Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:24 AM - ADBS-B Out ()
2. 07:01 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
3. 07:47 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (David & Elaine Lamphere)
4. 10:08 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 10:41 AM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Bruce)
6. 11:31 AM - Re: New to list (Keith Ward)
7. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Daniel Hooper)
8. 01:18 PM - Re: New to list (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 03:16 PM - VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question (Bob Leffler)
10. 06:25 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
11. 06:30 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
12. 06:43 PM - Bose A20 Headset - NR Power Button - Panel Power (Matt Dralle)
13. 10:49 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Tim Andres)
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 |
|
7/9/2011
Hello Noel Loveys, You wrote:
1) "To specifically make the builder the manufacturer?"
I don't understand why people are straining to be considered the
"manufacturer" of a product (namely one single E-AB aircraft) in the eyes of
the FAA.**
When one looks at the totality of the FAA definitions, and the FAA
regulations based on those definitions, it is absurd to consider the amateur
builder of a single E-AB to be the "manufacturer" of that aircraft. Let run
through a brief audit trail of what applies:
A) First, can an individual building an E-AB become a manufacturer? The
answer is, yes. See the definition of a Person from 14 CFR 1.1 General
Definitions here:
"Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It includes a
trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them."
Now let's extract some definitions from FAA Order 8120.2G. You can look at
it here:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
B) Second, what does a manufacturer do? See here:
"o. Manufacturer. A person as defined by 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and
Abbreviations, who causes a product or article(s) to be produced. A
manufacturer may be a PAH or a supplier to a PAH."
C) Third, what does it mean to produce a product or article(s).
"s. Produce. To manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, a product or
article(s)."
D) Fourth, how does one go about having approval to produce a product or
article? See here:
"u. Production Approval. A document issued by the FAA to a person that
allows the production of a product or article in accordance with its
approved design and approved quality system, and can take the form of a PC,
a PMA, or a TSO authorization."
E) So all the individual person building an E-AB needs to formally become
the manufacturer of that procuct, instead of being the builder of an E-AB,
is to get the FAA to issue him a PC, a PMA, or a TSO authorization. In order
to get the needed document from the FAA he can start by reading FAA Order
8120.2G -- Go for it!
2) "One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who
has
manufacturers' liability!"
Do you really think that the semantic distinction between suing the
"builder" or the "manufacturer" of an E-AB would stop some vulture lawyer
from initiating a lawsuit? Or would have any affect on the outcome of such a
law suit?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: Apparently some E-AB aircraft builders feel that being the
"manufacturer" of that aircraft, rather than just the "builder" will give
them some special manufacturer's privileges such as that granted in 14 CFR
91.411 (b) (1) for example.
Really? Take a look at what it takes for even an approved aircraft
manufacturer to perform all the tests required by 91.411 and see how many
individual E-AB builders would have the equipment and expertise to perform
those tests even if given permission to do so.
=====================================================
Time: 11:18:02 AM PST US
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I(s that not the reason for the 51% rule? To specifically make the builder
the manufacturer? The gathering of parts and the design is supposed to be
less than 50%.
One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who has
manufacturers' liability!
Noel
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 |
|
I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the back
of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy.
I still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my system.
Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
(PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my termination point is behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle to the termination point.
I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack of shielded
wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start would be welcome.
Thanks,
Dan B
> > ok...the saga continues. AFter getting home today I
> disconnected the coax from behind the SL40 and attached the
> rubber anntenna off of my HT. The sound is different...it is
> no longer a buzz but it sounds as if it is turning itself on
> and off when the PTT is depressed...a pulse of sorts approx
> two cycles per second. Some have e-mailed and said to try
> turning the squelch down...check. I was also told to turn
> the side tone to zero...check. no luck so far. So it seems
> to possibly be either in the radio or a mis-guided wire
> going to the intercom. Double checking wires tomorrow. Throw
> out the ideas if you get one.
> > Thanks, Dan
>
> This is not a meaningful test. A rubber duck is a
> RADIATING
> device that floods the wiring behind the panel with
> RF
> energy. If the feedline is radiating due to bad
> termination,
> then the symptoms you're seeing may well be
> indiciative of
> a cockpit flooded with RF. Changing the radiator
> from a bad
> coax to an antenna mounted right to the back of the
> radio
> is not likely to yield useful information.
>
> You need to do the dummy load thing first.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Dan,
This may be totally unuseful, but if you have the aux jacks installed
between the PS1000 (per PS's instructions) and radio, have you tried
disconnecting the intercom and plugging your headset and mike jacks into
those and tried the same experiment (with the dummy load)??
