Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:01 AM - Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:17 AM - Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Eric M. Jones)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Richard Girard)
4. 08:52 AM - Re: Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:23 AM - Re: Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:14 PM - Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Eric M. Jones)
7. 02:22 PM - Re: MIL SPEC spoof (nuckollsr)
8. 03:38 PM - soldering coax (messydeer)
9. 04:48 PM - Re: Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Rob Housman)
10. 04:57 PM - Re: soldering coax (Bob McCallum)
11. 05:03 PM - Re: soldering coax (Bob McCallum)
12. 07:29 PM - Where to get a RC heli? (Angus)
13. 08:17 PM - Re: soldering coax (messydeer)
14. 08:35 PM - roll my own transponder antenna? (messydeer)
15. 11:02 PM - Re: Re: MIL SPEC spoof (Sacha)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: COM radio/intercom wiring problem... |
At 11:17 PM 7/27/2013, you wrote:
>
>Yes, my ammeter is the Vans ammeter.
>
>My airplane is an RV-9A. My COM antenna is mounted on the bottom of
>the airplane, approximately under where the left leg of the pilot is
>when sitting in the airplane. The antenna is from Delta Pop
>Aviation. The coax cable is RG400 from B&C.
>
>I have not checked the VSWR on the antenna. I see your book gives
>some instructions on how to do that.
>
>The airplane is currently in my garage. Would that "focus" the RF
>energy more than being out in the open?
>
>Thanks,
>Michael-
Okay, for a metal airplane your narrative offers
a stronger suggestion of coax shield unhooked at
one end or the other causing a really 'hot' cockpit.
This can be detected with an SWR check.
Open shields can exhibit strong variations in
observed effects depending on operating frequency.
Alternatively, you just might have a particularly
twitchy ammeter. The one I hooked up on the bench
could be made to produce any reading from pegged
minus to pegged plus or any place in between by
waving my hand held around it. Effects on readings
could be observed with the hand-held 3 feet away.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
I don't find any reason to get excited about this. A chocolate chip cookie or a
brownie is no different from any other military supply when you consider that
someone has to order ingredients and ultimately produce products for feeding
millions of troops.
The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups when purchasing
large quantities from a number of vendors over many years. I don't worry
that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting specifications safeguard
the taxpayers investment.
I have written specs for medical devices that demanded similar attention to details.
My only criticism is that the units specify inch-pounds but they say grams
and millimeters too rather interchangeably. Go metric.
do not archive
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405895#405895
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: MIL SPEC spoof |
Eric, Good on you! If you've ever been in the business of ordering any sort
of assembly you learn PDQ that without an exacting specification to detail
what parameters the vendor must produce and perform to, you are just as
likely to get unusable junk as you are what you want.
It may seem silly to spec something like the number of chocolate chips in a
chocolate chip cookie but dollars to donuts if you do not you will get a
vendor who will scream and holler that one chocolate chip in a cookie is
acceptable because you didn't call them chocolate chips cookies.
Been there, done that, did not enjoy it one bit.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Eric M. Jones <emjones@charter.net> wrote:
> emjones@charter.net>
>
> I don't find any reason to get excited about this. A chocolate chip cookie
> or a brownie is no different from any other military supply when you
> consider that someone has to order ingredients and ultimately produce
> products for feeding millions of troops.
>
> The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups
> when purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors over many years.
> I don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting
> specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment.
>
> I have written specs for medical devices that demanded similar attention
> to details. My only criticism is that the units specify inch-pounds but
> they say grams and millimeters too rather interchangeably. Go metric.
>
> do not archive
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones(at)charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405895#405895
>
>
--
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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
>
>
>The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of
>screw-ups when purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors
>over many years. I don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being
>wasted. In fact, exacting specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment.
Okay, let's examine the 'safeguards' . . .
Assume Joe Blow's Baked Goods Emporium wants
to supply brownies to the government . . . with
some exciting prospects for a jump in sales,
expansion of capital equipment, hiring of more
employees, greater contributions to his 401K.
