Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:40 AM - Re: Voltage regulator/dropper (icrashrc)
2. 06:49 AM - Re: voltage regulator level change? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:02 AM - Re: Voltage regulator/dropper (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:39 AM - noise filter (user9253)
5. 07:43 AM - Re: Voltage regulator/dropper (Etienne Phillips)
6. 10:19 AM - Re: Voltage regulator/dropper (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:30 AM - Re: noise filter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:57 AM - Re: Strange radio transmit problem - any suggestions? (Peter Pengilly)
9. 11:05 AM - Re: noise filter (user9253)
10. 01:08 PM - Re: Strange radio transmit problem - any suggestions? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 01:52 PM - Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio signals (The Kuffels)
12. 04:04 PM - Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio signals (James Kilford)
13. 04:28 PM - Emag/pmag wiring question (woxofswa)
14. 04:40 PM - Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio signals (Jared Yates)
15. 05:13 PM - Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio signals (Mike Welch)
16. 05:35 PM - Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio signals (Mike Welch)
17. 05:35 PM - Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio signals (James Kilford)
18. 07:05 PM - Re: Emag/pmag wiring question (Neal George)
19. 08:15 PM - Re: High Definition MotorSports camera for your aircraft (Speedy11@aol.com)
20. 09:47 PM - Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (Speedy11@aol.com)
21. 09:48 PM - Re: Com antenna (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: Voltage regulator/dropper |
Here's an option.
http://www.castlecreations.com/products/ccbec.html
I think 9 volts is as high as you can set these but you will need their data cable
to do so. I have the needed software and cable and would be happy to set it
for you.
--------
Scott
www.ill-EagleAviation.com
do not archive
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300305#300305
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: voltage regulator level change? |
At 10:37 PM 6/6/2010, you wrote:
>
>I have purchased 2 Ford 166 regulators to provide external
>regulation (and OV protection capabilities) for the 2 alternators in
>my electrically dependent plane.
> As I am using AGM batteries, I understand they prefer a higher
> charging voltage than standard lead-acid types. Can one readily
> modify the Ford regulators to provide the 14.5 V output level? Or,
> is there an external circuit that I can insert between the
> alternator and regulator (a voltage divider) that would accomplish this?
There is quite a lot of no-value-added-worry-fodder
circulated by well meaning but ill informed individuals
who parrot "common knowledge" and tid-bits gleaned
from a host of data sources. One example can be found
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternators/Know_Your_Charging_System.pdf
The Big Picture experience and study of simple-ideas for
lead-acid battery technology demonstrates that the service
life of the battery in your airplane is MOST influenced by
how you use and maintain it . . . and LEAST influenced by the
alternator regulator's set-point.
There's a large body of information you may cruise
by going to my website at:
http://aeroelectric.com
and use the home page search engine to locate
articles referring to "charging voltage". While
you'll find several "preferred" charging voltage
set-points cited for various products, nobody
strays very far from the legacy lead-acid charging
set-point of 14.2 volts. Many an SVLA battery
has been STC'd onto type certificated aircraft
as a DIRECT REPLACEMENT for the flooded battery
product that the airplane was certified with.
None of those STCs call for re-adjusting
the alternator regulator.
The short answer is that there's no advantage to
be gained for modifying your regulators. The
SVLA/RG/AGM batteries will live quite happily in
your airplane at the stock VR166 operating set point.
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: Voltage regulator/dropper |
At 10:32 PM 6/6/2010, you wrote:
I have built a timer kit for my transfer fuel pump (CK158B from
CanaKit.com) that works as desired. The directions indicate that it
should be powered by 9 Vdc supply or a 12 Vdc 'regulated' supply. I
my electrically dependent plane, I will be using 2 AGM batteries
powered by 2 alternators (55A from Geo Metro) converted to external
Ford regulators.
I need to build a circuit to drop the 13 to 15 Volts to 9-12
volts, so as to not zap the HEF4541BP timer IC or 9V relay coil. On
my lab supply, the ammeter doesn't register any perceptible current
(it can show as little as 0.1 amp) while the timer is running with
the relay energized, so I don't know the actual current draw of the timer.