FWIW
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Billingsley" <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
> I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the
> back of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit
> PTT...no joy. I still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret
> is within my system. Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
> (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/)
> hub that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my
> wire runs to the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using
> shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my
> termination point is behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires
> using a Cat-5 wire bundle to the termination point.
> I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack
> of shielded wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start
> would be welcome.
> Thanks,
> Dan B
>
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 |
|
At 08:58 AM 7/9/2011, you wrote:
><dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
> I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax
> from the back of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned
> things on, hit PTT...no joy. I still get the buzz.
Okay, good data.
Describe the "buzz" . . . what does it sound like?
When listening to the 'buzzing' transmitter on
another radio, is the same noise heard there too
or is it just in your own headset? Does the intercom
have an auto-bypass function? In other words, if you
power down just the intercom, does the mic and phones
wiring default to direct connection with the transceiver?
If so, does the buzz go away in default mode?
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Now I'm really confused.
How can the FAA consider the Kit Manufacturer the "Manufacturer"?
I know of no kit manufacturer who has a PC, PMA, TC, or Production
Approval. What they may have is a letter that their kit meets the 51
percent rule.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb@cox.net
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2011 9:20 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
7/9/2011
Hello Noel Loveys, You wrote:
1) "To specifically make the builder the manufacturer?"
I don't understand why people are straining to be considered the
"manufacturer" of a product (namely one single E-AB aircraft) in the
eyes of
the FAA.**
When one looks at the totality of the FAA definitions, and the FAA
regulations based on those definitions, it is absurd to consider the
amateur
builder of a single E-AB to be the "manufacturer" of that aircraft. Let
run
through a brief audit trail of what applies:
A) First, can an individual building an E-AB become a manufacturer? The
answer is, yes. See the definition of a Person from 14 CFR 1.1 General
Definitions here:
"Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company,
association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity. It
includes a
trustee, receiver, assignee, or similar representative of any of them."
Now let's extract some definitions from FAA Order 8120.2G. You can look
at
it here:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
B) Second, what does a manufacturer do? See here:
"o. Manufacturer. A person as defined by 14 CFR part 1, Definitions and
Abbreviations, who causes a product or article(s) to be produced. A
manufacturer may be a PAH or a supplier to a PAH."
C) Third, what does it mean to produce a product or article(s).
"s. Produce. To manufacture, or cause to be manufactured, a product or
article(s)."
D) Fourth, how does one go about having approval to produce a product or
article? See here:
"u. Production Approval. A document issued by the FAA to a person that
allows the production of a product or article in accordance with its
approved design and approved quality system, and can take the form of a
PC,
a PMA, or a TSO authorization."
E) So all the individual person building an E-AB needs to formally
become
the manufacturer of that procuct, instead of being the builder of an
E-AB,
is to get the FAA to issue him a PC, a PMA, or a TSO authorization. In
order
to get the needed document from the FAA he can start by reading FAA
Order
8120.2G -- Go for it!
2) "One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out
who
has
manufacturers' liability!"
Do you really think that the semantic distinction between suing the
"builder" or the "manufacturer" of an E-AB would stop some vulture
lawyer
from initiating a lawsuit? Or would have any affect on the outcome of
such a
law suit?
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: Apparently some E-AB aircraft builders feel that being the
"manufacturer" of that aircraft, rather than just the "builder" will
give
them some special manufacturer's privileges such as that granted in 14
CFR
91.411 (b) (1) for example.
Really? Take a look at what it takes for even an approved aircraft
manufacturer to perform all the tests required by 91.411 and see how
many
individual E-AB builders would have the equipment and expertise to
perform
those tests even if given permission to do so.
=====================================================
Time: 11:18:02 AM PST US
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys@yahoo.ca>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I(s that not the reason for the 51% rule? To specifically make the
builder
the manufacturer? The gathering of parts and the design is supposed to
be
less than 50%.
One other thing, after selling a homebuilt aircraft, just check out who
has
manufacturers' liability!
Noel
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 |
|
Bob,
Makes sense. Thanks for the help!
Keith
On Jul 9, 2011, at 12:07 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
>
> At 10:21 PM 7/8/2011, you wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. My thought was that if the essential buss
>> switch was closed and the main buss was also alive, you could cycle
>> the master and the primary alternator switches to see if that would
>> solve the problem and bring the primary alternator back online.
>> With the essential bus on, the necessary components would still be
>> powered even while the master and alternator switches/breakers were
>> being cycled.
