Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:59 AM - Re: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (The Kuffels)
2. 09:31 AM - To CAD or not to CAD . . . that is the question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 10:43 AM - Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (user9253)
4. 10:58 AM - Fw: EXP 2 Bus workaround (Fred Klein)
5. 12:55 PM - Re: EAA SPORTAIR Workshop attendee has question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 01:01 PM - A study guide for AutoCAD and clones (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 01:06 PM - Battery busses in a fiberglass airframe (Fred Klein)
8. 01:49 PM - Re: Battery busses in a fiberglass airframe (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 01:53 PM - Re: Fw: EXP 2 Bus workaround (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 01:56 PM - Re: To CAD or not to CAD . . . that is the question (Sacha)
11. 01:59 PM - New Aero-Electric Manual (H. Marvin Haught)
12. 02:16 PM - Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (p32gxy)
13. 02:54 PM - Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (p32gxy)
14. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (The Kuffels)
15. 03:52 PM - Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna (p32gxy)
16. 04:04 PM - Re: Re: EAA SPORTAIR Workshop attendee has question (Eric Page)
17. 05:06 PM - Re: Re: EAA SPORTAIR Workshop attendee has question (Jeff Luckey)
18. 06:41 PM - Re: Relay for Critical Power Feed (Thomas E Blejwas)
19. 07:58 PM - Re: To CAD or not to CAD . . . that is the question (Richard Girard)
20. 08:30 PM - Teledyne stripall (rayj)
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: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
<< don't see how I can make use of this approach without either drilling
holes in the spar or messing up the wing's shape/airflow >>
We have reached the point where we need more information. Are you talking
Rutan moldless composite construction or premolded skins a la
Lancair/Glasair?
In the case of the former and you have not laminated the wing skins yet,
there is no problem. Do what you would have to do with the coax anyway, cut
a groove in the foam for the tubes with the braids inside. Make the
grooves deeper than needed and cover with microbaloon slurry and a temporary
layer of peelply. This forms a surface for glassing with no delamination
areas or profile distortion.
With premolded wing panels you glue the tubes to the undersurface. With
braid as my antenna elements, I would have no qualms about just ShoGooing
them to the panel undersurface. The ShoGoo remains flexible enough to not
stress the wires. For routing the feedline, structural theory says there is
little problem drilling a small hole in the middle of the vertical shear
web, particularly outboard. But don't get too compulsive about routing the
end of the coax/balun directly away from the Vee. Even bent 90 degrees to
the Vee you won't see much, if any, difference.
<< 22.8" per leg of the V shaped antennae is hard to place without
interference >>
The purpose of making the legs Vee shaped is to remove the null reception
points off the ends of a straight dipole. But you don't need 45 degree
bends to do this. A much shallower angle will still give adequate
performance. And there is no problem with curlling the tips somewhat near
the leading edge.
Understand we don't need the last db of signal strength in this application.
In a composite fuselage a 23" length of wire dangling from the center
conductor on the back of the radio would still give "adequate performance".
Tom Kuffel
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: | To CAD or not to CAD . . . that is the question |
I tried poking around last night and was able to open the Dwg files
on the aero electric site. It took me a while to figure out how to
simply copy and paste items and then I had to scale them to make them
fit what I had drawn... Seems like i might save done time with some
decent training material. Are you aware of any?
That, my friend, is the $64K question.
We've had these discussions about the use
of CAD for doing wiring diagrams many times
over the years here on the List. I've always
encouraged individuals to acquire and become
reasonably conversant in some kind of CAD
program . . . but that advice is 'colored'
by my own utilization of AutoCAD which dates
back to 1988 or so running AutoCAD v2.17 on
a 4MHz PC-XT with 64K of ram, 20M HD, 9"
amber screen and a dot-matrix printer.
My comfort level with AutoCAD for the tasks
I do is very high. At the same time
I can tell you that I use less than 5% of its
capabilities. AutoCAD and clones understand
hundreds of commands . . . I can give you a list
of commands . . . about 50 . . . that suffice
for 99% of my drawing needs for the past 25
years. So yeah, I have a "training manual"
that is a subset list of the total command set.
Backing off a bit, let's consider the complexity
of your drawing task. Whether you use CAD to
produce the final wire-book or not, your
gathering of bits and pieces into recipes
for success is STILL best accomplished
on paper with pencil. Multiple sheets of
paper.
Do your wirebook with a #2 pencil on a good
quality bond paper punched to fit a binder
of your choice. NEAT doesn't count. Get all
the parts, wires and layout down on paper
as the draft. Keep a soft eraser handy
(we call 'em Pink Pearls) to make clean
changes to your deliberations.