Can you suggest a regulator circuit that will drop the extra 4-5
volts, and keep the electronics from frying?
See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Accessory_Regulator.pdf
This circuit can be built in a variety of 'sizes'
depending on your current demands. The LM317 is
good for up to 1.5A on a sufficient heat sink.
In your case, you probably don't need any heat
sink. Looking at the product you're integrating
into your airplane . . .
Emacs!
It appears that there would be room on the
bottom of the board to bond an LM317 right
to the ECB and wire the rest of the components
to it . . . also tacking them to the board
with E6000 to avoid vibration breakage of
the leads. Thus you modify the existing
assembly to run from the aircraft bus as
opposed to adding another black box to condition
power for this one accessory.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
After following the link in Bob's posting to the center-fed half-wave antenna,
I noticed that Miracle Antenna also sells an electrical noise filter.
http://miracleantenna.com/Smoothie.htm
Assuming the product performs as advertised, is it a useful product that is worth
the time, money and weight penalty? I seem to remember Bob saying that modern
avionics should be designed to withstand any voltage variations that the aircraft
throws at them. Theoretically a pure DC supply voltage is better. But
practically speaking, is the average unfiltered aircraft DC bus voltage good
enough?
The Rotax alternator is single phase. Its rectified output is not as smooth
as that from 3 phase alternators. Would a noise filter be beneficial for smoothing
the output of a single phase alternator or is the output good enough without
a filter?
Thanks, Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300336#300336
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: Voltage regulator/dropper |
Hi Bob
Instead of the LM317 (which requires the use of tuning resistors), what
about using an LM7809? It's almost identical to the LM319, but without the
variable output option - it's preset to 9V. Also good for 1A, with adequate
heat sink, and has all the niceties of overheat protection etc.
I've used the 7805 (the 5V variety of the 78xx family) for many land-based
projects with great success. Is there maybe an excluding property that makes
them unsuitable for aviation applications that I haven't encountered?
Thanks
Etienne
On 7 June 2010 16:03, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
> wrote:
> At 10:32 PM 6/6/2010, you wrote:
>
> I have built a timer kit for my transfer fuel pump (CK158B from
> CanaKit.com) that works as desired. The directions indicate that it should
> be powered by 9 Vdc supply or a 12 Vdc 'regulated' supply. I my
> electrically dependent plane, I will be using 2 AGM batteries powered by 2
> alternators (55A from Geo Metro) converted to external Ford regulators.
> I need to build a circuit to drop the 13 to 15 Volts to 9-12 volts, so
> as to not zap the HEF4541BP timer IC or 9V relay coil. On my lab supply,
> the ammeter doesn't register any perceptible current (it can show as little
> as 0.1 amp) while the timer is running with the relay energized, so I don't
> know the actual current draw of the timer.
>
> Can you suggest a regulator circuit that will drop the extra 4-5 volts, and
> keep the electronics from frying?
>
>
> See:
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Accessory_Regulator.pdf
>
> This circuit can be built in a variety of 'sizes'
> depending on your current demands. The LM317 is
> good for up to 1.5A on a sufficient heat sink.
> In your case, you probably don't need any heat
> sink. Looking at the product you're integrating
> into your airplane . . .
>
> [image: Emacs!]
>
> It appears that there would be room on the
> bottom of the board to bond an LM317 right
> to the ECB and wire the rest of the components
> to it . . . also tacking them to the board
> with E6000 to avoid vibration breakage of
> the leads. Thus you modify the existing
> assembly to run from the aircraft bus as
> opposed to adding another black box to condition
> power for this one accessory.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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: Voltage regulator/dropper |
At 09:21 AM 6/7/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob
>
>Instead of the LM317 (which requires the use of tuning resistors),
>what about using an LM7809? It's almost identical to the LM319, but
>without the variable output option - it's preset to 9V. Also good
>for 1A, with adequate heat sink, and has all the niceties of
>overheat protection etc.
>
>I've used the 7805 (the 5V variety of the 78xx family) for many
>land-based projects with great success. Is there maybe an excluding
>property that makes them unsuitable for aviation applications that I
>haven't encountered?
>
>Thanks
>Etienne
Good choice. I tend to "jump" on the LM317 because of it's
broad applicability and we stock the part. But a fixed
voltage regulator from the 78xx family is certainly
an option that eliminates a couple of resistors.
Bob . . .
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: noise filter |
At 09:37 AM 6/7/2010, you wrote:
>
>After following the link in Bob's posting to the center-fed
>half-wave antenna, I noticed that Miracle Antenna also sells an
>electrical noise filter.
>http://miracleantenna.com/Smoothie.htm
>Assuming the product performs as advertised, is it a useful product
>that is worth the time, money and weight penalty? I seem to
>remember Bob saying that modern avionics should be designed to
>withstand any voltage variations that the aircraft throws at
>them. Theoretically a pure DC supply voltage is better. But
>practically speaking, is the average unfiltered aircraft DC bus
>voltage good enough?
Yes.
> The Rotax alternator is single phase. Its rectified output is
> not as smooth as that from 3 phase alternators. Would a noise
> filter be beneficial for smoothing the output of a single phase
> alternator or is the output good enough without a filter?
All potential victims of noise have a threshold
above which the stimulus degrades performance. All
potential antagonists for noise are never ZERO
noise (although batteries ARE exceedingly quiet!).
Successful integration of potential victims with
potential antagonist requires a working knowledge
of risk. There are agreements between users,
manufacturers and regulators of products where
a practical ability to WITHSTAND a certain amount
of noise is tailored to a practical ability to
LIMIT the noise generated. Popular agreements
include DO-160 and Mil-Std-704 . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Philosophy/Whats_all_this_DO160_Stuff_Anyhow.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Reference_Docs/Mil-Specs/Mil-Std-704f.pdf
The rule of thumb for deciding whether or not
to add extra-ordinary prophylactic measures
against noise issues is to
(1) search the current experience base and
(2) wait and see.
It MIGHT be that some single accessory you're considering
for your project is extra sensitive to noise. Otherwise,
don't start adding noise mitigation goodies to the
system before you know that you truly have a noise
problem THAT WAS NOT GENERATED BY IMPROPER
INSTALLATION.
Bob . . .
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: Strange radio transmit problem - any suggestions? |
Guys,
Thanks for your suggestions regarding this problem.
It turned out the radio was transmitting carrier wave through the
frequency range, but only transmitting voice below about 120MHz, and
above 130MHz. When no voice was going out there was no side tone either.
Becker said if its transmitting on any frequency then there's nothing
wrong with the radio as there is only one transmitter, etc.
I believe I have solved it by replacing the antenna feeder. I'm not sure
if the problem was a degraded piece of coax or a poor termination. The
previous feeder was a piece of RG58 of unknown pedigree and is now a
piece of RG400 that happened to be in my spares box and was 6" too long
:) (Makes a change - everything is usually 6" too short). Crimp on
terminations from Stein using Bob's method note.
I still don't really understand what was happening - I guess the radio
was smart enough to only provide a side tone when it was actually
radiating speech on the carrier wave, and it realised that no speech was
going out on the frequencies in question.
Peter
On 12/05/2010 21:17, Peter Pengilly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a Becker AR4201 radio in my One Design
> <http://www.glosterairparts.co.uk/OneDesignRebuild8.htm> that I have
> just started flying (2 hours on the tacho). Initially the radio worked
> great (after I got the mike jack wiring correct - there's always one
> bozo moment in any project). Halfway through the 2nd flight the
> transmit quit - receive was still good. Plugging in another headset on
> the ground and the transmit worked OK.
