 11:41 AM - Re: static system leak check procedure (Ralph E. Capen)
6. 12:11 PM - Re: Starter Choice (Peter Pengilly)
7. 12:33 PM - Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 01:16 PM - Re: Starter Choice (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 02:08 PM - z16 rev L (Bill and Marsha)
10. 04:20 PM - Re: static system leak check procedure (Carlos Trigo)
11. 05:26 PM - Status of the small strobe wiring experiment. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 05:59 PM - Re: z16 rev L (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 06:04 PM - Re: static system leak check procedure (Bill Bradburry)
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 |
|
I'm building an RV7A with one SL-30 radio and inside the wingtip antennae.
I'll probably use the Sport Aircraft design for the antennae. Question is,
can I use a diplexer "backwards" to feed the one VOR with two antenna feeds
to both boost signal and reduce shadowing effects? Would a standard
diplexer work, or would I need something special?
Thanks in advance,
Terry
7A Panel Wiring
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: | RG-400 vs. RG-142? |
I know that has been discussed before, but I want to be sure. Are there
any significant downsides to using RG-142 for aircraft antenna
applications where the cable will not be regularly flexed (except for
normal vibration)? I am somewhat leery of using a solid core coax.
Andy Elliott, Mesa, AZ
N601GE (reserved)
601XL/TD, Corvair, building...
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 |
|
You are talking about diversity reception. Google that term and lot's of
things pop up.
I use it a great deal with wireless mics. Go to this website for
starters...
http://www.lectrosonics.com/WPapers-Magazines/ReceptionTechniques/Recepti
onTechniques.htm
The problem is, the antennas can not be tied together as the signal one
picks up will not
be in phase with the other antenna. The result is a reduced signal and
in some cases complete
cancel of the signal.
So how do the dual antenna receivers do it? They constantly sample the
antennas and
*switch* to the antenna with the most signal.
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Terry
Frazier
Sent: Wed 3/5/2008 7:51 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: VOR Diplexer
<fraziernv@earthlink.net>
I'm building an RV7A with one SL-30 radio and inside the wingtip
antennae.
I'll probably use the Sport Aircraft design for the antennae. Question
is,
can I use a diplexer "backwards" to feed the one VOR with two antenna
feeds
to both boost signal and reduce shadowing effects? Would a standard
diplexer work, or would I need something special?
Thanks in advance,
Terry
7A Panel Wiring
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: | static system leak check procedure |
I started to do a preliminary static system leak check and noticed that
it only takes about 500 feet of static vacuum to make the ASI read about
100 knots. 10 or 20 thousand feet would peg the ASI pretty firmly. Is
the pitot side subjected to the same vacuum as the static side of the
system to prevent altimeter damage or is that not a concern? It seems
prudent to check for obvious leaks before taking the plane to the radio
shop.
thank you
Ken
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: static system leak check procedure |
I did a similar test with the ASI removed and its fittings plugged to verify the
integrity of the rest of the system up to 20000ft. Then I put it all back together
and verified the leakdown integrity.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>Sent: Mar 5, 2008 2:02 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: static system leak check procedure
>
>
>I started to do a preliminary static system leak check and noticed that
>it only takes about 500 feet of static vacuum to make the ASI read about
>100 knots. 10 or 20 thousand feet would peg the ASI pretty firmly. Is
>the pitot side subjected to the same vacuum as the static side of the
>system to prevent altimeter damage or is that not a concern? It seems
>prudent to check for obvious leaks before taking the plane to the radio
>shop.
>thank you
>Ken
>
>
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 |
|
Frank & Jim,
Thanks for your advice - do nothing is an option!
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of J.
Mcculley
Sent: 04 March 2008 23:47
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Starter Choice
<mcculleyja@starpower.net>
Peter,
I have over 500 flight hours on my O-360 with a skytec permanent magnet
starter and not one moment of problem with just an Odyssey 17 AH battery
and a B&C SD-8 permanent magnet alternator.
Jim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Peter Pengilly wrote:
I am changing the engine on my One Design. I am removing an O-320-E3D
and
fitting an IO-360-B1B (180 hp regular compression). I will be fitting an
Odyssey 17ah battery. The 320 has a B&C starter that has been used for
around
100 hours, it also has 122 teeth on the starter ring. The 360 has a
Sky-tec
PM starter (and is brand new and is painted bright red) and a 149 tooth
starter
ring. The airplane is fitted with a B&C SD-8 generator so cannot
guarantee a
fully charged battery every time.
I have heard stories that permanent magnet starters and Odyssey
batteries
do not get on, and that starting is often slow, especially the first
couple
of blades. All things being equal I would swap the starter and the
starter
ring, but that's not possible as the part numbers of the starter rings
between
the two engines are different - I don't know the precise differences,
and I
would have to paint the old starter ring. To be able to use the B&C
starter on
the new engine B&C recommend I change out the ring gear, or return the
starter
for overhaul ($310 plus shipping from Europe ). And will have to
change
something on the old engine.
So my questions is, am I right to be concerned about the long term
abilities
of a Skytec PM starter and the Odyssey battery to provide reliable
starting?
Does anyone have any experience with this combination?
Regards, Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142? |
At 09:00 AM 3/5/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>I know that has been discussed before, but I want to be sure. Are there
>any significant downsides to using RG-142 for aircraft antenna
>applications where the cable will not be regularly flexed (except for
>normal vibration)? I am somewhat leery of using a solid core coax.
Then use the stranded version, RG-400.
RG-58 in the lengths we common use for small
airplanes does not present a significant
performance impact. However, the materials
from which RG-58 is made and the technology
behind the design of the coax is now over 60
years old.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/coaxloss1.pdf
Consider a 10' run of coax from GPS receiver
to antenna. RG58 offers an attenuation of about
35db/100'; RG-400/142 is about 24db/100'.
