Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:35 AM - PS 1000II Prologue (David & Elaine Lamphere)
2. 04:39 AM - Re: The Obvious (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 04:48 AM - lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? (rd2@evenlink.com)
4. 05:13 AM - Re: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon ... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
5. 05:16 AM - lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon pinout? (rd2@evenlink.com)
6. 06:32 AM - Re: The Obvious (Jim Streit)
7. 06:37 AM - The Obvious (James H Nelson)
8. 09:20 AM - Re: The Obvious (Ernest Christley)
9. 11:42 AM - lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon ... (rd2@evenlink.com)
10. 12:04 PM - Re: The Obvious (Bob Collins)
11. 01:09 PM - Re: Grounding PTT on Stick (Henry Trzeciakowski)
12. 01:31 PM - Re: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick (Ralph E. Capen)
13. 03:32 PM - Re: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick (Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty)
14. 04:08 PM - Re: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick (Ralph E. Capen)
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: | PS 1000II Prologue |
Well it appears that PSE was willing to communicate back to me after
all. Late last night Mark Scheuer (PSE CEO)sent me a response to my
question concerning the color of the indicator LED on the unit. (It was
glowing yellow) He said this was indicating a "semi-key" state. I told
him what I found (with the help of Aerolectric's info) and I suggested
that he add the two situations (jack key wiring and jack isolation) as
things to check to his FAQ list and thanked him for his response.
First impressions are hard to overcome. I hope that PSE "talks" to other
builders in the future without having to send their qualifications first
- or - perhaps it was just a timing issue.
I still don't feel it is a complicated installation (in my case) - just
a few gotcha's you have to watch for :-)
That's the last of my posts on this matter (do I hear a cheer?) - just
thought you guys should know.
Dave
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 |
|
At 07:33 PM 3/18/2009, you wrote:
>Something else that may be a gotcha on this system is that they want
>the jack isolated from aircraft ground and that the shield grounds
>are back at the ps1000 box, not at the jacks. I have a pdf
>schematic of the wiring if any are interested, email off list. Thanks.
Yeah, keeping the microphone and headset jacks ISOLATED
from the airframe is an important noise mitigation
technique. B&C has the washer sets.
I also peeked at the PS Engineering schematics I have
on the hard-drive. Their depiction of microphone wiring
is typical of the industry and echoed in all of my
drawings as well. If you check the locations of the
signal contacts on the mic jack symbol, PTT is furthest
away form the panel bushing, microphone audio is further
in. It's a subtle thing but imporant.
Emacs!
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: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
pinout?
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA.
Have you come across some regulatory materials on this?
BTW speaking of regs something else non-related comes to mind: the ELT
(e.g. battery replacement) requirements for aircraft still equipped with
121.5 ELTs. I am not aware of any requirement changes, yet the frequency is
no longer monitored by sats. Is an aircraft considered airworthy, if the
121.5 ELT battery has not been replaced on time?
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
.......................
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: lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker |
Beacon ...
Good Morning Rumen,
You will note that the step down fix is only applicable to the localizer
approach and does not affect the ILS minima.
However, as I mentioned more thoroughly in my second message, you need
another method of checking the crossing of SMILE if you do not have a marker
beacon and wish to use the lower MDA. Without the marker beacon or a substitute,
the MDA is 1920. With SMILE it is 1340. An IFR GPS is an acceptable substitute
for the marker beacon.
Personally, I am not ready to remove my marker beacon, but if it fails, it
will not be repaired. I would NOT install one in a new installation. It is just
too rare that it provides any advantage at all. I do think having an IFR GPS
is a major advantage for any IFR flight.
An IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be legally
substituted for any DME and most ADF uses in the national airspace system as
well as for locating the position of any marker beacon that has the name
published on the approach and whose location is in the contained database.
Make any sense at all?
As to the ELT. we are still required to comply with the regulations
concerning the ELT. It must be tested as required and the batteries must be up
to
date.
The thought is that 121.5 is being monitored by most IFR aircraft and all
FAA facilities. It does have some use, but it never has been much good for
effecting a rescue.
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 3/19/2009 6:52:00 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
rd2@evenlink.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA.
