Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:30 AM - Re: JFK Jr and all (Speedy11@aol.com)
2. 08:31 AM - Re: Re: JFK Jr and all (John Grosse)
3. 11:46 AM - Radio mounting (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
4. 01:35 PM - Fusible links vs fuses (James Kilford)
5. 01:48 PM - Re: Radio mounting (Bruce Gray)
6. 01:56 PM - Re: Fusible links vs fuses (rckol)
7. 02:47 PM - Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable (rampil)
8. 02:53 PM - Re: Radio mounting (Tim Andres)
9. 03:06 PM - Re: Radio mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:44 PM - Re: Radio mounting (jerb)
11. 03:54 PM - Re: Radio mounting (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 03:58 PM - Re: Radio mounting (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
13. 05:26 PM - Re: Fusible links vs fuses (N38CW)
14. 07:15 PM - Re: Radio mounting (Bruce Gray)
15. 08:16 PM - Re: Fusible links vs fuses (rckol)
16. 08:49 PM - Re: Fusible links vs fuses (rckol)
17. 09:07 PM - Re: Re: Fusible links vs fuses (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:17 PM - Re: Radio mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 09:30 PM - Re: JFK Jr and all & Stuff (halbenjamin@optonline.net)
20. 10:23 PM - Re: Radio mounting (jerb)
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: JFK Jr and all |
Nothing.
Delegating manners (much like common sense) is the difficult part.
Getting those same people to add 'do not archive' to their comments would
mean forum searches in the future would not have to grind through their
"worthless" comments. Our comments likely fall into the 'do not archive'
category.
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
What is wrong with having the manners to take non forum
discussions off list or to another more appropriate group
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: JFK Jr and all |
Do not archive
My personal wish would be that people would stop wasting my time with
worthless discussions about wasting my time. I know THAT is a waste of
time. The original discussion may or may not have had merit, but I am
capable of making that decision for myself.
John Grosse
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 |
|
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard? Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your input,
Roger
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: | Fusible links vs fuses |
Gents,
I've just about finished the wiring on my plane (a Jodel D150), but
I've lost sight of why I should have a fusible link between the master
switch and the main bus. My electrical system is based on Z-11.
Now, given that the other side of the master switch has the 5A alt.
field breaker on, I can deduce that this fusible link is to protect
the other part of the wiring. So, perhaps it's because it's a longish
run of cable to the master switch. However, even if that's the case,
would a 5A fuse suffice, when presumably that's the maximum current
that can flow along that cable?
I've been ploughing through the Aeroelectric Connection again, to
brush up, and I've read the bits about fusible links. If it's a case
of never-going-to-happen worst-case-scenario short protection, then I
guess it makes sense... but would a fuse do instead?
I'm playing catch up, as I've not worked on the plane for a couple of
years, so please forgive this dumb question (and my subsequent
ones!)...
Thanks in anticipation,
James
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 |
|
I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
I used screws and nuts.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
& JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
<mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your input,
Roger
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: Fusible links vs fuses |
James,
The fuseable link is to protect the wire between the bus and the breaker. The
breaker is there as part of the overvoltage protection circuit. If you get an
overvoltage event, you want the resetable breaker to trip, not the proposed fuse
to blow, hence the sturdier fuseable link.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292811#292811
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: Jhp 520 PTT cable |
Hi Bob,
If you do run across a copy of the JHP/RHP service manual, I'd
be interested in having a copy even though I am not much of an SMT
jock.
I am not sure what Dan (DjD) is trying to do with cutting an
internal mike wire, but the internal mike is out of circuit when external
mike is plugged in as is standard. Just the PTT function stays in the box
Thanks,
Ira
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292815#292815
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: Radio mounting |
On 4/2/2010 11:43 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "ROGER& JEAN CURTIS"<mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
>
> I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
> regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
> Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most of
> the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on the
> inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the mounting
> brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard? Sketches
> or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
> The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
> instruments are pretty standard.
