Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:30 AM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Eric M. Jones)
2. 06:58 AM - Re: "primer-line fuel injection" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:59 AM - Re: Re: The great(?) debate . . . ()
4. 07:06 AM - Re: not able to post message on List (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:14 AM - Re: 30 Amp switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:32 AM - Re: Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Sam Hoskins)
7. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:59 AM - Re: Re: Ground in an all wood airplane (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:01 AM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 08:03 AM - Re: Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 08:38 AM - Re: Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
13. 08:45 AM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Eric M. Jones)
14. 09:59 AM - Re: Sportair electrical workshop? (mikef)
15. 01:24 PM - Re: Re: Sportair electrical workshop? (Randy Sachau)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
Regarding weight savings....see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194676#194676
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
At 02:36 PM 7/22/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>
>In the Old days we used to start P&W R2800's (P-61 Martin 404)on prime and
>get them running before advancung mixture from idle cut off and they would
>run good on prime. I think if you had two point prime on a 4 or small 6
>with electric boost pump it woul be sufficient.
>Al Rupp
>601XL - Corvair
If one's goal was to get the engine running for
only a few seconds of fuel starved cylinders, a
few injection ports might get us by. In this
case, we're asking an engine to produce a sustained
power level sufficient to fly the airplane . . .
and it might be for an extended period of time
as well.
So I'm pretty sure one would want to install
a primer system that (as close as practical)
delivers equal quantities of fuel to each
cylinder. And unless you take the time to
accurately balance all the ports, there is
risk to one or more cylinders for the effects
of running too lean as compared to "average"
for the engine. So I think it wise to design
for, set up, and test a modest power setting
on the order of 50-60 percent.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create
a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the
airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire
savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
America.
Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in
equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so
I can have another hamburger.
Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
happy.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: not able to post message on List |
At 09:48 AM 7/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
><jgamtmann2@gmail.com>
>
>Hello Matt,
>
>I just subscribed and went to the List and tried to post a question
>using the New Post button. When the AOL email page came up it had
>your email address on it but the SEND button was blanked out and the
>message would not send. What could be the problem?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Jurgen Amtmann
>jgamtmann2@gmail.com
Not sure what the "post button" is about. It may have something
to do with a feature of AOL. The lists supported by Matt's
servers on Matronics are simple e-mails. You can post
a new message by simple sending a new email to
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com and respond to an existing
discussion by simply making a "reply" as if it were an incoming
e-mail from any other source.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 30 Amp switch? |
At 08:52 AM 7/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>FYI, there are several good, small relays available for this purpose. For
>a FWF location, my choice would be the P&B T92D11D-12, rated 30A with
>quick tab connections, available from Digikey or Mouser. Prolink makes a
>couple rated at 40A, available from Circuit Specialists, see
><http://tinyurl.com/5pj6tm>http://tinyurl.com/5pj6tm. The former are all
>lightweight, with low coil current requirements. There are also several
>automotive relays (Bosch, etc.) with these ratings. If it will be in a
>weather protected location, i.e., aft of the FW, you might also want to
>consider the solid state Powerlink III Jr., rated 35A continuous, from
>Perihelion, with a very low control current, though it's a little bit
>heavier than the P&B.
Good recommendation. I concur. This is the same
style of relay offered by B&C as their S704-1
and looks like this:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704-1l.jpg
if you need to put your hands on a suitable product
right away and there's a Radio Shack handy, you
might consider this device:
http://tinyurl.com/69mypb
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
You sound just like my wife.
Sam Hoskins
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:52 AM, <longg@pjm.com> wrote:
>
> While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
> weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create
> a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the
> airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire
> savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
>
> I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
> with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
> trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
> America.
>
> Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
> normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in
> equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so
> I can have another hamburger.
>
> Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
> happy.
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
At 09:52 AM 7/24/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
>weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not create
>a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such that the
>airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high tech wire
>savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
>
>I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
>with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
>trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
>America.
>
>Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
>normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that in
>equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire sheathing so
>I can have another hamburger.