>
> A couple of days later I pushed the aeroplane out for another flight
> and no transmit at all. Carrier wave is being transmitted but no
> modulation (and so side tone in my headset). After trying to figure it
> out for an hour I put it back together and went flying, still with
> carrier wave only. After a while I called a local tower (119.0) - loud
> and clear. Returned to my field (124.1) to the same problem - carrier
> wave only. What is going on!!! :-(
>
> I have not been able to test further - but I need to step through the
> frequency range and find out which freqs work and which do not. This
> is a very simple airplane with no intercom, headset connected directly
> to the radio. Receive is good all the time, on all freqs tried so far.
> Radio shows the transmit arrow whenever the PTT is pushed, and puts
> out carrier wave on 124.1. Why is it modulating on some freqs and not
> others? Headset works in other aircraft (have tried 3 so far with same
> results).
>
> Does anyone have any idea about what is going on?
>
> Any suggestions gratefully received.
>
> Peter
> *
>
>
> *
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: noise filter |
> The rule of thumb for deciding whether or not
> to add extra-ordinary prophylactic measures
> against noise issues is to
>
> (1) search the current experience base and
>
> (2) wait and see.
Thanks Bob. Good advice. There is no sense fixing something that is not broken.
I will wait and see.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300372#300372
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: Strange radio transmit problem - any suggestions? |
At 12:25 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:
Guys,
Thanks for your suggestions regarding this problem.
It turned out the radio was transmitting carrier wave through the
frequency range, but only transmitting voice below about 120MHz, and
above 130MHz. When no voice was going out there was no side tone
either. Becker said if its transmitting on any frequency then there's
nothing wrong with the radio as there is only one transmitter, etc.
I believe I have solved it by replacing the antenna feeder. I'm not
sure if the problem was a degraded piece of coax or a poor
termination. The previous feeder was a piece of RG58 of unknown
pedigree and is now a piece of RG400 that happened to be in my spares
box and was 6" too long :) (Makes a change - everything is usually 6"
too short). Crimp on terminations from Stein using Bob's method note.
I still don't really understand what was happening - I guess the
radio was smart enough to only provide a side tone when it was
actually radiating speech on the carrier wave, and it realized that
no speech was going out on the frequencies in question.
From your description it now seems likely that
you had a bad shield connection at one or both
ends of the original coax. When deprived of good
shield connection, a feed line that NORMALLY
conducts most energy of interest between antenna
and radio becomes a radiator. Further, the
most efficient frequency of radiation becomes
a function of length and proximity to other
conductors in the airplane. Depending on a
host of variables, the "problem" can manifest
over a narrow range of frequencies. Finally,
it may be a strong source of potentially interfering
energy where the interference can even manifest
in the transceiver itself!
Your particular "rogue antenna" seems to have been
particularly efficient in the band where transmission
was degraded. In this case, the low level audio
stages of your modulator were probably saturated and
prevented from passing the small microphone signal
to the right places in the radio.
I can tell you that the majority of antenna feed line
problems have root cause in poorly installed or
damaged connectors. Further, EITHER connector
being damaged can produce mind-boggling behaviors
in ship's systems.
I'm pleased that you found the problem and have
shared your findings with us.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
<< remember that Steve Wittman and his wife were killed
because of not following the Poly Fiber process. >>
True, but the way Steve didn't follow the process was material. According
to the NTSB Steve treated the Poly Fiber fabric as if it were cotton. He
used dope instead of Poly Fiber glue and the fabric detached in front of his
aileron with subsequent loss of control. Simply not putting the specified
amount of UV blocker on the bottom sides should not affect the fabric's
adhesion or airflow performance, particularly if you punch test it at
regular intervals. Of course, a lawyer or insurance company might think
otherwise.
Tom Kuffel
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: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
Mike,
I had originally intended to do what you suggest and just PolySpray
the top. I had the same conversation with them! They were quite
insistent about the need to PolySpray all of the aeroplane. Your
experiences directly contradict what they said, i.e. that the UV
damage will occur all over the plane and not just on top.
James
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> James,
>
> In addition to the information you just shared regarding PolySpray, I
> thought I'd throw my two cents in......
>
> Back when I had my Cessna, which spent all of it's life outside, I noticed
> that the top-side of the surfaces oxidized a fair amount. The wings' upper
> surfaces, fuselage, etc, really needed those polishes and wax jobs.
