AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Wed 08/31/11


Total Messages Posted: 21



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 02:47 AM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Bill Watson)
     2. 04:05 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/30/11 (Robert Feldtman)
     3. 04:16 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/30/11 (William Day)
     4. 06:42 AM - Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 07:31 AM - Re: Homebuilt survey (Glen Matejcek)
     6. 07:38 AM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Eric M. Jones)
     7. 07:58 AM - Re: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley)
     8. 08:15 AM - Signal splitter (Speedy11@aol.com)
     9. 08:35 AM - Re: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    10. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Henador Titzoff)
    11. 08:53 AM - Re: Signal splitter (George, Neal Capt 505 TRS/DOJ)
    12. 09:23 AM - Re: Signal splitter (Thomas Barter)
    13. 09:24 AM - Re: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
    14. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Ralph & Maria Finch)
    15. 02:07 PM - Re: Signal splitter (F. Tim Yoder)
    16. 03:42 PM - Re: Signal splitter (Thomas Barter)
    17. 06:56 PM - Thin film light (jtortho@aol.com)
    18. 07:44 PM - Re: Thin film light (Stuart Hutchison)
    19. 09:54 PM - Re: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    20. 10:00 PM - Re: Signal splitter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    21. 10:09 PM - Re: Signal splitter (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
    Time: 02:47:33 AM PST US
    From: Bill Watson <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    I completed mine. No problem. On 8/30/2011 9:58 AM, Harley wrote: > > > We need to get this out to the group ASAP: > Hi All, > I just found out about this very important survey regarding homebuilt > aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for homebuilts > is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per 100K hours > w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). This was > reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out about the > survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into placing more > restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to > look at this survey before making any new rules. > Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp > Time is now the issue. > > Harley >


