AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Thu 03/06/08


Total Messages Posted: 18



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
    Time: 04:38:10 AM PST US
    From: Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
    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
    Time: 05:32:04 AM PST US
    From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
    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
    Time: 06:16:18 AM PST US
    From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
    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
    Time: 07:32:18 AM PST US
    From: "mike humphrey" <mike109g6@insideconnect.net>
    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
    Time: 08:01:53 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 10:10:47 AM PST US
    From: Jeff Page <jpx@Qenesis.com>
    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
    Time: 10:21:20 AM PST US
    From: Rodney Dunham <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
    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
    Time: 10:57:09 AM PST US
    From: John Morgensen <john@morgensen.com>
    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
    Time: 11:35:09 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 11:36:14 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
    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
    Time: 11:53:08 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    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
    Time: 01:15:00 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: RG-400 vs. RG-142
    From: "jetboy" <sanson.r@xtra.co.nz>
    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
    Time: 02:21:58 PM PST US
    From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
    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
    Time: 05:02:44 PM PST US
    From: "Ralph Finch" <rgf@dcn.davis.ca.us>
    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
    Time: 06:24:28 PM PST US
    From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra@verizon.net>
    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
    Time: 06:43:48 PM PST US
    From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra@verizon.net>
    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
    Time: 07:08:54 PM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    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
    Time: 07:22:33 PM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    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

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --