Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:03 AM - Re: Fat Wires & Brass vs. Copper (grjtucson)
2. 12:07 AM - Re: PM3000 Wiring (grjtucson)
3. 10:20 AM - Re: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) ()
4. 05:08 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) (Michael Pereira)
5. 06:23 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:27 PM - Technological Stagnation - was Re: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) (Bob White)
7. 07:46 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) (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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fat Wires & Brass vs. Copper |
nuckolls.bob(at)cox.net wrote:
> At 01:36 PM 4/7/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Summary - 5 questions:
> > 1. 2AWG welding cable OK for engine to firewall ground in lieu of braid?
> > 2. 2AWG welding cable OK for 60amp PP alternator b-lead or should I downsize?
> >
> >
>
> Go 4AWG throughout . . .
>
>
> > 3. .125 x .5 brass bar OK for contactor to contactor run (Van's specs same
> > size but Copper)?
> > 4. .063 x .5 brass bar OK for contactor to current limiter (no starter
> > current)?
> > 5. .050 x .75 x 5 copper bars/straps on either side of firewall, each
> > soldered with brass tabs, with 3/16 brass bolts as ground setup OK?
> >
> >
>
> Go .032 brass for all and at LEAST 5/16 or better
> yet 3/8" brass bolts for fat-wire terminals. Torque
> to 80+ percent of maximum for the materials and thread
> sizes. Check AC43.13 for values.
Fantastic Bob, thanks for the help and for the work you continue to do. Simply
extraordinary.
George
--------
George Jenson -
Tucson, AZ - RV-7 Standard Build
Empennage Completed 1/06
Wings Completed 11/06
Fuselage in Progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175442#175442
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: PM3000 Wiring |
Vern,
I'd love to hear more, particularly price, and assuming we're not overstepping
things on the list. It sounds like exactly what I need.
Bill,
My PM3000 is older than that based on the manual provided. I haven't examined the
intercom closely enough to confirm, but it's a fair bet that I don't have one
of the newer ones.
All,
I'm likely to still be interested in rolling my own once I find out what buying
one will cost (I'm frugal in the extreme). So if anyone can shed light on my
questions, I'd be obliged.
George
--------
George Jenson -
Tucson, AZ - RV-7 Standard Build
Empennage Completed 1/06
Wings Completed 11/06
Fuselage in Progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=175443#175443
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: Transponder for sale (mode S) |
I agree completely with the technology costs and the apparent wallet
choking by marketers. As this list has often found in the past, there
are always alternatives to the big player designs. In the computer
world, Linux has proven there is a cheaper, efficient way to include the
entire world in the movement.
I feel ADSB is just another government scam and just another excuse to
act as big brother of the sky. I won't buy into that pork belly junket
even if the entry level becomes $0.00. What a bunch of crap, they offer
something for free and then steal your identity. Wait until you get the
tax bill...
If you can manage to keep the terrorists out of the country they won't
fly your Cessna's and you won't need to spy on them. No, I'm not an
isolationist, but let's exercise some control here.
On Peter's note, I'll agree that mode S does not offer added value in
itself but it still provides a low cost interface for traffic avoidance
if you already have the unit. It's not so much that mode "S" is
obsolete, we are just to ignorant or lazy to further develop the
technology into something that adds value to the flight plan while not
harboring data from our aircraft like we were all fugitives or
gangsters. What the hell, we are all bored in the US and have lots of
money, so why not build an entirely new system, ADSB or some other pipe
dream which is neither economical or leading edge (by the time the
government releases it).
To be sure I talked business in here somewhere, keep an eye on
http://www.mglavionics.com/ If there is anyone left with enough ambition
and appreciation for cost vs. value, they will be the ones to release a
low cost mode S or other for consumers. Don't expect the big dogs to
help the little guy - they are getting too rich stealing from the rest
of us.
It's sort of like the alternator business. Most shops won't admit it,
but an alternator costing $200 - $300 can be rebuilt for $50 or less
(probably $10.00). I've never had a shop pass that saving on to me
before.
Have a great week of flying and try a flight plan-less trip (it keeps
the tax man away and it's more fun).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Christley
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 10:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S)
--> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Peter Pengilly wrote:
> Mode S is mandatory in Europe? Mode S is already obsolete in the USA.
> They are fighting for the next gen transponder (that will be even more
> expensive).
>
> http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080304ads-b.html
>
> The fact is Mode S does not do anything more for general aviation.
> Even as a technology its based on OLD technology. So for the USA take
> a wait see attitude.
>
>
I find it amazing that a group of volunteers can develop a $200 laptop
to distribute to children in third world countries that, as only one
small part of the project, includes a mesh network technology that
allows them configure themselves to talk to one another on the fly. A
GPS signal (another $100) and a shared database (a correspondingly cheap
FAA controlled ground-station) gives a complete information sharing
system.