    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
    Time: 04:05:33 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/30/11
    From: Robert Feldtman <bobf@feldtman.com>
    good comments. government wants to control everything.. like soviets. not very many people killed below because of a falling experimental... thus that won't wash. the pilot may kill himself, that is his choice. what they don't look at is hours of proficiency. How many folks want to build an airplane (cheap) and then go fly it (newbie) with less than 100 hr s of prior flight time!!! what a recipe for disaster. And when it breaks a little and it takes a year to fix it, not many hours per year... more lack of piloting skills. So ask a more basic additional question(s) how many hours does the average dead experiemental pilot have total, and how many hours does the average dead experiemental pilot have in the last year.... vs. certified airplane spam can pilot? I am putting twice or three times th e hrs on my C182 than I did my glastar. cause way too often it was "no go" broke when I had a trip I had to make. bobf On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:56 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server < aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> wrote: > * > > ======================== > Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive > ======================== > > Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of > the > two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version > of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text > editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. > > HTML Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html& Chapter 11-08-30&Archive=AeroElectric > > Text Version: > > > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&C hapter 11-08-30&Archive=AeroElectric > > > ======================== ======================= > EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive > ======================== ======================= > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > AeroElectric-List Digest Archive > --- > Total Messages Posted Tue 08/30/11: 12 > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > Today's Message Index: > ---------------------- > > 1. 06:19 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 (Willi am > Day) > 2. 07:01 AM - Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley) > 3. 07:22 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/11 > (Michael Welch) > 4. 01:41 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Robert L. Nuckolls, > III) > 5. 02:44 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Harley) > 6. 02:56 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Ralph Finch) > 7. 04:48 PM - Re: Maintenace Charger (David) > 8. 05:57 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (David) > 9. 06:43 PM - Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 (Jared Yates) > 10. 06:43 PM - Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono (John Grosse) > 11. 06:59 PM - stereo/mono audio switching (John Grosse) > 12. 09:14 PM - Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture (Jeff B.) > > > ________________________________ Message 1 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:19:56 AM PST US > From: William Day <wlday18@yahoo.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 08/27/ 11 > > Mike=0A-=0ATried emailling Icom, not much luck.=0A-=0AWill try to call > when I get home from work.=0A-=0ALost power over the weekend due to t he s > torm.=0A-=0ABill=0A-=0ATime: 06:17:20 AM PST US=0ASubject: Re: AeroElec > tric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs=0AFrom: Michael Welch <mdn > anwelch7@hotmail.com>=0A=0AHi Bill,=0A=0A- My expertise level may be clos > er to yours, rather than some of our =0Aesteemed electro-gurus.=0A= 0A- I > think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our =0Aprem ium > members on this list, same as you.- =0A=0A- But......it does sound li ke > you are the right path with the stereo =0Ainputs.- I can't speak for t he > duplex nature of =0Athe iPhone hook-up, though.- While the Pin J may w or > k for the "voice in" =0Apart of the iPhone, I don't know =0Ahow the " hearin > g" part would work.=0A=0A- We need one of the 'truly qualified" to ad dres > s this one for ya.- =0ASorry I am not more help.=0A=0A- If you can' t ge > t someone here on the list to speak with authority on =0Athis matter, I 'd s > uggest calling Icom.=0AThey ought to know where to proceed.=0A=0AMi ke Welch > =0A > > ________________________________ Message 2 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:01:42 AM PST US > From: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 > > > We need to get this out to the group ASAP: > Hi All, > I just found out about this very important survey regarding > homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate > for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 > accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for > homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how > I found out about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is > looking into placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community > and the EAA convinced them to look at this survey before making > any new rules. > Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp > Time is now the issue. > > Harley > > > __._,_.___ > > > ________________________________ Message 3 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 07:22:07 AM PST US > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - > 08/27/11 > From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com> > > Bill, > > I made a quick call for you to Icom. In answer to your question about > hooking up an iPhone....not quite, sort of. > > I'll explain. The tech support guy said "No", you can't do it > directly, BUT, he is pretty sure there are devices available > at ACS, Pacific Avionics, etc, etc. He called them "external devises". > > I asked him if there was a diagram that showed which pin goes to > where, but he said that all that information > would be included with the external device. He said the external device > already has the 'engineering' and electronics, > and would include a pin diagram for easy installation. > > So, you 'may' be able to hook up an iPhone, but check with the > avionics houses and see what they have. > > Mike Welch > > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Day wrote: > > > Mike > > > > Tried emailling Icom, not much luck. > > > > Will try to call when I get home from work. > > > > Lost power over the weekend due to the storm. > > > > Bill > > > > Time: 06:17:20 AM PST US > > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Icomm IC-A200 music and iPhone inputs > > From: Michael Welch <mdnanwelch7@hotmail.com> > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > My expertise level may be closer to yours, rather than some of our > > > esteemed electro-gurus. > > > > I think I'd be asking for confirmation in this situation from our > > premium members on this list, same as you. > > > > But......it does sound like you are the right path with the stereo > > > inputs. I can't speak for the duplex nature of > > the iPhone hook-up, though. While the Pin J may work for the "voice > in" > > part of the iPhone, I don't know > > how the "hearing" part would work. > > > > We need one of the 'truly qualified" to address this one for ya. > > Sorry I am not more help. > > > > If you can't get someone here on the list to speak with authority on > > > this matter, I'd suggest calling Icom. > > They ought to know where to proceed. > > > > Mike Welch > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 01:41:26 PM PST US > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 > > > At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote: > > > > > >We need to get this out to the group ASAP: > >Hi All, > >I just found out about this very important survey regarding > >homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for > >homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per > >100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). > >This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out > >about the survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into > >placing more restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA > >convinced them to look at this survey before making any new rules. > >Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp > >Time is now the issue. > > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes > were for the accidents and why anyone is led > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the > airplane is causation for the difference. > > I note further that questionair's interest > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical > systems. I also wonder where the accident study > gets their numbers for total hours flown for > the two classes of aircraft. > > Aside from entering recent experience numbers > on a medical every two years, I don't recall > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane > I flew. > > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies > of government, this has the look and smell > of expansion of organization at the expense > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/ > reject certain risks. > > Exactly what is entered on this survey will > have little or no effect on outcome. As one > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all > statistics are made up on the spot." I > fear that this is but another cloud of > floobydust kicked up to distract from the > real agenda. > > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 5 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 02:44:43 PM PST US > From: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 > > > >> > >> We need to get this out to the group ASAP: > >> Hi All, > >> I just found out about this very important survey regarding > >> homebuilt aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident > >> rate for homebuilts is double that of manufactured aircraft > >> (12 accidents per 100K hours w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K > >> hours for homebuilts). This was reported in USA Today 8/29/11 > >> which is how I found out about the survey. The article stated > >> that the FAA is looking into placing more restrictions on the > >> homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to look at this > >> survey before making any new rules. > >> Here is the link: > >> http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp > >> Time is now the issue. > > > > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes > > were for the accidents and why anyone is led > > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the > > airplane is causation for the difference. > > > > I note further that questionair's interest > > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical > > systems. I also wonder where the accident study > > gets their numbers for total hours flown for > > the two classes of aircraft. > > > > Aside from entering recent experience numbers > > on a medical every two years, I don't recall > > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight > > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane > > I flew. > > > > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies > > of government, this has the look and smell > > of expansion of organization at the expense > > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/ > > reject certain risks. > > > > Exactly what is entered on this survey will > > have little or no effect on outcome. As one > > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all > > statistics are made up on the spot." I > > fear that this is but another cloud of > > floobydust kicked up to distract from the > > real agenda. > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > I had the same thoughts, Bob...I also am a bit skeptical...but > it's all we have at the moment! So, I filled it out in the hope > that the results just MIGHT make some kind of impression on > someone...I can't do anything by myself...and I don't want anyone > to restrict my freedom of flying because I can't afford the fees/ > > So thanks to the EAA for at least giving it a shot. Even though > they are fighting our wonderful government, once in awhile things > get decided in our favor. > > Harley > > ________________________________ Message 6 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 02:56:56 PM PST US > From: Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 > > I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the > Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than > certificated aircraft. > > The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated though . > I > see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or curtai l > the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. Fortunately , > we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of > high-quality > articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this > problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident" > title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interested > parties. > > As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data. I > started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flying > experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building). > > The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduce > the > accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft accident--not > even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, and > that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn't > like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots fallin g > out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets > portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better w e > fix it ourselves. > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**> > > > > > > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes > > were for the accidents and why anyone is led > > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the > > airplane is causation for the difference. > > > > I note further that questionair's interest > > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical > > systems. I also wonder where the accident study > > gets their numbers for total hours flown for > > the two classes of aircraft. > > > > Aside from entering recent experience numbers > > on a medical every two years, I don't recall > > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight > > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane > > I flew. > > > > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies > > of government, this has the look and smell > > of expansion of organization at the expense > > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/ > > reject certain risks. > > > > Exactly what is entered on this survey will > > have little or no effect on outcome. As one > > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all > > statistics are made up on the spot." I > > fear that this is but another cloud of > > floobydust kicked up to distract from the > > real agenda. > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 7 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 04:48:00 PM PST US > From: David <ainut@knology.