When you sign on the dotted line for intent to
deliver, you are pledging faithfulness not only
to the fine print but the details of EVERY referenced
document in the requirements . . . not only for
performance of YOUR company but that of every
OTHER company that delivers goods/services to
your efforts. It's the ISO way . . .
When I wrote procurement specs for my bosses, my
teachers admonished me to consider every word
I wrote with three things in mind:
(1) Do not imposed the requirements of another spec
without stating the scope of applicability. Good
case in point is Mil-STD-810 which is hundreds of
pages of really good test procedures. I was obliged
to state exactly which paragraphs out of that
document were applicable. I was also obliged to
review the referenced documents in 810 to make sure
that requirements levied down the paper chain were
not left dangling.
(2) I was obliged to state a series of performance
requirements as one-liners in the Requirements
section to be paired with another paragraph in
the Test and Inspections section describing how
compliance was to be verified (test, demonstration,
or certification).
(3) Leave no openings subject to interpretation.
If you consider 44072 spec from the perspective
of selling brownies to the government, how
would you write your offer to sell? You can't
just salute with, "Sir, yes sir!". You are obligated
to go through each paragraph of the spec and tell the
purchasing agent how you intend to show compliance.
After all, it's implied/presumed that failure to observe
the spec to the letter poses some risk to the
consumer of your brownies. Oh yeah, if you've
achieved 'certification' under ISO, then you're
perhaps relieved of a duty to go beyond the "Sir,
yes sir!" support of your supplication for purchase
order. But that's a whole new topic.
I submit that it cannot be done . . . at least
not for the kinds of dollars that a bag of brownies
should sell for. The $600 hammers and toilet
seats that frenetic blowhards are fond of
citing probably do not represent any nefarious
activity on the part of a supplier to push $10
Home Depot toilet seats off onto the taxpayer
for $600.
I confidently suggest that the supplier probably
doubled his money on the hardware but only
after making a practical attempt to comply with
every sentence of a host of requirements. An attempt
] fraught with great $risk$. The aviation and health
care industries are rife with examples of fines
levied in the $millsions$ for failure to comply
with the details of some spec or regulation.
Every no-value-added participant in the 'investigations'
will walk away with a bucket of somebody else's money
patting themselves on the back for having stuck
a mighty blow in the defense of 'safeguards' . . .
when in fact, nothing materially useful will have
changed. The same investigators will come back
after a time and extract another bucket of tribute
on some other issue. I'm still waiting to see some
encouraging trends for the numbers of accidental
death in hospitals which has remained essentially
unchanged for decades.
Bottom line is that Joe Blow would be assuming
huge risks to his future and that of his employees
to sign on to Mil-C-44072 no matter how great the
potential for honorable gain . . . the risks lie
in a potential for some energetic no-value-added
bureaucrat to find that he (or one of his suppliers)
has failed to observe a requirement in
"U.S. Standard for Grades of Shelled Pecans"
. . . or perhaps for failure to comply with . . .
" . . . each ingredient shall be examined organoleptically or
inspected according to generally recognized test methods such as the
standard methods described in Official Methods of Analysis of the
Association of Analytical Chemists and in the Approved Methods of the
American Association of Cereal Chemists, to determine conformance to
the requirements. Any nonconformance to an identity, condition, or
other requirement shall be cause for rejection of the ingredient or
component lot or of any involved product."
If the investigator finds that the offending practice
has persisted over some series of shipments, well, Joe
Blow's fanny may be toast.
I'm pleased to note that no supplier for Beech who
delivered to a specification I wrote was ever faced
a potential for 'gotchas' or was not well informed
going in as to what we expected. This was because our
own customer (usually US Navy) was equally circumspect
with the levying of requirements on us as well.
I suggest this is not so for most of the honorable, hopeful
but naive suppliers to the federal government. This is not
intended to be an indictment of all federal specifications.
I have found many to be practical and useful tools. However
too many, like Mil-C-44072 are fraught with foggy logic
and regulatory tar-pits. Similarly, AC23-17 should be consulted
with a critical analysis as to the value added by adoption
of ideas contained therein. Safeguards lie with the honorable
productive, not the plunderers of the productive.
