---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 04/19/08: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:15 AM - Questions on avionics () 2. 07:01 AM - Re: Questions on avionics (rampil) 3. 07:03 AM - Re: Questions on avionics (Ken) 4. 07:53 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 04/18/08 (=?utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgU2hhbmk=?=) 5. 10:04 AM - Re: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft (Ernest Christley) 6. 12:00 PM - Navaids ap 1 (Bill and Marsha) 7. 05:57 PM - Re: A Bit of Help, Please (Speedy11@aol.com) 8. 06:24 PM - Re: Navaids ap 1 (Dale Ensing) 9. 07:29 PM - Re: Navaids ap 1 (Charlie England) 10. 08:10 PM - Re: Grommets (Jeff Page) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:46 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics 4/19/2008 Hello Ira, You wrote: "........I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO." If that encoding altimeter is the altitude encoder that is feeding the transponder required by FAR Sec 91.215 then it must comply with either 91.217 (b) or (c). That is what this thread has been about. See my response to Mike, copied below, for more information. 'OC' ------------------------------------------------------------- 4/18/2008 Hello Mike, Thanks for your three emails. You wrote: 1) "....you are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal proof." A) I invite you to look at "Subpart O -- TSO Authorizations" of FAR Part 21. You can access it here: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=9dad7a792e03c09e14fc110ded0921cb&rgn=div6&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.9.15&idno=14 B) Then I invite you to look at TSO-C10b. You can access it here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/072c91c58fdc6ce686256da4005f4d1b/$FILE/C10b.pdf C) Then I invite you to look at TSO-C88b. You can access it here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/625ebf9767dac15e8625727c006e10df/$FILE/TSO-C88b.pdf D) Now I invite you (and here is the gotcha) to procure and look at all the technical references contained in those TSO's. The TSO's themselves are just sort of shell documents, pointers if you will. All the real technical guts and standards that must be complied with are found in the references. E) Now I ask you to picture the average homebuilder satisfying someone that he is complying with the standards of the relevant TSO's without formal proof. 2) "It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle legal difference." I accept your "subtle legal difference". After you have gone through steps A through D above I ask you to picture the average homebuilder satisfying someone that his non TSO'd altitude encoder is meeting the standards of the relevant TSO's . 3) "So answer me this: If you the builder /manufacturer determines that your testing puts the encoder in compliances with the TSO standards......." Again I ask you to picture the average amateur builder determining that his testing puts the encoder in compliance with the TSO standards -- not some of the standards, not just the performance standards, but the all of the TSO standards. The reason that the EFIS manufacturers have not done this very thing is because of the significant cost and bureacratic burden involved. 4) "...and you test the unit IAW 43.13 and it passes ......" A) (I am not sure why you referenced 43.13. It does not appear to be relevant here. Perhaps you meant FAR Sec 91.413. I will assume so.) First off I, the amateur builder, am not permitted to perform the tests required by 91.413 -- see sub paragraph (c) of 91.413. B) "......what would be the ramifications?" Second, assuming the tests required by 91.413 were properly performed by a willing qualified person / entity, the automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment containing the non TSO'd altitude encoder passed the tests, and the test results were properly documented there probably would be no adverse ramifications. But consider this: B-1) Suppose a willing qualified person / entity is not readily available to perform the 91.413 required tests because the non TSO'd altitude encoder is not in compliance with 91.217? What are the ramifications then? Probably no big deal, go find someone or some place that will perform the tests. B-2) Suppose that there is a mid air collision between an amateur built experimental aircraft and an airline aircraft with major loss of life. And further suppose that the equipment in the amateur built experimental aircraft had absolutely nothing to do with causing the accident, but the media learns that the amateur built experimenal aircraft was not in compliance with some Federal Aviation Regulation (91.217) . What are the ramifications then? 5) "I don't see a violation of the rule as written." I am not sure which rule you are referring to. If you are referring to 91.217 there are two choices: A) Comply with subparagraph (c); ie have equipment that is TSO'd, or B) Comply with the tests described in subparagraph (b). I think that the tests required by 91.411 and 91.413 should be considered to meet the requirements of 91.217 (b). Unfortunately, to date the FAA HQ does not agree with me and they seem to have a little more authority than I do. 6) "Also their is no enforcement mechanism in place to even determine whether your in compliance or not." True enough. I think the FAA is too busy measuring the spacing between lacings on wire bundles in the wheel wells of airliners to make very many ramp checks on the avionics installed in amateur built experimental aircraft, but see the ramifications comments above and make an informed decision. 7) "You as the aircraft certifying authority as the builder......" The Special Airworthiness Certificate in the Experimental Category for the purpose of Operating Amateur Built Aircraft is signed and issued by an FAA Representative who has been delegated that authority by the FAA Administrator. The FAA Administrator is the certifying authority, not the amateur builder. 8) "You ........ as the builder determine suitability as it pertains to the regulations and no one else" Try telling that to the FAA employee or DAR who comes to inspect your amateur built experimental aircraft for its initial airworthiness inspection. He will set you straight very quickly on who will make the decisions regarding the suitability of your aircraft as it pertains to regulations. 9) "Short of them scouring the wreckage for TSO tags they would have to make an assumption." I hope that it would never come to that, but the tenacity, search for details, and the ill will of lawyers and journalists when they smell blood and money should not be ignored. All I am seeking to do is to have people make informed decisions -- I provide the information, they make the decisions. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." ------------------------------------- Time: 08:28:34 PM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics I would argue that you are not looking for a deviation to the TSO you are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal proof. Mike ----------------------------------------------------- Time: 08:34:11 PM PST US From: "Mike" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics Read the regulation. It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle legal difference. Mike ----------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "MLAS" Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Questions on avionics > So answer me this: If you the builder /manufacturer determines that your > testing puts the encoder in compliances with the TSO standards and you > test the unit IAW 43.13 and it passes what would be the ramifications. We > do live in a country made up by "Common Law" (short def: If it isn't > prohibited then it's legal). I don't see a violation of the rule as > written. Also their is no enforcement mechanism in place to even > determine whether your in compliance or not. You as the aircraft > certifying authority as the builder determine suitability as it pertains > to the regulations and no one else. Short of them scouring the wreckage > for TSO tags they would have to make an assumption. > > Mike -------------------------------------------------------- Time: 03:45:49 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" And of course, I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO. Transponders must be TSO -------- Ira N224XS ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:01:52 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" Again, back to 91.217 (b): (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft; or This is just the performance test. It says nothing about TSO. Part 21 and 23 do not apply to owner built aircraft with special airworthiness certificates -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177838#177838 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:06 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics This is not totally theoretical. I am aware of a recent airliner that took (mandatory) evasive action (and altitude bust) based on erroneous transponder reporting from a unreported low altitude VFR airplane with an unknown N number. Such TCAS inspired altitude busts are rare (but not rare enough) and are usually chalked up to temporary glitches, but you can see the risk involved. A TCAS RA warning takes precedence over ATC assigned altitude. It is rare to positively identify the exact cause of these events but apparently some transponders operate for awhile with issues before they are discovered. I'd prefer an uncertified encoding altimeter to a Tso'd blind encoder UNLESS there is any kind of legal challenge. For the time being I use a Tso'd blind encoder but since I do not often fly in controlled airspace with ATC altitude feedback, I occasionally check my transmitted altitude with a PCAS MRX traffic warning device. I suspect that such issues are one small part of the drive towards encoding permanent aircraft idents into the newer transponders. Ken > B-2) Suppose that there is a mid air collision between an amateur built > experimental aircraft and an airline aircraft with major loss of life. And > further suppose that the equipment in the amateur built experimental > aircraft had absolutely nothing to do with causing the accident, but the > media learns that the amateur built experimenal aircraft was not in > compliance with some Federal Aviation Regulation (91.217) . What are the > ramifications then? ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:53:28 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 04/18/08 From: "=?utf-8?B?RGF2aWQgU2hhbmk=?