AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Mon 03/09/09


Total Messages Posted: 14



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:19 AM - Re: Looking for cover photo . . . ()
     2. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Wiring / Relay Question (Steve Stearns)
     3. 07:40 AM - Engine Break-in (Ralph E. Capen)
     4. 08:18 AM - Re: Re: Wiring / Relay Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 08:34 AM - Re: Looking for cover photo . . . (Rogers, Bob J.)
     6. 10:21 AM - OOps (Ralph E. Capen)
     7. 11:13 AM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Tim Olson)
     8. 11:55 AM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (John Cox)
     9. 01:00 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    10. 02:22 PM - Re: Re: Wiring / Relay Question (Henry Trzeciakowski)
    11. 04:01 PM - Re: Engine Break-in (Allan Aaron)
    12. 04:51 PM - Re: Engine Break-in (James Robinson)
    13. 07:10 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Neal George)
    14. 08:35 PM - Re: Re: Polyfuses (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:19:09 AM PST US
    From: <ronburnett@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Looking for cover photo . . .
    Bob, Too bad an RV-12 isn't flying altho the photo you display is good. Ron- St. Charles, MO RV-6A finishing ---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: ============ Revision 12A update pages have been posted. Individuals with Revision 11 books are invited to update their documents with printouts of these .pdf files. http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html I'm looking for a photo of a homebuilt for the front cover of the paper version of R12. It needs to be pretry high resolution especially if the picture is oriented landscape (long dimension horizontal) mode 'cause of how it needs to get cropped. This is sorta what I have in mind. The shot can be on the ground but background for the inserted text can't be too cluttered. Emacs! If anyone has an image they'd like to have considered I'd be pleased to see it. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:49:24 AM PST US
    From: Steve Stearns <steve@tomasara.com>
    Subject: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
    And there's a third option, (maybe mentioned in your book?), and that is to put a resistor in parallel with the landing light switch to keep the bulb warm when off via a trickle current to serve the dual purpose of reducing cold-filament in-rush and also to increase bulb vibrational durability. But I don't know if the trickle current would be about the same to serve both purposes and I don't know if you come out ahead on bulb life with a trickle current when applied to such a low duty cycle bulb. Bob, do you have any pro/con thoughts about this approach? Seems like this approach would make it relatively straight forward to add a "bulb failure" warning for the landing light bulb that would work when the switch is off (i.e. when it's still light outside and you might have time to order a new one before your next night flight) but I'm also guessing most bulbs fail right at turn-on... Until I can afford to install an HID landing light, it would be nice to have both a very bright and a high confidence landing light (I only have one) but with traditional halogens, life and brightness seem to need to be traded off with each other... Steve. * > **At 01:03 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote: > > > >Interesting traces Bob, > > > >What do you think would have the better reliability in the field for > >a 150W halogen landing light (without a surge suppressor), A S704-1 > >relay with an ~16V transient suppressor for the catch diode, or a > >S701-1 switch connecting directly to the lamp? > >I'm not sure how to trade off the bigger contacts, but they bounce > >longer, dilemma... > > Gee . . . you noticed! It's a credit to your curiosity > combined with an awareness of the need for trade-offs. > I an my contemporaries were faced with thousands of > such questions over our careers . . . with input from > a host of special interests that included marketing, > purchasing, inventory management, manufacturing > engineers and other systems guys who regarded every > one else's specialty as witchcraft. > > Going for lower parts count is always a good lick. > The 150W lamp presents a problem of sorts. It takes > right at 9.5A in normal operation. But given what > we know of a switch's ability to CARRY current after > the bouncing is over, I'd bet that an S701 combined > with a Cantherm MF72-3D25 inrush limiter (3 ohms > cold) will limit your inrush to under 5 amps and toss > off only 9 x .044 = 0.37 volts in operation. > > See: > > http://www.cantherm.com/products/thermistors/cantherm_mf72.pdf > > and > > http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=317-1234-ND <http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=317-1234-ND> > > This would be the lowest parts count solution I can > deduce and I think it has a fair shot at satisfactory > performance. > > I'll do some thinking about practical ways to mount > the inrush limiter so that it is well supported, > well connected, but not thermally deprived of the > ability to warm up. > > In the GP-180, one of the guys crimped flexible > leadwires to the part, wrapped it with a couple > of layers of fiberglas door gasket for a wood > burning stove and clamped the assembly into the > inside surface of the Grimes lamp fixture housing. > Kinda clumsy but it worked. Their first efforts > took too much heat out of the thing which caused > catastrophic stresses from power dissipation. > > > Bob . . . > ** *