>
>Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
>happy.
Your logic is impeccable!
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
At 09:17 AM 7/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>I think some of you are missing an important point about the aeroelectric
>list: Matt set it up as Bob s forum for answering builder s questions
>about electrical aspects of small airplanes. Bob s approach has been to
>make it a classroom, but the important point here is that it is Bob s
>forum; he makes the rules. We don t get to vote on how he runs his
>classroom or what kinds of disruptions or behavior he allows. That s his
>call. I think he does it just right, but it really doesn t matter what I
>think.
True. But lest anyone come to believe this is a
"closed" activity bounded by restraints on the
discussion of ideas, please consider the following:
It's my personal vision and mission goal that I
spend my time doing exactly what Steve is seeking -
presiding over an activity that considers every
idea and checks it for fit into what is already
known . . . i.e. does the new ingredient make
an old recipe better . . . or perhaps offers a
completely new recipe?
Steve stated that he had followed this List for
a time but I wonder if he was witness to the behaviors
of certain individuals who over a period of 5+
years brought no new ideas to the discussions.
Ideas they did produce were easily
Before being asked to leave, they indulged in
a lot of personal attacks ranging from simple
innuendo to outright lying.
I attempted to make-nice for years with some
notion of winning these folks over with reasoned
analysis and results of repeatable experiments.
But alas, it was not to be. It was only then
that I assumed the obvious duty of any good
teacher to control the decorum and quality
of the discussions . . . hence the response
he witnessed from me last week.
If it makes any difference, these same individuals
are infamous for their behaviors in other forums.
I've been given to understand that they've been
asked to leave other groups too. My patience
is probably greater than most but it IS limited.
We have more important things to do here than
spend time $time$ indulging irrational temper
tantrums. I do endeavor to be a good teacher.
Quashing ideas worthy of consideration is not
the behavior of a true teacher.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
At 05:21 AM 7/22/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Your problem is no different from those of all plastic airplanes. Seawinds
>have nose-mounted batteries and 32 feet of HUMONGOUS battery cable going
>to and from the tail mounted engine. (Note: SteinAir sells Seawind
>builders and others Perihelion Design Super-2-CCA. Perihelion still sells
>Super-4-CCA but that will go to SteinAir soon too.)
>
>But this brings up the point that metal monocoque fuselage airplanes with
>rear-mounted batteries often use the fuselage for grounding. I suspect
>that this is a bad idea, and I suppose that in SOME cases this could cause
>starting problems and/or structural problems. Hundreds of amps through
>crappy corroded/primed/riveted joints in thin aluminum sheets scares me.
>
>Has anyone seen, investigated or measured this???
I've heard a variety of horror stories about the effects
of using an airframe as a ground return. Have no idea
where these originated. My best guess is that someone
observed and perhaps even measured the effects of increased
corrosion of joints when subjected to additional stress
of electron flow.
Corrosion testing in the lab is a huge problem when it
comes to relating the effects to a fielded installation.
But let's consider the big picture. How many hours per
year does an airframe take on the extra burden of electron
flow in the sheet metal? 100, 200? How strong are those
currents compared to locally generated electrolytic
currents? I.e., how much total voltage drop is realized
at any locale on any joint as a result of that current flow . . .
especially in light of the fact that point to point
resistance of structure on most airplanes is a milliohm
or less.
It's obvious that the effects cannot be zero. But given
that for every hour the airplane spends "powered up",
it spends 40-100 hours powered down. I have to believe
that the worst case effects of carrying that nav-light
or pitot-heat ground to the airframe is insignificant
in the overall scheme of things. I'll combine this idea
with the fact that the industry still regularly uses
local grounds on EVERY model of aluminum airplane.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
At 10:37 AM 7/22/2008 +0000, you wrote:
>Debate is a good thing. Debates only become unpleasant when the
>participants steer from the rules of logic and induction to the more fuzzy
>exchanges that are bound by rules of social etiquette. Then people start
>talking about behaviour and style and all things socially complicated that
>have nothing whatsover to do with the topic at hand.