=" D David Shani MIS Director 617-303-1930 Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: AeroElectric-List Digest Server To:AeroElectric-List Digest List Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 04/18/08 * ================================================= Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive ================================================= Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor such as Notepad or with a web browser. HTML Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 08-04-18&Archive=AeroElectric Text Version: http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-04-18&Archive=AeroElectric =============================================== EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive =============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 04/18/08: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:30 AM - Re: Questions on avionics (Kevin Horton) 2. 03:45 AM - Re: Questions on avionics (rampil) 3. 05:17 AM - Grommets (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS) 4. 05:53 AM - Re: pinout for Softcom ATC-P intercom?? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 06:32 AM - Re: Questions on avionics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 06:55 AM - "Chubby" wires and fuseblocks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 07:36 AM - Re: Grommets (Jeff Page) 8. 07:46 AM - Re: Grommets (Jeff Page) 9. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 10. 11:37 AM - ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft () 11. 11:53 AM - Re: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft (Ralph E. Capen) 12. 12:18 PM - Re: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft (Bruce Gray) 13. 12:46 PM - Re: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft (Ernest Christley) 14. 02:54 PM - Re: Re: Grommets (n801bh@netzero.com) 15. 03:37 PM - Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (n277dl) 16. 05:24 PM - Re: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft (Charlie England) 17. 07:13 PM - navaid ap 1 (Bill and Marsha) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:30:23 AM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics On 17 Apr 2008, at 23:29, Mike wrote: > > Read the regulation. It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO > standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle > legal difference. > > But, if you read the TSO standards you would likely conclude that it would be a very expensive and difficult job to do the testing to determine whether the item met those standards. If the item must meet all the TSO standards, it would almost certainly be more practical simply to purchase a TSO'd item. In the specific case of altimeters and altimeter encoders, the regs provide an alternative - as others have noted you can comply with (b) OR (c). -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (FInal Assembly) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:45:49 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Questions on avionics From: "rampil" And of course, I was referring to encoding altimeters when I said there was no requirement for TSO. Transponders must be TSO -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177582#177582 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:41 AM PST US From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grommets Jeff, Unless you live on the South Pole in the middle of winter, there is no way that normal grommets, as you described them, will just split apart and fall off!! The expansion/contraction of the aluminum is so small as to not be a factor. Are you sure someone didn't cut them off, just to play a mind game with you?? Roger -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:53 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grommets I was surprised to find halves of grommets lying on the floor of my hangar the other day. In January, they were installed in the leading edge ribs. It has been too cold here in Toronto to do much work on my plane since then. As far as I can tell, the holes in the aluminum ribs shrunk from the cold and cut the grommets in half. I am glad I found this out before pulling all the wires through ! The holes were drilled a hair smaller than the grommets, which fit nicely without bunching up. The holes were carefully deburred and I can rotate my finger in the holes without feeling a sharp edge. The grommets I purchased from Spaenaur rather than the local hardware store. They are specd as material: SBR, hardness: 60 durometer +/-5. Are these grommets the wrong material ? Should there be slack around the grommet when fitted in the hole ? Some other problem I haven't thought of ? Thanks, Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:53:25 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: pinout for Softcom ATC-P intercom?? At 09:09 PM 4/17/2008 -0500, you wrote: > > >Can anyone point me to an installation manual (or just the pin IDs of the >dB25) for a Softcom ATC-P intercom? > >I thought there was a collection of installation diagrams on the >Aeroelectric site, but I've been unable to locate it. The pinout guide for a limited number of products can be found at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/ However, these installation aids are the gleaned from publications that favored a lot of legacy products (20+ years old). I did a websearch for Softcom installation data and didn't have any luck in the time I had to spend on it. A phone call to Softcom would probably yield the knowledge as to whether a website resource would produce the data you need. In the mean time, if anyone has the documentation covering any version of a Softcom product and could either produce a good scan or loan it to me for scanning, I'd be happy to add the data to the library. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:32:53 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics At 06:26 AM 4/18/2008 -0400, you wrote: > >On 17 Apr 2008, at 23:29, Mike wrote: > >> >>Read the regulation. It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO >>standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle >>legal difference. >> > > >But, if you read the TSO standards you would likely conclude that it >would be a very expensive and difficult job to do the testing to >determine whether the item met those standards. If the item must >meet all the TSO standards, it would almost certainly be more >practical simply to purchase a TSO'd item. You got that right. The actual testing is the cheap part. I used to qualify products intended for use on TC aircraft based on oversight of a single FAA representative for the engineering testing in my lab. Nowadays, you first have to get permission to test, then write up a test plan that speaks to what color the walls of the lab will be painted, then schedule a bevy of official dispensers of holy-water and witnesses for testing (most of whom don't have a clue about how your product works) and the accomplish this all in a laboratory that is "certified" down to whether or not the paint cited in the test plan has lead in it. Finally you have to write a test report. Documents that support various phases of the test effort must be submitted to the local ACO who is not just allowed but EXPECTED to take 91 days to pray over it before granting a blessing. If they do any red-lining, then they'll take another 91 days to reconsider the changes. In the mean time, the project team is still banging the project work-order. The value-added activity for proving that a product meets its cited design goals is dwarfed by the no-value-added activities foisted upon us those-who-know-more-about-airplanes- than-we-do. If anyone really believes that last week's air transportation debacle had anything to do with real passenger safety is sadly deluded. It has everything to do with lawmakers and regulators activities that expand kingdoms over which they reign thereby justifying their fat retirement packages. The saddest part is that my contemporaries in the TC aircraft world are so distracted by requirements to dance to somebody else's orchestra that they're not building their ability to be good engineers. That's what I'm getting paid those big bucks for now . . . but I'm always watching for some bright young bucks to whom I might pass the torch. I think I've found a couple of new hires at HB that show great promise. I've already conspired with their boss to shield them as much as possible from the forces that would dilute their curiosity, creative juices and enthusiasm for their jobs. In the mean time, you who are members of the 'unwashed' must suffer the effects of all this pomp-and-circumstance and be content with the dream that "their hearts are in the right place . . . they're only concerned about your safety." But if you had a non-TSO'd encoder that lacked your confidence as to suitability to task, we could probably assuage those concerns in one day of playing around in the lab. To get real TSO blessings on the product would require a 6-12 month, 400+ man-hour effort. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Chubby" wires and fuseblocks >Comments/Questions: I dont' undestand how to connect large current loads >to FASTON fuse blocks. > >Max wire into FASTON seems to be #10 > >Fuses up 30A are sold by B&C > >Most #10 wire is not rated for 30A. I don't know of any #10 wire that is not rated for 30A in airplanes. >What am I missing? > I don't recommend any fuses beyond 14AWG/15A be used in the fuse blocks. What systems are you wiring that demand the use of larger wire/fuses? At 07:15 AM 4/17/2008 -0700, you wrote: >That's not the question. I want to understand the "faston technology" Why >does >Tyco et. el. make fuses that apparently are larger than the wire they are >designed to protect? > >Thanks I'm not sure I understand the question. Tyco doesn't make fuses. Bussmann, Littlefuse, and contemporaries do. Neither one makes wire. It's the system designer's task to consider suitability of each component to the task based on manufacturer's specifications and their own experience bolstered perhaps by in-house testing. Selection of components for assembling into a system is usually accomplished by "erring on the safe side." E.g., de-rating the devices such that no combination of environmental conditions put any component at risk. This is the foundation for my recommendation that we not use anything larger than 15A fuses in the fuse blocks contrary to the manufacturer's ratings of 30A combined with Bussmann's willingness to supply a 30A fuse that fits the hole in a fuse block they designed. At the same time, 10AWG wire is generally good for 30A in all but the warmest environments and cheesiest insulation. If design goals for a design drive us to push a combination of components out to the boundaries of their performance limits, then designers are obligated to do a lot of analysis and probably testing to confirm that analysis. In most cases, the qualification effort for an optimized design far exceeds value received for the finished product. