Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:39 AM - Re: Radio mounting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 11:48 AM - Re: Radio mounting (BobsV35B@aol.com)
3. 03:41 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/02/10 (Nathan)
4. 06:20 PM - Re: Radio mounting (Bill Schlatterer)
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: Radio mounting |
At 12:20 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
>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.
I think I've identified a potential source of confusion.
Check out these excerpts from various radion installation
manuals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Panel_Layout/
The 6.25" width seems to apply if your tray is totally
behind the panel and only the radio chassis is expected
to be a slip fit in the panel opening. However, if
your tray is flush to the front surface of the
panel, then the opening needs to be larger.
At Cessna, the trays were flush mounted between
rails with clip-nuts on the rails. So a nominally
6.31" tray + two clip nut thicknesses came to
the 6.38" dimension I recalled from my kit writing
days.
I think the radio widths are more 'standard' than
the anecdotal data points in this thread suggests.
Check the installation manuals with particular
attention to how the tray mounts.
Bottom line is that the WIDTH for aircraft radios
and their trays has been pretty standard for
many moons.
Bob . . .
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: Radio mounting |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
Yours is a good point that the width required is quite a bit different if
you wish to be able to extract the sleeve through the panel. If all you want
to be able to come out that way is the radio unit itself, 6.250 will hide
the mounting rack. If the units are mounted such that the rack can be
inserted and removed from the cockpit side of the panel, the hole in the panel
will need to be as wide as the support struts are apart and those edges may
be visible after the radios are installed.
I think we should define what we mean by "pretty standard". I recently did
some very careful measurements and found variances as great as sixty
thousandths of an inch. Looking in the current install manuals from Garmin for
new boxes, I see they have NOT settled on a standard that will apply to all
of their products. I have found no boxes that were narrower than 6.25 but a
lot of both old and new boxes that are well wider than 6.35. Your 6.375 is
certainly a conservative number, but it may require washers or other
spacers to prevent bending the case more than one would like to do when the
narrower offerings are installed.
The main point that I think should be made is that it is important to
measure the actual boxes being used and engineer the supports based on those
measurements. It would be a good idea to allow space for bigger boxes if a
change is ever to be made.
I have used the RadioRax system in the last three panels I have built. One
nice feature is that for certificated airplanes, no back of the rack
support of the radio is needed when they are installed in accordance with the
RadioRax STC. As I said earlier, if you make them 6.375 inches apart and fail
to add spacers, it will deform the smaller offerings. In addition, support
may be needed on the hidden end of the rack.
As Always, It All Depends! <G>
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Brookeridge Air Park
Downers Grove, IL 60516
Stearman N3977A
In a message dated 4/3/2010 9:40:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 12:20 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
>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.
I think I've identified a potential source of confusion.
Check out these excerpts from various radion installation
manuals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Panel_Layout/
The 6.25" width seems to apply if your tray is totally
behind the panel and only the radio chassis is expected
to be a slip fit in the panel opening. However, if
your tray is flush to the front surface of the
panel, then the opening needs to be larger.
At Cessna, the trays were flush mounted between
rails with clip-nuts on the rails. So a nominally
6.31" tray + two clip nut thicknesses came to
the 6.38" dimension I recalled from my kit writing
days.
I think the radio widths are more 'standard' than
the anecdotal data points in this thread suggests.
Check the installation manuals with particular
attention to how the tray mounts.
Bottom line is that the WIDTH for aircraft radios
and their trays has been pretty standard for
many moons.
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/02/10 |
I have always a been under the impression that 6 5/16" (+1/16"-0). Never
had a unit that would not fit that measurement. YMMV
best,
Nathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/02/10
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of
> the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text
> editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 10-04-02&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 10-04-02&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> AeroElectric-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Fri 04/02/10: 20
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:30:20 AM PST US
> From: Speedy11@aol.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:31:25 AM PST US
> From: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:46:44 AM PST US
> From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
>
> 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:35:30 PM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links vs fuses
> From: James Kilford <james@etravel.org>
>
>
> 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:48:07 PM PST US
> From: "Bruce Gray" <bgray@glasair.org>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
>
> 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:56:53 PM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fusible links vs fuses
> From: "rckol" <rckol@kaehlers.com>
>
>
> 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:47:10 PM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Jhp 520 PTT cable
> From: "rampil" <ira.rampil@GMAIL.COM>
>
>
> 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:53:32 PM PST US
> From: Tim Andres <tim2542@sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
> _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:06:58 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:44:35 PM PST US
> From: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
>
> 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:54:49 PM PST US
> From: BobsV35B@aol.com
> 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:
>
> --> 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:58:16 PM PST US
> From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
>>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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:26:19 PM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fusible links vs fuses
> From: "N38CW" <billsettle@bellsouth.net>
>
>
> 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:15:16 PM PST US
> From: "Bruce Gray" <bgray@glasair.org>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
>
> 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:16:49 PM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fusible links vs fuses
> From: "rckol" <rckol@kaehlers.com>
>
>
> 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:49:40 PM PST US
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Fusible links vs fuses
> From: "rckol" <rckol@kaehlers.com>
>
>
> 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:07:58 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:17:49 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 09:30:31 PM PST US
> From: halbenjamin@optonline.net
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 10:23:36 PM PST US
> From: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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
>>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Pix worth a thousand :-) This is a 430W tray and a SL40 Tray from Garmin.
Definitely not the same size but I think I remember the SL40 is slightly
smaller than the 430 as I had to add shims and the 430w tray was 6.25. 6.38
would have been a little better as mine is snub. Note that Garmin didn't
design the SL40 and SL30, those came with the Apollo acquisition as I
remember which probably accounts for the difference in tray sizes.
Bill S
7a just weeks away :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio mounting
--> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 12:20 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
>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.
I think I've identified a potential source of confusion.
Check out these excerpts from various radion installation
manuals . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Panel_Layout/
The 6.25" width seems to apply if your tray is totally
behind the panel and only the radio chassis is expected
to be a slip fit in the panel opening. However, if
your tray is flush to the front surface of the
panel, then the opening needs to be larger.
At Cessna, the trays were flush mounted between
rails with clip-nuts on the rails. So a nominally
6.31" tray + two clip nut thicknesses came to
the 6.38" dimension I recalled from my kit writing
days.
I think the radio widths are more 'standard' than
the anecdotal data points in this thread suggests.
Check the installation manuals with particular
attention to how the tray mounts.
Bottom line is that the WIDTH for aircraft radios
and their trays has been pretty standard for
many moons.
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! --
|