Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:26 AM - Viking Engine (dj45)
2. 06:04 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
3. 06:13 AM - Re: Viking Engine (mkejrj@comcast.net)
4. 06:49 AM - ADBS-B Out ()
5. 09:11 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
6. 09:44 AM - Re: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:54 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:04 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Daniel Hooper)
9. 12:19 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
10. 12:47 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Robert Taylor)
11. 01:17 PM - Audio Panel Connection (John Grosse)
12. 04:17 PM - Circuit Design Software (John MacCallum)
13. 04:22 PM - Re: Viking Engine (Richard Girard)
14. 07:27 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 07:34 PM - Re: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question (Bob Leffler)
16. 09:01 PM - Re: Circuit Design Software (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 09:02 PM - Re: Audio Panel Connection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:46 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
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 |
|
Anyone considering a Viking engine please be advised, I have had $4,300 deposit
since Oct 28th and payment in full since May 8th and still haven't seen my engine
yet.
I called Jan today and he hung up on me and all I got after that was voice mail.
I don't think that I would be ordering an engine from him.
--------
Do not archive
Dan Stanton
N801S CH 801
N226BS CH701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345736#345736
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 |
|
>
> 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
> >
>
> Thanks Tim...good to know that.
Dan
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
For what it's worth I ran into a similar problem with an engine supplier se
veral years ago. If you received a written offer, via US mail, then you may
be the victim of mail fraud. Contact the USPS.=C2- The threat of legal a
ction by the postal authorities was enough to get my money back.
Good Luck,
Dick Jordan
RV 8A, N888BZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "dj45" <daniel-stanton1@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 8:22:47 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Viking Engine
t>
Anyone considering a Viking engine please be advised, I have had $4,300 dep
osit since Oct 28th and payment in full since May 8th and still haven't see
n my engine yet.
I called Jan today and he hung up on me and all I got after that was voice
mail.
I don't think that I would be ordering an engine from him.
--------
Do not archive
Dan Stanton
N801S CH 801
N226BS CH701
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345736#345736
===========
-
===========
MS -
===========
e -
=C2- =C2- =C2- =C2- =C2--Matt Dralle, List Admin.
===========
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 |
|
7/10/2011
Hello Bruce, You wrote: "What they may have is a letter that their kit meets
the 51
percent rule."
That is correct. Let's take another look at some of the paragraphs that I
extracted from:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
"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."
"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."
Note that paragraph o does not have the word "only" between the words "may"
and "be".
Also paragraph u does not have the word "only" between the words "can" and
"take".
There is nothing in the regulations or FAA Order 8120.2G that prohibit the
FAA Administrator from using the word "manufacturer" in the letter that
informs the kit provider, and prospective kit purchasers, that his kit meets
the major portion rule.
Some additional comments on this specific issue:
1) Since the FAA writes the various types of documents based upon their
authority in the US Code they get to choose the wording (subject to public
review of draft regulations) in those documents.
2) When the bureaucrats and document approving lawyers wrote FAA Order
8120.2G they did not have the existence of E-AB (Experimental - Amateur
Built) aircraft or kit creators in their mind. (A very common situation
through out the FAA.)
3) There were a number of english language words available to that FAA
letter writer to describe the kit creators. Words such as "creators",
"assemblers", "manufacturers", and, my favorite word when writing on this
subject to avoid confusion with the builder who actually turns the kit into
an airplane, "providers". It seems logical for the writers to use the common
generic word "manufacturer", without creating any greater implication of the
word, when referring to the kit providers.
4) The power of the Administrator (and of the individuals within the FAA
acting on his behalf) is pretty complete, he can use the words that he
chooses to mean what he wants them to mean.
5) In a sense the type of letter to the kit provider that you refer to could
be considered a form of Production Approval thereby making the kit provider
a PAH (Production Approval Holder), but the FAA makes an effort to avoid
using the word "approval" regarding E-AB aircraft since there are no
published standards available to measure any E-AB approval against. (Before
people leap up to point out that indeed some approval requirements are
placed on E-AB aircraft I invite them to read again the Introduction to the
attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED
AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.)