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Maintenace Charger > > > You might also check RV sites. I eventually bought a unit that > supposedly charges low batteries, then maintains them at an optimum > level, all while using the least amount of electricity. I think it was > $100 or so and has 80 amp capability. If needed, I can go get the name > of the unit (will take some time, though). > > David > > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 09:57 AM 8/29/2011, you wrote: > >> Hi Bob; > >> > >> Little off topic but I was wondering if you could give me a specific > >> recommendation for a maintenance charger for my RV batteries. I have > >> 6 U2400's also called US145xc's. These are 6volt deep cycle wet > >> cells rated at 251 amps. At 12 volts this gives about 750amps for > >> the system. Anything out there that you think would work well. > > > > If you're simply wanting to maintain batteries > > that are topped off at the time the RV is parked, > > just about anything would work. But if you want > > to top-off less-than-full batteries, then something > > a bit more robust would be called for. > > > > Anything with Schumacher's name on it would be a > > good bet. Here's a 12A, processor controlled charger/ > > maintainer you can probably pick up at Walmart > > for $50 or so. > > Emacs! > > > > Bob . . . > > > > -- > If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and > get rid > of Soros. > > ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with > morality > and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type o f > gubmnt > > > ________________________________ Message 8 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 05:57:56 PM PST US > From: David <ainut@knology.net> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 > > > Kitplanes had a series of articles recently that showed accident numbers > derived from the NTSB data. > > David M. > > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > > > > At 08:58 AM 8/30/2011, you wrote: > >> <harley@agelesswings.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> We need to get this out to the group ASAP: > >> Hi All, > >> I just found out about this very important survey regarding homebuilt > >> aircraft. The FAA is concerned that the accident rate for homebuilts > >> is double that of manufactured aircraft (12 accidents per 100K hours > >> w/MFR vs 25 accidents per 100K hours for homebuilts). This was > >> reported in USA Today 8/29/11 which is how I found out about the > >> survey. The article stated that the FAA is looking into placing more > >> restrictions on the homebuilt community and the EAA convinced them to > >> look at this survey before making any new rules. > >> Here is the link: http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-08-18_survey.asp > >> Time is now the issue. > > > > Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes > > were for the accidents and why anyone is led > > to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the > > airplane is causation for the difference. > > > > I note further that questionair's interest > > in "modifications" did not touch on electrical > > systems. I also wonder where the accident study > > gets their numbers for total hours flown for > > the two classes of aircraft. > > > > Aside from entering recent experience numbers > > on a medical every two years, I don't recall > > that anyone asked me or tracked my flight > > hours . . . much less what kind of airplane > > I flew. > > > > Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies > > of government, this has the look and smell > > of expansion of organization at the expense > > of an individual liberty to assess and accept/ > > reject certain risks. > > > > Exactly what is entered on this survey will > > have little or no effect on outcome. As one > > wise observer once suggested, "85% of all > > statistics are made up on the spot." I > > fear that this is but another cloud of > > floobydust kicked up to distract from the > > real agenda. > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > -- > If you're an American, just say NO to the Obamanation, to socialism, and > get rid > of Soros. > > ...democracy and a republic can function only in a firm partnership with > morality > and religion. -- John Adams. Indeed. Same should be said for ANY type o f > gubmnt > > > ________________________________ Message 9 > _____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:43:37 PM PST US > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 > From: Jared Yates <email@jaredyates.com> > > Part of the issue with accident "rates" is that they are usually divided by > hours flown. After all, the number of accidents doesn't mean anything > without some sort of context. Imagine two cases, one where 5 airplanes > crash > in a year, and the airplanes in that group flew 5000 hours. The followin g > year, 6 crash, but the group flew 7000 hours. The number of accidents > rose, > but the accident rate per hour flown decreased. > > EAB aircraft are becoming more numerous, so the increase in > accident occurrences may or may not actually be leading to a higher > accident > rate. Since the FAA has no idea how many hours we fly experimental > airplanes > (or most other light GA airplanes by that matter), they make a guess and > hope for the best. Since the number of hours flown is the denominator of > most of these rates, then an increase in hours will decrease the accident > rate. The opposite is also true of course. A good survey could make tha t > guess more accurate, which will therefore improve the accuracy of the > rates. > If they are underestimating our hours, then the rates will improve even if > the total number of accidents per year does not decrease. I don't know i f > this survey will serve that purpose, since I haven't taken it. I'm also > not > flying an experimental airplane currently. > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Ralph Finch <ralphmariafinch@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > I think it's pretty well studied and accepted that aircraft in the > > Experimental category do suffer a much higher accident rate than > > certificated aircraft. > > > > The cause of those increased accident rates is still being debated > though. > > I see no hidden agenda on the part of the FAA to usurp more power or > curtail > > the OBAM movement, unless we continue to ignore the problem. > Fortunately, > > we are not ignoring it. Ron Wanttaja recently wrote a number of > high-quality > > articles for Kitplanes magazine investigating many aspects of this > > problem--if you're a subscriber, look for the "Safety Is No Accident" > > title. This is actively being investigated by the EAA/FAA and interest ed > > parties. > > > > As for the survey, the FAA is probably simply trying to get better data . > I > > started the survey but quit because it's really for those already flyin g > > experimental aircraft, and I'm not (still building). > > > > The reality is if the homebuilt community does not take action to reduc e > > the accident rate, the FAA will take action. A single aircraft > accident--not > > even fatal--always generates front page news in our local newspapers, a nd > > that's probably true for most reading this. The non-flying public doesn 't > > like dangerous homebuilt airplanes and their rich, reckless pilots > falling > > out of the skies and killing unsuspecting citizens. That's how it gets > > portrayed to Congress, who in turn tell the FAA to fix it, now. Better > we > > fix it ourselves. > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > > >> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**> > >> > >> > >> Hmmmm . . . I'm wondering what the root causes > >> were for the accidents and why anyone is led > >> to believe that the "homebuilt" nature of the > >> airplane is causation for the difference. > >> > >> I note further that questionair's interest > >> in "modifications" did not touch on electrical > >> systems. I also wonder where the accident study > >> gets their numbers for total hours flown for > >> the two classes of aircraft. > >> > >> Aside from entering recent experience numbers > >> on a medical every two years, I don't recall > >> that anyone asked me or tracked my flight > >> hours . . . much less what kind of airplane > >> I flew. > >> > >> Color me skeptical . . . like all agencies > >> of government, this has the look and smell > >> of expansion of organization at the expense > >> of an individual liberty to assess and accept/ > >> reject certain risks. > >> > >> Exactly what is entered on this survey will > >> have little or no effect on outcome. As one > >> wise observer once suggested, "85% of all > >> statistics are made up on the spot." I > >> fear that this is but another cloud of > >> floobydust kicked up to distract from the > >> real agenda. > >> > >> > >> Bob . . . > >> > >> ====**================== ============** > >> -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/** > >> Navigator?AeroElectric-List > >> ====**================== ============** > >> http://forums.matronics.com > >> ====**================== ============** > >> le, List Admin. > >> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/**contribution > >> ====**================== ============** > >> > >> > >> > >> > > * > > > > * > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 10 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:43:38 PM PST US > From: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Audio - Stereo/Mono > > gAttached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears > to me that they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If this > drawing is correct then the tip is grounded when the switch is in the > "mono" position. The ring would also be grounded when a mono plug is > inserted in the jack so this can't work. Am I missing something??? > > Thanks. > > John Grosse > > > ________________________________ Message 11 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 06:59:56 PM PST US > From: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: stereo/mono audio switching > > Attached is the wiring diagram for a traffic alert system. It appears to me > that > they've reversed the tip and ring in the drawing. If it's correct the aud io > goes to the "ring" in the jack when the switch is in "mono." That would > ground > it when a mono plug is inserted in the jack. Am I missing something? > > John Grosse > > > ________________________________ Message 12 > ____________________________________ > > > Time: 09:14:30 PM PST US > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RV-6A load analysis/architecture > From: "Jeff B." <loboflyer@gmail.com> > > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**> > > > > Second question: We will have a crowbar circuit for OVP, but does anyon e > > see a problem with relying on the GRT EIS4000 to supply the "low voltag e" > > warning? The EIS has a low-RPM maskable low voltage alert. > > > > Yes, you want ov protection to be automatic and > > FAST . . . MILLISECOND fast. > > > > > Thank you, Bob, I am glad this list exists so that we can learn, craft > fundamentally sound designs, and improve the status quo in aircraft > electrical design! > > Just a clarification: the OVP will be a standard crowbar circuit such as > the OVM-14 or 9024. I was merely asking about the pilot indication of lo w > voltage ("idiot light"), instead of using a canned module like the 9005 ( or > combination like the LR3C), if we chose to use the EIS4000 and its > annunciator system, would there be any undesirable effects? > > Regarding the Transpo F7078, were you suggesting it was a mechanical > regulator, or did I read too much into the explanation? > > -Jeff- > > =========== =========== =========== =========== > > -- =93I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.=94 ' Wayne Gretzkey