Do one-page-per-system. Landing light on one
page, starter on one page, alternator on
one page, etc. etc. No single page need
be very complex or cluttered with information.
When the details are all recorded, NOW decide
whether you want to convert it to a CAD
drawing.
Trying to do original work in CAD without
a high comfort level is like learning
to operate an 18-wheel truck to move some
materials around to build a tool shed for
your back yard. The CREATIVE efforts for
getting the simple-ideas of an electrical
system on paper are diluted and confused
by trying to describe your thoughts and
observations in a new language that commands
a very complex tool.
If you decide to jump to CAD, fine. Make
that a separate task for learning the language
that drives the new tool. Alternatively,
consider taking your 'draft' sheets and
using a indelible pen (I like ultra-fine
Sharpies) to convert your drafts to finished
drawings. Make a copy of your pencil draft
and convert it to hard lines with the
ink pen. If you like the first one, then
do it a second time on your pencil copy.
Then use the eraser to remove your pencil
draft.
Virtually all schematics I post to the List
or my website are evolved with this process.
http://tinyurl.com/k7cvegw
When you're working on your wirebook, the
end product can look even better than these
quickly crafted sketches.
I am reluctant to discourage anyone from acquiring
CAD skills . . . but I question the return on
investment for $time$ it takes to acquire
useful competency with a very powerful tool.
The job might be reduced to a couple
of hours with an pencil, good paper, ink pen
and a Pink Pearl.
Sometimes the best way to drive the nail
is with a hammer. But I will dig up and post
that list of CAD commands that any wannabe AutoCAD
driver will find useful as a study guide. It
is indeed a powerful tool. It has greatly enhanced
my own career path.
Hmmm . . . this might be expanded inot a good
article for KitPlanes . . .
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
When the wires at each end of 300 ohm TV antenna twin lead are connected together,
the twin lead will have the same bandwidth as copper tape. Jim Weir has used
twin lead for some of his antennas.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410758#410758
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: | EXP 2 Bus workaround |
Bob wrote:
> Which engine are we talking about?
...engine is from RAM Performance...it is a 140 hp multiport EFI
version of the dual port 115 hp EFI engine based on the Subaru EA81
block. Though the 115 hp engine was manufactured in runs of 50, the
multiport versions were (are?) custom made to order.
> Is there no supplier support?
...not much at present...company has relocated from Ohio to N.
Carolina...website is down, but owner, Ron Carr is available by phone.
> Is there a user's forum of individuals who are already flying?
...not that I am aware of, although I've found many favorable
endorsements on the web of Ron's knowledge and work on the web
....since the floods in CO, I've lost touch w/ Glenn Crowder who
is flying a Europa w/ a Sube which Ron rebuilt a few years ago.
It's probably fair to say that I have somewhat of an orphan
engine..
Back to the issue of the electrical load of the engine...for the
purposes of this discussion, I am quite content to use the figures Bill
Bradburry has posted, namely:
> EC2 and gauges: 0.8 A
> 2 leading coils: 2.4 A
> 2 trailing coils: 2.4 A
> 2 primary injectors 0.7 A
> 2 secondary injectors: 0.7 A
> 1 Mazda stock RX7 fuel pump: 3.8 A
>
> Total in normal running config: 10.8 A
Fred
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: EAA SPORTAIR Workshop attendee has question |
At 07:52 PM 10/16/2013, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>After taking the EAA Sportair avionics workshop and learning about
>you, I'm now trying to identify the best wire-cutting and crimping
>tools to buy and I had a few questions I'd really like your opinion
>on, because I'm willing to spend on high quality tools but I'm not
>aware of the brands/models to consider .
>"Ideal Industries" makes a wire stripper called "Custom
>Stripmaster"; for avionics and mil-spec work with 'die-type' blades,
>described in your article. If I'm willing to spend $191, is this the
>best one to get, and are there other brands worth considering?
>Also, for terminal crimping I'm looking at 'Klein Tools T1710
>Compound-Action Ratcheting Crimper - Insulated Terminals' which
>crimps 10-22 AWG insulated terminals to "meet or exceed MIL-SPEC
>pull-out tests", costs $239.16. Is this a good choice or are there
>other mil-spec brands to consider?
>Your advice will be greatly appreciated.
Those tools are certainly top-notch and would serve
you well. If money is not a severe constraint, then
by all means acquire these tools. You're talking
$450 for some tools that may not see much service
after you've finished your airplane. Know that there
are many terminals being installed with much less
expensive tools. See:
http://tinyurl.com/kfk6jss
With some practice, Tefzel wires can be stripped with
a simple, $5 flush-cutter . . .
http://tinyurl.com/lv8jwe7
If you have the money to invest in top
shelf tools, go for it. But if learning to
do the job with $50 worth of tools leaves
you $400 to invest in an upgrade to your
GPS . . . or perhaps some nifty vaccinations
against Dark Panel Syndrome for the flight
bag . . .
http://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh
. . . then perhaps a more detailed review
of your purchase goals is in order.