5) So the use of the word "manufacturer" in the letters that you write of to
the kit provides should not create a significant problem or needed source of
confusion. And it certainly does not bear directly on the issue of whether
in the eyes of the FAA the builder of an E-AB meets the criteria of being a
"manufacturer" wherever that term is used throughout the FAA written
regulations.**
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: I would appreciate it if any E-AB builders who want to be considered
"manufacturers" would identify to us the specific regulation(s) that they
think would benefit them by this categorization.
========================================================
Time: 10:41:13 AM PST US
From: "Bruce" <BGray@glasair.org>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
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
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 |
|
So I believe I may have narrowed it down to two possibilities if not both of
them adding to the issue...
1. I turned the intercom off and tried to transmit...I still got the buzz and it
is oscillating. My wife heard it broadcast on the HT and I heard her loud and
clear when she talked to me. I have not measured the voltage across the radio as
it is being keyed yet, however, my Dynon 100 indicates I my system voltage
(BATT) is at 11.3V. So Daniel, this may be part of it.
2. As I was reading the Intercom install manual I found this entry interesting:
Electrical Noise IssuesWARNING: You must use separate shielded cables for
the microphone and headphone jacks. Combining
these two wires WILL cause loud oscillations and degrade
the intercom function. The oscillation is caused
by the cross-coupling between the large headphone
signal and the small microphone signal.
So, realizing that the intercom is currently bypassed, should this warning still
be of concern? Remember I mentioned in a previous post that the headphone and
mic jacks were sent too short, so I cut them off behind the panel andspliced
themwith Cat-5 cable. These jacksterminate behind the co-pilot.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Daniel Hooper <enginerdy@gmail.com
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Sat, July 9, 2011 1:07:44 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
>
>
> 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:
>
><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 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: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
My requirements are:
* Ability to have both batteries on main bus for additional cold
cranking capability
* Ability to isolate the second battery to the endurance battery bus
* 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
Option 1 is the simplest way to add a second
battery which is why it is featured in Figure Z-30.
If you want to a battery maintainer for both
batteries, a maintainer plug that puts the
two batteries in parallel for storage takes
care of the 'charging' issue.
You need to think through the failure modes
and the precise way in which the duties of the
two batteries are partitioned during an alternator
out condition. Do an energy study for the two
duties and make sure the batteries are sized for
your endurance goals (x number electro whizzies for
y hours of operation) assuming also that you're going
to periodically cap-check the two batteries for
insuring those goals are achievable.
The precise manner in which you add the second battery
is not terribly important. The care with which you
craft and maintain Plan-B is very important. This
pre-supposes that your engine is electrically dependent
and/or you're going to spend a lot of time in situations
were the dark panel syndrome causes you to break a
sweat.
Given the way 99% of OBAM aviation flights are conducted,
and assuming that you have one mag on the engine, then
Plan-B might be something like this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf
for a whole lot less weight, a ton more reliability
and lower cost of ownership. This has been my personal
Plan-B over the last 30 years and 1000+ hours. It
works good every time and in any airplane I rent.
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 |
|
At 11:07 AM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
<dan@azshowersolutions.com>
So I believe I may have narrowed it down to two possibilities if not both of
them adding to the issue...
1. I turned the intercom off and tried to transmit...I still got the
buzz and it
is oscillating. My wife heard it broadcast on the HT and I heard her loud and
clear when she talked to me. I have not measured the voltage across
the radio as
it is being keyed yet, however, my Dynon 100 indicates I my system voltage
(BATT) is at 11.3V. So Daniel, this may be part of it.
Any electronics that is qualified to install
in TC aircraft is operational down to 11.0 volts
or lower with full performance and stable with
reduced performance down to 9.0 volts.
2. As I was reading the Intercom install manual I found this entry interesting:
Electrical Noise IssuesWARNING: You must use separate shielded
cables for
the microphone and headphone jacks. Combining
these two wires WILL cause loud oscillations and degrade
the intercom function. The oscillation is caused
by the cross-coupling between the large headphone
signal and the small microphone signal.
Hmmmm . . . I would like to see this demonstrated.
It is exceedingly difficult to 'cross couple' significant
energy between two parallel wires at these signal
levels. The headphone signal is larger . . . but not
that much larger.
