Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:37 AM - Re: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (Matt Prather)
2. 05:30 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob Lee)
3. 06:16 AM - Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (Jon Finley)
4. 06:19 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (bobsv35b@aol.com)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace (bobsv35b@aol.com)
6. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
7. 07:07 AM - Re: Encoder Certification (Greenbacks, UnLtd.)
8. 07:07 AM - Re: Encoder Certification (Greenbacks, UnLtd.)
9. 08:10 AM - Re: Z-13/20 questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 08:19 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 08:19 AM - Charting Uncontrolled Airspace ()
12. 08:33 AM - Re: Re: Encoder Certification (Kelly McMullen)
13. 08:41 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob Lee)
14. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
15. 10:41 AM - Re: Re: Z-13/20 questions (Bob McCallum)
16. 02:54 PM - Encoder Certification ()
17. 04:07 PM - [Fw: Re: Re: Encoder Certification] (Kelly McMullen)
18. 04:28 PM - New alkaline cell source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 05:03 PM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
20. 05:07 PM - Re: Battery Cranking Amps (jonlaury)
21. 05:34 PM - Re: New alkaline cell source (Dennis Golden)
22. 06:57 PM - Re: New alkaline cell source (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace |
I don't know Bob.. Next thing you're going to say is that all you need to
stay upright is needle, ball, and airspeed.. Ha! :)
Matt-
do not archive
> Good Evening Mike,
>
> I have no knowledge at all concerning Australian regulations, but if you
> have access to a list of US regulations you will find that what I said is
> true.
>
> I hate to repeat it so often, but we do NOT need a transponder if we stay
> out of class A, B, and C airspace and do not fly above ten thousand feet
> MSL anywhere except when doing so would make us hit the terrain. In that
> case, we can go above ten thousand without a transponder as long as we
> stay
> within 2500 feet of the ground.(We do NOT need a transponder to fly in
> class
> E airspace) We do NOT need a transponder for VFR flight. As others (I
> think It was Kelly among others) have said, we can even fly IFR in the
> areas I
> listed as OK for VFR without a transponder. I am not recommending that as
> a normal operation, but that was not the question that had been asked.
>
> In uncontrolled airspace, of which there is very little in the lower
> forty-eight, we CAN fly IFR without a clearance. That is the only material
> difference between Controlled and Uncontrolled airspace. Controlled only
> refers
> to IFR operations. There are other rules that tell us what we need in the
> various categories of airspace. For example, class D requires that we
> establish communication and get a clearance to go in there, but we do NOT
> need a
> transponder to fly in the class D controlled airspace unless it is within
> a
> class B or C associated airspace ring that does require a transponder.
>
> The vast majority of airspace in which we USA GA pilots fly can legally be
> flown in without a transponder.
>
> As OC says, it is easiest to just read the pertinent portions of the
> FARs.
> It is all spelled out quite clearly in the regulations. and in fewer
> words than it took me! <G>
>
> Any help at all?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Downers Grove, IL USA
> Stearman N3977A
>
>
> In a message dated 1/23/2010 8:24:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> mmayfield@ozemail.com.au writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "mmayfield"
> <mmayfield@ozemail.com.au>
>
>
> bobsv35b(at)aol.com wrote:
>> Good Morning OC,
>> A transponder is NOT required for VFR flight in the vast majority of
> controlled airspace.
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>
> Apologies for butting my Aussie nose into this quite interesting
> discussion, but virtually all of our rules these days are based very
> closely on FAA
> regs for standardisation reasons, and they very clearly require the
> carriage and operation of a transponder in Class A, B, C, and E airspace
> (which is
> pretty much all controlled airspace), unless you're VFR and are not
> equipped with an electrical system capable of continuously powering one.
> You can
> get an exemption in certain circumstances at the discretion of individual
> ATC units, but these are not exactly handed out in Cracker Jack boxes.
>
> I appreciate FAA regs may differ, but for a common garden-variety VFR
> aircraft to not require a transponder in the majority of controlled
> airspace
> would seem highly unusual to me (as it kinda somewhat defeats the purpose
> of
> the airspace being actually controlled, ATC "control" applying to all
> aircraft regardless of their category).
>
> Just food for thought. No offence intended to anyone.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283159#283159
>
>
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: Z-13/20 questions |
Joe,
Thank you very much for your comments (see response below), you've helped me
improve my design. I made changes to the power distribution schematic and
reposted the dirgram at http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
Joe Gores (user9253 [fran4sew@banyanol.com]) wrote:
The fuel injector relay is missing a wire on the common contact.