Join us on the AeroElectric-List . . . a forum
of about 1600 builders who are wrestling with
these same questions and many more every day.
http://tinyurl.com/57wytb
I think you'll find that time spent in this
forum will be very useful to you in the fabrication
of your airplane.
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: | A study guide for AutoCAD and clones |
Here is a re-posted note I published last year
on shortcuts in AutoCAD/NanoCAD and a study guide
for 99% of all the commands you'll ever need . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------
At 04:17 AM 6/16/2012, you wrote:
>
>I made drawings using Solid Edge. Months later when I tried to open
>the drawings, Solid Edge said that my license had expired. It would
>not let me look at my drawings unless I renewed my license
>(free). This happened again the following year.
> I got to thinking, what will happen if Solid Edge changes their
> licensing policy or if they go out of business? I will not be able
> to access my drawings. So I switched to TurboCad, although it is
> not very intuitive. I prefer programs that are easy to learn
> without having to read the help files.
>Joe
NanoCAD (or any of the AutoCADS) are
excellent solutions. They understand English.
If you want to draw a line say "line<cr>" and
then enter a from (intersection, nearest, tangent
midpoint, etc) then a to (same constellation of
options) while guiding to those terminations with
the mouse.
Further, AutoCAD and nanoCAD have .pgp 'overlay' files
that you can edit with an ordinary text editor like
notepad.
A, *ARC
AA, *AREA
AL, *ALIGN
AR, *ARRAY
BL, *BLOCK
BR, *BREAK
CI, *CIRCLE
C, *CHANGE
CH, *CHAMFER
CO, *COPY
D, *DIMSTYLE
DDI, *DIMDIAMETER
DED, *DIMEDIT
DI, *DIST
DT, *DTEXT
E, *ERASE
ED, *DDEDIT
EL, *ELLIPSE
EXIT, *QUIT
F, *FILLET
H, *HATCH
I, *INSERT
L, *LINE
LA, *LAYER
LE, *QLEADER
LI, *LIST
LT, *LINETYPE
LTS, *LTSCALE
M, *MOVE
MI, *MIRROR
O, *OSNAP
P, *PAN
PE, *PEDIT
PL, *PLINE
PG, *POLYGON
PU, *PURGE
R, *REDRAW
RE, *REGEN
RA, *RECTANGLE
RO, *ROTATE
S, *STRETCH
SO, *SOLID
T, *TRIM
V, *VIEW
WB, *WBLOCK
XP, *EXPLODE
XT, *EXTEND
Z, *ZOOM
When you enter the short command, the cad program
interprets it for the full command. I found
that I could draw left-handed with the mouse
while one-hand typing with the right and
go through the 'dance moves' with greater
rapidity than by accessing all those little
tool-bar boxes (most of which I didn't need/
use). In fact, I can turn all the tool-bars off
and have the full, un-clutered screen to work
on.
Aside from the isometric drawings I made for
illustrating the 'Connection, I've not found a
strong need for 3d drawings. If you need that
capability, I'm not a good source for advise.
Your personal .pgp file becomes a good teaching
tool too. Out of hundreds of commands that the
CAD program understands, editing your overlay file
down to those you use 99% of the time make the .pgp
file a sort of syllabus for a short course in
AutoCAD. Search the 1-inch thick book of 1000
commands for how these few work . . . you'll have
99% of your dance moves learned in a very
short time.
In fact, I would recommend that anyone wanting to
get their feet wet in either AutoCAD or microCAD
cut-n-paste the list above into a new version of
a .pgp file and print a paper copy too. Hang it
on the wall behind your monitor as a reference
list. This will steepen your learning curve
greatly. You can always add/delete commands to
customize the list to your own needs but I'm
betting that becoming proficient in those
listed will get you up to speed very quickly.
Turning off all the tool bars and talking to
the program in 'English' is about as intuitive
as you can get. Over the years I've spent thousands
of dollars of both my and the boss's money on AutoCAD
and sundry upgrades. NanoCAD now does everything that used
to cost us the price of a good used car . . . for free.
Interestingly enough, NONE of those upgrades added
features that I needed for my work. Everything
I do today can be done in say AutoCAD R10 for
DOS!
There may be other applications that are as
intuitive and/or attractively priced . . . don't
know. But I can tell you that NanoCAD is an
exceedingly good value and easy to learn if you
start with the few dozen commands I listed
above.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery busses in a fiberglass airframe |
All,
For weight and balance reasons, my battery-(ies) will be in the tailcone of my
Europa fiberglass airframe which includes a non-metallic firewall.