> The bottom surfaces didn't!!!! They were as shiny as the day they got
> painted. A wash and asimple coat of wax to clean any smog residue and they
> were "goodto go"!
> The tops required plenty of polish and elbow grease!! I was able to
> eventually get a pretty decent shine on the top, but itwas real evident
> that it oxidizes"significantly" more than the bottom surfaces (the paint
> job was about 7 years old, the underside has ZERO oxidation).
>
> So!! With this personal experience on my own Cessna, I made the decision
> to only spray the Poly Spray silver paint on the upper surfaces of the
> airplane I'm building. The sun does NOT shine on the bottom, so I did't
> wantto waste the paint.
> I know what the Poly Fiber manual says. It wants you to spray the entire
> plane!! I talked to Dondi Miller (@ Aircraft Tech Support...a leading
> seller of the P.F. products), and she said as far as she knew, you have to
> spray the entire plane. But, since I get to make the decision on my own
> plane....I chose not to. Others opinions may differ. I'm ok with that.
>
> What this may have to do with your post is; if a guy were planning to
> install his antennas inside his Poly Fabric covered plane, he might
> seriously consider NOT spraying the Poly Spray silver coats on the bottom
> surfaces.
> The Poly Fiber manual suggests that in order to get the best UV
> protection, you need to spray the silver coatings thick enough that
> virtually zero light shines through. Plus, according to the manual, a
> certified aircraft HAS to be fully covered!!
> I can see where such a semi-solid layer of aluminum flakes could affect
> some radio waves. I chose to not do the bottom surfaces. (They got their
> share of sealer/paint, etc)
>
> Just my thoughts on the matter....
>
> Mike Welch
> Kolb MkIII
>
>
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: | Emag/pmag wiring question |
I am in the process of wiring my starter switch. I am planning on installing an
Emag/Pmag ignition system and was wondering if I need to jumper the starter
switch R to GND for the Emags.
TIA
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in progress
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=300416#300416
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: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
This makes me wonder, does UV energy bounce off of the ground? I got the
impression from somewhere that the fabric degrades in a matter of months
when it is exposed without protection, so it may be that a little bit of
exposure makes a big difference. Is this discussion about a fuselage made
of wood? It seems like a steel tube fuselage would cause much more RF
concern than the Poly-Spray.
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:01 PM, James Kilford <james@etravel.org> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I had originally intended to do what you suggest and just PolySpray
> the top. I had the same conversation with them! They were quite
> insistent about the need to PolySpray all of the aeroplane. Your
> experiences directly contradict what they said, i.e. that the UV
> damage will occur all over the plane and not just on top.
>
> James
>
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > In addition to the information you just shared regarding PolySpray, I
> > thought I'd throw my two cents in......
> >
> > Back when I had my Cessna, which spent all of it's life outside, I
> noticed
> > that the top-side of the surfaces oxidized a fair amount. The wings'
> upper
> > surfaces, fuselage, etc, really needed those polishes and wax jobs.
> > The bottom surfaces didn't!!!! They were as shiny as the day they
> got
> > painted. A wash and a simple coat of wax to clean any smog residue and
> they
> > were "good to go"!
> > The tops required plenty of polish and elbow grease!! I was able to
> > eventually get a pretty decent shine on the top, but it was real evident
> > that it oxidizes "significantly" more than the bottom surfaces (the paint
> > job was about 7 years old, the underside has ZERO oxidation).
> >
> > So!! With this personal experience on my own Cessna, I made the
> decision
> > to only spray the Poly Spray silver paint on the upper surfaces of the
> > airplane I'm building. The sun does NOT shine on the bottom, so I did't
> > want to waste the paint.
> > I know what the Poly Fiber manual says. It wants you to spray the
> entire
> > plane!! I talked to Dondi Miller (@ Aircraft Tech Support...a leading
> > seller of the P.F. products), and she said as far as she knew, you have
> to
> > spray the entire plane. But, since I get to make the decision on my own
> > plane....I chose not to. Others opinions may differ. I'm ok with that.