    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
    Time: 04:16:08 AM PST US
    From: William Day <wlday18@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 08/30/11
    Mike=0A-=0AI did the same, and got the same answer.=0A-=0AThank you for your help.


    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
    Time: 06:42:13 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: RV-6A load analysis/architecture
    >Just a clarification: the OVP will be a standard crowbar circuit >such as the OVM-14 or 9024. I was merely asking about the pilot >indication of low voltage ("idiot light"), instead of using a canned >module like the 9005 (or combination like the LR3C), if we chose to >use the EIS4000 and its annunciator system, would there be any >undesirable effects? Oh, I mis-uderstood. I've often been asked about using a panel indication of overvoltage as incentive for a pilot to turn the alternator off. My preference for low voltage indication is a sun-light viewable flashing light unique to that task. If the EIS system has warning tones or a particularly annoying display of an out-of- bounds parameter, that would be a practical alternative. >Regarding the Transpo F7078, were you suggesting it was a mechanical >regulator, or did I read too much into the explanation? No, it's a solid state device but that's all I know about it. Transpo has been around for a long time. They're now part of WAI Global. http://www.wai-wetherill.com/ There's no reason to swap out the regulator if you have sufficient information on how to hook it up. 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
    Time: 07:31:47 AM PST US
    From: Glen Matejcek <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt survey
    Hi All- The feds have been trying to isolate safety trends in the EAB universe for some time. That is why they want my plane registered as an RV-8, even though Van did not build it. This also ties into the EAB community's claim that professional assistance leads to safer aircraft. And for those (like me)who have yet to fly, the chicken little charge against EAB aircraft will undoubtedly contain rhetoric about unqualified knuckleheads and crackpots in their garages with a stack of 2x4's. Filling out the questionnaire with your aeronautical experience and educational background will go a long way towards disproving that position. And, as ever, participation numbers generated by our rank and file will give the feds an idea as to whether or not they will get any resistance to proposed restrictions on our dearly held freedoms' Not that I have an opinion.... ;-) I would implore you all to swamp them with positive info. FWIW- Glen Matejcek