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:40:47 AM PST US
    From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Engine Break-in
    Please look at the attached spreadsheet and graphs. This was from a flight Saturday. I now have 5.9 flight hours on it with another .7 of ground run to verify stuff prior to first flight. I recall additional running time on the test stand for original build and subsequent rebuild for the crankshaft AD. The airframe is a Van's RV6A with SamJames cowl/plenum and three blade MT constant speed prop. The oil cooler is mounted behind #4 and both heaterbox take-offs are behind #3. The CHT and EGT graphs track fairly close to each other and the oil temp looks good too. My oil consumption was about a quart and a half for the first three hours and was almost none for this one-hour flight. I expected a longer oil consumption period and still plan to fly the high power profiles for a while - until I can verify reduced oil consumption with a few more flights. Your comments on the data would be appreciated. Thanks for a great engine, Ralph Capen


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:18:35 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
    At 09:46 AM 3/9/2009, you wrote: > >And there's a third option, (maybe mentioned in your book?), and >that is to put a resistor in parallel with the landing light switch >to keep the bulb warm when off via a trickle current to serve the >dual purpose of reducing cold-filament in-rush and also to increase >bulb vibrational durability. But I don't know if the trickle >current would be about the same to serve both purposes and I don't >know if you come out ahead on bulb life with a trickle current when >applied to such a low duty cycle bulb. >Bob, do you have any pro/con thoughts about this approach? That would work. >Seems like this approach would make it relatively straight forward >to add a "bulb failure" warning for the landing light bulb that >would work when the switch is off (i.e. when it's still light >outside and you might have time to order a new one before your next >night flight) but I'm also guessing most bulbs fail right at turn-on... Yeah . . . but the halogens are so much tougher than the original sealed beams, it's now quite likely that your modern lamps will run the lifetime of the airplane. Wig-wag service is more stringent but still. >Until I can afford to install an HID landing light, it would be nice >to have both a very bright and a high confidence landing light (I >only have one) but with traditional halogens, life and brightness >seem to need to be traded off with each other... By the time you're ready to install HID, you'll probably have to make a choice between HID and LED . . . those little guys are romping right up the capabilities ladder. Keep in mind that it takes VERY LITTLE exterior lighting make an effective landing on a real runway. I once took a guy flying in our J-3 using a 6v fisherman's lantern (3 watts!) for forward lighting. It was plenty of light to get the wheels on the ground gently. Study your probable mission profiles before you launch into expensive decisions. In the mean time a halogen lamp with inrush limiting is the least expensive, lowest energy (doesn't consume power when OFF) way to go. Bob . . .


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:34:03 AM PST US
    Subject: Looking for cover photo . . .
    From: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers@fdic.gov>
    How about this award-winning Mustang II? ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 9:56 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Looking for cover photo . . . Revision 12A update pages have been posted. Individuals with Revision 11 books are invited to update their documents with printouts of these .pdf files. http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html I'm looking for a photo of a homebuilt for the front cover of the paper version of R12. It needs to be pretry high resolution especially if the picture is oriented landscape (long dimension horizontal) mode 'cause of how it needs to get cropped. This is sorta what I have in mind. The shot can be on the ground but background for the inserted text can't be too cluttered. If anyone has an image they'd like to have considered I'd be pleased to see it. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:21:17 AM PST US
    From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
    Subject: OOps
    I apologize for my previous misdirected post. Do Not Archive.


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:13:55 AM PST US
    From: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
    Subject: Re: Wingtip Nav question
    Well thanks guys for clearing up the wording in the install guide. It makes perfect and obvious sense that using 2 antennas for 2 NAV's would be way better than 1 antenna for each. Now for a follow-up that's a bit tougher maybe... I need to mount an ADS-B shark fin antenna...978mhz, putting out 50W (similar to a transponder but those crank out more like 150W). If I have the choice of: A) Move a perfectly working NAV Antenna in an ideal location to a wingtip where I know the performance won't be as good, and putting the ADS-B in place of it. or B) Mounting the ADS-B antenna about 2' from the NAV antenna and leaving everything as-is. or C) Moving the Marker Beacon antenna to within a few inches of the NAV antenna, and then putting the ADS-B antenna right where the MB currently is. Which one seems most reasonable? I know you generally want to keep those powerful transmitters away from other stuff, with being on totally separate freq's, how bad is it to have a 978mhz transmitter 2' from the NAV. Will the SL-30's circuitry filter well enough to not be a problem do you think? Tell you what, if you're building a kit, take the time to come up with locations for all the possible antenna types you could ever have, because squeezing one in can be a chore if you want to still live by the book. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying Etienne Phillips wrote: > <etienne.phillips@gmail.com> > > You are correct - but when dealing with aerials and radiation patterns, > it doesn't matter if you're talking about transmitting or receiving... > > As a side-note, if you have a DME instrument then you do transmit, but > it's a completely different frequency range (and therefore I'm guessing > has it's own antenna). > > I agree with Bob Nuckolls though, having a single antenna, mounted in a > clear spot, is by far the best way of improving signal quality! > > Good luck with your installation... > > On 09 Mar 2009, at 2:54 AM, Richard E. Tasker wrote: > >> <retasker@optonline.net> >> >> They are VOR antennas for NAV radios. Last I knew the only VOR/NAV >> transmissions come from the ground... >> >> Dick Tasker >>