So, realizing that the intercom is currently bypassed, should this
warning still
be of concern? Remember I mentioned in a previous post that the headphone and
mic jacks were sent too short, so I cut them off behind the panel and spliced
them with Cat-5 cable. These jacks terminate behind the co-pilot.
OOPS! 26 AWG solid wire? It would have been better to
use extensions of 22AWG tie-wrapped into a bundle.
I would check these extensions very closely. What
you're describing now smells strongly of wiring error.
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 |
|
You're using those jacks in your test even though the intercom is bypassed, right?
The unshielded wire feedback sounds more plausible than my other suggestions.
On Jul 10, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
>
> So I believe I may have narrowed it down to two possibilities if not both of
> them adding to the issue...
> 1. I turned the intercom off and tried to transmit...I still got the buzz and
it
> is oscillating. My wife heard it broadcast on the HT and I heard her loud and
> clear when she talked to me. I have not measured the voltage across the radio
as
> it is being keyed yet, however, my Dynon 100 indicates I my system voltage
> (BATT) is at 11.3V. So Daniel, this may be part of it.
> 2. As I was reading the Intercom install manual I found this entry interesting:
> Electrical Noise IssuesWARNING: You must use separate shielded cables for
> the microphone and headphone jacks. Combining
> these two wires WILL cause loud oscillations and degrade
> the intercom function. The oscillation is caused
> by the cross-coupling between the large headphone
> signal and the small microphone signal.
>
> So, realizing that the intercom is currently bypassed, should this warning still
> be of concern? Remember I mentioned in a previous post that the headphone and
> mic jacks were sent too short, so I cut them off behind the panel and spliced
> them with Cat-5 cable. These jacks terminate behind the co-pilot.
>
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 |
|
=0A=0A=0A>=0A>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.co
m>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0A>Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 9:51:
49 AM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz=0A>=0A>-- OOPS! 2
6 AWG solid wire? It would have been better to=0A>-- use extensions of
22AWG tie-wrapped into a bundle.=0A>-- I would check these extensions v
ery closely. What=0A>-- you're describing now smells strongly of wiring
error.=0A>=0A>-- Bob . . .=0A>Very well, back to shielded wire all the
================ =0A>
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 |
|
Just to close the loop regarding some comments I made the other day, my
paperwork does not indicate that I am the "manufacturer". My bad. It DOES
show the MAKE of my aircraft to be a Taylor, Robert D.. That's what lead me
to think it said I was the manufacturer. I was not looking to be the
maufacturer in order to gleen some advantage via the regulations, I just
thought (mistakenly) that that was what the paperwork said.
Regardless the above, I do think that I can put whatever equipment I wish
into my aircraft.
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
--------------------------------------------------
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 9:46 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
> 7/10/2011
>
> Hello Bruce, You wrote: "What they may have is a letter that their kit
> meets
> the 51
> percent rule."
>
> That is correct. Let's take another look at some of the paragraphs that I
> extracted from:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8120.2G.pdf
>
> "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."
>
> "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."
>
> Note that paragraph o does not have the word "only" between the words
> "may"
> and "be".
>
> Also paragraph u does not have the word "only" between the words "can" and
> "take".
>
> There is nothing in the regulations or FAA Order 8120.2G that prohibit the
> FAA Administrator from using the word "manufacturer" in the letter that
> informs the kit provider, and prospective kit purchasers, that his kit
> meets
> the major portion rule.
>
> Some additional comments on this specific issue:
>
> 1) Since the FAA writes the various types of documents based upon their
> authority in the US Code they get to choose the wording (subject to public
> review of draft regulations) in those documents.
>
> 2) When the bureaucrats and document approving lawyers wrote FAA Order
> 8120.2G they did not have the existence of E-AB (Experimental - Amateur
> Built) aircraft or kit creators in their mind. (A very common situation
> through out the FAA.)
>
> 3) There were a number of english language words available to that FAA
> letter writer to describe the kit creators. Words such as "creators",
> "assemblers", "manufacturers", and, my favorite word when writing on this
> subject to avoid confusion with the builder who actually turns the kit
> into
> an airplane, "providers". It seems logical for the writers to use the
> common
> generic word "manufacturer", without creating any greater implication of
> the
> word, when referring to the kit providers.