    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
    Time: 07:38:28 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
    Harley...don't get excited. I also note that you have posted these..."run in circles, scream and shout" viral notices on this website previously. This sounds to me like a hoax or at least a waste of time. The FAA has all the tools needed to get any information without anyone here getting excited. Hey, here's a good photo of Bob Nuckolls attached. -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351089#351089 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/pictures_sept05_001_167.jpg


    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
    Time: 07:58:08 AM PST US
    From: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    Morning, Eric...* Harley...don't get excited. *I never get excited...;-) * I also note that you have posted these..."run in circles, scream and shout" viral notices on this website previously. I*have? I don't recall any ...unless you are talking about my telling people to stay away from a couple of links that AVG marked as having viruses. I know for a fact that many here don't update their anti-virus software or even don't have any. I often receive emails after posting warnings like that thanking me for pointing it out to them and stating that they just updated their anti-virus software. **Just trying to help. * This sounds to me like a hoax or at least a waste of time. *I'm not sure it's a waste of time...the FAA is planning a number of new fees and restrictions to GA pilots, and anything that anyone can do to let them know that they are barking up the wrong tree and that there are other ways to save money is good in my opinion. And the EAA is the only power we have. Tim LaDolce over in the canard aviators forum sent me that (he also posted it in the forum)...so I posted it here and on a couple of other aviation forums as well. * The FAA has all the tools needed to get any information without anyone here getting excited. *Tools they continually change with little regard for us guys... * Hey, here's a good photo of Bob Nuckolls attached. *Why is he lying down (the photo was rotated, in case you missed it)? ;-) *-------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones@charter.net * Harley