> >
> > What this may have to do with your post is; if a guy were planning to
> > install his antennas inside his Poly Fabric covered plane, he might
> > seriously consider NOT spraying the Poly Spray silver coats on the bottom
> > surfaces.
> > The Poly Fiber manual suggests that in order to get the best UV
> > protection, you need to spray the silver coatings thick enough that
> > virtually zero light shines through. Plus, according to the manual, a
> > certified aircraft HAS to be fully covered!!
> > I can see where such a semi-solid layer of aluminum flakes could affect
> > some radio waves. I chose to not do the bottom surfaces. (They got
> their
> > share of sealer/paint, etc)
> >
> > Just my thoughts on the matter....
> >
> > Mike Welch
> > Kolb MkIII
> >
> >
>
>
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: | PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
> Mike=2C
> Your experiences directly contradict what they said=2C i.e. that the UV
> damage will occur all over the plane and not just on top.
>
> James
Everyone=2C
My apologies to the aeroelectric list=2C since the topic has strayed from
the effective blockage of radio waves from Poly Spray=2C to a wing's intre
grity from sunlight blockage from P.S.
James=2C
My "experience" comes from from seeing countless thousands of things rot
in the sun and rain. An item NOT left in the sun and the rain seems to las
t a long=2C long=2C long time....compared to the same kind of item left in
the elements!
Whether it's a car=2C a board=2C a sheet of sheetrock=2C just about anyth
ing lasts longer stored inside. My fabric covered plane will NOT ever sit
openly in the sun=2C at least not as long as I own it. I've seen too many
airplanes just rot away=2C sitting on a ramp. Not mine. It will have a co
ver=2C or be in a hangar...period.
Since the primary purpose of the Poly Spray is to block the sun's rays=2C
I don't personally see much need for something to be thoroughly "protected
" that will never see direct sunlight. That's just me=2C I guess. It's li
ke getting travel insurance=2C and never going anywhere.
Simple experiment: take two pieces of fabric=2C any fabric. Set one out
side to see lots of sunshine and rain. Keep the other one indoors in a dry
place. Let them sit there for a few years=2C say 4-5. That ought to do
it. Look at the outside one. Tug on it. Look at the inside one. That
's my "experience".
Yes=2C I'm aware of the Miller's position. They weren't as adamant last
year=2C but whatever.
Considering their liabilty=2C how could they say anything else??
Another experiment: find someone who is in bad need of a suntan. Get a
nice=2C hot sunny day. Have this pale skinned chap sit underneath a nice s
hade tree all day. How much sunburn did he get? Probably not a lot=2C I
guess.
I'm not trying to be argumentative=2C just use what I believe to be my ow
n personal judgement regarding sun protection.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search=2C chat and e-mail from your inb
ox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:O
N:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1
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: | PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
>This makes me wonder=2C does UV energy bounce off of the ground? Jared
Aeroelectric list=2C
Again=2C my apologies. This will be MY last reply to this subject. Any
further discussion with me will need to be off-list. I realize the subject
matter has strayed from the aeroelectric lists intent.
Jared=2C
Yes=2C UV light does bounce off the ground!! Of course!
Have you ever painted a house? The gutters=2C trim=2C posts=2C etc=2C in
direct sunlight need to be repainted about every 7-10 years. Did you ever
check out the underside of the eaves? Darn near new!! In fact=2C they us
ually only just get a coat of smoggy residue on them. A simple wash=2C and
they usually look as good as the day after they were painted. Did they re
ceive some of that bounced UV rays wear and tear? Sure!! How much? I'm n
ot too sure=2C but I'd guess about a twentieth (or a hundredth!) of the wea
r and tear the parts in the sun got.
If the outside paint lasts 10 years in direct sunlight=2C I'd be willing
to bet we won't be alive when the underside paint wears out.
This is my experience. Others opinions may vary=2C and I'm okay with tha
t.
In answer to your other question=2C the wings and tailfeathers are A/C al
uminum=2C the fuselage is chromoly tubing. Plenty of Poly Tak to hold thin
gs together!!!