Have you come across some regulatory materials on this?
BTW speaking of regs something else non-related comes to mind: the ELT
(e.g. battery replacement) requirements for aircraft still equipped with
121.5 ELTs. I am not aware of any requirement changes, yet the frequency is
no longer monitored by sats. Is an aircraft considered airworthy, if the
121.5 ELT battery has not been replaced on time?
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
........................
**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B212974460%3B34272906%3Bh)
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: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
pinout?
Resending with explanation
Morning Bob,
Here is one: ILS 27 for KIPT in PA. The lower OM minima applies if flown as
non-precision, supporting your point.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 11:16 PM 03/18/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Evening Jose,
That is undoubtedly a controversial discussion.
My inclination is to eliminate the marker beacon receiver, though, just
like many other folks, I like the friendly tones of the marker beacons when
they are being flown over. It is comforting and familiar.
Up until a few years ago, the marker beacon was a required portion of the
ILS system. That is no longer the case. The marker beacon is NOT a
required portion of the ILS and the minima does not change if you are or
are not equipped with such a receiver.
To my knowledge, there is only one non precision approach in the USA that
has a step down fix based on crossing a marker. That is the circling
approach from the (LOC-D, KSEE) localizer approach at Gillespie Field, San
Diego, CA. The last time I checked, that marker was out of service awaiting
parts for a repair. If you are equipped with an IFR approved GPS and a
current datacard, you can check passing over the marker beacon utilizing
the GPS and use the minima associated with that marker.
I would save the space, power, weight, and cost by leaving the marker
beacon off the airplane.
Does anyone on the list know of any other approach where any lower minima
can be flown by having a marker beacon available?
Happy Skies
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
.......................
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 |
|
I'll take one Barry
Jim Streit
wooody04@bellsouth.net
b e wrote:
> Something else that may be a gotcha on this system is that they want
> the jack isolated from aircraft ground and that the shield grounds are
> back at the ps1000 box, not at the jacks. I have a pdf schematic of
> the wiring if any are interested, email off list. Thanks.
>
> Barry Chapman
> RV-9A
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Jay Hyde <jay@horriblehyde.com>
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:55:05 PM
> *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
>
> Hi there Dave,
>
>
>
> I have had exactly the same problem when installing the PM1000 system
> from PS Engineering; so far I have not been able to solve the problem-
> your mail gives me a new place to look.. I'll check it out and report
> back!
>
>
>
> I also encountered the same poor service response from them- extremely
> bad. I would not at all recommend PS Eng products based on the
> extremely poor after sales service. If I hadn't already cut the panel
> I'd go so far as to toss the damned thing out..
>
>
>
> The PS Eng guys response was similar to that that you encountered-
> speak to the avionics agent who installed or sold you the product- I
> bought it from their stand at Oshkosh last year... to which I got the
> equivalent of an 'oh well' shrug...
>
>
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of
> *David & Elaine Lamphere
> *Sent:* 18 March 2009 10:49 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: The Obvious
>
>
>
> You know, sometimes the obvious can be the most hidden.... I've been
> wrestling with a new intercom (PS1000II) that would stop working when
> the headset microphone was plugged in. All the wiring checked out, I
> disconnected it from the radio and everything I could - still it
> wouldn't work. Definitely didn't get any help from the manufacturer -
> His email response was anything but friendly or helpful. After a
> warning message, he just said to read the FAQ's.
>
>
>
> Homebuilders beware, PS Engineering's stand is (here is the exact quote):
>
>
>
> //"Who did the installation?"//
>
> //"If not installed by a PS Engineering dealer or a PS Engineering
> custom harness not purchased, the warranty is void."//
>
>
>
> When all I wanted was some information and suggestions how to proceed.
>
> Would I buy anything more from these guys - no way!
>
>
>
> Anyway, 12 hrs into the pursuit, the problem turns out that the mike
> key and audio hi wires were connected to the wrong jack pins - on each
> mike jack (pilot, co-pilot, aux).
>
>
>
> On a microphone plug the tip is the mike key connection - NOT the
> center band like I thought. So obvious and yet so hidden... I'll bet
> more than one person has been bit by this misunderstanding! How come
> THAT wasn't in the FAQ's - eh?