    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
    Time: 08:15:13 AM PST US
    From: Speedy11@aol.com
    Subject: Signal splitter
    Listers, I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task? I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios. Thanks, Stan Sutterfield


    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
    Time: 08:35:43 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    > >Hey, here's a good photo of Bob Nuckolls attached. > >Why is he lying down (the photo was rotated, in case you missed it)? ;-) Probably taken Sunday after a two day, 12-hour stand up presentation. Eric and I met at a weekend seminar about 6 years ago in Plymouth, MA. That was a weekend to remember! Missed connections going out. Arrived at motel after midnight. Slipped in shower and busted my butt. Delivered the presentation with a big bruise on my buns. Had a flight cancelled on the way back and got to spend the night in Detroit. Dropped a bag in the motel parking lot and broke two bottles of wire. AC in room didn't work so we played musical rooms until finding one suitable for getting some sleep about midnight. Had to be up at o-dark thirty to catch plane for Wichita. I wonder what I looked like when I got home! Bob . . .


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:50:00 AM PST US
    From: Henador Titzoff <henador_titzoff@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    Eric,=0A=0AThe FAA may have all the tools need to do a lot of things, but t hey are government sloths that can't figure anything out. -They have to h ire people to actually do something. -The problem is that they won't hire anyone. -Instead, they will just simply ram rod new regulations without regard to the GA community and without doing their real homework. -If any body has any problems with it, it's after the fact.=0A=0AHere's an example of government inefficiency and ineptness. Remember the Casey Anthony trial down in Orlando? -Well, she was found not guilty, because the jury decide d there simply wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty. -In other words , the prosecution should have never gone to trial. -They were hoping to s nooker the jury into making an emotional decision. -After they lost, they were on TV congratulating each other for a great job done. -What great j ob? -They lost! -In the commercial world, they would have be considered flunkies! -Now the lead prosecutor is writing a book! -I bet you he wo n't mention his ineptness! -The FAA guys are the same way.=0A-=0AHenado r Titzoff=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Eric M. Jones <emjones@charter.net>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Wednes day, August 31, 2011 10:35 AM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Homebuilt S ones" <emjones@charter.net>=0A=0AHarley...don't get excited. I also note th at you have posted these..."run in circles, scream and shout" viral notices on this website previously.=0A=0AThis sounds to me like a hoax or at least a waste of time. The FAA has all the tools needed to get any information w ithout anyone here getting excited.=0A=0AHey, here's a good photo of Bob Nu ckolls attached.=0A=0A--------=0AEric M. Jones=0Awww.PerihelionDesign.com =0A113 Brentwood Drive=0ASouthbridge, MA 01550=0A(508) 764-2072=0Aemjones@c harter.net=0A=0A=0A=0A=0ARead this topic online here:=0A=0Ahttp://forums.ma tronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=351089#351089=0A=0A=0A=0A=0AAttachments: =0A =0Ahttp://forums.matronics.com//files/pictures_sept05_001_167.jpg=0A=0A=0A =========================0A ===================


    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
    Time: 08:53:31 AM PST US
    Subject: Signal splitter
    From: "George, Neal Capt 505 TRS/DOJ" <Neal.George@hurlburt.af.mil>
    Stan - It depends on your goals. If you only want to use one radio at a time, a physical, mechanical coax switch will do the job easily and inexpensively. Amateur radio operators commonly use coax switches to switch one radio among multiple antennas - works just as well the other way around. But you if you mount a coax switch, the other radio is completely out of the circuit - you can't talk on one and monitor the other. I have seen adaptations of transmit/receive relays that would allow attaching two radios to one antenna. In effect, when the operator keys radio A, the T/R relay disconnects radio B, preventing back-feed damage. This type of arrangement would allow you to use one radio and monitor the other. These critters are scarce, and since it's an active device, they tend to be expensive and temperamental. neal -----Original Message----- Listers, I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task? I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios. Thanks, Stan Sutterfield


    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
    Time: 09:23:49 AM PST US
    From: "Thomas Barter" <kesleyelectric@iowatelecom.net>
    Subject: Signal splitter
    Stan, The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In case of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the primary radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do you have any information to pass along about this device. One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the stick mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary radio. The Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The simple answer would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it is malfunctioning. Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome. Tom Barter Kesley, IA Avid Magnum-wiring _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Speedy11@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter Listers, I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task? I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios. Thanks, Stan Sutterfield