>
> 4) The power of the Administrator (and of the individuals within the FAA
> acting on his behalf) is pretty complete, he can use the words that he
> chooses to mean what he wants them to mean.
>
> 5) In a sense the type of letter to the kit provider that you refer to
> could
> be considered a form of Production Approval thereby making the kit
> provider
> a PAH (Production Approval Holder), but the FAA makes an effort to avoid
> using the word "approval" regarding E-AB aircraft since there are no
> published standards available to measure any E-AB approval against.
> (Before
> people leap up to point out that indeed some approval requirements are
> placed on E-AB aircraft I invite them to read again the Introduction to
> the
> attached table MINIMUM INSTRUMENT AND EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR POWERED
> AMATEUR BUILT EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT.)
>
> 5) So the use of the word "manufacturer" in the letters that you write of
> to
> the kit provides should not create a significant problem or needed source
> of
> confusion. And it certainly does not bear directly on the issue of whether
> in the eyes of the FAA the builder of an E-AB meets the criteria of being
> a
> "manufacturer" wherever that term is used throughout the FAA written
> regulations.**
>
> 'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort
> to
> gather and understand knowledge."
>
> **PS: I would appreciate it if any E-AB builders who want to be considered
> "manufacturers" would identify to us the specific regulation(s) that they
> think would benefit them by this categorization.
>
> ========================================================
>
>
> Time: 10:41:13 AM PST US
> From: "Bruce" <BGray@glasair.org>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
>
>
> 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
>
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: | Audio Panel Connection |
My SL40 com has separate "mic lo" and "head phone lo" outputs, but my PS
8000 audio panel only has a single "com lo" input. Can I just ignore one
of the "lo" outputs from the com assuming that they're all connected
internally anyway, or do I need to pigtail both "lo" output wires
together and connect to the single "lo" input on the audio panel?
Thanks.
John Grosse
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: | Circuit Design Software |
HI all,
Anyone suggest easy to use CAD software? One that has the appropriate
symbols (Starter Relays etc).
Cheers
John MacCallum
Builder # 41016
VH-DUU
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking Engine |
Dan, May I have permission to repost this on the Kolb forum here on the
Matronics lists?
Thanks,
Rick Girard
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:22 AM, dj45 <daniel-stanton1@comcast.net> wrote:
> daniel-stanton1@comcast.net>
>
> Anyone considering a Viking engine please be advised, I have had $4,300
> deposit since Oct 28th and payment in full since May 8th and still haven't
> seen my engine yet.
> I called Jan today and he hung up on me and all I got after that was voice
> mail.
> I don't think that I would be ordering an engine from him.
>
> --------
> Do not archive
>
> Dan Stanton
> N801S CH 801
> N226BS CH701
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345736#345736
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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 |
|
>
> Bob . . .
>Very well, back to shielded wire all the way to the jacks.
>Thanks for the input!
Not being shielded is no big deal whether the
mic and headset wires are bundled together or
not. Mic and headsets jacks should be insulated
from airframe and their respective grounds carried
to the intercom on separate wires. Twist them
as a pair (headset) and trio (mic) if it helps
keep them together. But I'm concerned about
gross connection error of some type that is
producing your feedback. Obviously, shielded
trios are very common and color coded to boot.
It's the easiest stuff to use so if you can find
some, go for it. I can send you some if you need
it.
Bob . . .
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: | VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration Question |
Bob,
I understand and appreciate your comments, but you didn't address my
questions regarding Option 3. I understand your opinion on KISS. But I was
attempting to understand is there are any negative attributes with having
two current paths when the aux battery contactor is closed on Option 3? I
believe I understand the complexities and how to perform for a Plan B.
My concern for option 1, is that I will never truly know the state of both
batteries since they both are online. I only want to link both batteries
for occasional starts in cold weather when I may need a stronger battery.
So 99% of the time, I'll leave the battery isolated. I then need a
mechanism to ensure that the Aux battery is charged.
I understand that I truly will never know the exact length the aux battery
will last, but I will know that I can get x% of its rated value. Then it's
just a question of how conservative I want to be with the numbers. In
reality, it's head for the nearest airport and stop the flight even though I
know I may have longer time on the aux battery.
Thanks,
Bob
Description: Description: http://aerosportproducts.com/bob/Option3.jpg
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2011 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: VPX Pro - Dual Battery Configuration
Question
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?