Yet, we have a local representative advocating a "low-cost" ADS-B system
that would cost around $3,000. It is simply freaking ridiculous how
"those that know more than we do" continue to settle on technologies
that are outdated and controlled by entrenched commercial interest to
the detriment of us all.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
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: Transponder for sale (mode S) |
I don't really understand this. The cost of avionics is because of the
low volume and the liability costs. Implementing Linux isn't going to
cut the costs more than 20 bucks on a device. This is a huge deduction
for something like a wifi router. It's noise if you're talking about a
device like a garmin 430.
I'm a full fledged linux bigot but linux isn't the answer to
everything. For something like a mode-s transponder that does very
little but must do it in real time, it probably isn't the right
answer. (And if your answer is ever Windows you're asking the wrong
questions).
I don't see anyone getting rich in the GA aviation market other than
probably the lawyers Cessna and Cirrus must have on retainer.
Also, if I'm not mistaken both mode-s and adsb encode the n-number of
the aircraft they are installed in, so there is no privacy difference.
Adsb is self contained, it transmits a bunch of information, listens
to broadcasts from other aircraft and ATC has passive receivers. If
you're concern is government misbehavior you should be more interested
in adsb than mode-s. Adsb you turn the device off and you're gone as
far as atc is concerned. I assume most mode-s installations will be
made concurrently with primary radar (like mode-c is).
I imagine adsb can be made with more commercial of the shelf parts
since it's basically a gps coupled with a microprocessor and a
transmitter. That has to be easier than implementing something that
interacts with a government provided radar infrastructure (which if I
know the government well enough, probably isn't documented as well as
it should be).
But, forcing everyone to go to mode-s then a half heartbeat later adsb
is annoying and can't be justified considering the expense it's going
to put on aircraft owners.
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM, <longg@pjm.com> wrote:
>
> I agree completely with the technology costs and the apparent wallet
> choking by marketers. As this list has often found in the past, there
> are always alternatives to the big player designs. In the computer
> world, Linux has proven there is a cheaper, efficient way to include the
> entire world in the movement.
>
> I feel ADSB is just another government scam and just another excuse to
> act as big brother of the sky. I won't buy into that pork belly junket
> even if the entry level becomes $0.00. What a bunch of crap, they offer
> something for free and then steal your identity. Wait until you get the
> tax bill...
>
> If you can manage to keep the terrorists out of the country they won't
> fly your Cessna's and you won't need to spy on them. No, I'm not an
> isolationist, but let's exercise some control here.
>
> On Peter's note, I'll agree that mode S does not offer added value in
> itself but it still provides a low cost interface for traffic avoidance
> if you already have the unit. It's not so much that mode "S" is
> obsolete, we are just to ignorant or lazy to further develop the
> technology into something that adds value to the flight plan while not
> harboring data from our aircraft like we were all fugitives or
> gangsters. What the hell, we are all bored in the US and have lots of
> money, so why not build an entirely new system, ADSB or some other pipe
> dream which is neither economical or leading edge (by the time the
> government releases it).
>
> To be sure I talked business in here somewhere, keep an eye on
> http://www.mglavionics.com/ If there is anyone left with enough ambition
> and appreciation for cost vs. value, they will be the ones to release a
> low cost mode S or other for consumers. Don't expect the big dogs to
> help the little guy - they are getting too rich stealing from the rest
> of us.
>
> It's sort of like the alternator business. Most shops won't admit it,
> but an alternator costing $200 - $300 can be rebuilt for $50 or less
> (probably $10.00). I've never had a shop pass that saving on to me
> before.
>
> Have a great week of flying and try a flight plan-less trip (it keeps
> the tax man away and it's more fun).
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>
> Ernest Christley
> Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 10:19 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S)
>
>
> --> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Peter Pengilly wrote:
> > Mode S is mandatory in Europe? Mode S is already obsolete in the USA.
> > They are fighting for the next gen transponder (that will be even more
> > expensive).
> >
> > http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080304ads-b.html
> >
> > The fact is Mode S does not do anything more for general aviation.
> > Even as a technology its based on OLD technology. So for the USA take
> > a wait see attitude.
> >
> >
> I find it amazing that a group of volunteers can develop a $200 laptop
> to distribute to children in third world countries that, as only one
> small part of the project, includes a mesh network technology that
> allows them configure themselves to talk to one another on the fly. A
> GPS signal (another $100) and a shared database (a correspondingly cheap
>
> FAA controlled ground-station) gives a complete information sharing
> system.
>
> Yet, we have a local representative advocating a "low-cost" ADS-B system
>
> that would cost around $3,000. It is simply freaking ridiculous how
> "those that know more than we do" continue to settle on technologies
> that are outdated and controlled by entrenched commercial interest to
> the detriment of us all.