    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
    Time: 09:24:07 AM PST US
    From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    That was a weekend to remember! Missed connections going out. Arrived at motel after midnight. Slipped in shower and busted my butt. Delivered the presentation with a big bruise on my buns. Had a flight cancelled on the way back and got to spend the night in Detroit. Dropped a bag in the motel parking lot and broke two bottles of wire. AC in room didn't work so we played musical rooms until finding one suitable for getting some sleep about midnight. Had to be up at o-dark thirty to catch plane for Wichita. I wonder what I looked like when I got home! Bob . . . Other than that. . . Was it a good weekend? =98=BA Roger


    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
    Time: 01:30:34 PM PST US
    From: "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    Henador, Actually the FAA is trying to pick up the pieces and repair the damage from the criminally incompetent private sector. The homebuilders have all the tools they need to get the accident rate down, but being a bunch of private crooks they won't do it. The government has to step in to actually fix it. Instead of cooperating, the private sector just stonewalls and denies. Here are some examples of private criminality and incompetence. Remember the Enron scandal in Texas, the Wall Street derivative trading, the owner-verified housing loans, the huge BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico they couldn't stop for months? Well, if that happened in government they wouldn't get a promotion anymore. But in private, they get trillion-dollar bailouts, and $100 million bonuses! Who needs to write a book with a bonus like that, huh? Ralph Finch From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Henador Titzoff Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:47 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31 Eric, The FAA may have all the tools need to do a lot of things, but they are government sloths that can't figure anything out. They have to hire people to actually do something. The problem is that they won't hire anyone. Instead, they will just simply ram rod new regulations without regard to the GA community and without doing their real homework. If anybody has any problems with it, it's after the fact. Here's an example of government inefficiency and ineptness. Remember the Casey Anthony trial down in Orlando? Well, she was found not guilty, because the jury decided there simply wasn't enough evidence to find her guilty. In other words, the prosecution should have never gone to trial. They were hoping to snooker the jury into making an emotional decision. After they lost, they were on TV congratulating each other for a great job done. What great job? They lost! In the commercial world, they would have be considered flunkies! Now the lead prosecutor is writing a book! I bet you he won't mention his ineptness! The FAA guys are the same way. Henador Titzoff


    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
    Time: 02:07:26 PM PST US
    From: "F. Tim Yoder" <ftyoder@yoderbuilt.com>
    Subject: Re: Signal splitter
    What plane are you flying? If it is composite the handheld should work fine; anyway, mine does. ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Barter To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:19 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter Stan, The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In case of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the primary radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do you have any information to pass along about this device. One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the stick mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary radio. The Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The simple answer would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it is malfunctioning. Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome. Tom Barter Kesley, IA Avid Magnum-wiring ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Speedy11@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:12 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter Listers, I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task? I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios. Thanks, Stan Sutterfield http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matroni cs.comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution


    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
    Time: 03:42:53 PM PST US
    From: "Thomas Barter" <kesleyelectric@iowatelecom.net>
    Subject: Signal splitter
    The Magnum is a rag and tube taildragger with dimensions similar to a Super Cub. Others in similar planes have told me that their hand helds with just the rubber duckie antenna work to varying degrees, depending on range and altitude. I seem to recall a posting by Bob some time ago regarding how much improved hand held performance would be if connect to the comm antenna. If there is a simple way to accomplish this while isolating the panel mounted main radio, I would like to do it. A few years ago at Oshkosh I listened to a NTSB investigator describe an incident with the chain of events leading to a crash with fatalities. A electrical failure on a night cross country in west Texas prevented the pilot of a 152 from turning on the lights at the last airport available before running out of fuel. (Remember, chain of events.) Had they been carrying a hand held radio, (or wired with Z13-8), the outcome may have been different. Some time ago Jim Weir published an article in Kitplanes magazine about using a mini plug and receptacle to do this, but I think there ended up being some problems with it. Tom Barter From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of F. Tim Yoder Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:04 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter What plane are you flying? If it is composite the handheld should work fine; anyway, mine does. ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Barter <mailto:kesleyelectric@iowatelecom.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:19 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter Stan, The comm splitter that you have is exactly what I am looking for. In case of primary radio failure, I would like to be able to disconnect the primary radio and connect the handheld into the external antenna. Do you have any information to pass along about this device. One issue that I need to address is making sure not to activate the stick mounted PTT switch with the antenna disconnect from the primary radio. The Garmin folks say there is a high probability of damage. The simple answer would be to remember to turn the primary radio OFF if it is malfunctioning. Any and all thoughts on this matter welcome. Tom Barter Kesley, IA Avid Magnum-wiring _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Speedy11@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Signal splitter Listers, I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an audio panel accomplish the task? I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between two aircraft radios. Thanks, Stan Sutterfield http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c