>
>
>
>
>
> Now I have to reinstall that harness!
>
>
>
>
>
> Dave L.
>
>
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> * *
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *Pinpoint Securemail*,
> and is believed to be clean.
> *http://www.matronics.com/================
>
> *
> *
>
>
> *
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
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 |
|
Dave,
I also had the same problem. My wiring is usually very good as I
check everything twice and follow the schematics faithfully. I have just
finished my second build. I have had no problems on my side. Then I
needed to have a passenger (finished my phase 1) and I could not talk to
him. I checked my wiring and thought that the PS1000II was the problem.
It was out of warranty and they (PS Eng) said that it would cost a bit to
fix the unit if it was bad. They said that the PS1000II is bullet proof
and they did not think the problem was in their unit. I had them send a
new unit just in case that was the problem. I was trying to get my
bi-annual flight check out of the way. When I swapped the intercom out,
the problem remained. I went back and did a very close check on the
wiring at the female jack. I had reversed two of the wires. I reversed
them to make the wiring correct. Volia --- everything worked fine. I
returned the unit to them and asked if there was a charge for the use. I
have not received a bill. This is my second PS1000II I have purchased
from them and if I build another plane I will use them again. I also
recommend the unit as it will let you set the squelch and volume
independantly. A great company. JMHO
____________________________________________________________
Digital Photography - Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTDvmPiIfXkqfNqOqxTJ5qYnEwNAcycaE6tVIULDO9JI4yykXJhRMs/
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 |
|
Richard Girard wrote:
> For many years I worked in QA for office products and the aircraft
> industry. It never ceased to amaze me how companies will become so
> entrenched in their way of doing things that they fail to take a step
> back and analyze the costs of problems like these in terms of service
> and ill will. Taken in that light I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd
> find it was actually cheaper to bundle the harness with the intercom
> even without a price increase over the cost of the intercom alone.
It wouldn't even take a full harness. Supply a little box and give
instructions to connect each of the mic/earphone combinations to the
little box. One wire from the box clips to airframe ground. There is a
connector for a 9V battery. On the front is some green LEDs and some
red LEDs. If you have the jack wiring correct, everything lights up
green. One of the wires hitting ground will give you a red light. A
single sheet of paper will tell you what is wrong with each jack.
The OBAM guys just runs through each of his jacks, and then connects
them to the intercom as each is confirmed. Bonus points if the little
box has a buzzer to confirm sound gets through to the headset. If they
don't want to give the things away, take a deposit, send one with each
unit, and refund the deposit when you get it back.
It's true that selling a highly technical device to the uninitiated is
difficult, but if you're not willing to confront the difficulty, don't
do it. Wiring the intercom is complicated, but it is not complex. You
have lots of wires, but each set basically does the same thing. It is
just a matter of confirming each piece individually, and then doing the
same operation several times. Smart companies take the time to look at
the problems their customers are having, and then takes steps to address
them.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org
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: | lower OM minima; was Anyone with a KR22 Marker Beacon |
...
Hello Bob,
Apparently my second message with the addition ("The lower OM minima
applies if flown as
non-precision, supporting your point.") did not go through; we are having
some internet problems here right now.
Anyway,
>
Make any sense at all?
>
Fully concur. IFR GPS is the way to go when older systems start failing and
need replacement.
Best
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from BobsV35B@aol.com; Date: 08:11 AM 03/19/09
EDT)
________________________________________________________________
Good Morning Rumen,
You will note that the step down fix is only applicable to the localizer
approach and does not affect the ILS minima.
However, as I mentioned more thoroughly in my second message, you need
another method of checking the crossing of SMILE if you do not have a
marker beacon and wish to use the lower MDA. Without the marker beacon or a
substitute, the MDA is 1920. With SMILE it is 1340. An IFR GPS is an
acceptable substitute for the marker beacon.
Personally, I am not ready to remove my marker beacon, but if it fails, it
will not be repaired. I would NOT install one in a new installation. It is
just too rare that it provides any advantage at all. I do think having an
IFR GPS is a major advantage for any IFR flight.