<< The jumper from that contact to the relay coil was omitted. It's been
fixed. >>
There are two current paths between Battery Bus 2 and the Endurance Bus,
one through a diode and one through a 10 amp fuse. Since the second path
through the fuse does not have a diode in it, current from Battery Bus 1 can
flow to Battery Bus 2.
<< Years ago I scored a bunch of AN-3160 circuit breaker switches for a
buck each at Oshkosh. The symbol you identified as a fuse is in reality a
guarded circuit breaker switch. As the note on the diagram states it is the
E-bus alternate feed path. If the E-bus goes dark, open the guard and flip
the alternate feed breaker. If the primary path E-bus feed through the
diode is dark I don't see the backfeed issue as problematic. >>
The ground power relay coil needs to have a diode in series with it to
protect against reverse polarity.
<< I just looked at Z-31B again and realized what I did. I put the diode
across the relay like a battery contactor. It's been fixed >>
What is the purpose of the 5 amp breaker with two wires going to the ground
power plug?
<< The breaker is in the ground path to the over voltage crowbar. The
ground symbol was up in the crowbar area. I moved it down to the circuit
breaker. I also changed the breaker to 2 amp rating per Z-31B. >>
As drawn, the "Cross Contactor" is energized, but the indicator light is
off. Did you intend that terminal 3 of the Cross Contactor Switch be
grounded?
I suggest that the top half of the "Cross Contactor" switch control the
ground side of the fuel injector relay coil instead of the hot side, thus
minimizing hot wires inside of the cockpit. Of course that change would
require changing the indicator light circuit too.
<< The relay is actually the starter realy that coincidently controls the
fuel injection cold start circuit. That is why it is on the hot side. I
changed the cross connect light circuit to get it's power from the cross
connect contactor. >>
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: | Charting Uncontrolled Airspace |
Bakerocb,
Much more important than any of the airspace stuff - THANK YOU for your
years of service.
Jon
> {Response} My personal work for the U. S. government consisted of 36
> years
> on active duty in the US Navy and US Marine Corps as both enlisted and
> officer fixing and flying airplanes and helicopters. I retired from
> that
> work in 1986.
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: RE: Encoder Certification |
Good Morning John,
As Always, It All Depends! <G>
I think most of us would agree with your assessment.
The subject came up when a homebuilder wanted to know if he could fly his
transponder equipped airplane to another point to get it certified.
That morphed into a discussion as to where a transponder is required.
While most of us do opt to have an operating transponder on board, the fact
remains that such a unit is NOT required in most of the airspace utilized
by we GA pilots.
Even in areas where a transponder IS required, there are procedures
available that may allow a flight to be made with the transponder inoperative.
And, why do we care? As OC says, it's all in the spirit of education. Since
there are so many conflicting opinions, it appears that some education is
required.
Does that make any sense at all or do you still feel we were wasting your
time?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A (With a transponder)
In a message dated 1/24/2010 12:08:07 A.M. Central Standard Time,
grosseair@comcast.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse
<grosseair@comcast.net>
This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't
understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course.
you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no
electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care?
John Grosse
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: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace |
BINGO!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 1/24/2010 5:38:28 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mprather@spro.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
I don't know Bob.. Next thing you're going to say is that all you need to
stay upright is needle, ball, and airspeed.. Ha! :)
Matt-
do not archive
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: Z-13/20 questions |
Thank you very much for your comments (see response below), you've helped me
improve my design. I made changes to the power distribution schematic and
reposted the dirgram at http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm
Regards,
Bob Lee
Bob,
In taking a quick look at your diagram, it appears that your cross feed
contactor will not work. You seem to have both sides of the contactor tied
together and through a switch (start/xfeed switch) to ground. When you
power this up a diode will vaporize.
I haven't looked over the rest of the drawing.
Roger
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: Encoder Certification |
Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead
horse one more time.
Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled
airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135,
as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/
TSO'd.
So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your
only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the
performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c
or TSO-C112.
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
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: Encoder Certification |
Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead
horse one more time.
Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled
airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or 135,
as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be certified/
TSO'd.
So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your
only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the
performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c
or TSO-C112.
Angier Ames
N4ZQ
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: Z-13/20 questions |
AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1@gmail.com>
Bob,
You wrote regarding Z13/20: "Shouldn't have published it"
Yes . . . it was not a well considered or tested
recipe for success at the time of publication.
I too had made the decision to use multiple alternators based on my
electrically dependent engine, I also have a design goal of no single point
of failure in the electrical system, so I decided on a light weight version
of Z14 for basic power distribution and an overlay of Z13 for main-bus and
E-bus. I like Z13 for it's simplicity of operation, and Z14 for it's
independent power supply.