    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
    Time: 06:56:01 PM PST US
    Subject: Thin film light
    From: jtortho@aol.com
    A quick question: I have been in a bit of a stall in building my panel, bu t finally making headway again. A year or 3 ago I bought a light strip from Being seen technology. This is a nice strip of tape that gives what seems to be a moderate to low level o f light, just about right to light up a my panel. There is a small transf ormer type package that powers the strip. I find I cannot find the owners manual that may have come with it and the web site is not present. It seem s to work off a low current , 200+ volt system.. I have held my hand held Nav-com close to this and do not get any interference until just about to uching the power module. Anybody else using this type of product? What is the likely hood of interference? VOR, GPS, COM and a Dynon 10A? Clearly fairly low cost LED strips are available now, so that is a clea r , relatively low cost, non ulcer producing option. Thanks


    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
    Time: 07:44:00 PM PST US
    From: "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart@stuarthutchison.com.au>
    Subject: Thin film light
    UMA can probably point you in the right direction for Electro-Luminescent strip lighting information: www.umainstruments.com Kind regards, Stu F1 Rocket VH-FLY <http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY> http://www.mykitlog.com/RockFLY <about:www.teamrocketaircraft.com> www.teamrocketaircraft.com _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jtortho@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 11:51 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Thin film light A quick question: I have been in a bit of a stall in building my panel, but finally making headway again. A year or 3 ago I bought a light strip from Being seen technology. This is a nice strip of tape that gives what seems to be a moderate to low level of light, just about right to light up a my panel. There is a small transformer type package that powers the strip. I find I cannot find the owners manual that may have come with it and the web site is not present. It seems to work off a low current , 200+ volt system.. I have held my hand held Nav-com close to this and do not get any interference until just about touching the power module. Anybody else using this type of product? What is the likely hood of interference? VOR, GPS, COM and a Dynon 10A? Clearly fairly low cost LED strips are available now, so that is a clear , relatively low cost, non ulcer producing option. Thanks


    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
    Time: 09:54:16 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Homebuilt Survey Expires 8/31
    >Who needs to write a book with a bonus like that, huh? > >Ralph Finch Let's give this one a rest folks. If you have specifics to discuss about FAA actions with respect to OBAM aviation, fine. But the sand and mud balls are being gathered up from far afield and have no direct bearing on helping folks on the List deal with a relevant bureaucracy . . . or build airplanes. Thanks! Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 10:00:32 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Signal splitter
    At 10:11 AM 8/31/2011, you wrote: >Listers, >I want to split a VHF comm signal to use two radios with one >antenna. I know two radios cannot use the same antenna at the same >time because one radio will be damaged. But, like the VHF nav >signal splitter, I wonder if there is a splitter available that will >allow only one radio to use the single antenna at a time. Can an >audio panel accomplish the task? >I have a comm "splitter" that when a handheld radio cable is >inserted it bypasses or disables the coax to the primary aircraft >radio. I'd like something similar except that is switchable between >two aircraft radios. There are things called 'diplexers' that will prevent two transmitters on the same antenna from destroying the opposite receiver but they're VERY expensive and I'm not sure they can be had for a broad frequency range like the VHF comm band. Years ago I built an adapter that might serve your purposes. It was a combination "splitter" in the common receive mode so both radios could listen simultaneously. When one of the transmitters was selected and then keyed to talk, a relay disconnected the opposite radio from the antenna system and made a hard connection to the comm antenna for the transmitter in use. That was about 30 yeara ago and hand wired. I could probably do a much more compact version on an etched circuit board with captive BNC connectors Should go together a lot quicker and be smaller too. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 10:09:50 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Signal splitter
    > >Some time ago Jim Weir published an article in Kitplanes magazine >about using a mini plug and receptacle to do this, but I think there >ended up being some problems with it. > >Tom Barter We had some discussion a about the Tap-Jack that would let a hand-held take ownership of the ship's external VHF comm antenna. I built one here . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/CommTap-Jack.jpg . . . and bought an ICOM product to disassemble here . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_Hand_Held_Adapter_1.jpg http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/ICOM_Hand_Held_Adapter_2.jpg Two problems: (1) The ICOM product made not the slightest pretense for maintaining feed line integrity through the device. (2) The quality of miniature, closed circuit phone jacks generally suck for air. I just couldn't get excited about this gizmo as a product. I think my recommendations at the time called for having a cable- male to cable-female junction in the antenna feed line be accessible in flight. You could break into the coax using a short piece of coax off your hand-held fitted with the appropriate connectors. Bob . . .




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    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! --