>
> Yup, that's how it works.
>
>> This is probably flawed thinking, so please let me know your
>> thoughts.
>
> You need to re-set your thinking as to the value
> and function of the e-bus. "E" stands for endurance.
> The idea behind it is to prevent main alternator
> loss from becoming an emergency. You craft a
> "Plan-B" that enables you to continue flight
> to airport of intended destination by
> partitioning off those equipment items
> useful for cruising flight powered by
> (1) battery only or (2) SD-8 plus Battery.
>
> See chapter on system reliability and the notes
> for Z-figures . . . particularly note for
> Z-13/8.
>
> Random, exploratory switch flipping in flight
> is not recommended. More than one system failure
> has been made worse by not having a simple, proven
> Plan-B for dealing with alternator failure.
>
> 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 |
|
As Dave suggested, try a headset out in the 'aux jacks' that are directly connected
to the radio (you did install them per the PS installation manual, right?
:) Or as Bob suggested, putting the intercom in bypass mode. The PM1000 II should
do that when turned off. This should cut the problem in half. Here are two
troubleshooting approaches that might work, given the result:
1) Headset directly into the radio is noisy:
Have you checked the supply voltage across the radio while transmitting and while
not transmitting? That is, with the meter probing the supply voltage *at the
radio*, grounded to the power ground *at the radio*. Transmitting is a high-power
activity, so it's possible that it's causing a big voltage sag that the
radio doesn't appreciate. This could be due to wire resistance in both the supply
AND ground wires. What is important is what the radio 'sees' while transmitting.
2) Headset directly into the radio is clean:
Another possibility is that the power ground to the radio isn't significant enough,
causing a noise voltage to be 'seen' on the audio at the intercom. This is
difficult to explain, but you could experiment by connecting an extra ground
wire at the radio and finding an additional ground point: the avionics ground,
the intercom power ground, one of the fast stack commons... This would help
the power supply electrons get to where they want to go without 'pushing' other
signals around.
Just to double-check, but you're not doing the test while connected to a battery
charger?
--Daniel
On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
> I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed the coax from the back
of the radio and installed the dummy BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy.
I still get the buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my system.
Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
> (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub that interfaces the two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad guestimate)as my termination point is behind the co-pilot. I ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle to the termination point.
> I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I wonder if the lack of
shielded wires could be hurting me. Any thoughts of where to start would be welcome.
> Thanks,
> Dan B
>
>
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 |
|
At 01:28 PM 7/9/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>Makes sense. Thanks for the help!
My pleasure sir. Keep us apprised of your
progress.
Bob . . .
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: | VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
Since I've got the VP-X Pro on order, I have to finish reworking my VP-200
schematic to accommodate the VP-X. I know this isn't directly related to
any of Bob's schematics, but it also isn't at the other extreme of some of
the more recent political posts either. While this is related to a specific
Vertical Power battery configuration, I think the questions I ask about
Option 3 are generic enough that I should be able to get some feedback over
the week end from this list. If I'm about ready to do something stupid, I
know that folks here aren't shy about telling me.
I would like to use dual PC680 batteries. My preference is to provide more
AH than I can get with a TCWTECH IBBS. It's also about a third the cost,
although a few pounds heavier.
My requirements are:
1. Ability to have both batteries on main bus for additional cold
cranking capability
2. Ability to isolate the second battery to the endurance battery bus
3. Ability to charge the isolated battery
In looking at the recommendations in the Vertical Power manual, Dual battery
Option #1 meets the first two requirements. Option #2 meets the last two
requirements. So my question is will a hybrid design, like Option #3 meet
all requirements? Are there any negative attributes with having two current
paths when the aux battery contactor is closed?
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option1.jpg
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option2.JPG
Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option3.jpg
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 |
|
>
> Okay, good data.
>
> Describe the "buzz" . . . what does it sound like?
The buzz has changed in pitch since removing the antenna. It used to be a medium
pitch (as far as notes go say a C)and oscillating. Now that the dummy load is
in place the buzz dropped to say a G (much lower) almost a growel. I don't want
to hold the key down too long (to determine if still oscillating) as I don't
want to overload the dummy...You pick which dummy as it can go either way at
this point :>)
> When listening to the 'buzzing' transmitter on
> another radio, is the same noise heard there too
> or is it just in your own headset?
When the antenna was connected, yes, I did transmit the buzz as the wife heard
it on the HT. I would hear her loud and clear and she reported the buzz.
Does the
> intercom
> have an auto-bypass function? In other words, if
> you
> power down just the intercom, does the mic and
> phones
> wiring default to direct connection with the
> transceiver?