There is risk associated with cherry-picking features
from multiple recipes for the purpose of crafting a new
recipe. It begs to be sifted for the effects of single
failures (if flight for hire or transport, double failures
along with probability analysis). Finally, the value of
a new recipe is traded against existing recipes for addressing
design goals not easily addressed in existing recipes. Z13/20
was crafted and published without due diligence to these
processes.
I submitted a wiring diagram that you stated you were "praying over"
a while back. Seems like I have fallen into an area similar to
John <jonlaury@impulse.net> so I thought I would probe you again.
In your last post regarding my inquiry you said to use Z9 which seemed to
address other issues.
Z-9 was crafted to meet design goals offered by "Mr. Corvair
Engines" and fine tuned to adopt legacy design goals for failure
modes. Conversion packages for the VW would have similar electrical
system issues as the Corvair. You've stated that you found Z13/8,
Z-14 and I guess Z-9 inadequate to your design goals.
Cruising your website offers and impression that your
goals for the KR-2 are indeed extra-ordinary. I didn't
have time to read all the details so correct me if I'm
wrong . . . this is a highly experimental endeavor that
uses a lot of designs and hardware from projects never
before assembled in this combination on a single airplane . . .
much less multiple airplanes.
Not necessarily a "bad" idea. But it does suggest a long
list of risks requiring a "fine-tuning" of the airplane before
you can confidently launch on a series of long distance
travels with high probability of care-free arrivals.
This is not your grandpa's C-170. It will certainly test
your skills as a multi-discipline, flight test engineer.
From one who has participated in the flight testing and
product development of very complex airplanes
I can only caution that $time$ to test, de-bug, and
re-design seems to go up with the exponentially
with the number of "new ingredients" in your recipe
for success. Of course, given the unforgiving nature
of the aerodynamically supported machines, one hopes
that new de-bugging tasks are not displaced by
issues involving bent airplanes and/or broken bods.
You can see my wiring diagram at: http://kr.flyboybob.com/kr2/wd0004.htm
This is a busy electrical system. It has virtually
no legacy of design goals that birthed the Z-figures and
is essentially a scratch design. It would take hours
of conversation and mulling features to first understand
why the system is designed this way and then ratify
the ideas or suggest alternatives. This is something
I cannot offer right now as I have more than I can
handle for consulting clients already on the schedule.
My best suggestion is that you adopt Z-13/8 as a
system that gets its reliability from
simplicity. My sense is that you are going to have
a great deal on your plate getting other, much
more risky details ironed out. Electrical SYSTEM
failures are VERY SELDOM root cause of an unplanned
arrival with the earth. Z-13/8 with a well maintained
battery offers a rock solid energy generation and
delivery platform. "Stirring" the recipe only adds
risk for design error and complexity driven risk.
I'm working an accident right now that happened
for reasons involving a stirring of the recipe.
An expensive, complex airplane carrying people
hit the dirt for rudimentary lapses in judgement
about electrical system architecture. There was
always plenty of POWER available . . . but poorly
conducted to critical components.
I wish you well with your project. It's my
best recommendation that you don't stack electrical
uncertainties on top of the tasks before you.
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: Encoder Certification |
At 09:03 AM 1/24/2010, you wrote:
>Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets
>beat this dead horse one more time.
I'm sorry that you feel exhausted . . . education
is a laborious, exacting process that involves the
best-we-know-how-to-do both as teachers and students.
Further, teachers and students come in all forms
of ability and knowledge. The greatest benefit
to the community is not a fixed or predictable process.
But as long as all participants are conducting
themselves honorably, then relief from over-exertion
is simple and obvious . . . don't show up for class.
My wife has students that do that all the time!
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: | Charting Uncontrolled Airspace |
1/24/2010
Hello Fellow Marine Old Bob, You wrote: "However, I do NOT see where
controlled and uncontrolled airspace is pertinent to the discussion."
Agreed -- airspace category identification on charts per se was not
pertinent to the original posting, but that identification became of
educational interest as postings went on. I don't think an audit trail of
the entire sequence of postings on how this subject got all wrapped around
the axle is desired by all readers -- so here is a condensed audit trail
version:
A) It all began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg # 48119 on Jan 16,
2010), using the subject "Encoder Certification" who wanted to know if he
could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental
amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in
order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location.
B) Both you and I responded to his request (maybe some others as well)
telling him how this was possible. Neither of us used the term "controlled
airspace".