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:36:23 AM PST US From: Jeff Page Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote: > * > > ================================================ > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ================================================ > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 08-04-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > Text Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 08-04-17&Archive=AeroElectric > > > ============================================== > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > ============================================== > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Thu 04/17/08: 22 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 04:49 AM - Re: Ground Power - Z31A (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 2. 04:56 AM - Re: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions > (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 3. 05:49 AM - "Chubby" wires and fuseblocks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 4. 06:13 AM - Switch ratings (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 5. 06:17 AM - Re: Grommets (Jeff Page) > 6. 07:06 AM - Re: Grommets (Bubblehead) > 7. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: Grommets () > 8. 07:56 AM - Re: Re: Grommets (Bob White) > 9. 07:57 AM - Re: Grommets (RALPH HOOVER) > 10. 01:39 PM - Re: Re: Grommets (Rob Housman) > 11. 02:00 PM - Re: Re: Grommets (Bryan) > 12. 02:14 PM - Thermal expansion (was Grommets) (raymondj) > 13. 03:12 PM - Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions (n277dl) > 14. 05:44 PM - A Bit of Help, Please (Speedy11@aol.com) > 15. 06:44 PM - Re: A Bit of Help, Please (Joemotis@aol.com) > 16. 06:55 PM - Questions on avionics () > 17. 07:13 PM - pinout for Softcom ATC-P intercom?? (Charlie England) > 18. 07:22 PM - Re: A Bit of Help, Please (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) > 19. 07:42 PM - Re: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) (Charlie England) > 20. 07:48 PM - Re: Questions on avionics (Ernest Christley) > 21. 08:28 PM - Re: Questions on avionics (Mike) > 22. 08:34 PM - Re: Questions on avionics (Mike) > > > ________________________________ Message 1 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 04:49:12 AM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground Power - Z31A > > > At 11:38 PM 4/16/2008 +0200, you wrote: > >> >> Bob >> >> Please can you confirm the correct procedure for using the ground power on >> Z31a architecture. >> >> Is it imperative to first switch on the "ground power" switch, before >> switching on the master switch? > > No. The ground power may be turned on at any time in the > starting sequence without regard to damage to the system. > The ground power circuits as depicted are reverse polarity > and ov protected . . . > >> Would I just switch ground power off, once the aircraft has started? > > Yes. > > >> What would happen if ground power switch was inadvertantly left on for an >> indefinite period, or turned on whilst the aircraft engine was running? > > No big deal. IF the ground power source voltage was set > higher than your ship's regulator, your alternator > would not come on line and pick up system loads as long > as the ground power was connected. If you're getting a > start from a battery cart - as ship's systems came > alive, your ship's alternator would begin to charge/ > re-charge ALL batteries in the system . . . including those > in a still connected ground power cart. > > If you're using external power from an engine driven or > AC mains powered cart, then would would expect the external > voltage source to be set at "battery charging" voltage > levels (14.2 or 28.5). In this case, you could turn on > ground power long before closing the master switch and > let ground power replenish you ship's battery. After > 15 minutes or so, your ship's battery may well contain > sufficient snort to start your engine and ground power > could be disconnected for the start an subsequent > pre-flight. If the ground power is a battery cart, > then no charging of the ship's battery can take place > and you're obligated to use ground power to get the > engine started. After starting, you'd want to turn > ground power off so that ALL of your ship's alternator > output was being used to replenish stored energy in > the ship's battery. > > In cold weather, you may wish to use ground power > as a routine assist for getting the engine > started even if your battery is in good shape. > > Aside from the possibility of too much ground power > voltage and/or reversed polarity, there are no risks to > your airplane's systems that warrant concern. Making > ground power managed from the pilot's seat > puts you in control of this resource for the purpose > of addressing the task at hand. > > It's an energy management problem with solutions > determined by equipment available, condition of > your battery and immediate goals. I recall reading > a story many moons ago where a pilot used his ground > power jumper cables to get his car started using > his airplane's battery after returning from a trip > and finding the car battery was not up to the task. > >> Your assistance as always is appreciated. > > Pleased to be of service sir! > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 2 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 04:56:17 AM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions > > > At 02:54 PM 4/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >> >> Bob and list, >> Using the previously attached document as reference... >> >> Assumptions... rear mounted batteries. Main Bat Cntctr, Aux Bat cntctr >> and Xfeed Cntctr all mounted in rear beside the batteries. > > Hmmmm . . . normally we'd like to see the cross-feed contactor > mounted on the firewall. This provides nice fat-wire terminals > from both batteries to serve as distribution points for the > two batteries in addressing their respective tasks. > >> 2awg ground wire to fwd central gnd bus attached to the engine via stud >> through firewall. XFEED cnctr closed for starting. 2AWG wire from the >> same side of XFEED cntctr that the main bat cntctr is connected to >> starter cntctr. > > Okay . . . > >> Questions.... Can I then run appropriate sized wire (tbd) from the same >> side of the starter cntctr as the 2awg wire is attached to the main pwr bus? > > Yes. If your cross-feed contactor were up front > then the battery distribution tie point would be > on the cross-feed contactor. With the configuration > you've described, then the starter contactor becomes > the tie point. > > >> If so, I also assume I would run appropriate sized wire ~8-10 awg (but not >> the heavy 2awg) from aux bat side of the XFEED to the Aux bus and use same >> wire to from the aux alt (prob 8 amp b&C alternator). > > Oops . . . sounds like you're describing a Z-14 > architecture using an SD-8 on the aux side. Not > recommended due to aux battery contactor loads being > such a significant portion of the SD-8's output. > Suggest a Z-13 architecture is more appropriate to > maximizing the capabilities of the SD-8. > > >> Hope this makes sense. Really just trying to understand if I can only run >> two fat wires from the batteries to the firewall if I want to ground at >> the firewall or need to pull the extra "hot fat wire". > > Let's talk about your architecture and choices > of hardware to fill the various slots. What > shortcomings do you perceive with a Z-13 architecture > that drives you toward dual batteries? > > Bob . . . > > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 3 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 05:49:19 AM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: "Chubby" wires and fuseblocks > > >> Comments/Questions: I dont' undestand how to connect large current loads >> to FASTON fuse blocks. >> >> Max wire into FASTON seems to be #10 >> >> Fuses up 30A are sold by B&C >> >> Most #10 wire is not rated for 30A. > > I don't know of any #10 wire that is not rated for > 30A in airplanes. > > >> What am I missing? >> > > I don't recommend any fuses beyond 14AWG/15A be used > in the fuse blocks. What systems are you wiring > that demand the use of larger wire/fuses? > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 4 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:13:51 AM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switch ratings > > >> Comments/Questions: Hi Bob, >> >> Re: S700-2-10 switch >> >> What is the current rating for this switch? > > The S700 series switches are Carling G-series devices. > The data sheet for this line of products may be reviewed > at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Carling_G-series.pdf > > Note that these are rated at up to 20A in 120VAC systems. > In the article at: > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf > > we explore the simple ideas behind current ratings > and service life of switches as installed in various > working environments. > >> I would like to use this switch to turn on rotating beacons (12 amps) and >> strobe lights (11 amps) using the circuit in figure 11-18 (page 11-19) in >> the 11th edition of your book. The B&C catalog lists the rating as '15VAC >> maximum'. How does this rating apply to a 14 volt system? >> My application would run 23 amps through the switch. Will the switch >> handle this load? > > Yes, you'll probably get a satisfactory service life > using the S700-2-10 for this application. But I'm curious > as to where you got these current values. I'm also curious > as to why you have a combination of strobes and rotating > beacons on the same airplane. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 5 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:17:15 AM PST US > From: Jeff Page > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > > Mark, > > Here is the link to the grommet info: > http://www.spaenaur.ca/pdf/sectionJ/J69.pdf > The grommets are not all the same size, but most are 315-263. So the > groove diameter is 7/16 and I would have drilled 27/64" holes. > I think the ribs are 6061-T6 32 thou. > Unfortunately, I have a bad cold, so I won't be able to visit the > hangar to take photos. If you held a grommet in your fingers and > sliced it vertically with a dull knife, tearing as well as cutting, > that's what they look like. > I pushed the grommets in when it was about freezing temperature, but > they were still quite pliable. They were not difficult to install > using just my fingers. It didn't run any wire or conduit in them, > just left them there. The frame of the wing is rivetted, but the > skins are not on it yet. It is just sitting on the workbench. > > As long as the SBR material is considered aviation quality, I expect I > just need larger holes. > > Jeff > >> Time: 09:21:58 AM PST US >> From: >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Grommets >> >> Your finding has me concerned. Could you provide the following details: >> >> 1 Grommet Dimensions or Spaenaur part #: >> Inside Diameter >> Groove Diameter >> Outside Diameter >> Groove Width >> Overall Thickness >> >> 2 Hole Diameter >> >> 3 Rib thickness >> >> Were the wires in conduit? If so what was the outside diameter of the >> conduit. >> >> Do you have a pic of the installed grommet and the split grommet you can >> post? > > > ________________________________ Message 6 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:06:31 AM PST US > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > From: "Bubblehead" > > > rob(at)hyperion-ef.com wrote: >> While not disputing that the grommets failed, I must question your >> explanation. The coefficient of thermal expansion for aluminum alloy 3003 >> (a common sheet alloy) is 12.9 microinch/inch deg F, so doing the math for a >> 1 inch diameter hole and a temperature change from a really hot 100 deg F >> day for installation and a really cold minus 50 deg F day during the winter >> you get a worst case diameter change of slightly less than .002 inch. A >> half inch diameter hole would change less than .001 inch for the same >> temperature change. >> >> Installing the grommets into an undersize hole, thus stressing the grommet, >> is probably the culprit, not contraction alone. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rob Housman >> Irvine, CA >> Europa XS Tri-Gear >> A070 >> Airframe complete >> >> -- > > > Rob - I think you're using the coefficient for the aluminum and then > computing > the change based on the size of the hole. The change in hole size is > because of > the change in the aluminum size. 1" or 1/2" hole doesn't matter - > only the amount > of aluminum around the hole! > > Actually, as the aluminum cools wouldn't it contract, making the > hole bigger? The > temperature would have to rise so the aluminum expands to make the > hole smaller. > > > My opinion is the bushings got brittle and maybe had flaws or > residual stresses > that made them break. I doubt change in hole diameter had anything to do with > it. > > John > > -------- > John Dalman > Elburn, IL > RV-8 N247TD > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177406#177406 > > > ________________________________ Message 7 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:35:53 AM PST US > From: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > > Jeff: > > That's all I need to work with. Thanks > > Hope you feel better > > Mark > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Page" > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 6:14 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > >> >> Mark, >> >> Here is the link to the grommet info: >> http://www.spaenaur.ca/pdf/sectionJ/J69.pdf >> The grommets are not all the same size, but most are 315-263. So the >> groove diameter is 7/16 and I would have drilled 27/64" holes. >> I think the ribs are 6061-T6 32 thou. >> Unfortunately, I have a bad cold, so I won't be able to visit the >> hangar to take photos. If you held a grommet in your fingers and >> sliced it vertically with a dull knife, tearing as well as cutting, >> that's what they look like. >> I pushed the grommets in when it was about freezing temperature, but >> they were still quite pliable. They were not difficult to install >> using just my fingers. It didn't run any wire or conduit in them, >> just left them there. The frame of the wing is rivetted, but the >> skins are not on it yet. It is just sitting on the workbench. >> >> As long as the SBR material is considered aviation quality, I expect I >> just need larger holes. >> >> Jeff >> >>> Time: 09:21:58 AM PST US >>> From: >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Grommets >>> >>> Your finding has me concerned. Could you provide the following details: >>> >>> 1 Grommet Dimensions or Spaenaur part #: >>> Inside Diameter >>> Groove Diameter >>> Outside Diameter >>> Groove Width >>> Overall Thickness >>> >>> 2 Hole Diameter >>> >>> 3 Rib thickness >>> >>> Were the wires in conduit? If so what was the outside diameter of the >>> conduit. >>> >>> Do you have a pic of the installed grommet and the split grommet you can >>> post? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 8 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:56:19 AM PST US > From: Bob White > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:03:17 -0700 > "Bubblehead" wrote: > > >> >> >> Rob - I think you're using the coefficient for the aluminum and >> then computing > the change based on the size of the hole. The change in hole size is because > of the change in the aluminum size. 1" or 1/2" hole doesn't matter - only the > amount of aluminum around the hole! >> >> Actually, as the aluminum cools wouldn't it contract, making the >> hole bigger? > The temperature would have to rise so the aluminum expands to make > the hole smaller. > >> >> My opinion is the bushings got brittle and maybe had flaws or >> residual stresses > that made them break. I doubt change in hole diameter had anything to do with > it. >> >> John >> >> -------- >> John Dalman >> Elburn, IL >> RV-8 N247TD >> >> > Hi John, > > When you're looking at the dimensional change in the material, you have > to look at the overall dimensions of the item. Say you have a piece of > aluminum 10 inches X 10 inches with a 1 inch dia hole in the center. > If a drop in temperature causes the material to shrink 0.001 inch per > inch (just to pick a number), the new dimensions will be 10 thousandths > less or 9.99 X 9.99 and the inside hole will be .999 inches in dia. > The size of the internal hole will be the same as if the material was > still there. > > > Bob W. > > > -- > 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 9 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:57:21 AM PST US > From: "RALPH HOOVER" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Grommets > > > Jeff, > Just a guess but exposure to solvents could breakdown SBR. I cannot > imagine that hole size alone is the issue. > > http://www.alliedrubber.com/Gasket/SBRRubber.cfm.htm > > "When exposed to petroleum derivatives, the performance of this rubber is > inferior to many other synthetics. Red SBR rubber is popular for use as a > gasket in low pressure applications such as washers and gaskets for the > heating and plumbing trades. Black SBR is commonly used for abrasion > conditions such as skirtboard and chute lining." > > Ralph & Laura Hoover > RV7A N527LR > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Page > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:53 AM > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Grommets > > > I was surprised to find halves of grommets lying on the floor of my > hangar the other day. In January, they were installed in the leading > edge ribs. It has been too cold here in Toronto to do much work on my > plane since then. > > As far as I can tell, the holes in the aluminum ribs shrunk from the > cold and cut the grommets in half. I am glad I found this out before > pulling all the wires through ! > > The holes were drilled a hair smaller than the grommets, which fit > nicely without bunching up. The holes were carefully deburred and I > can rotate my finger in the holes without feeling a sharp edge. > > The grommets I purchased from Spaenaur rather than the local hardware > store. They are specd as material: SBR, hardness: 60 durometer +/-5. > > Are these grommets the wrong material ? > > Should there be slack around the grommet when fitted in the hole ? > > Some other problem I haven't thought of ? > > Thanks, > > Jeff Page > Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 > > > ________________________________ Message 10 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 01:39:51 PM PST US > From: "Rob Housman" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > > I'm glad to hear that I wasn't the only student that did not fall asleep in > freshman physics lecture. > > > Best regards, > > Rob Housman > Irvine, CA > Europa XS Tri-Gear > A070 > Airframe complete > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob White > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:51 AM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:03:17 -0700 > "Bubblehead" wrote: > > >> >> >> Rob - I think you're using the coefficient for the aluminum and then > computing the change based on the size of the hole. The change in hole size > is because of the change in the aluminum size. 1" or 1/2" hole doesn't > matter - only the amount of aluminum around the hole! >> >> Actually, as the aluminum cools wouldn't it contract, making the hole > bigger? The temperature would have to rise so the aluminum expands to make > the hole smaller. >> >> My opinion is the bushings got brittle and maybe had flaws or residual > stresses that made them break. I doubt change in hole diameter had anything > to do with it. >> >> John >> >> -------- >> John Dalman >> Elburn, IL >> RV-8 N247TD >> >> > Hi John, > > When you're looking at the dimensional change in the material, you have > to look at the overall dimensions of the item. Say you have a piece of > aluminum 10 inches X 10 inches with a 1 inch dia hole in the center. > If a drop in temperature causes the material to shrink 0.001 inch per > inch (just to pick a number), the new dimensions will be 10 thousandths > less or 9.99 X 9.99 and the inside hole will be .999 inches in dia. > The size of the internal hole will be the same as if the material was > still there. > > > Bob W. > > > -- > 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 11 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 02:00:04 PM PST US > From: "Bryan" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > > Heat makes the hole bigger. Haven't you ever had to remove a stubborn bolt? > That is done with a torch to make the hole bigger. > > Bryan > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rob Housman" > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 1:35 PM > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets > > >> >> >> I'm glad to hear that I wasn't the only student that did not fall asleep >> in >> freshman physics lecture. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Rob Housman >> Irvine, CA >> Europa XS Tri-Gear >> A070 >> Airframe complete >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob >> White >> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:51 AM >> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets >> >> >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:03:17 -0700 >> "Bubblehead" wrote: >> >> >>> >>> >>> Rob - I think you're using the coefficient for the aluminum and then >> computing the change based on the size of the hole. The change in hole >> size >> is because of the change in the aluminum size. 1" or 1/2" hole doesn't >> matter - only the amount of aluminum around the hole! >>> >>> Actually, as the aluminum cools wouldn't it contract, making the hole >> bigger? The temperature would have to rise so the aluminum expands to make >> the hole smaller. >>> >>> My opinion is the bushings got brittle and maybe had flaws or residual >> stresses that made them break. I doubt change in hole diameter had >> anything >> to do with it. >>> >>> John >>> >>> -------- >>> John Dalman >>> Elburn, IL >>> RV-8 N247TD >>> >>> >> Hi John, >> >> When you're looking at the dimensional change in the material, you have >> to look at the overall dimensions of the item. Say you have a piece of >> aluminum 10 inches X 10 inches with a 1 inch dia hole in the center. >> If a drop in temperature causes the material to shrink 0.001 inch per >> inch (just to pick a number), the new dimensions will be 10 thousandths >> less or 9.99 X 9.99 and the inside hole will be .999 inches in dia. >> The size of the internal hole will be the same as if the material was >> still there. >> >> >> Bob W. >> >> >> -- >> 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/ >> >> >> -- >> Checked by AVG. >> 9:00 AM >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 12 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 02:14:08 PM PST US > From: "raymondj" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thermal expansion (was Grommets) > > > Listers, > > The link below provides info. applicable to the conversation. > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/thermo/thexp2.html#c1 > > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > "Hope for the best, > but prepare for the worst." > > > ________________________________ Message 13 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 03:12:03 PM PST US > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions > From: "n277dl" > > > Bob, > Thanks for the response and heres some more details.... > > building a rv10, dual grt hx, 430w, sl30, tt - ap, lycoming io540 - > one lightspeed > ignition and one mag. Will have basic airspeed round gauges for backup... > ie groudspeed, vsi, altimeter and an electric gyro attitude indicator. Have > similar systems in RV7A except dynon not grt, no sl30 and all both mags. > > Why two batteries...primarily rumblings on those with efis to the > need to have > the two batteries in starting to keep from resetting the boot-up operation of > the efis's during engine startup (honestly, unverified by me). > Adding an extra > battery is an insignificant expense (relatively speaking). Having > two batteries > would make me more comfortable with dual electronic ignition in the future. > I won't start that way as engine already ordered and configured but it's much > easier to plumb for future than redo later. > > >> >> Hmmmm . . . normally we'd like to see the cross-feed contactor >> mounted on the firewall. This provides nice fat-wire terminals >> from both batteries to serve as distribution points for the >> two batteries in addressing their respective tasks. >> > > > In a previous post on the original thread you stated.... > >> >> Quote: >> >> The crossfeed contactor, starter contactor and current limiter >> block can be mounted within inches of each other and "wired" with >> flat strap like the pictures found in this directory . . . >> >> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/ >> >> The short straps are much easier to fabricate and install than >> very short hunks of fat wire with terminals. >> >> Bob . . . >> > > > So I'm a little confused. Maybe I took this one out of context and > was specifically > directed at firewall mounted batteries. > > I've actually already ran the two 2awg fat wires to the front where > I could mount > the xfeed contactor but then found the above post and thought maybe it should > only be one. > > I'm on the road this week but will review the z13 tomorrow night. > Maybe all I > need and don't need the extra complexity. > > Thanks again, > Doug > > -------- > Doug > "Fools" are always more creative than process people and > will always > find ways to ruin a perfectly good set of processes. > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177495#177495 > > > ________________________________ Message 14 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 05:44:28 PM PST US > From: Speedy11@aol.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: A Bit of Help, Please > > I am installing Whelen LED taxi/recognition lights. > Each one draws 0.9 amps. > I am using an DPDT on-off-on switch to operate them. One position for > steady on, one for flashing. I want to use only one switch instead of two. > I'm using Eric Jones' wig wag flasher for the recognition mode. > For the flash switch selection, I've wired one side with leads from the > flasher module that activate the flash. > For the steady on switch selection, I've wired power through the other side > of the switch. > When in flash mode, to keep power from going back through the wires and > causing the lights to stay on constantly, I've added zener diodes. > The diodes are Radio Shack 12v INT4742A. The package says the > characteristics are current = 21mA and max power dissipation = 1.0W. > I've tested the lights with the diodes in the power wires for 45 minutes > without a problem. > My question is - Are these diodes sufficient for long term use with lights > drawing 0.9 Amps? > Thanks in advance, > Stan Sutterfield > > > **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car > listings at AOL Autos. > (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) > > ________________________________ Message 15 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:44:12 PM PST US > From: Joemotis@aol.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A Bit of Help, Please > > Buy the right ones rated for your load and sleep at night. > If you cannot afford it, contact me off list and I will mail you a couple :) > > Joe Motis > > No archivos amigo > > > **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car > listings at AOL Autos. > (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) > > ________________________________ Message 16 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:55:20 PM PST US > From: > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics > > > 4/17/2008 > > Hello Ira, > > 1) You wrote: "There is no requirement for TSO in owner built aircraft."** > > 2) FAR SEC 91.217 Says: > > "Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure > altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. > > No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment > associated with a radar beacon transponder- > > (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; > > (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to > transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent > probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter > normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to > 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum > operating altitude of the aircraft; or > > (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the > standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." > > 3) Please explain, with specific valid reference, why the phrase "No person > may ..." seen above would not apply to a person flying an amateur built > experimental aircraft. > > 4) You are correct that there are alternatives to using TSO'd equipment, > when such equipment is specifically required by a regulation, provided that > you can prove to the FAA's satisfaction that your alternative equipment is > acceptable to the FAA. Here is how you go about doing that: > > FAR Sec. 21.609 "Approval for deviation. > > (a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any performance > standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation is > requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an > equivalent level of safety. > (b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data, > must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office for > the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article is > manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate, > together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil > aviation authority in that country to the FAA." > > Obtaining an approval for deviation is not a trivial task and none of the > manufacturers of non TSO'd altitude encoders contained in their EFIS units > have done so to my knowledge. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > **PS: This statement is also not correct when it comes to the ELT installed, > if one is required by FAR Sec 91.207, in an amateur built experimental > aircraft. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Time: 04:30:41 AM PST US > Subject: Re: Questions on avionics > From: "rampil" > > > Re: TSO and altimetry sources > > There is no requirement for TSO in owner built aircraft. As I said > previously, there is only a performance requirement. > > Part 23 is a separate issue. > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > ________________________________ Message 17 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:13:01 PM PST US > From: Charlie England > Subject: AeroElectric-List: pinout for Softcom ATC-P intercom?? > > > Can anyone point me to an installation manual (or just the pin IDs of > the dB25) for a Softcom ATC-P intercom? > > I thought there was a collection of installation diagrams on the > Aeroelectric site, but I've been unable to locate it. > > Thanks, > > Charlie > > > ________________________________ Message 18 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:22:38 PM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A Bit of Help, Please > > > At 08:39 PM 4/17/2008 -0400, you wrote: > >> I am installing Whelen LED taxi/recognition lights. >> Each one draws 0.9 amps. >> I am using an DPDT on-off-on switch to operate them. One position for >> steady on, one for flashing. I want to use only one switch instead of two. >> I'm using Eric Jones' wig wag flasher for the recognition mode. >> For the flash switch selection, I've wired one side with leads from the >> flasher module that activate the flash. >> For the steady on switch selection, I've wired power through the other >> side of the switch. >> When in flash mode, to keep power from going back through the wires and >> causing the lights to stay on constantly, I've added zener diodes. >> The diodes are Radio Shack 12v INT4742A. The package says the >> characteristics are current = 21mA and max power dissipation = 1.0W. >> I've tested the lights with the diodes in the power wires for 45 minutes >> without a problem. >> My question is - Are these diodes sufficient for long term use with lights >> drawing 0.9 Amps? >> Thanks in advance, >> Stan Sutterfield > > It's not clear as to why you selected Zener diodes for this > task. Zeners are for voltage regulation . . . and it seems > that the task you're describing uses the diodes to prevent > reverse current flow under some conditions. Now, if you've > used a 1N4742 zener in the forward biased mode to replace > a simple rectifier diode, then the current ratings stated > for zener operation do not apply. A 1N4742 forward biased > zener is probably good for about an amp . . . but in the > reverse direction, the condition that you want the current > to be zero, the 12 zener mode of operation will kick in and > it will cause the difference between your 14v system and the > 12v rating of the zener to be impressed across parts of the > system that you want to be completely 'cold'. > > See: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/RS_Diodes.jpg > > The smallest diode suited to the task would be the > 1N4001 offered as RS catalog number 276-1101. However, > higher voltage ratings don't hurt a thing so any of the > 1N400-series devices could be used. > > My personal preference for mechanical robustness are > the 1N5400-series, 3 amp devices. Again, having a part > that is electrically "too big" isn't a factor for your > application. These diodes are about 3x the size > and have more robust bodies and leadwires. These are > the diodes shown in this picture: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-2.jpg > > When we were selling this assembly, the fatter diodes > were selected for ease of assembly and robustness. > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > ________________________________ Message 19 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:42:38 PM PST US > From: Charlie England > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder for sale (mode S) > > > Ernest Christley wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> > I'm running a bit behind on emails. > > Hi Earnest, > > You're right, of course. Anyone notice the activity on the RV list & the > VAF forum about APRS? Take a look at Sam Buchanan's installation. > http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/tracker.htm > The whole setup is only a couple hundred bucks; for a few hundred more, > you could receive & display the info directly in the cockpit. These > things do basically everything that ADS-B does, plus a little more. The > low wattage xmitter (all you need) would fit in the base of a > streamlined antenna, with just power & serial data lines coming in the > cockpit. In fact, a dedicated antenna on the top of the plane could > contain the GPS rcvr & need nothing but power. > > Charlie > > > ________________________________ Message 20 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:48:38 PM PST US > From: Ernest Christley > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics > > > bakerocb@cox.net wrote: >> >> 4/17/2008 >> >> Hello Ira, >> >> 1) You wrote: "There is no requirement for TSO in owner built >> aircraft."** >> >> 2) FAR SEC 91.217 Says: >> >> "Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure >> altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. >> >> No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment >> associated with a radar beacon transponder- >> >> (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; >> >> (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to >> transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent >> probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter >> normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter >> referenced to >> 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum >> operating altitude of the aircraft; or >> >> (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the >> standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." >> >> 3) Please explain, with specific valid reference, why the phrase "No >> person may ..." seen above would not apply to a person flying an >> amateur built experimental aircraft. > > I don't understand why you think what he said is wrong. > > No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting > equipment ...Unless.... that equipment was tested and calibrated...; > or...that equipment meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 > > There's an OR statement there. One, the other, or both can be true, and > the statement is still true (I'm a Software Engineer by training, so I > took a special class just for that sort of reasoning 8*) > > -- > > http://www.ronpaultimeline.com > > > ________________________________ Message 21 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 08:28:34 PM PST US > From: "Mike" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics > > > I would argue that you are not looking for a deviation to the TSO you > are looking to comply with the standard of the TSO without a formal > proof. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > bakerocb@cox.net > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 6:51 PM > ira.rampil@gmail.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics > > > 4/17/2008 > > Hello Ira, > > 1) You wrote: "There is no requirement for TSO in owner built > aircraft."** > > 2) FAR SEC 91.217 Says: > > "Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure > altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. > > No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting > equipment > associated with a radar beacon transponder- > > (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; > > (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to > transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent > probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter > normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter > referenced to > 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum > operating altitude of the aircraft; or > > (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the > standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." > > 3) Please explain, with specific valid reference, why the phrase "No > person > may ..." seen above would not apply to a person flying an amateur built > experimental aircraft. > > 4) You are correct that there are alternatives to using TSO'd equipment, > > when such equipment is specifically required by a regulation, provided > that > you can prove to the FAA's satisfaction that your alternative equipment > is > acceptable to the FAA. Here is how you go about doing that: > > FAR Sec. 21.609 "Approval for deviation. > > (a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any > performance > standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation > is > requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an > > equivalent level of safety. > (b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent > data, > must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office > for > the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article > is > manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate, > together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil > aviation authority in that country to the FAA." > > Obtaining an approval for deviation is not a trivial task and none of > the > manufacturers of non TSO'd altitude encoders contained in their EFIS > units > have done so to my knowledge. > > 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and > understand knowledge." > > **PS: This statement is also not correct when it comes to the ELT > installed, > if one is required by FAR Sec 91.207, in an amateur built experimental > aircraft. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Time: 04:30:41 AM PST US > Subject: Re: Questions on avionics > From: "rampil" > > > Re: TSO and altimetry sources > > There is no requirement for TSO in owner built aircraft. As I said > previously, there is only a performance requirement. > > Part 23 is a separate issue. > > -------- > Ira N224XS > > > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM > > > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM > > > ________________________________ Message 22 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 08:34:11 PM PST US > From: "Mike" > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics > > > Read the regulation. It says that the 'encoder' must meet the TSO > standards. It doesn't say that it must be TSO'd. That is a subtle > legal difference. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of > Ernest Christley > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:51 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions on avionics > > > > bakerocb@cox.net wrote: >> >> 4/17/2008 >> >> Hello Ira, >> >> 1) You wrote: "There is no requirement for TSO in owner built >> aircraft."