Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:38 AM - Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (Rodney Dunham)
2. 05:32 AM - Re: static system leak check procedure (Ralph E. Capen)
3. 06:16 AM - Re: static system leak check procedure (Kevin Horton)
4. 07:32 AM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (mike humphrey)
5. 08:01 AM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:10 AM - Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142 (Jeff Page)
7. 10:21 AM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (Rodney Dunham)
8. 10:57 AM - Re: Re: Low voltage indicator for LR3 (John Morgensen)
9. 11:35 AM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 11:36 AM - Re: Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 11:53 AM - Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142? ()
12. 01:15 PM - Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142 (jetboy)
13. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142 (Bill Bradburry)
14. 05:02 PM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (Ralph Finch)
15. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400(coax stripper) (Ralph Hoover)
16. 06:43 PM - Re: Re: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 (Ralph Hoover)
17. 07:08 PM - Re: static system leak check procedure (Ken)
18. 07:22 PM - Re: Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142 (Ken)
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: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
Since RG-400 has a doulble braid shield, how do I do the "Poor Man's" coax
termination with it?
Braid the two shields as one and crimp on the lug OR ....
Rodney in Tennessee
_________________________________________________________________
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your Hotmail=AE-get yo
ur "fix".
http://www.msnmobilefix.com/Default.aspx
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: | static system leak check procedure |
Here's how I did it:
I got a vacuum brake bleeding kit (JC Whitney IIRC) - it has a guage that will
allow you to see an evacuation level and watch it change.
I disconnected my ASI, VSI, and capped off the rest of the static system. The
VSI has a built in leak and the ASI limits your altitude as the airspeed is artificially
induced by the differential pressure.
I plugged one static port and attached the brake bleeder to the other port.
Pump the handle and watch the dial as you pull a vacuum. (I did mine all the way
to 20,000').
Start a stop watch and look for the dial to rotate downward indicating leakdown.
Swap static ports and start over.
I added the ASI and did another test with lower altitude levels to ensure the integrity
of the ASI. Swap static ports and start over.
You're allowed 100'/min IIRC from the regs - I ended up with 150'/hr so I think
I'm OK......
Someone may convince me of the error of my ways and I'll re-do it differently -
but noone's tried yet.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Carlos Trigo <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>Sent: Mar 5, 2008 7:16 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: static system leak check procedure |
You can do an acceptable test much more simply than this. The standard (as
described in FAR 23.1325(b)(2)(i)) only calls for enough vacuum to raise th
e
indicated altitude 1000 ft above the altitude of the test site. On my RV-8
,
I put a piece of tape over one static port, and held a piece of rubber hose
against the other static port. I put the other end of the hose in my mouth
,
and sucked until I had increased the altitude more than 1000 ft. I put my
tongue over the end of hose to trap the pressure, and made sure to keep
pushing the other end hard against the static port so no air leaked out
there. The altimeter dropped much less than 100 ft in a minute (the
pass/fail criteria from FAR 23.1325), so my system was OK.
There is no need to disconnect ASI or VSI (assuming you don't introduce
excessive vacuum, which could damage an ASI). In fact, doing it with
instruments removed invalidates the test, as you might introduce a leak whe
n
you put those instruments back into the static system. You really need to
do an end-to-end leak check with the whole static system in the state it
would be when you fly the airplane.
Kevin Horton
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Ralph E. Capen <recapen@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> Here's how I did it:
>
> I got a vacuum brake bleeding kit (JC Whitney IIRC) - it has a guage that
> will allow you to see an evacuation level and watch it change.
>
> I disconnected my ASI, VSI, and capped off the rest of the static system.
> The VSI has a built in leak and the ASI limits your altitude as the
> airspeed is artificially induced by the differential pressure.
>
> I plugged one static port and attached the brake bleeder to the other
> port.
>
> Pump the handle and watch the dial as you pull a vacuum. (I did mine all
> the way to 20,000').
>
> Start a stop watch and look for the dial to rotate downward indicating
> leakdown. Swap static ports and start over.
>
> I added the ASI and did another test with lower altitude levels to ensure
> the integrity of the ASI. Swap static ports and start over.
>
> You're allowed 100'/min IIRC from the regs - I ended up with 150'/hr so I
> think I'm OK......
>
> Someone may convince me of the error of my ways and I'll re-do it
> differently - but noone's tried yet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Carlos Trigo <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
> >Sent: Mar 5, 2008 7:16 PM
> >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> >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 Mar=E7o 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 tha
t
> >> 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 radi
o
> >> shop.
> >> thank you
> >> Ken
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
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: RE: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
Rodney,
Bob shows an excellent way to attach BNC connectors on the RG-400. Just
archive aeroelectric.
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodney Dunham
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 7:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: "Poor Man's" coax termination with
RG-400
Since RG-400 has a doulble braid shield, how do I do the "Poor Man's"
coax termination with it?
Braid the two shields as one and crimp on the lug OR ....