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
At 10:01 AM 8/4/2013, you wrote:
>Eric, Good on you! If you've ever been in the business of ordering
>any sort of assembly you learn PDQ that without an exacting
>specification to detail what parameters the vendor must produce and
>perform to, you are just as likely to get unusable junk as you are
>what you want.
ABSOLUTELY . . .
If you're going to buy a boat load of brownies . . .
especially with somebody else's money, a spec
for brownies is a really good idea. But I'll
bet you that a brownie spec written by individuals
with practical knowledge of baking, selection
of ingredients, packaging and distribution would
produce a clear and achievable set of requirements
based on honorable free-market economics.
Just as AC23-13 could not have been produced by
individuals skilled in aviation arts and
sciences, so too was the brownie spec produced
by folks throwing requirements against a reviewing
committee's walls to see what sticks. Free-market
and economics are ignored. The end product is
all but guaranteed to be more expensive and less
merchantable than a similar product by Little
Debbie or Hostess.
Let's make this exercise more germane to the arts
and sciences of building practical and low risk
airplanes. If anyone has an example of specifications
disseminated from on high that offer demonstrably
useful guidance for the crafting of airplanes, I'd be
pleased to know of them . . . and discuss them
here on the List.
I will suggest that the most valuable tools I've
acquired over the years were from a mentoring
by my teachers, consideration of lessons-learned
and the quest for elegant assemblages of simple-ideas
into recipes for success. NONE of those activities
are particularly promoted by the contents of
specifications or regulations from any source.
At the risk of being repetitious, I'll suggest that
you will find no ideas more useful or less restricting
than those offered by the sum total of skill sets
and experience of the List membership.
do not archive
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
Right.
When you hear them chuckle "This spaceship/airplane/cookie/brownie" was built by
the lowest-price bidder, remember that the specification was written to prevent
the lowest-price bidder from screwing up the deal by using inferior materials,
techniques, cheap imports, or shoddy manufacturing methods to obtain the
finished product.
Sometimes that takes loads of words on paper to get things right. I am pretty certain
that government requirements for toilet paper, cotton-balls and toothpicks
would get a chuckle as well.
Since the government often has no experts on these particular things, the manufacturing
companies are usually consulted to write the specifications. Sometimes
there is a little hanky-panky, but usually the Mil-Spec gets hammered out and
becomes a standard for many products.
If there was a better way to do it, someone would have found it.
do not archive.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405920#405920
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
"Right. Sometimes that takes loads of words on paper to get things right. I am
pretty certain that government requirements for toilet paper, cotton-balls and
toothpicks would get a chuckle as well."
Never said there should not be a clear and compelling purchasing specification.
At the same time, boat-load purchasing packages that throw a lot of "good specs"
at the potential supplier is an invitation for 'hanky-panky' or despotic slap-downs
because no two reviewers of requirements will come to the same conclusion.
It's like 70K pages of IRS code, gazillions of EPA code where no two enforcers
of such code interpret their duties and the citizen's obligations the
same way.
"If there was a better way to do it, someone would have found it."
There is. It's called the honorable exchange of value in a free-market where force
and fraud is punished as a violation of liberty; poor workmanship is punished
by loss of customer base and injury is punished as civil or criminal negligence.
The notion that individuals predisposed to dishonorable behavior will cease such
behaviors when threatened by state sanction is demonstrably false. Trillions
of rules will not reduce dishonorable behavior. They WILL increase operating
overhead for the honorable citizen. There are probably numerous capable suppliers
of brownies who would decline to bid because the spec pollutes their business
model, perhaps even alters a successful product and/or raises risk.
A rise of legislative/administrative regulation in the hands of no-value-added,
career enforcers has done nothing to improve on the quality of things. On the
other hand, transfer of wealth from producers to plunderers has increased greatly.
Another of several root causes for the greater-than-inflation rate pf
rise in the cost of certified airplanes and health care.