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> Roger
>
>
>
Radio Rax looks like a beautiful system but it is way over priced in my
opinion. I have looked for a small aluminum extrusion in a "T" slot
arraignment that would work but no luck. I'll just make angle brackets
like everyone else I guess and carefully drill the holes. I don't
believe there is a standard dimension for the tray holes.
Tim Andres
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: Radio mounting |
At 01:43 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
><mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
>
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
>regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
>Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most of
>the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on the
>inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the mounting
>brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard? Sketches
>or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
>The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
>instruments are pretty standard.
WAaaayyyy back when, I used to write and illustrate field
installation kits for all the factory offered avionics at
Cessna. Except for the autopilot control heads, the radio
mounting rails in the Cessnas were 6-3/8" inches apart.
The Lear LTRA6 (1958), King KY-90 and Narco VT-1 I have on the
shelf will fit those widths. Don't know who picked that
number but thankfully, everyone adopted it. I note that the
Icom IC-A210 tray is listed at 6-5/16" so it appears that
the "standard" still holds.
I don't recall the factory rails being pre-drilled for mounting
holes. The rails had forward facing webs that would
accept a clip-nut. It was pretty much a drill-to-match
for what ever accessory you were installing. I think all
our 300 and 500 series radios had the same face height
within the series but if you're mixing/matching radios,
the heights will be all over the place.
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 |
|
I have a friend who bought a Garmin GPS, come to find out it ended up
being a little wider than the normal stack size. Surprise, surprise
as they say. On his RV it is major surgery to increase the width of
the stack so he has a nice GPS in his closet.
jerb
At 01:46 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
>width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
>material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
>about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
>fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
>your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
>The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
>I used screws and nuts.
>
>Bruce
>www.Glasair.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
>& JEAN CURTIS
>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
><mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
>
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
>question
>regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
>Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
>of
>the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
>the
>inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
>mounting
>brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
>Sketches
>or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
>The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
>instruments are pretty standard.
>
>Thanks for your input,
>
>Roger
>
>
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: Radio mounting |
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the
years.
Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack for a "six and
a
quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very detailed installation manual.
I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations. The
RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be placed
precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last year using the very
nice
RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would not fit. I had to remove the
RadioRax rails and mill off another twenty thousands of an inch to get the rack
installed correctly. I recently redid a Bonanza panel and used RadioRax
rails to support the radios. Before I made the installation, I carefully
measured the sleeves for the equipment being installed. The brand new 430W I
installed actually measured 6.332 inches so that is how far apart I placed
the rails. The new 327 transponder which is also made by Garmin measured at
least thirty thousandth less and a very old King KX 155 which was to be
reinstalled measured wider than the new 430W.
If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250 width,
many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an appropriate
shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Brookeridge Air Park
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 4/2/2010 3:48:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bgray@glasair.org writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <bgray@glasair.org>
I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
I used screws and nuts.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
& JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
<mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your input,
Roger
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 |
|
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a question
>regarding radio mounting.
Thanks for your responses, guys, It is as I thought, but I
figured I would see if anyone had any "magic" to make the job go easier and
neater.
Roger
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: Fusible links vs fuses |
rckol wrote:
> James,
>
> The fuseable link is to protect the wire between the bus and the breaker. The
breaker is there as part of the overvoltage protection circuit. If you get
an overvoltage event, you want the resetable breaker to trip, not the proposed
fuse to blow, hence the sturdier fuseable link.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you mean overcurrent instead of overvoltage?
--------
Bill Settle
RV-8 Fuselage
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292838#292838
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 |
|
OK, I had all my radios in their respective racks stacked on to of each
other to get the final measurements before I cut the hole for my stack.
I taped all the racks together so that the radio bezels were even. Most
of the racks required a different setback to even the face of the
radios. I then just mounted the taped racks, slid the radios in, every
thing matched. The Garmin racks have dimples on the bottom to give
proper spacing between radios.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BobsV35B@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
Good Afternoon Bruce,
Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the
years.
Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack for a
"six and a quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very detailed
installation manual.
I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations. The
RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be placed
precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last year using the
very nice RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would not fit. I had to
remove the RadioRax rails and mill off another twenty thousands of an
inch to get the rack installed correctly. I recently redid a Bonanza
panel and used RadioRax rails to support the radios. Before I made the
installation, I carefully measured the sleeves for the equipment being
installed. The brand new 430W I installed actually measured 6.332 inches
so that is how far apart I placed the rails. The new 327 transponder
which is also made by Garmin measured at least thirty thousandth less
and a very old King KX 155 which was to be reinstalled measured wider
than the new 430W.
If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250 width,
many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an appropriate
shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Brookeridge Air Park
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 4/2/2010 3:48:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
bgray@glasair.org writes:
<bgray@glasair.org>
I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
I used screws and nuts.
Bruce
www.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
& JEAN CURTIS
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
<mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
question
regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
of
the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
the
inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
mounting
brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
Sketches
or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
instruments are pretty standard.
Thanks for your ================================================= Use
utilities Day ===============================================
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS ===============================================
- List Contribution Web Site sp;
==================================================
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: Fusible links vs fuses |
James,
The 5 amp breaker in the line controlling the regulator is for overvoltage protection,
assuming you are using a B&C or PlanePower regulator for an externally
regulated alternator or are using a PlanePower internally regulated alternator
with built in OV protection (or an OVM-14 module).
Your overcurrent protection would be in the form of a big breaker or fuse (40+
amps) on the B lead (output) of the alternator.
Regards
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292852#292852
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: | Re: Fusible links vs fuses |
As a follow up: the 5 amp breaker protects against overvoltage as part of the crowbar
circuit. If overvoltage is detected by the regulator, the breaker is shorted
to ground, trips and interrupts the regulator control circuit.
So the breaker is tripping due too much current running through it, but for the
purpose of interrupting an overvoltage event.
This all assumes you have implemented this type of protection in your system.
--------
rck
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=292854#292854
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: Fusible links vs fuses |
At 10:14 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>
>James,
>
>The 5 amp breaker in the line controlling the regulator is for
>overvoltage protection, assuming you are using a B&C or PlanePower
>regulator for an externally regulated alternator or are using a
>PlanePower internally regulated alternator with built in OV
>protection (or an OVM-14 module).
>
>Your overcurrent protection would be in the form of a big breaker or
>fuse (40+ amps) on the B lead (output) of the alternator.
Very close except that alternators don't require over-current
protection like their older cousins, the generator.
Alternators are magnetically limited in their ability
to deliver current . . . so as the load on an alternator
goes up, there comes a time about 10-20% over nameplate
rating where the critter wont deliver any more and the
output sags.
Maximum output from the alternator happens when the
machine is cold. On rare occasions (cold morning,
jump start dead battery, battery is relatively
new and will accept lots of recharge current)
one can get a nuisance trip of the 60A breaker
in an airplane fitted with a 60A alternator.
This is because total ship's electrical loads
plus battery recharge current will be what ever
the alternator will deliver . . . which may be
greater than the 60A breaker rating on the
panel.
This happened to me once . . . the second of
only two times I've had a breaker open in flight.
This is why we select b-lead protection well above the
name-plate rating for the alternator so that the
breaker doesn't nuisance trip. It's also why I
call the 60A breaker on most Cessnas and Pipers
the "breaker designed to nuisance trip".
In any case, the b-lead breaker is to protect
the rest of the system if you get shorted diodes
in the alternator (very rare). The fusible link
in most cares serves the same purpose.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: Radio mounting |
At 05:51 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bruce,
>
>Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the years.
>
>Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
>manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack
>for a "six and a quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very
>detailed installation manual.
>
>I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations.