Rodney in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Need to know the score, the latest news, or you need your
Hotmail=AE-get your "fix". Check it out.
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: RE: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
At 07:34 AM 3/6/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Since RG-400 has a doulble braid shield, how do I do the "Poor Man's" coax
>termination with it?
>
>Braid the two shields as one and crimp on the lug OR ....
What are you wanting to attach it to? I presume that
since you're talking about "crimp" that you don't
want to install the usual connector.
Here's a technique I've used on all manner of shielded
wires for 50 years. See how this works for you.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142 |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
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.
What do you think about Andrew FSJ1RN-50B Heliax Cable ?
At 150MHz the attenuation is only 2.2 dB/100'
The minimum bend radius is only 1" and it doesn't try to unbend itself
due to the corrugated shield.
It is more expensive of course, plus you need their expensive BNC connectors.
http://www.andrew.com/catalog/product_details.aspx?id=1343
Jeff Page
Dream Aircraft Tundra #10
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: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
Bob,
Sorry I didn't explain it very well.
My buddy wants to use RG-400 for his VHF COMM. He has one of those antennas
that has only a Delrin insulator and the end of the antenna is threaded. H
e currently has some old RG-58 which is installed according to the 'Connect
ion, Chapter 13, The "Poor Man's" coax termination in lieu of a BNC connect
or, which is not an option with this antenna.
He was wondering if he should just twist the two layers of (RG-400) braid i
nto one "wire" and crimp on a lug like the previous (RG-58) install. I was
wondering if the outer (RG-400) braid should be trimmed short and only the
inner braid teased out for crimping onto the ground lug. Or does it even ma
tter?
Sorry for the misdirect.
Rodney in Tennessee
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!-Play the word scramble challenge with sta
r power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_ja
n
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: Low voltage indicator for LR3 |
My "spam can" doesn't have much in the way of a low voltage warning but
the Garmin x96 does! I found a data field that displays volts and an
alarm that allows you to set the voltage threshold.
johninreno
Jeff Page wrote:
>
>> Failure of the main alternator is not an emergency. It's
>> an emergency only if you have no alternatives i.e, you
>> have no back up engine driven power source and you haven't
>> the foggiest notion of how long your battery will run goodies
>> in the endurance mode.
>
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: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
At 01:18 PM 3/6/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Sorry I didn't explain it very well.
>
>My buddy wants to use RG-400 for his VHF COMM. He has one of those
>antennas that has only a Delrin insulator and the end of the antenna is
>threaded. He currently has some old RG-58 which is installed according to
>the 'Connection, Chapter 13, The "Poor Man's" coax termination in lieu of
>a BNC connector, which is not an option with this antenna.
>
>He was wondering if he should just twist the two layers of (RG-400) braid
>into one "wire" and crimp on a lug like the previous (RG-58) install. I
>was wondering if the outer (RG-400) braid should be trimmed short and only
>the inner braid teased out for crimping onto the ground lug. Or does it
>even matter?
>
>Sorry for the misdirect.
That's what I thought . . . and the technique described
in the link I provided at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
is what I would suggest. If you pull the center conductor
through the side of BOTH shields, then there's no "twisting"
necessary. The braid conductors are already grouped together
in a manner that's conducive to installation of a terminal.
The rule of thumb is to keep the coax pigtails as short
as practical and know that the short length of exposed
center conductor will cause an electrical "lengthening"
of the antenna. This will shift the antenna's center-frequency
down a Mhz or so . . . not generally a big deal.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142 |
At 01:06 PM 3/6/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
> 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.
>
>What do you think about Andrew FSJ1RN-50B Heliax Cable ?
>
>At 150MHz the attenuation is only 2.2 dB/100'
>The minimum bend radius is only 1" and it doesn't try to unbend itself
>due to the corrugated shield.
>It is more expensive of course, plus you need their expensive BNC connectors.
>
>http://www.andrew.com/catalog/product_details.aspx?id=1343
There are MANY alternative coax products that
would reduce losses in the antenna's feedline.
But what's the return on investment? The as-installed
performance differences for having utilized some form
of super-coax would be difficult to measure, much less
observe.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142? |
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RG-400 vs. RG-142?
>>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.
Bob is right but you can get stranded versions of many coxial
cables if you know where to look. The best thing recommending
RG-58 (which can be had stranded) is its easier to find. Cost?
RG-400 is spendy but when you look at cost of plane and avionics
it's nickles and dimes. I still would not criticize you for using RG-58
but at least look for stranded.
RG-400 prices have come down to $1.85/ft. cost difference small.
SCORE! http://www.steinair.com/wire.htm has RG-400 for $1.85/ft.
B&C also has a the same price.
I know you don't need 500ft of RG-58 stranded but this is $0.23/ft
http://www.pacificcable.com/Picture_Page.asp?DataName=RG58AU
It does show RG-58 comes in stranded.