It's axiomatic and historically accurate to assert that OBAM aviation is at no
lesser risk for the effects of those guys who offer, "I'm from the government,
I'm here to help."
It would be interesting to walk up to the FAA booth at OSH with a copy of AC23-17,
pick an 'advisory assertion' about 'critical electrics' and inquire as to
the significance in a LA-IVP project. Then make the assertion, "my airplane has
no systems essential to continued flight that are not backed up; therefor I
have no critical systems". and see what reaction you get.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405929#405929
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 |
|
Hi!
I'm installing a transponder in my Sonex. A couple years ago, I bought a 9-30-10
TED 90 degree coax adapter fitting, shown in the attached pic. What are the
C ring and small cylindrical shaped items for? Any instructions for soldering
this?
Thanks,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405933#405933
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/9_30_10_ted_connector_115.jpg
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
This discussion reminds me of how my previous boss described selling stuff
to the government. He said, only partly in jest, "Any time you sell to the
government you are doing something illegal. You just don't know what it
is."
Do not archive
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS
Rotax 914
S/N A070
Airframe complete
Avionics soon
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: MIL SPEC spoof
The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups when
purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors over many years. I
don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting
specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment.
Okay, let's examine the 'safeguards' . . .
Assume Joe Blow's Baked Goods Emporium wants
to supply brownies to the government . . . with
some exciting prospects for a jump in sales,
expansion of capital equipment, hiring of more
employees, greater contributions to his 401K.
When you sign on the dotted line for intent to
deliver, you are pledging faithfulness not only
to the fine print but the details of EVERY referenced
document in the requirements . . . not only for
performance of YOUR company but that of every
OTHER company that delivers goods/services to
your efforts. It's the ISO way . . .
When I wrote procurement specs for my bosses, my
teachers admonished me to consider every word
I wrote with three things in mind:
(1) Do not imposed the requirements of another spec
without stating the scope of applicability. Good
case in point is Mil-STD-810 which is hundreds of
pages of really good test procedures. I was obliged
to state exactly which paragraphs out of that
document were applicable. I was also obliged to
review the referenced documents in 810 to make sure
that requirements levied down the paper chain were
not left dangling.
(2) I was obliged to state a series of performance
requirements as one-liners in the Requirements
section to be paired with another paragraph in
the Test and Inspections section describing how
compliance was to be verified (test, demonstration,
or certification).
(3) Leave no openings subject to interpretation.
If you consider 44072 spec from the perspective
of selling brownies to the government, how
would you write your offer to sell? You can't
just salute with, "Sir, yes sir!". You are obligated
to go through each paragraph of the spec and tell the
purchasing agent how you intend to show compliance.
After all, it's implied/presumed that failure to observe
the spec to the letter poses some risk to the
consumer of your brownies. Oh yeah, if you've
achieved 'certification' under ISO, then you're
perhaps relieved of a duty to go beyond the "Sir,
yes sir!" support of your supplication for purchase
order. But that's a whole new topic.
I submit that it cannot be done . . . at least
not for the kinds of dollars that a bag of brownies
should sell for. The $600 hammers and toilet
seats that frenetic blowhards are fond of
citing probably do not represent any nefarious
activity on the part of a supplier to push $10
Home Depot toilet seats off onto the taxpayer
for $600.
I confidently suggest that the supplier probably
doubled his money on the hardware but only
after making a practical attempt to comply with
every sentence of a host of requirements. An attempt
] fraught with great $risk$. The aviation and health
care industries are rife with examples of fines
levied in the $millsions$ for failure to comply
with the details of some spec or regulation.
Every no-value-added participant in the 'investigations'
will walk away with a bucket of somebody else's money
patting themselves on the back for having stuck
a mighty blow in the defense of 'safeguards' . . .
when in fact, nothing materially useful will have
changed. The same investigators will come back
after a time and extract another bucket of tribute
on some other issue. I'm still waiting to see some
encouraging trends for the numbers of accidental
death in hospitals which has remained essentially
unchanged for decades.