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:55:13 AM PST US
    Subject: Wingtip Nav question
    From: "John Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
    Tim, your closing paragraph is invaluable. Most builders start with a really rough Build budget, then throw caution to the wind after all the "Golly Gee" stuff comes online. The antennas always seem to get the last portion at the decision table. A really progressive builder lists the avionics and their best possible antenna needs, then conceptually generalizes antenna placement along the ground plane or concealed under the surface. Once the antenna and its location are known, building an AC43.13 compliant doubler makes the plans built process even easier. The answer to this question will be Well Watched. I have always used you as the example of great cockpit inventory and diverse functionality sprinkled with Midwestern practicality. John C. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wingtip Nav question Well thanks guys for clearing up the wording in the install guide. It makes perfect and obvious sense that using 2 antennas for 2 NAV's would be way better than 1 antenna for each. Now for a follow-up that's a bit tougher maybe... I need to mount an ADS-B shark fin antenna...978mhz, putting out 50W (similar to a transponder but those crank out more like 150W). If I have the choice of: A) Move a perfectly working NAV Antenna in an ideal location to a wingtip where I know the performance won't be as good, and putting the ADS-B in place of it. or B) Mounting the ADS-B antenna about 2' from the NAV antenna and leaving everything as-is. or C) Moving the Marker Beacon antenna to within a few inches of the NAV antenna, and then putting the ADS-B antenna right where the MB currently is. Which one seems most reasonable? I know you generally want to keep those powerful transmitters away from other stuff, with being on totally separate freq's, how bad is it to have a 978mhz transmitter 2' from the NAV. Will the SL-30's circuitry filter well enough to not be a problem do you think? Tell you what, if you're building a kit, take the time to come up with locations for all the possible antenna types you could ever have, because squeezing one in can be a chore if you want to still live by the book. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:00:33 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Wingtip Nav question
    Good Afternoon Tim, I would probably change the location of many of your antennas, but we all have different ideas as to where things should stick out from our aircraft. However! Of the choices given, dump the marker beacon!! I know of no situation where a marker beacon is of any use at all as long as you have an IFR approved GPS. Happy Skies Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator 628 West 86th Street Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8502 Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 In a message dated 3/9/2009 1:16:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Tim@MyRV10.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@myrv10.com> Well thanks guys for clearing up the wording in the install guide. It makes perfect and obvious sense that using 2 antennas for 2 NAV's would be way better than 1 antenna for each. Now for a follow-up that's a bit tougher maybe... I need to mount an ADS-B shark fin antenna...978mhz, putting out 50W (similar to a transponder but those crank out more like 150W). If I have the choice of: A) Move a perfectly working NAV Antenna in an ideal location to a wingtip where I know the performance won't be as good, and putting the ADS-B in place of it. or B) Mounting the ADS-B antenna about 2' from the NAV antenna and leaving everything as-is. or C) Moving the Marker Beacon antenna to within a few inches of the NAV antenna, and then putting the ADS-B antenna right where the MB currently is. Which one seems most reasonable? I know you generally want to keep those powerful transmitters away from other stuff, with being on totally separate freq's, how bad is it to have a 978mhz transmitter 2' from the NAV. Will the SL-30's circuitry filter well enough to not be a problem do you think? Tell you what, if you're building a kit, take the time to come up with locations for all the possible antenna types you could ever have, because squeezing one in can be a chore if you want to still live by the book. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying Etienne Phillips wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Etienne Phillips > <etienne.phillips@gmail.com> > > You are correct - but when dealing with aerials and radiation patterns, > it doesn't matter if you're talking about transmitting or receiving... > > As a side-note, if you have a DME instrument then you do transmit, but > it's a completely different frequency range (and therefore I'm guessing > has it's own antenna). > > I agree with Bob Nuckolls though, having a single antenna, mounted in a > clear spot, is by far the best way of improving signal quality! > > Good luck with your installation... > > On 09 Mar 2009, at 2:54 AM, Richard E. Tasker wrote: > >> <retasker@optonline.net> >> >> They are VOR antennas for NAV radios. Last I knew the only VOR/NAV >> transmissions come from the ground... >> >> Dick Tasker >> **************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! %3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 02:22:04 PM PST US
    From: "Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
    Yes Bob: For my firewall penetration point I have a Stainless Steel flange and use firesleeve inside the flange with another firesleeve outside clamped together and packed with fireproof putty. Other wires include 8 awg wire from 60 amp current limiter to main bus. From the Battery Bus - 14 awg (15 amp) to E-Bus relay ,hobbs meter, fuel boost, co monitor, 12 volt accessory and ELT. Henry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 12:15 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring / Relay Question <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > > At 01:08 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote: > ><hammer408@comcast.net> > > > >Bob: > > > >Sorry for the confusion: > > > >My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your Z-32 > >(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch rule. > >My mounting is : > > > >Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14 awg)----s704-1 > >relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus > > ( this run is about 2 1/2 feet from > >Battery Bus to Relay) > > > >I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just left my > >runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my > >firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat ?? > > It would probably cause a bureaucrat with a rulebook > to fuss but the risks are low for doing as you've > suggested. I presume you have other wires coming through > the firewall along with the e-bus feeder that are > receiving due diligence with respect to wire protection > and firewall integrity? > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > >


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:01:09 PM PST US
    Subject: Engine Break-in
    From: "Allan Aaron" <aaaron@tvp.com.au>
    Ralph I'm actually pleased that you misdirected it. I have an IO320 in my mustang II with about 30 hours on it. I have a plenum and a similar oil cooler and air inlet set-up, I believe. My EGT's and CHT's differ between cylinders by about 85 degrees (with #3 being the hottest) - yours seem really close. I wonder what is different? Allan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2009 1:35 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Engine Break-in Please look at the attached spreadsheet and graphs. This was from a flight Saturday. I now have 5.9 flight hours on it with another .7 of ground run to verify stuff prior to first flight. I recall additional running time on the test stand for original build and subsequent rebuild for the crankshaft AD. The airframe is a Van's RV6A with SamJames cowl/plenum and three blade MT constant speed prop. The oil cooler is mounted behind #4 and both heaterbox take-offs are behind #3. The CHT and EGT graphs track fairly close to each other and the oil temp looks good too. My oil consumption was about a quart and a half for the first three hours and was almost none for this one-hour flight. I expected a longer oil consumption period and still plan to fly the high power profiles for a while - until I can verify reduced oil consumption with a few more flights. Your comments on the data would be appreciated. Thanks for a great engine, Ralph Capen


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:51:08 PM PST US
    From: James Robinson <jbr79r@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Engine Break-in
    EGTs are balanced by injector size CHTs are refined by baffeling. You might consider moving injectors from hot to cold EGT and see if the temps follow the injectors. If that works consider Gami injectors. I have a six cyl Lyc and all my cylinders are very close. James Robinson Glasair lll N79R Spanish Fork UT U77 ________________________________ From: Allan Aaron <aaaron@tvp.com.au> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2009 2:55:32 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Engine Break-in Ralph I'm actually pleased that you misdirected it. I have an IO320 in my mustang II with about 30 hours on it. I have a plenum and a similar oil cooler and air inlet set-up, I believe. My EGT's and CHT's differ between cylinders by about 85 degrees (with #3 being the hottest) - yours seem really close. I wonder what is different? Allan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ralph E. Capen Sent: Tuesday, 10 March 2009 1:35 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Engine Break-in Please look at the attached spreadsheet and graphs. This was from a flight Saturday. I now have 5.9 flight hours on it with another .7 of ground run to verify stuff prior to first flight. I recall additional running time on the test stand for original build and subsequent rebuild for the crankshaft AD. The airframe is a Van's RV6A with SamJames cowl/plenum and three blade MT constant speed prop. The oil cooler is mounted behind #4 and both heaterbox take-offs are behind #3. The CHT and EGT graphs track fairly close to each other and the oil temp looks good too. My oil consumption was about a quart and a half for the first three hours and was almost none for this one-hour flight. I expected a longer oil consumption period and still plan to fly the high power profiles for a while - until I can verify reduced oil consumption with a few more flights. Your comments on the data would be appreciated. Thanks for a great engine, Ralph Capen