>The RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be
>placed precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last
>year using the very nice RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would
>not fit. I had to remove the RadioRax rails and mill off another
>twenty thousands of an inch to get the rack installed correctly. I
>recently redid a Bonanza panel and used RadioRax rails to support
>the radios. Before I made the installation, I carefully measured the
>sleeves for the equipment being installed. The brand new 430W I
>installed actually measured 6.332 inches so that is how far apart I
>placed the rails. The new 327 transponder which is also made by
>Garmin measured at least thirty thousandth less and a very old King
>KX 155 which was to be reinstalled measured wider than the new 430W.
>
>If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250
>width, many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
>
>I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an
>appropriate shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
>
>6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
Not sure it ever was. 6-5/16 is the legacy radio
width with probably plus or minus 1/32 (typical
aircraft sheet metal tolerances). The trays
are sheet metal and will tolerate being pulled
to the mounting rails by the attach hardware.
I just checked the Garmin manuals I have an
they all called out 6.32" outside dimension
on the tray and 6.25 for the chassis width
that slips into the tray.
I think folks will find that anyone who's been
the aircraft radio business very long has
discovered that their retrofit market will
greatest when they can mount in legacy openings
which were 6.38" wide for as far back as I can
recall.
Bob . . .
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: JFK Jr and all & Stuff |
You=27re right=2E=2E=2Eas is Terry=2E This is a forum where everyone has
chance to add his opinion or add information that hasn=27t been previou
sly posted=2E Sometimes some eye opening detail shines through=2E A chan
ge in the header is good=2C but not everyone will remember do so=2E The
delete key rules=2E
Hal Benjamin
RV-4 Long Island=2C NY
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From=3A Richard Girard
Date=3A Wednesday=2C March 31=2C 2010 8=3A40 am
Subject=3A Re=3A AeroElectric-List=3A JFK Jr and all
To=3A aeroelectric-list=40matronics=2Ecom
=3E Yes=2C you can use the delete key=2C I do all the time=2E The proble
m
=3E is that the
=3E subject title never gets changed to reflect the content so you
=3E have a few
=3E people engaged in the beginnings of a flame war while Bob
=3E continues to
=3E discuss real issues under the same heading=2E
=3E It isn=27t censorship to ask people to maintain decorum and use
=3E the forum for
=3E it=27s declared intent IMHO=2E
=3E
=3E Rick Girard
=3E
=3E On Tue=2C Mar 30=2C 2010 at 11=3A48 PM=2C Terry Watson
=3E wrote=3A
=3E
=3E =3E Delete key=2E Delete key=2E Delete key=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Let people say what they want=2E We don=92t have to read it all=2C
=3E any more than
=3E =3E we have to watch everything on TV or listen to everything on
=3E the radio or
=3E =3E read the entire newspaper=2E Someone posted a link to the
=3E accident report=2C
=3E =3E which changed my mind about what I thought I knew about JFK
=3E Jr=92s accident=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Listen selectively=2C please=2E Don=92t censor=2E This thread to
o will pass=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Terry
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E *From=3A* owner-aeroelectric-list-server=40matronics=2Ecom =5Bma
ilto=3A
=3E =3E owner-aeroelectric-list-server=40matronics=2Ecom=5D *On Behalf O
f *Richard
=3E =3E Girard
=3E =3E *Sent=3A* Tuesday=2C March 30=2C 2010 6=3A28 PM
=3E =3E *To=3A* aeroelectric-list=40matronics=2Ecom
=3E =3E *Subject=3A* AeroElectric-List=3A JFK Jr and all
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E I=27m really not entirely sure what any of this has to do with
=3E an electrical
=3E =3E system in an airplane and I=27ve no doubt this is of tremendous
=3E to those of
=3E =3E you discussing it=2C but would you all mind getting a chat room
=3E or another
=3E =3E venue where you can whack away at each other without boring
=3E the holy crap
=3E =3E out of the rest of us=2E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Cheers=2C
=3E =3E
=3E =3E Rick Girard
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E =3E * *
=3E =3E
=3E =3E * *
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E *http=3A//www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/Navigator=3FAeroElectric-List*
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E *http=3A//forums=2Ematronics=2Ecom*
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E *http=3A//www=2Ematronics=2Ecom/contribution*
=3E =3E
=3E =3E **
=3E =3E
=3E =3E * *
=3E =3E
=3E =3E *
=3E =3E
=3E ===========
=3E ===========
=3E ===========
=3E ===========
=3E =3E *
=3E =3E
=3E =3E
=3E
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: Radio mounting |
I was under the impression the 6.25" width was a standard for general
aviation small plane avionics.