Option 1 is the simplest way to add a second
battery which is why it is featured in Figure Z-30.
If you want to a battery maintainer for both
batteries, a maintainer plug that puts the
two batteries in parallel for storage takes
care of the 'charging' issue.
You need to think through the failure modes
and the precise way in which the duties of the
two batteries are partitioned during an alternator
out condition. Do an energy study for the two
duties and make sure the batteries are sized for
your endurance goals (x number electro whizzies for
y hours of operation) assuming also that you're going
to periodically cap-check the two batteries for
insuring those goals are achievable.
The precise manner in which you add the second battery
is not terribly important. The care with which you
craft and maintain Plan-B is very important. This
pre-supposes that your engine is electrically dependent
and/or you're going to spend a lot of time in situations
were the dark panel syndrome causes you to break a
sweat.
Given the way 99% of OBAM aviation flights are conducted,
and assuming that you have one mag on the engine, then
Plan-B might be something like this . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Vacination_for_Dark_Panel_Syndrom.pdf
for a whole lot less weight, a ton more reliability
and lower cost of ownership. This has been my personal
Plan-B over the last 30 years and 1000+ hours. It
works good every time and in any airplane I rent.
Bob . . .
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Circuit Design Software |
At 06:13 PM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
>HI all,
>Anyone suggest easy to use CAD software? One that has the
>appropriate symbols (Starter Relays etc).
None are "easy" . . . every cad system has it's
own 'language' and mouse/keyboard protocols to learn.
The brand of software will have little to do with
the outcome of your finished product.
TurboCAD will open, edit, save and print the AudoCAD
drawings on my website. You can snatch the symbols
library right out of those drawings.
Please be forewarned. If you are not already a
reasonably adept cad-driver, you have many hours
ahead of you for first learning to communicate
with the software's own language and more hours
acquiring the 'art' of producing 'pretty' drawings.
In the final analysis, the drawings will convey
no more meaning or have any higher value than those
produce neatly the a pencil, pink pearl eraser,
and straight-edge in a 3-ring binder for a whole
lot less $time$. $time$ that you might wish
to spend on your airplane instead.
On the other hand, getting good with a cad program
opens a lot of doors for doing designs of all types
and getting the parts to fit together on paper before
you start cutting wood, metal, tile, wires, etc. etc.
I've been driving an ancient version of AutoCAD for over
25 years. One of the best investments of $time$ I have
ever made after learning to type.
Bob . . .
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: Audio Panel Connection |
At 03:14 PM 7/10/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>My SL40 com has separate "mic lo" and "head phone lo" outputs, but
>my PS 8000 audio panel only has a single "com lo" input. Can I just
>ignore one of the "lo" outputs from the com assuming that they're
>all connected internally anyway, or do I need to pigtail both "lo"
>output wires together and connect to the single "lo" input on the audio panel?
Probably. A simple ohmmeter check will confirm that
they all hook to a common ground internal to the radio.
99% plus probability is that they are and the single
ground between radio and intercom will suffice nicely.
Bob . . .
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
=0A=0A=0A>=0A>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.co
m>=0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0A>Sent: Sun, July 10, 2011 7:23:
07 PM=0A>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>>=0A>>
-- Bob . . .=0A>>=0A>>Very well, back to shielded wire all the way to t
he jacks.=0A>>=0A>>Thanks for the input!=0ANot being shielded is no big dea
l whether the=0Amic and headset wires are bundled together or=0Anot. Mic an
d headsets jacks should be insulated=0Afrom airframe and their respective g
rounds carried=0Ato the intercom on separate wires. Twist them=0Aas a pair
(headset) and trio (mic) if it helps=0Akeep them together. But I'm concerne
d about=0Agross connection error of some type that is=0Aproducing your feed
back.- Obviously, shielded=0Atrios are very common and color coded to boo
t.=0AIt's the easiest stuff to use so if you can find=0Asome, go for it. I
can send you some if you need=0Ait.=0A=0A=0A=0A- Bob . . . =0A- =0AThan
ks Bob,- Understood. The Approach guys told me when I discovered the line
s =0Awere too short that they would send me some wire as well if I found I
============== =0A
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! --
|