** >> >> 2) FAR SEC 91.217 Says: >> >> "Data correspondence between automatically reported pressure >> altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference. >> >> No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting > equipment >> associated with a radar beacon transponder- >> >> (a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC; >> >> (b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to >> transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent >> probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the > altimeter >> normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter >> referenced to >> 29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum >> operating altitude of the aircraft; or >> >> (c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the >> standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively." >> >> 3) Please explain, with specific valid reference, why the phrase "No >> person may ..." seen above would not apply to a person flying an >> amateur built experimental aircraft. > > I don't understand why you think what he said is wrong. > > No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting > equipment ...Unless.... that equipment was tested and calibrated...; > or...that equipment meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 > > There's an OR statement there. One, the other, or both can be true, and > > the statement is still true (I'm a Software Engineer by training, so I > took a special class just for that sort of reasoning 8*) > > -- > > http://www.ronpaultimeline.com > > > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM > > > 10/2/2007 11:10 AM > > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:58 AM PST US From: Jeff Page Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets In this case, the grommets were not exposed to anything other than temperature change. I took them out of the box, installed them in the ribs and let them wait in the cold until things warmed up and I could continue my work. The rubber is soft enough that I think the holes would have to become dramatically smaller to cut the grommets. Since 15 or 20 of them were halved, I don't think it is just a defective grommet. I will be inspecting all the rest when I get back to the hangar. Assuming I started cuts in the grooves during installation, I still wouldn't expect to find them in half on the floor :-( Jeff > Jeff, > Just a guess but exposure to solvents could breakdown SBR. I cannot > imagine that hole size alone is the issue. > > http://www.alliedrubber.com/Gasket/SBRRubber.cfm.htm > > "When exposed to petroleum derivatives, the performance of this rubber is > inferior to many other synthetics. Red SBR rubber is popular for use as a > gasket in low pressure applications such as washers and gaskets for the > heating and plumbing trades. Black SBR is commonly used for abrasion > conditions such as skirtboard and chute lining." > > Ralph & Laura Hoover > RV7A N527LR ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:17:01 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions At 03:07 PM 4/17/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Bob, > Thanks for the response and heres some more details.... > >building a rv10, dual grt hx, 430w, sl30, tt - ap, lycoming io540 - one >lightspeed ignition and one mag. Will have basic airspeed round >gauges for backup... ie groudspeed, vsi, altimeter and an electric gyro >attitude indicator. Have similar systems in RV7A except dynon not grt, no >sl30 and all both mags. > >Why two batteries...primarily rumblings on those with efis to the need to >have the two batteries in starting to keep from resetting the boot-up >operation of the efis's during engine startup (honestly, unverified by >me). Adding an extra battery is an insignificant expense (relatively >speaking). Having two batteries would make me more comfortable with dual >electronic ignition in the future. I won't start that way as engine >already ordered and configured but it's much easier to plumb for future >than redo later. > > > > > > Hmmmm . . . normally we'd like to see the cross-feed contactor > > mounted on the firewall. This provides nice fat-wire terminals > > from both batteries to serve as distribution points for the > > two batteries in addressing their respective tasks. > > > > >In a previous post on the original thread you stated.... > > > > > Quote: > > > > The crossfeed contactor, starter contactor and current limiter > > block can be mounted within inches of each other and "wired" with > > flat strap like the pictures found in this directory . . . > > > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/ > > > > The short straps are much easier to fabricate and install than > > very short hunks of fat wire with terminals. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > >So I'm a little confused. Maybe I took this one out of context and was >specifically directed at firewall mounted batteries. > >I've actually already ran the two 2awg fat wires to the front where I >could mount the xfeed contactor but then found the above post and thought >maybe it should only be one. > >I'm on the road this week but will review the z13 tomorrow night. Maybe >all I need and don't need the extra complexity. > >Thanks again, >Doug My apologies, I may have stuck my foot in it . . . my reason is too many balls in the air at once . . . but no excuses. Have I seen a power distribution diagram on your project? My mental images of our discussion may well be tainted with artifacts from discussions on other projects. My comment about x-feed contactor on the firewall was based on some discussions about rear mounted batteries when I produced a sketch that looked like this: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Z-14_w_Rear_Batteries_Metal_Aircraft.pdf The thrust of this reasoning addressed the need to have a convenient, robust place to tie off fatwires that come forward from rear mounted batteries in a Z14-like architecture. The most obvious solution was to place the cross-feed contactor on the firewall irrespective of where the batteries were located. This provides the sought-after tie point for tying the battery fat-wires into the rest of the system. Let's back-track as needed to make sure my words are supportive of your design goals. Do you have a z-figure like drawing to share? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:37:01 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft From: All, I want to install an internal ELT antenna in my fiberglass aircraft. I am not familiar with the desired wavelength and would like to ask what folks are using for similar setups. I do not have a ground plane for antennae and prefer a di-pole setup if possible. Thanks Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:07 AM PST US From: "Ralph E. Capen" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft Get the RST engineering antenna book...and antenna kit..... http://www.rst-engr.com/ -----Original Message----- >From: longg@pjm.com >Sent: Apr 18, 2008 2:32 PM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft > > >All, > I want to install an internal ELT antenna in my fiberglass >aircraft. I am not familiar with the desired wavelength and would like >to ask what folks are using for similar setups. I do not have a ground >plane for antennae and prefer a di-pole setup if possible. > > >Thanks > >Do Not Archive > > ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 12:18:29 PM PST US From: "Bruce Gray" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft I could be wrong but I don't think that dipole antennas are around for 406 MHTZ ELT's yet. They exist for 121.5 ELT's but they will be obsolete next year. Bruce www.Glasair.org -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of longg@pjm.com Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 2:33 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft All, I want to install an internal ELT antenna in my fiberglass aircraft. I am not familiar with the desired wavelength and would like to ask what folks are using for similar setups. I do not have a ground plane for antennae and prefer a di-pole setup if possible. Thanks Do Not Archive ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:46:25 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft Bruce Gray wrote: > > I could be wrong but I don't think that dipole antennas are around for 406 > MHTZ ELT's yet. They exist for 121.5 ELT's but they will be obsolete next > year. > You're wrong. Jim Weir's antennae book shows you how to build one that will handle both frequencies. http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/ELTantennae.jpg ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:54:08 PM PST US From: "n801bh@netzero.com" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets I will chime in and comment.... This is really hard to believe they spli t all by themselves. Are you sure someone didn't remove them and split t hem with a razor and them drop them on the floor as a joke/ prank etc... Ben Haas N801BH www.haaspowerair.com -- Jeff Page wrote: In this case, the grommets were not exposed to anything other than temperature change. I took them out of the box, installed them in the ribs and let them wait in the cold until things warmed up and I could continue my work. The rubber is soft enough that I think the holes would have to become dramatically smaller to cut the grommets. Since 15 or 20 of them were halved, I don't think it is just a defective grommet. I will be inspecting all the rest when I get back to the hangar. Assuming I started cuts in the grooves during installation, I still wouldn't expect to find them in half on the floor :-( Jeff > Jeff, > Just a guess but exposure to solvents could breakdown SBR. I cannot > imagine that hole size alone is the issue. > > http://www.alliedrubber.com/Gasket/SBRRubber.cfm.htm > > "When exposed to petroleum derivatives, the performance of this rubber is > inferior to many other synthetics. Red SBR rubber is popular for use a s a > gasket in low pressure applications such as washers and gaskets for th e > heating and plumbing trades. Black SBR is commonly used for abrasion > conditions such as skirtboard and chute lining." > > Ralph & Laura Hoover > RV7A N527LR ======================= ========== ======================= ========== ======================= ========== ======================= ========== _____________________________________________________________ Save for the future with great IRA Funds. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uDyVs1KdlnZ9jV4Vqr XwOuYnqBV6CKhvaELy4FmaUxjeMCt/ ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 03:37:30 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Rear Mounted Batteries - more questions From: "n277dl" Bob. Started out with your published z14 drawing and began to understand the flow with them Then found the string referencing the z14_rough that uses non-local ground. Reviewed options and decided I wanted to use a central primary ground on the firewall / engine block. That particular string also is where the discussion of keeping the XFEED CNTCTR and the Battery Cntctrs located close and connected using copper/brass strapping which drove me to drawing up the very rough sketch with only one + fat wire running from the back to the front. I think the biggest weakness of the one wire concept is that I would loose some of the benefit of the aux alternator as it would have to keep the aux battery cntctr closed. Think I read in either the connection or the list that it takes about 1amp to keep the contactor closed. Obviously, Id lose 1/8th of the output of the SD8 in that scenario. Assuming that its okay to physically mount the xfeed contactor at the front instead of with the battery contactors, the only real advantage is one less + fat wire. Would still have to run something from the Aux alt and aux bus to the rear but it could be a smaller wire. So all that said, maybe the simplest most efficient design would be moving the xfeed contactor to the front. Also pondering the physical location of the battery bus (ie, the always hot bus). >From what I can read it appears the recommendation is always having this bus physically located within 6-8 inches of the battery. Obviously this requires running wiring from the front to the back for all devices that you want powered via the battery bus. An option that I never see mentioned and therefore assume is a bad idea is to run one heavier wire from the rear mounted battery and physically locate the battery bus in the front. Again, I assume this is a bad idea but would you comment on why Im assuming that you wouldnt want a non-fused wire ran that distance but thought Id ask anyway. These rear-mounted batteries are requiring some noodling as to where to physically mount things. Guess that's why they call it experimental :) Thanks again for all your input. It sure helps to bounce things off someone that has done this more than once before. Doug -------- Doug "Fools" are always more creative than process people and will always find ways to ruin a perfectly good set of processes. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=177757#177757 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/rear_bat_one_fat_wire_fwd_204.pdf http://forums.matronics.com//files/z_14rough1_204.pdf ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 05:24:31 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft Ernest Christley wrote: > > > Bruce Gray wrote: >> >> >> I could be wrong but I don't think that dipole antennas are around >> for 406 >> MHTZ ELT's yet. They exist for 121.5 ELT's but they will be obsolete >> next >> year. >> > > You're wrong. Jim Weir's antennae book shows you how to build one > that will handle both frequencies. > > http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/ELTantennae.jpg And the 121.5's aren't going to be obsolete next year, at least in the USA. All that's happening is that the satellites will no longer monitor that frequency. Not to stir up too much of a firestorm, but loss of satellite monitoring for 121.5 will make an almost unmeasurable difference in their lifesaving ability. Unless the price of certified 406's come down a lot, I'll install a 121.5 & consider buying a 406 PLB. The 121.5 will keep me legal & it wouldn't be that hard to rig a G-switch on the PLB. Of course, the APRS stuff is even better if you don't mind being tracked on a cross country. Charlie ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 07:13:13 PM PST US From: "Bill and Marsha" Subject: AeroElectric-List: navaid ap 1 A question for Eric Jones Could a Navaids ap1 head drive a mac servo useing a PD TSCMR And what would be involved? Just an idea!!!! Bill S. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 10:04:57 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna for Fiberglass aircraft >> >> Bruce Gray wrote: >>> >>> >>> I could be wrong but I don't think that dipole antennas are around >>> for 406 >>> MHTZ ELT's yet. They exist for 121.5 ELT's but they will be obsolete >>> next >>> year. >>> >> >> You're wrong. Jim Weir's antennae book shows you how to build one >> that will handle both frequencies. >> >> http://ernest.isa-geek.org/Delta/Pictures/ELTantennae.jpg I owe Bruce and apology. It's not until I read a later response that *406 MHz* sunk into my thick skull. ELT's use two frequencies; neither of which is 406MHz. You have to build the dipole antennae to handle both of the frequencies, and that is what I got caught up on. Not that it would be difficult to build a 406MHz dipole, it would just be shorter, but there is very likely little to no marketed products at the moment. My sincerest apologies, Bruce. -- http://www.ronpaultimeline.com ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:00:12 PM PST US From: "Bill and Marsha" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Navaids ap 1 Am looking for a site to download Pinout and wiring diagrams for Navaids AP 1 Autopilot. An install manual would also be nice. Bill S. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:57:29 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: A Bit of Help, Please Bob, Thanks for your robust reply. Very helpful. My intention is to prevent reverse current flow in certain conditions. I connected the zener diodes in line where needed and did a test of the system and the diodes did stop the reverse flow of current - as desired. My concern was that the selected diodes (RS INT4742A - RS part number 276-563) may not be robust enough to stop the 0.9 Amp current over the long term. I may as well insert the correct diodes now rather than redo the work at a later time. So, it sounds like I should change the diodes to another type or another rating. Correct? Perhaps the 1N5400 series would be best. Stan Sutterfield >I am installing Whelen LED taxi/recognition lights. >Each one draws 0.9 amps. >I am using an DPDT on-off-on switch to operate them. One position for >steady on, one for flashing. I want to use only one switch instead of two. >I'm using Eric Jones' wig wag flasher for the recognition mode. >For the flash switch selection, I've wired one side with leads from the >flasher module that activate the flash. >For the steady on switch selection, I've wired power through the other >side of the switch. >When in flash mode, to keep power from going back through the wires and >causing the lights to stay on constantly, I've added zener diodes. >The diodes are Radio Shack 12v INT4742A. The package says the >characteristics are current = 21mA and max power dissipation = 1.0W. >I've tested the lights with the diodes in the power wires for 45 minutes >without a problem. >My question is - Are these diodes sufficient for long term use with lights >drawing 0.9 Amps? >Thanks in advance, >Stan Sutterfield It's not clear as to why you selected Zener diodes for this task. Zeners are for voltage regulation . . . and it seems that the task you're describing uses the diodes to prevent reverse current flow under some conditions. Now, if you've used a 1N4742 zener in the forward biased mode to replace a simple rectifier diode, then the current ratings stated for zener operation do not apply. A 1N4742 forward biased zener is probably good for about an amp . . . but in the reverse direction, the condition that you want the current to be zero, the 12 zener mode of operation will kick in and it will cause the difference between your 14v system and the 12v rating of the zener to be impressed across parts of the system that you want to be completely 'cold'. See: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/RS_Diodes.jpg The smallest diode suited to the task would be the 1N4001 offered as RS catalog number 276-1101. However, higher voltage ratings don't hurt a thing so any of the 1N400-series devices could be used. My personal preference for mechanical robustness are the 1N5400-series, 3 amp devices. Again, having a part that is electrically "too big" isn't a factor for your application. These diodes are about 3x the size and have more robust bodies and leadwires. These are the diodes shown in this picture: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/s701-2.jpg When we were selling this assembly, the fatter diodes were selected for ease of assembly and robustness. Bob . . . **************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:24:36 PM PST US From: "Dale Ensing" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Navaids ap 1 Can fax wiring diagram etc. to you if you do not find on a web site. Dale Ensing do not archieve ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill and Marsha To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 2:54 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Navaids ap 1 Am looking for a site to download Pinout and wiring diagrams for Navaids AP 1 Autopilot. An install manual would also be nice. Bill S. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 07:29:35 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Navaids ap 1 Bill and Marsha wrote: > Am looking for a site to download Pinout and wiring diagrams for > Navaids AP 1 Autopilot. An install manual would also be nice. > Bill S. If you don't find what you need by Monday or Tuesday, email me off-list & I'll scan it at work (where there's a sheet-feed scanner). Charlie ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 08:10:00 PM PST US From: Jeff Page Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grommets Two of you both thought my grommet problem so absurd that it must be a prank. I wish that were true, but my T hangar is locked. They were exposed only to cold air, darkness, time and my installation. When I get to the hangar next, i will be taking a close look at all of them, to see if the ones remaining are partly torn, or if some of them are perfectly intact. I will also try to do some tests with some still in the box to see if I can tear them like that. Sure is weird though. We install grommets to protect the wires, so they should be tougher than the insulation. Jeff > Are you sure someone didn't cut them off, just to play a mind game with > you?? > > Roger >> Just a guess but exposure to solvents could breakdown SBR. I cannot >> imagine that hole size alone is the issue. > I will chime in and comment.... This is really hard to believe they spli > t all by themselves. Are you sure someone didn't remove them and split t > hem with a razor and them drop them on the floor as a joke/ prank etc... > > Ben Haas ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse 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.