>
> --
>
> http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
>
>
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: Transponder for sale (mode S) |
At 05:04 PM 4/8/2008 -0700, you wrote:
><mjpereira68@gmail.com>
>
>I don't really understand this. The cost of avionics is because of the
>low volume and the liability costs. Implementing Linux isn't going to
>cut the costs more than 20 bucks on a device. This is a huge deduction
>for something like a wifi router. It's noise if you're talking about a
>device like a garmin 430.
Having been both a airframe-consumer and an OEM-supplier
in the type certificated aircraft industry, I can share
that as much as 1/2 the cost of a product has nothing to
do with the economics of volume or even the development
costs.
The piles of paper generated before one achieves permission
to sell to TC aviation are a significant portion of the
development costs. Piles of paper to retain permission
after certification are significant. The piles of paper
generated to implement even the most rudimentary of fix
or improvement to design are significant. Each pile of
paper is subject to submission and review by the cognizant
faction of The Administrator's staff with each reviewer
having 90 days to respond. All the while, the manufacturer
has folks drawing salaries charged against the work order
for that product while they wait for reviewers to finish
praying over the paper.
I won't suggest that EVERYTHING we're required to do
is not necessary or useful . . . but folks-who-know-
more-about-airplanes-than-we-do have no stake in
profitability or even performance of those whom they
regulate. Like lawyers who bill by the hour, there's
no incentive to bring any matter to closure soon.
I've seen the in-boxes on a regulator's desk piled
with a 91-day backlog of work . . . and he/she was
proud of it. When I walked in with my request for
an audience, I was greeted warmly and my little
pile of papers for phase 4 of a 10-phase endeavor,
my stuff went to the bottom of the 91-day stack.
And you better not complain lest you find that your
next project keeps dropping to the bottom of the stack
every few weeks.
It's easy to understand why this happens. EVERYONE
wants to get a raise next year. Most everyone likes
to move up in the ranks of their discipline every
year. How does one advance excellence in presiding
over a static set of rules with a static staff? Under
static conditions, performance eventually goes
asymptotic to perfection and advancement ceases.
But if you create more rules and hire more staff to
administer those rules, then the bar goes up and
one can justify expecting and receiving more pay.
Getting things done quickly has a poor return
on investment for the career track.
While Gates and IBM are capable of adding value to
their products . . . regulation only ADDS cost.
If Gates and IBM had the same hurdles to cross as
manufacturers of products for aviation, we'd still be
running 20 MHz 486 machines under CP/M for 3 to 10x
the cost of a current off-the-shelf CPU.
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 |
|
for sale (mode S)
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 20:20:20 -0500
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
> While Gates and IBM are capable of adding value to
> their products . . . regulation only ADDS cost.
> If Gates and IBM had the same hurdles to cross as
> manufacturers of products for aviation, we'd still be
> running 20 MHz 486 machines under CP/M for 3 to 10x
> the cost of a current off-the-shelf CPU.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
CP/M ran just fine on the 8080 and Z80 chips so it's doubtful the
8086 or any of the other advanced processors would have made it past
the paperwork. :)
Bob W.
(I still have a CP/M machine that was working the last time I turned it
on - about 10 years ago.)
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
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: Transponder for sale (mode S) |
Michael Pereira wrote:
>
> I don't really understand this. The cost of avionics is because of the
> low volume and the liability costs. Implementing Linux isn't going to
> cut the costs more than 20 bucks on a device. This is a huge deduction
> for something like a wifi router. It's noise if you're talking about a
> device like a garmin 430.
>
The point wasn't that the OLPC uses Linux. The point was that the
technology to implement a self configuring mesh network is both cheap
and widespread. The point was that the people in charge think of
$3,000 as "low cost", while the same task is being done for <$200.
I realize that Garmin has to make a few pennies. I'm also an engineer,
and I like to eat, too. But I don't expect the government to legislate
that everyone by a Cisco C6500 to use the internet. That sort of
equipment is just way overkill for the job. To say that the industry
should pursue a technology direction that forces everyone to buy
expensive equipment, when the same job can be performed...neigh, is
being performed...by much cheaper equipment so that someone can make
some money is a broken window argument.
Part of the problem is the low volume, as you claim. And so they
propose a system that will perpetuate the need to use low volume
devices? All that would be required to implement the design goals that
I've seen is a white-box GPS, the innards of a PalmVx, and a medium
strength transceiver. The software is trivial, considering the number
of examples with open source available (ie, the hard part is done
already). There's nothing in the mix that would push a marginally
successful product into the $3,000 range.
I think most people involved with aircraft are jaded to the point they
truly believe everything should cost thousands. You have not, because
you ask not.
--
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! --
|