There are many RG-58 equiv on the market but RG-400 is king,
but be careful RG-400 comes in solid and stranded as well. Get
stranded; why not? Not sure RG-142 comes in stranded?
G
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142 |
I'm up to my elbows on a daily basis in FSJ1-50 and the larger family of heliax
up to 3" dia.
They are unsuitable for aircraft use due to weight and flexibility. Especially
the end connections which do not tolerate much post - install stress.
The cables Bob has replied are the best for the purpose, besides, transponders
and radios are designed to operate with some cable loss and in fact you will
have a harder time getting a satisfactory match over the VHF band if your cable
is too good. Then you have to start re-engineering and / or ferrite loading
the antenna system.
Be sure to use good connectors, not the computer - grade variety. Connectors improperly
installed cause more problems than the cable.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168096#168096
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142 |
I installed my transponder antenna about 6 months ago in the rear of my
plane. Now I am getting ready to install the transponder itself. While
reading the instructions, I discovered that the max distance for RG400 is
8.8 feet. My installation is probably 10 feet. Do I need to move the
antenna? If I don't move it, what will be the down side? It is a Garmin
GTX327 if that matters..
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jetboy
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142
I'm up to my elbows on a daily basis in FSJ1-50 and the larger family of
heliax up to 3" dia.
They are unsuitable for aircraft use due to weight and flexibility.
Especially the end connections which do not tolerate much post - install
stress.
The cables Bob has replied are the best for the purpose, besides,
transponders and radios are designed to operate with some cable loss and in
fact you will have a harder time getting a satisfactory match over the VHF
band if your cable is too good. Then you have to start re-engineering and /
or ferrite loading the antenna system.
Be sure to use good connectors, not the computer - grade variety. Connectors
improperly installed cause more problems than the cable.
Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168096#168096
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: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
While we're on the topic of coax and RG-400....what would you guys recommend
as to a wire stripper tool? I got the Ideal Stripmaster for stripping
regular wire but need something for coax.
And while we're on wire...what would you recommend for a crimper?
Thanks,
Ralph Finch
Davis CA
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400(coax |
stripper)
Ralph,
A single edge razor blade or small knife used with care works fine.
Score the jacket and pull it off with a small diagonal cutter. Do the
same for the center conductor. Any nicks to the conductors start over!!
You can master this in several practice attempts and when done properly
there is no difference in results. Any time you may save with the
expensive tool you will probably loose looking for the too :) The
diagonal cutter can be used to trim the braid. I have used the expensive
tools, a razor blade and a swiss army knife over the course of years and
many hundreds of connectors, The knife is always in my pocket and the
final result is the same.
Whatever tool you use slide the ferrule on first and then prep the cable.
Here is another option but your wallet will be $50 lighter.
http://www.specialized.net/ecommerce/shop/layout.asp?product%5Fid=108X956
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
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: "Poor Man's" coax termination with RG-400 |
Go here and then to the product drawing for cable strip details.
http://catalog.tycoelectronics.com/TE/bin/TE.Connect?C=1&M=BYPN&TCPN=5225395-6&RQPN=5225395-6
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
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: static system leak check procedure |
I'm still wondering how the radio shop does a transponder check?
I'm guessing they connect their vacuum source to the static port AND the
pitot port?? If so, I'm going to need to check the pitot side of things
for leakage as well I think.
thank you
Ken
Kevin Horton wrote:
> You can do an acceptable test much more simply than this. The standard
> (as described in FAR 23.1325(b)(2)(i)) only calls for enough vacuum to
> raise the indicated altitude 1000 ft above the altitude of the test
> site. On my RV-8, I put a piece of tape over one static port, and held
> a piece of rubber hose against the other static port. I put the other
> end of the hose in my mouth, and sucked until I had increased the
> altitude more than 1000 ft. I put my tongue over the end of hose to
> trap the pressure, and made sure to keep pushing the other end hard
> against the static port so no air leaked out there. The altimeter
> dropped much less than 100 ft in a minute (the pass/fail criteria from
> FAR 23.1325), so my system was OK.
>
> There is no need to disconnect ASI or VSI (assuming you don't introduce
> excessive vacuum, which could damage an ASI). In fact, doing it with
> instruments removed invalidates the test, as you might introduce a leak
> when you put those instruments back into the static system. You really
> need to do an end-to-end leak check with the whole static system in the
> state it would be when you fly the airplane.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
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: RG-400 vs. RG-142 |
I think I asked the same question awhile ago Bill but 11 feet seems to
work fine on a GTX320 despite the 8.8 foot caution.
Ken
Bill Bradburry wrote:
>
> I installed my transponder antenna about 6 months ago in the rear of my
> plane. Now I am getting ready to install the transponder itself. While
> reading the instructions, I discovered that the max distance for RG400 is
> 8.8 feet. My installation is probably 10 feet. Do I need to move the
> antenna? If I don't move it, what will be the down side? It is a Garmin
> GTX327 if that matters..
>
> Bill B
>
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! --
|