C) Then on Jan 18, 2010 in #48141 Jon Finley wrote: "Everything noted so
far in this thread assumes controlled airspace." and leaving the impression
that controlled airspace alone could possibly be the determining factor in
whether or not an aircraft was required to be equipped with an operable
coded transponder.
D) You and I both responded in a supportive, but clarification manner to
Jon. Then followed a series of transponder oriented postings by many that
morphed into a discussion of controlled versus uncontrolled airspace
transponder requirements that further morphed into a discussion of how
controlled and uncontrolled airspace was depicted on our aviation charts.
E) In that discourse on Jan20, 2010 in Msg #48158 Jon wrote: "......one has
to actually look at a sectional (NOT IFR chart) to see where true
"uncontrolled airspace" exists."
F) I then attempted to clarify that chart related statement by changing the
subject line to "Charting Uncontrolled Airspace" and pointing out the
existence of the brown shaded uncontrolled airspace locations on the low
altitude IFR charts which could not be determined by looking at a Sectional
chart alone. Jon took exception to my clarification and we were launched off
on an ongoing posting wrangle on that charting point using the new subject
line .
So you can see how we got from encoder certification into airspace
depictions on charts. Maybe a bit messy sequence of events, and maybe not
all directly related to this aeroelectric list venue, but still of some
interest to those of us who fly in this country. I am mindful of the many
readers of this list who may absorb what is written here without a
challenging or questioning attitude and I am reluctant to let stand
potentially misleading information.
Semper Fidelis,
'OC'
======================================================
Time: 09:55:51 AM PST US
From: bobsv35b@aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Charting Uncontrolled Airspace
Good Morning OC,
I, for one admire your tenacity and am glad you are helping to educate the
rest of us. However, I do NOT see where controlled and uncontrolled
airspace is pertinent to the discussion. As I understood the question, he
wanted
to know where a transponder was required. A transponder is NOT required for
VFR flight in the vast majority of controlled airspace.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove. IL
Stearman N3977A
Never an officer, just a Corporal, USMC.
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: Encoder Certification |
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: Z-13/20 questions |
Roger (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS [mrspudandcompany@verizon.net]) wrote:
In taking a quick look at your diagram, it appears that your cross feed
contactor will not work. You seem to have both sides of the contactor tied
together and through a switch (start/xfeed switch) to ground. When you
power this up a diode will vaporize.
Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the
cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit
current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode
component values are sized appropriately).
Regards,
Bob Lee
N52BL KR2
Suwanee, GA USA
92% done only 67% to go!
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: Z-13/20 questions |
Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the
cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit
current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode
component values are sized appropriately).
Regards,
Bob Lee
Bob,
My mistake, however, unless I am wrong again you will have
the cross feed actuated whenever the battery masters are turned on due to
the jumper between pins 1 & 3 of your Start/Xfeed switch.
Roger
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: Z-13/20 questions |
Hi Roger;
Different Bob, but the starter/Xfeed switch depicted is a three position
switch and with the switch in the "centre" position which is presumably
intended to be the "normal" position the Xfeed is Off.
Bob McC
_____________________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER &
JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2010 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-13/20 questions
Roger, I don't think you saw the cross connect light between ground and the
cross connnect contactor positive. The cross connect light will limit
current and prevent the diodes from vaporizing (assuming light and diode
component values are sized appropriately).
Regards,
Bob Lee
Bob,
My mistake, however, unless I am wrong again you will have
the cross feed actuated whenever the battery masters are turned on due to
the jumper between pins 1 & 3 of your Start/Xfeed switch.
Roger
Message 16
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: | Encoder Certification |
1/24/2010
Hello John Grosse, You wrote: "I personally don't understand why you just
wouldn't buy a transponder..."
{Response} Recall that this thread began with a posting by Steve Thomas (Msg
# 48119 on Jan 16, 2010 using the subject "Encoder Certification") who
wanted to know if he
could fly away from his home base with his newly certified experimental
amateur built airplane without an operating and certified transponder in
order to have the appropriate transponder checks done at another location.
Sorry that it got so drawn out and exhausting as we initially tried to help
him and then got bogged down while trying to clarify some subsequent
postings.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=====================================================
Time: 10:04:57 PM PST US
From: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Encoder Certification
This whole discussion has me totally exhausted. I personally don't
understand why you just wouldn't buy a transponder... unless, of course.
you're smuggling drugs or are flying some WWI vintage rag bag with no
electrical system. Then I get it, and why would you even care?