10' runs reduce to 3.5 and 2.4 db for a difference
of 1.3 db . . . delta that is impossible to
observe and difficult to measure at that frequency.
With respect to materials, RG-400/142 are double-
layer, silver-plated shield and fabricated from
modern cousins to Teflon. It's the best we know how
to do . . . today.
Bob . . .
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Starter Choice |
At 10:19 PM 3/4/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>I am changing the engine on my One Design. I am removing an O-320-E3D and
>fitting an IO-360-B1B (180 hp regular compression). I will be fitting an
>Odyssey 17ah battery. The 320 has a B&C starter that has been used for
>around 100 hours, it also has 122 teeth on the starter ring. The 360 has a
>Sky-tec PM starter (and is brand new and is painted bright red) and a 149
>tooth starter ring. The airplane is fitted with a B&C SD-8 generator so
>cannot guarantee a fully charged battery every time.
Size of the alternator certainly influences how
well your battery is charged at shutdown. But judicious
stewardship of stored energy from the battery after
to back off the throttle for approach to landing can
go a long way toward mitigating the effects.
From an energy perspective, cranking an engine takes
perhaps 5% of the total energy stored on your battery.
If you use say 20% off the top during descent and
taxi to parking, cranking performance from 100% charge
versus 80% charge would not be terribly noticable.
>
>
>I have heard stories that permanent magnet starters and Odyssey batteries
>do not get on, and that starting is often slow, especially the first
>couple of blades. All things being equal I would swap the starter and the
>starter ring, but that s not possible as the part numbers of the starter
>rings between the two engines are different I don t know the precise
>differences, and I would have to paint the old starter ring. To be able to
>use the B&C starter on the new engine B&C recommend I change out the ring
>gear, or return the starter for overhaul ($310 plus shipping from Europe).
>And will have to change something on the old engine.
>So my questions is, am I right to be concerned about the long term
>abilities of a Skytec PM starter and the Odyssey battery to provide
>reliable starting? Does anyone have any experience with this combination?
This question stands on a whole lot of variables
both in the observed performance of your as-installed
starter/proposed battery -AND- the as-installed/
demonstrated battery of those who would hope to
advise you.
Let's consider another approach that takes advantage
of a demonstrated experiment using your equipment.
What are the risks of leaving the present starter in
place and going ahead with the installation?
EVERY starter system benefits from wound-field
starter motors in terms of cranking under worst
case conditions. However, there are thousands of
PM starters in service where users report satisfactory
performance to their needs.
I'll suggest that if time and costs to get
your new engine installed are to be minimized, there's
little risk in leaving the system configured as you've
described. In fact, I'll suggest there is an advantage
for leaving the configuration alone. You have a
significant task for changing out the engine and getting
everything tight and tuned up. Why not get these tasks
done while being sensitive to starter performance
for the purpose of answering your own question . . .
and then having some experimental data to share
with the rest of us?
Bob . . .
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Question for Bob. I am doing my final wiring checkout on my soon to be
complete Pulsar lll Rotax 912 project. I came across a revision L to
Z16. Question, Was their a specific problem for the change to the
alternator disconnect ckt? and would you recommend changing from version
k to rev. L and why. Thanks Bill
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: | static system leak check procedure |
By the way, can somebody explain how is a static leak check performed?
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
> Sent: quarta-feira, 5 de Maro de 2008 19:02
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: static system leak check procedure
>
>
> I started to do a preliminary static system leak check and noticed that
> it only takes about 500 feet of static vacuum to make the ASI read about
> 100 knots. 10 or 20 thousand feet would peg the ASI pretty firmly. Is
> the pitot side subjected to the same vacuum as the static side of the
> system to prevent altimeter damage or is that not a concern? It seems
> prudent to check for obvious leaks before taking the plane to the radio
> shop.
> thank you
> Ken
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: | Status of the small strobe wiring experiment. |
Neal's strobe parts have arrived. I've decided to shift
the emphasis to a lab experiment. My good ol' Luna Pro-F
flash light meter died years ago and I've had no good
reason to replace it until now. Just picked up a much
younger replacement off of Ebay.
We'll wire one tube with 15' of 20AWG Beldfoil and the
other with 22AWG twisted trio and see what the difference
is between light output of the two tubes. I'll also get some
waveforms for both the flash-tubes and the 14V DC input
power. We can convert these measurement to total energy
numbers.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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 |
|
At 04:04 PM 3/5/2008 -0600, you wrote:
> Question for Bob. I am doing my final wiring checkout on my soon to be
> complete Pulsar lll Rotax 912 project. I came across a revision L to
> Z16. Question, Was their a specific problem for the change to the
> alternator disconnect ckt? and would you recommend changing from version
> k to rev. L and why. Thanks Bill
It's a cleaner way to do it. The previous configuration
will function as advertised but it's better to interrupt
the energy flow as close to the source as possible.
Bob . . .
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: | static system leak check procedure |
Carlos, check out the following website...
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/rvlinks/ssec.html
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: static system leak check procedure
--> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
By the way, can somebody explain how is a static leak check performed?
Carlos
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
> Sent: quarta-feira, 5 de Maro de 2008 19:02
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: static system leak check procedure
>
>
> I started to do a preliminary static system leak check and noticed
> that it only takes about 500 feet of static vacuum to make the ASI
> read about 100 knots. 10 or 20 thousand feet would peg the ASI pretty
> firmly. Is the pitot side subjected to the same vacuum as the static
> side of the system to prevent altimeter damage or is that not a
> concern? It seems prudent to check for obvious leaks before taking the
> plane to the radio shop.
> thank you
> Ken
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! --
|