    Message 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:10:34 PM PST US
    From: "Neal George" <n8zg@mchsi.com>
    Subject: Wingtip Nav question
    Tim - Option C. Marker beacon and nav are both receive-only. They should be perfectly happy side-by-side. neal -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 1:10 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wingtip Nav question Well thanks guys for clearing up the wording in the install guide. It makes perfect and obvious sense that using 2 antennas for 2 NAV's would be way better than 1 antenna for each. Now for a follow-up that's a bit tougher maybe... I need to mount an ADS-B shark fin antenna...978mhz, putting out 50W (similar to a transponder but those crank out more like 150W). If I have the choice of: A) Move a perfectly working NAV Antenna in an ideal location to a wingtip where I know the performance won't be as good, and putting the ADS-B in place of it. or B) Mounting the ADS-B antenna about 2' from the NAV antenna and leaving everything as-is. or C) Moving the Marker Beacon antenna to within a few inches of the NAV antenna, and then putting the ADS-B antenna right where the MB currently is. Which one seems most reasonable? I know you generally want to keep those powerful transmitters away from other stuff, with being on totally separate freq's, how bad is it to have a 978mhz transmitter 2' from the NAV. Will the SL-30's circuitry filter well enough to not be a problem do you think? Tell you what, if you're building a kit, take the time to come up with locations for all the possible antenna types you could ever have, because squeezing one in can be a chore if you want to still live by the book. Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying Etienne Phillips wrote: > <etienne.phillips@gmail.com> > > You are correct - but when dealing with aerials and radiation patterns, > it doesn't matter if you're talking about transmitting or receiving... > > As a side-note, if you have a DME instrument then you do transmit, but > it's a completely different frequency range (and therefore I'm guessing > has it's own antenna). > > I agree with Bob Nuckolls though, having a single antenna, mounted in a > clear spot, is by far the best way of improving signal quality! > > Good luck with your installation... > > On 09 Mar 2009, at 2:54 AM, Richard E. Tasker wrote: > >> <retasker@optonline.net> >> >> They are VOR antennas for NAV radios. Last I knew the only VOR/NAV >> transmissions come from the ground... >> >> Dick Tasker >>


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:35:28 PM PST US
    From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
    Subject: Re: Polyfuses
    So here's a thought then for a potentially suitable application for these little monsters where there is some $value$. Ignoring the fact that these are surface mount creatures and a suitable and robust mounting mechanism would be needed, what about a scenario where you have a rear mounted battery and need to protect a wire in which a fuse would not be useable. Say if a device has a low power requirement but for some reason has a crowbar circuit in it like maybe a Lightspeed ignition. :P Like I said before, I'm not keen on using a relay as that is nothing more than a workaround in my mind and introduces a whole new failure mode plus a bunch of additional wiring. The self resetting nature of the Polyfuse wouldn't be a big deal as I would still want a master switch on each LSE. Checklist item would be the best solution to addressing when to reset a "blown" ignition. More importantly it would allow the crowbarred (is that a word) ignition to be reset without the need to access a inaccessible fuse/breaker or use a relay to shoe horn a breaker into an accessible location. So can someone tell me why this would not work to address the recent revelations around LSE's? I still would rather use a fuse or breaker but it seems to be as good or better than some of the other alternatives (big wire, relay). -----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, March 05, 2009 3:45 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Polyfuses At 02:12 PM 3/5/2009, you wrote: > >Technically there's nothing wrong with polyfuses. But I am not a fan >of using them in an aviation application because you cannot control >them directly like you can an electronic (solid state) circuit >breaker or old-style circuit breaker. At least when a fuse blows the >circuit stays off. Sure. We (the TC guys) never had an arugment with the ability of the polyfuse to perform as advertised. Our problem was delivering to traditional design goals of which you mentioned two, control and non-self re-setting. The other problem was that the parts are not bolt-in, wire up and play. You have to install them on some manufactured assembly that incorporates an etched circuit board for mounting the parts. Even if we popped for the custom assembly, the TOTAL cost of acquisition/ownership wasn't that much better than what we were already doing. The breaker as a mil-qualified bolt-in- and-play parts require no special attention to mix and match as needed. A customized assembly has to be designed, qualified and becomes very hard to change once approved for the airframe. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------




    Other Matronics Email List Services

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

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

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