John Grosse
Message 17
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: Encoder Certification] |
And just where do you find this encoder requirement? It isn't in
91.205(d), it isn't in 91.215 that I can see. Unless it is a very recent
change, I've flown IFR both without a transponder and with one without
encoder for many years. Just increases your reporting requirements and
may slightly annoy the controller. Note flight plan equipment codes /X
and /T are still valid. Obviously it limits you to non-Class B,
C airports and below 10,000 ft. unless you get a waiver.
Kelly
Greenbacks, UnLtd. wrote:
> Since we are all now exhausted by this subject, lets beat this dead
> horse one more time.
> Altitude encoders are required equipment for IFR flight in controlled
> airspace. And unless the operation is conducted under part 121 or
> 135, as per FARS, 14CFR Section215(a), they do NOT need to be
> certified/TSO'd.
>
> So, go to your basement and create your own altitude encoder. Your
> only obligation under Part 91 is to demonstrate that it meets the
> performance and environmental standards of any class of TSO-C47b or c
> or TSO-C112.
>
> Angier Ames
> N4ZQ
>
Message 18
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: | New alkaline cell source |
I noticed a new line of "Members Mark" alkaline cells
on a display kiosk at Sam's Club yesterday. AA cells
for about 22.5 cents each, AAA cells for about 20.5
cents each. I've purchased both for immediate service.
It's going to be some time before I can put any on
uncle Bob's handy battery squeezer and measure their
contained energy. But at this price, it seems
unlikely that they'll not prove themselves to be
of exemplary value.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
Message 19
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
OK I'm abandoning my holy grail search for a lightweight Z-14. I don't want to
spend $300 for 2 PC310's to find out that they won't crank my engine. I think
I'll settle for Z-13/8 (with a 40amp stby; $350 less money, more amps and a 4.5
# penalty over the B&C PM alts that don't fit my Franklin engine) and I'll use
a single PC680. I have accomodation for another 680 should I decide that I
need the redundancy. A single 680 gives me about 45 mins with my Ebus load (longer
than the dual 310's). I still save 7+ lbs over Z-19 and I like having the
second alternator better than a second battery.
No matter how frequently I tested my batteries, I know that with no alternator,
I'm not going to be comfortable with a vague notion of how long I've got. I would
head for an airport immediately. With a second alternator and battery reserve,
a primary alternator failure, becomes a bother rather than something I
have to make a go/no-go decision about.
Other than the size of the alternator, and using two B&C LR-3 VR's, I see nothing
in Z13/8 that I would change.
Any observations/refinements appreciated.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283291#283291
Message 20
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: Battery Cranking Amps |
earl_schroeder(at)juno.co wrote:
> Hi John,
> Check the size ng?of the battery terminals. Some that I've tried were too small
to accept the wire size required to carry starter current requirements. For
instance, some would only accept a 6-32 size screw or a 1/4" push on tab.
Earl
Thanks Earl. You're right. The PC 310 use an M4 screw (#8-32 equiv). There's a
pad for more contact, but the screw is pretty small to get decent clamping force
applied.
See the previous post.
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=283292#283292
Message 21
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: New alkaline cell source |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> I noticed a new line of "Members Mark" alkaline cells
> on a display kiosk at Sam's Club yesterday. AA cells
> for about 22.5 cents each, AAA cells for about 20.5
> cents each. I've purchased both for immediate service.
>
> It's going to be some time before I can put any on
> uncle Bob's handy battery squeezer and measure their
> contained energy. But at this price, it seems
> unlikely that they'll not prove themselves to be
> of exemplary value.
I've been going to send you this for quite a while, but just forgot about it. If
you remember some time back, I sent you some Ultralast AA cells I purchased at
Fry's Electronics for $15 per 100 cells. Your test showed the were inferior to
some of the others, but at that cost you thought they showed OK value.
As it ends up, about 10% to 15% have been dead (or very very low) from the
package. That makes there value a lot less and I am staying away from them.
Regards,
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
Message 22
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: New alkaline cell source |
>
>I've been going to send you this for quite a while, but just forgot
>about it. If
>you remember some time back, I sent you some Ultralast AA cells I purchased at
>Fry's Electronics for $15 per 100 cells. Your test showed the were inferior to
>some of the others, but at that cost you thought they showed OK value.
>
>As it ends up, about 10% to 15% have been dead (or very very low) from the
>package. That makes there value a lot less and I am staying away from them.
Good data point. Thanks!
We'll have to see how Sam's products work out.
Given that they're carrying the Sam's Club
logo, I suspect the suppliers had to jump
some pretty tight hoops . . .
Bob . . .
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! --
|