Although the other guys here have indicated this intercom should have a bypass,
I just went out and turned off the intercom and tried it. I cannot hear myself
talk and hear nothing when I key the mic. I have gone into the radio and turned
down several things, so tomorrow I will look into this a bit further. I did
have the FastStack designed to operate a comm 2 (so it has another out). My
plan was to eventually run my hand held as a backup and they gave me a switch
to go back and forth. I have tried taking my Comm1 harness out of the comm1 jack
and moved it to Comm 2. I flipped the switch and still got the buzz.
>
> If so, does the buzz go away in default mode?
Will get back to you tomorrow on this one when I explore a bit more.
Thanks for the help,
Dan
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Daniel, thanks for the ideas. I will be trying them tomorrow. Today I was chasing
parts (this I'm convinced is = to 3/4 of the build). No, not connected to a
charger...the battery shows full charge.
Dan B
--- On Sat, 7/9/11, Daniel Hooper <enginerdy@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As Dave suggested, try a headset out in the 'aux jacks'
> that are directly connected to the radio (you did install
> them per the PS installation manual, right? :) Or as Bob
> suggested, putting the intercom in bypass mode. The PM1000
> II should do that when turned off. This should cut the
> problem in half. Here are two troubleshooting approaches
> that might work, given the result:
>
> 1) Headset directly into the radio is noisy:
> Have you checked the supply voltage across the radio while
> transmitting and while not transmitting? That is, with the
> meter probing the supply voltage *at the radio*, grounded to
> the power ground *at the radio*. Transmitting is a
> high-power activity, so it's possible that it's causing a
> big voltage sag that the radio doesn't appreciate. This
> could be due to wire resistance in both the supply AND
> ground wires. What is important is what the radio 'sees'
> while transmitting.
>
> 2) Headset directly into the radio is clean:
> Another possibility is that the power ground to the radio
> isn't significant enough, causing a noise voltage to be
> 'seen' on the audio at the intercom. This is difficult to
> explain, but you could experiment by connecting an extra
> ground wire at the radio and finding an additional ground
> point: the avionics ground, the intercom power ground, one
> of the fast stack commons... This would help the power
> supply electrons get to where they want to go without
> 'pushing' other signals around.
>
> Just to double-check, but you're not doing the test while
> connected to a battery charger?
>
> --Daniel
>
> On Jul 9, 2011, at 8:58 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
> Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
> >
> > I built the dummy load as per Bob's direction, removed
> the coax from the back of the radio and installed the dummy
> BNC...turned things on, hit PTT...no joy. I still get the
> buzz. Now, that means this primary culpret is within my
> system. Either between my radio (SL40), my intercom
> > (PM 1000 II), or the Approach Fast Stack (http://approachfaststack.com/) hub that interfaces the
> two. Another potential goober could be with my wire runs to
> the headset jacks. Approach did a nice job of these using
> shielded wires, however, they were too short (my bad
> guestimate)as my termination point is behind the co-pilot. I
> ended up splicing these wires using a Cat-5 wire bundle to
> the termination point.
> > I was quite careful when doing this splice, however, I
> wonder if the lack of shielded wires could be hurting me.
> Any thoughts of where to start would be welcome.
> > Thanks,
> > Dan B
> >
> >
>
>
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: | Bose A20 Headset - NR Power Button - Panel Power |
Dear Listers,
I bought a couple pairs of the new Bose A20's for the RV-8 and they are very nice.
NR is better than the Bose X's and they seem to fit my head a little better
too.
But I quickly discovered that with the A20's you now have to hit the NR Power button
*every time* you start the aircraft even if you have them panel powered.
The older Bose X headsets have a slide switch for the NR power and so you can
just put the slide switch in the On position and not worry about it.
I really didn't like having to turn the NR on all the time and having to remind
my passengers about it, so I came up with a modification that will automatically
turn the NR on when panel power is applied. Its pretty simple, but requires
some special tools. Its completely self-contained inside the Control Module
and works great. The modification is generally only for installations that
are panel-powered, but you could do the modification to a unit that is normally
battery powered with no adverse effect. With the modification, the NR Power
button will work normally in battery power installations.
I created web page on the procedure including step-by-step photos and instructions.
Feedback is welcome.
http://www.matronics.com/BoseA20AutoOnModification/
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
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 |
|
Just a quick note Dan, the intercom will only default Comm 1. If this
is com 2 it will not work with the Audio panel power off.
FWIW, TIm
>
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! --
|