What has happened here, by what I read here you now have to start
cutting up instrument panels to install new product. Bad deal - if
we buy it, we are endorsing it. Maybe making builders more aware
might influence what happening in selection of products. If their
going to increase the mounting width requirement, it should be across
the board, everyone do the same. Can you visualize the hatchet and
butcher jobs being done on the existing GA aircraft fleet to
accommodate these companies product just because they do not want to
conform. Well I guess the way things are going it will not matter in
the next couple years.
jerb
At 03:51 PM 4/2/2010, you wrote:
>Good Afternoon Bruce,
>
>Unfortunately the classic 6.25 width has changed considerably over the years.
>
>Even worse than that, it varies even among boxes from the same
>manufacturer. The Garmin 430W and 530W list the width of the rack
>for a "six and a quarter" unit as 6.320 inches in their very
>detailed installation manual.
>
>I used RadioRax mounting rails for my last couple of installations.
>The RadioRax company strongly recommends that the support units be
>placed precisely 6.300 inches apart. I did it just that way last
>year using the very nice RadioRax spacer unit, but the 430W would
>not fit. I had to remove the RadioRax rails and mill off another
>twenty thousands of an inch to get the rack installed correctly. I
>recently redid a Bonanza panel and used RadioRax rails to support
>the radios. Before I made the installation, I carefully measured the
>sleeves for the equipment being installed. The brand new 430W I
>installed actually measured 6.332 inches so that is how far apart I
>placed the rails. The new 327 transponder which is also made by
>Garmin measured at least thirty thousandth less and a very old King
>KX 155 which was to be reinstalled measured wider than the new 430W.
>
>If you make a good strong and rigid support rail at only a 6.250
>width, many modern and ancient radios will not fit.
>
>I highly recommend the use of RadioRax rails , but do add an
>appropriate shim to the installation tool when installing the rails.
>
>6.250 will NOT be wide enough for many common radio sleeves.
>
>Happy Skies,
>
>Old Bob
>AKA
>Bob Siegfried
>Downers Grove, IL
>Brookeridge Air Park
>Stearman N3977A
>
>In a message dated 4/2/2010 3:48:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>bgray@glasair.org writes:
>
>I'm working from memory here but I recall that the normal radio stack
>width is 6.25 inches. The mounting method will vary depending on the
>material your panel is made from. You'll need to fabricate a flange
>about 1 inch long/deep. You can make this flange from AL angle or
>fiberglass layups, next attach rivet/bond the angle to the back sides of
>your panel radio stack 6.25 inches apart and parallel to each other.
>The racks screw into the angle brackets. Some radio shops use clipnuts.
>I used screws and nuts.
>
>Bruce
>www.Glasair.org
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of ROGER
>& JEAN CURTIS
>Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 2:43 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
><mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
>
>I am in the process of laying out my instrument panel, and have a
>question
>regarding radio mounting. (2 place side by side IFR airplane)
>
>Is there a standard mounting hole spacing, other dimensioning, for most
>of
>the modern radios? What is the best type of mounting brackets to put on
>the
>inside of the panel for securing the radios? Can I predrill the
>mounting
>brackets with a standard hole spacing, or is there not a standard?
>Sketches
>or drawings (CAD ok) would be helpful.
>
>The radio stack seems to have the most variables. The other round hole
>instruments are pretty standard.
>
>Thanks for your =================================================
>Use utilities Day
>================================================ -
>MATRONICS WEB FORUMS
>================================================ - List
>Contribution Web Site
>sp; ==================================================
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
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! --
|