Mike Welch
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with H
otmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=
PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
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: PolyFiber silver coats and their effect on radio |
signals
Mike, I hope you haven't misunderstood me -- I meant that your
experience of the Cessna's wings top and bottom are what's most
interesting to me, as they are a direct experience gained over several
years of polishing! I found it a bit surprising at the time, that
PolyFiber said that the plane would receive UV damage all over without
the PolySpray, but figured "hey, they're the experts", and did the PS
all over. Had we had this discussion before, perhaps I wouldn't have
done the PS underneath!
James
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Mike Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com> wrote:
> James,
>
> My "experience" comes from from seeing countless thousands of things rot
> in the sun and rain. An item NOT left in the sun and the rain seems to last
> a long, long, long time....compared to the same kind of item left in the
> elements!
> Whether it's a car, a board, a sheet of sheetrock, just about anything
> lasts longer stored inside. My fabric covered plane will NOT ever sit
> openly in the sun, at least not as long as I own it. I've seen too many
> airplanes just rot away, sitting on a ramp. Not mine. It will have a
> cover, or be in a hangar...period.
>
> Since the primary purpose of the Poly Spray is to block the sun's rays, I
> don't personally see much need for something to be thoroughly"protected"
> that will never seedirect sunlight. That's just me, I guess. It's like
> getting travel insurance, and never going anywhere.
>
> Simple experiment: take two pieces of fabric, any fabric. Set one
> outside to see lots of sunshine and rain. Keep the other one indoors in a
> dry place. Let them sit there for a few years, say 4-5. That ought to do
> it. Look at the outside one. Tug on it. Look at the inside one.
> That's my "experience".
>
> Yes, I'm aware of the Miller's position. They weren't as adamant last
> year, but whatever.
> Considering their liabilty, how could they say anything else??
>
> Another experiment: find someone who is in bad need of a suntan. Get a
> nice, hot sunny day. Have this pale skinned chap sit underneath a nice
> shade tree all day. How much sunburn did he get? Probably not a lot, I
> guess.
>
> I'm not trying to be argumentative, just use what I believe to be my own
> personal judgement regarding sun protection.
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion.
>
> Mike Welch
>
>
> ________________________________
> Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
> Learn more.
>
>
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: | Emag/pmag wiring question |
Grounding the right mag for starting is not necessary with E/Pmags.
neal
=====================
I am in the process of wiring my starter switch. I am planning on
installing an Emag/Pmag ignition system and was wondering if I need to
jumper the starter switch R to GND for the Emags.
TIA
--------
Myron Nelson
Mesa, AZ
Emp completed, QB wings completed, legacy build fuse in progress
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: High Definition MotorSports camera for your aircraft |
Is that the same camera as this $278 one with free shipping?
_http://www.cycleprotectionproducts.com/msr200-hd-motorsports-camera-p-1101.
html?zenid=d4943b94dc524ba7f7dbf3a13ebba227_
(http://www.cycleprotectionproducts.com/msr200-hd-motorsports-camera-p-1101.html?zenid=d4943b94dc524ba7f7db
f3a13ebba227)
Hey guys we are now selling the MSR-200 High Definition MotorSports camera
this
is a must have!
Accept up to 32GB SD/SDHC cards, the MSR-200 can record uniterupted for up
to 12hrs
in HD..
I am giving discount again for you guys on the forum.
Software for easy YouTube uploads!
Retail Price: $349.99
Forum guys price $285:)
If your not satisfied I will refund you back 100% you have nothing to lose!
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: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Bob,
I'll attempt to explain myself in the fewest words.
I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe you - some
of
us in treasury and others for our lives.
1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do
DEPEND on cockpit information while airborne - whether it is electrical
information, or something else, such as airspeed indication. I analyze presented
information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system is
properly functioning. If my airspeed indication appears to be erroneous, I have
several backup plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I have
several backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in the
cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are best
done on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the cockpit.
Management of a crisis is preplanned - detailed thought in advance is vital.