An IFR GPS approved for at least enroute and terminal use can be legally
substituted for any DME and most ADF uses in the national airspace system
as well as for locating the position of any marker beacon that has the name
published on the approach and whose location is in the contained database.
Make any sense at all?
As to the ELT. we are still required to comply with the regulations
concerning the ELT. It must be tested as required and the batteries must be
up to date.
The thought is that 121.5 is being monitored by most IFR aircraft and all
FAA facilities. It does have some use, but it never has been much good for
effecting a rescue.
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
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 |
|
I hate to wade into the debate, especially when it's reached the "preachy"
stage (g), but I started tying this model into an Icom A210 radio last week,
then decided to chuck it and spend $200 on a harness from Stein.
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/03/no-fun-with-wiring-harnesses.html
Then a friend stepped in to connect the dots:
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/2009/03/more-on-wiring-a210ps-1000.html
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: Grounding PTT on Stick |
Bob:
On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 - Autopilot
disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to ground
these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
suggestions.
1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the terminal
block back to the firewall ground block.
Thanks for your input...
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 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: Grounding PTT on Stick |
I'll chime in as I have done this.....
My variation of #1 has the grounds on the frame right there - without the wire
all the way back to the forest of tabs. The contact is momentary and low current
- my reasons to keep it simple
-----Original Message-----
>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408@comcast.net>
>Sent: Mar 19, 2009 8:08 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>
>
>Bob:
>
>On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 - Autopilot
>disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to ground
>these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
>suggestions.
>
>1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
>floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
>connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
>
>2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
>ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the terminal
>block back to the firewall ground block.
>
>Thanks for your input...
>
>Henry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 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: Grounding PTT on Stick |
Ralph, Would you use a terminal block or just ground to the ctr spar or
floor stiffner?
Jim
Building RV9a
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
> <recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> I'll chime in as I have done this.....
>
> My variation of #1 has the grounds on the frame right there - without the
> wire all the way back to the forest of tabs. The contact is momentary and
> low current - my reasons to keep it simple
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408@comcast.net>
>>Sent: Mar 19, 2009 8:08 PM
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>>
>><hammer408@comcast.net>
>>
>>Bob:
>>
>>On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 - Autopilot
>>disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to
>>ground
>>these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
>>suggestions.
>>
>>1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
>>floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
>>connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
>>
>>2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
>>ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the terminal
>>block back to the firewall ground block.
>>
>>Thanks for your input...
>>
>>Henry
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.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 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: Grounding PTT on Stick |
I used a terminal block - for the 'hot' side of the stick connections anyway
and had a few lugs left over. This allows me to remove the stick wiring
seperately. The grounds from the lugs went right to a floor stiffener.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty" <jfogarty@tds.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
> Realty" <jfogarty@tds.net>
>
> Ralph, Would you use a terminal block or just ground to the ctr spar or
> floor stiffner?
>
> Jim
> Building RV9a
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 3:25 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>
>
>> <recapen@earthlink.net>
>>
>> I'll chime in as I have done this.....
>>
>> My variation of #1 has the grounds on the frame right there - without the
>> wire all the way back to the forest of tabs. The contact is momentary
>> and low current - my reasons to keep it simple
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Henry Trzeciakowski <hammer408@comcast.net>
>>>Sent: Mar 19, 2009 8:08 PM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Grounding PTT on Stick
>>>
>>><hammer408@comcast.net>
>>>
>>>Bob:
>>>
>>>On my RV-9A I have 3 switches on my Pilot stick grip: 1-PTT, 1 -
>>>Autopilot
>>>disconnect and 1 - Com Swap switch. I have a couple ideas on how to
>>>ground
>>>these 3 switches and would appreciate your comments, thoughts and or
>>>suggestions.
>>>
>>>1) I thought about a terminal block next to my stick mounted under the
>>>floor - 1-22 awg wire from firewall ground block to terminal block, then
>>>connect the 3 switch grounds to the terminal block.
>>>
>>>2) use a terminal block under the stick as my connection point for all 3
>>>ground wires from the stick, then run separate wires (3) from the
>>>terminal
>>>block back to the firewall ground block.
>>>
>>>Thanks for your input...
>>>
>>>Henry
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.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- )
>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|