Bottom line is that Joe Blow would be assuming
huge risks to his future and that of his employees
to sign on to Mil-C-44072 no matter how great the
potential for honorable gain . . . the risks lie
in a potential for some energetic no-value-added
bureaucrat to find that he (or one of his suppliers)
has failed to observe a requirement in
"U.S. Standard for Grades of Shelled Pecans"
. . . or perhaps for failure to comply with . . .
" . . . each ingredient shall be examined organoleptically or inspected
according to generally recognized test methods such as the standard methods
described in Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Analytical
Chemists and in the Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal
Chemists, to determine conformance to the requirements. Any nonconformance
to an identity, condition, or other requirement shall be cause for rejection
of the ingredient or component lot or of any involved product."
If the investigator finds that the offending practice
has persisted over some series of shipments, well, Joe
Blow's fanny may be toast.
I'm pleased to note that no supplier for Beech who
delivered to a specification I wrote was ever faced
a potential for 'gotchas' or was not well informed
going in as to what we expected. This was because our
own customer (usually US Navy) was equally circumspect
with the levying of requirements on us as well.
I suggest this is not so for most of the honorable, hopeful
but naive suppliers to the federal government. This is not
intended to be an indictment of all federal specifications.
I have found many to be practical and useful tools. However
too many, like Mil-C-44072 are fraught with foggy logic
and regulatory tar-pits. Similarly, AC23-17 should be consulted
with a critical analysis as to the value added by adoption
of ideas contained therein. Safeguards lie with the honorable
productive, not the plunderers of the productive.
do not archive
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 |
|
Try this from Bob's site.
http://tinyurl.com/pqvb263
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of messydeer
> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 6:38 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering coax
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm installing a transponder in my Sonex. A couple years ago, I bought a
9-30-10 TED
> 90 degree coax adapter fitting, shown in the attached pic. What are the C
ring and
> small cylindrical shaped items for? Any instructions for soldering this?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405933#405933
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/9_30_10_ted_connector_115.jpg
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
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 |
|
The circlip and washer are to secure the connector into a panel using the
groove around its "nose". The cylindrical sleeve is to adapt the connector
to different diameters of coax. (link to instructions sent separately)
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of messydeer
> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 6:38 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering coax
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm installing a transponder in my Sonex. A couple years ago, I bought a
9-30-10 TED
> 90 degree coax adapter fitting, shown in the attached pic. What are the C
ring and
> small cylindrical shaped items for? Any instructions for soldering this?
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> --------
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405933#405933
>
>
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/9_30_10_ted_connector_115.jpg
>
>
>
>
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
> _-
> ====================================================
> ======
>
>
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: | Where to get a RC heli? |
I like RC heli very much,share your thought with me.
--------
http://www.rctophobby.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405942#405942
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: soldering coax |
Ah!!
A picture is worth a thousand words. I'm guessing I won't need that barrel adapter,
but I'll find out when I put things together.
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405944#405944
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | roll my own transponder antenna? |
Hey :-)
I rolled my own comm antenna a couple years ago. Antenna worked okay, but the location
caused RFI, so I bought one and mounted it in a different location. This
homemade com antenna could be cut down and used for my transponder antenna.
But, how long do I cut it? Also heard about not being able to check swr in the
xpdr freq range, so if I mess up, it could ruin my unit. ACS sells the antenna
for $18, so if there's any doubt, I'd go that way.
Thanks,
Dan
--------
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405946#405946
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: | Re: MIL SPEC spoof |
> There is. It's called the honorable exchange of value in a free-market where
force and fraud is punished as a violation of liberty; poor workmanship is punished
by loss of customer base and injury is punished as civil or criminal negligence.
I find this discussion very interesting... Aviation is really an interesting microcosm
in which to observe the (non-)workings and meddling of government in stuff
which should not concern it.
I'm curious though as to how one would begin to write a spec which took into account
"economics and the free market". If you want companies to bid, you need
spec which is factual, you couldn't just say "brownies such as those commonly
available in US supermarkets".
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! --
|