>
>My understanding is that this forum was set up not for the purpose of
>making friends, but rather to help aviation enthusiasts located around the
>world produce better, safer and more cost effective aeroplanes. This all
>is much easier if we all stick to verifiable truths, based on logic and
>rational induction. If stating opinions is important to an individual,
>then that is fine, as long as those opinions can be demonstrated to be
>based on reason and logic that can be backed up by verifiable data. Those
>opinions are then more akin to truth, and are not of the individual at all.
>
>Opinions that are of an individual (by virtue of not being demonstrated as
>being "truth"), is the source of debates that go sour because the owner of
>the opinion applies rules of social etiquette to the treatment of the
>opinion that just don't apply in the world of cold logic and induction.
>Logic and induction is like a dog with a bone and it won't let go until
>the truth is proven.
>
>Sure if we all become friends thats great, but enemies? Can't see the
>logic in that!
Well stated sir. I was searching for those words
but you've already supplied them!
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
At 09:50 AM 7/23/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>You'd be surprised how much the switches, circuit breakers, dimmers, key
>switch, heat sinks, diodes, flap and trim modules, connectors, relays, and
>extra wire you need adds up on a traditional wiring scheme. It depends on
>a lot of things, but Vertical Power is about net-neutral or can shave off
>a few pounds. :D And the VP-100 and VP-50 are even lighter than the
>numbers shown on the previous post.
Marc,
Have you ever done an installed weight comparison between
your offerings and their Tinker-Toy counterparts?
This could be a powerful marketing tool.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
I'm working on the principle that if I don't eat and ride my bike to work every
day I can afford and extra 21 gallons of fuel..:)
Frank
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 7:41 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: The great(?) debate . . .
--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 09:52 AM 7/24/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>While American pilots spend countless hours building the ultimate light
>weight wire/cable, they are getting wider in the process. Why not
>create a proposal that each pilot be required to lose 25 pounds such
>that the airplane is even lighter than the millimeters measured in high
>tech wire savings. To their benefit they will magically feel healthier too.
>
>I have now seen 260 pound men trying to squeeze into 600 pound LSA's
>with much smirking. A little pathetic considering the benefit we are
>trying to achieve with the lighter, cheaper, faster mentality made in
>America.
>
>Most small GA planes today are at or near the envelope with just two
>normal guys in the front seat. I'd rather lose 20 pounds and add that
>in equipment to my panel than try to save a few ounces on wire
>sheathing so I can have another hamburger.
>
>Another benefit is that a lighter load saves fuel and now we're all
>happy.
Your logic is impeccable!
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
The chance that I will lose 25 pounds is MUCH less than the chance I will find
a 100 pound cute blond girlfriend, who will share expenses.
There are some 150 pound tri-athlete pilots, but I see my becoming one unlikely.
(By the way I knew Jim Fixx personally when he was overweight and smoked, then
he lost weight became the marathon-running King and died....)
So more horsepower and a lighter airplane is the way to go for me...and a $100
tofu burger please.
"When trouble arises and things look bad,
there is always one individual who perceives
a solution and is willing to take command.
Very often, that individual is crazy.
--Dave Barry"
Do Not Archive
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194721#194721
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
I received this from SportAir
"Kas Osterbuhr will instruct the electrical course at our Broomfield/Denver area
workshop."
Any feedback on this electrical course instructor?
Thanks,
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194733#194733
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Sportair electrical workshop? |
I had him at the same course there a couple years ago. Very good in
my opinion. Good experience with
homebuilt aircraft and very good with the electronics. Course is
pretty basic, but gives you a very good foundation.
I especially valued the recommendations for tools and materials.
Randy
On Jul 24, 2008, at 10:55 AM, mikef wrote:
>
> I received this from SportAir
>
> "Kas Osterbuhr will instruct the electrical course at our Broomfield/
> Denver area workshop."
>
> Any feedback on this electrical course instructor?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194733#194733
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|