Having a detailed plan of action for all of the situations you can expect
allows you to adjust when an unplanned situation presents itself. That has
happened to me several times - once when a never-happened-before
malfunction occurred and forced me to eject. Ground preparation is critical to
success in a non-normal situation and cockpit information is critical to
assessing the situation and making the correct decision.
3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due to
"a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I suspect all
pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in
the event of systems failures. Implementation of your electrical concepts,
say Z-11, should not preclude having electrical information in the
cockpit. Furthermore, that information can help the pilot analyze the malfunction
- which will lead to a better decision.
4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the
consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your electrical
plan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put another
way, more "idiot-proof." So, if I have misinterpreted your offerings, others
likely have, too. You profess that fuses and/or circuit breakers should
not be reachable by the pilot. You profess that pilots do not need
electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze that data instead
of
defaulting to plan B. Your concepts are well thought out, but the result
(or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the decision process in
the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the airplane is made more
"idiot-proof."
I have the highest regard for the depth of your electrical knowledge. My
decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that having information in
the cockpit is important.
As you have stated, analysis is best done on the ground - I call that
preparation. But, application must be done in the air. Information in the
cockpit is important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.
Regards,
Stan Sutterfield
He indicates that pilots should
not use information about their electrical system to make assessments
or decisions while airborne.
No. Not DEPEND on information while airborne . . .
Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the PIC from
the airborne decision process.
No. The effective Plan-B MUST be crafted and understood by
that same PIC. The PIC is very much in the loop. The task
is to do all the investigation, deduction, design and
planning ON THE GROUND. The cockpit is a lousy classroom
for crisis management.
By the way, these are not ideas unique to me. They have
been handed down by generations of thoughtful
students/teachers of the art and science of elegant
systems design. What I've offered is not mere opinion
but fact demonstrated by our ancestors.
As you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems
idiot-proof. Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer
and simpler.
I think you have mis-interpreted my offerings.
"Idiot proof" was never a design goal.
When one crafts a complex system wherein the
smallest of failures represents a major operational
problem (like a speck of rust clogging your carburetor
jet) the prudent designer strives for failure tolerance.
I have produced an analysis of the accident that
totaled an expensive airplane, injured some folks
and now plagues the lives of individuals who would
MUCH rather be flying, water skiing, or reading
a good book. All this expense, inconvenience,
pain and taxation of $time$ came about because
some individuals didn't know what they didn't know.
They stacked extra goodies together with some
notion of adding "safety" while in fact, crafting
a system guaranteed to fail. Poor application of
a $3 worth of components set the stage for $millions$
of misery. This pilot had perhaps 30 seconds to do all
the multi-tasking that was demanded of him before
the inevitable came to pass.
Adequate and accurate information about system operation
and behavior in both normal and failure modes is necessary
for REDUCING probability of failure, REDUCING the effects
of any given failure and crafting a PLAN-B for comfortable
management of said failure.
But, the pilot in me wants information. For me, more information is
better
Absolutely . . . but a desire for lots of lights and
dials in the cockpit and plans to sift offered
data in flight suggests a lack of confidence
in understanding the system.
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 |
|
The winglet height is adequate for the 20.3 inch vertical limb. I
would use the Miracle Whip, but it is too long for the winglet height.
I considered extending it along the outer wing foam with the last 1/2
of the tip in the vertical part of the winglet, but that would
require quite a bit of surgery to bury the base load box in the wing
foam near the center of the wing and might compromise the foam-skin
stress structure of the wing( a definite no go there option).
Agreed.
I could go to an external whip antenna with a ground plane of wire or
aluminum, but I would prefer not to add parasitic drag. The wingtip
idea is less invasive surgery.
Okay. How about a 1/4 wave with 'half' a ground
plane? Run a 21 inch piece of copper up the winglet
and two to five radials into the foam toward the
fuselage. Connect all the radials together at the
coax shield, center conductor to the winglet radiator
and ditch the donuts.
Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
modification are profoundly more hazardous to
performance than SWR.
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! --
|