Battery ground wires will run forward to ground on the engine.
With an EFI'ed engine, I will have battery busses to carry all circuits essential
to keeping the engine running (fuel pumps, ECU, fuel injectors, and coils).
For convenience and accessibility, I want those busses forward...on the engine
side of the firewall. On a related matter, I would prefer the battery contactors
to be located on the engine side of the firewall.
I understand that customary practice is to keep the contactors adjacent to the
batteries, and to minimize the length of "hot" wires connected directly to the
batteries.
What I'm wondering is whether or not having a non-conductive airframe sufficiently
mitigates the risks which customary practice is intended to minimize...?...
Is there anyone out there who is flying a fiberglass airplane w/ rear mounted battery
and dealt with these issues?
...all comments appreciated...
Fred
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery busses in a fiberglass airframe |
At 03:04 PM 10/17/2013, you wrote:
>
>All,
>
>For weight and balance reasons, my battery-(ies) will be in the
>tailcone of my Europa fiberglass airframe which includes a
>non-metallic firewall.
>
>Battery ground wires will run forward to ground on the engine.
You can do this on one ground wire (between a battery(-)
common point for both batteries in tail) and a
recommended ground block on the firewall.
>With an EFI'ed engine, I will have battery busses to carry all
>circuits essential to keeping the engine running (fuel pumps, ECU,
>fuel injectors, and coils).
>
>For convenience and accessibility, I want those busses forward...on
>the engine side of the firewall. On a related matter, I would prefer
>the battery contactors to be located on the engine side of the firewall.
After studying your engine description I don't
think these 'engine busses' are going to be all
that complicated. I'm 10 minutes from hitting the
road for Wichita . . . I'll elaborate more Saturday
when I get back.
>I understand that customary practice is to keep the contactors
>adjacent to the batteries, and to minimize the length of "hot" wires
>connected directly to the batteries.
Yes.
>What I'm wondering is whether or not having a non-conductive
>airframe sufficiently mitigates the risks which customary practice
>is intended to minimize...?...
>
>Is there anyone out there who is flying a fiberglass airplane w/
>rear mounted battery and dealt with these issues?
Depends on what you mean by "dealt with these issues".
What are the perceived gains for moving the contactors?
Bob . . .
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EXP 2 Bus workaround |
...not much at present...company has relocated from Ohio to N.
Carolina...website is down, but owner, Ron Carr is available by phone.
Is there any reason to believe that the hopped up
version of the engine needs any greater electrical
energy for operation than the 115 hp version?
Back to the issue of the electrical load of the engine...for the
purposes of this discussion, I am quite content to use the figures
Bill Bradburry has posted, namely:
EC2 and gauges: 0.8 A
2 leading coils: 2.4 A
2 trailing coils: 2.4 A
2 primary injectors 0.7 A
2 secondary injectors: 0.7 A
1 Mazda stock RX7 fuel pump: 3.8 A
Total in normal running config: 10.8 A
Good starting points. I'll be back Saturday.
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 |
|
| Subject: | To CAD or not to CAD . . . that is the question |
--> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Whether you use CAD to
produce the final wire-book or not, your
gathering of bits and pieces into recipes
for success is STILL best accomplished
on paper with pencil. Multiple sheets of
paper.
Thank you for the advice, I'm sure those words are wise ones... I'm curious
about CAD so I think I will eventually put the effort in and learn it
(thanks to the two people on the list who offered to relay a shipment of
TurboCAD to me ... I absolutely love this list...). But for the moment I
will draw everything out in pencil and paper as you suggest.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | New Aero-Electric Manual |
Bob -
I am starting on a new project and getting my reference materials organized. I
have an old copy of the Aero-Electric Manual. When will the new edition be out
and what is the cost? I will send you a check to get one on order once copies
are available.
M. Haught
P.O. Box 419
Huntsville, AR 72740
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
> We have reached the point where we need more information. Are you talking Rutan
moldless composite construction or premolded skins a la
> Lancair/Glasair?
>
The wing is all finished, using premolded skins. This is a retrofit as the original
builder did not see the need to put in a VOR antenna. I only have access
to the inside of the wing through the pitot service door (small)... not a lot
of room to work with... which is the reason why I have been attracted to the copper
foil antenna which can be mounted on the "outer" surface of the wing.
Theory notwithstanding, I don't like to drill holes in structural elements... call
me crazy... unless there is absolutely no other way. For me, this thread is
about finding the other way :-)
I am even considering the Dave Morris Loop antenna (http://www.davemorris.com/MorrisComLoop.cfm), adapted to the NAV band I calculate a 29.5" diameter for the loop... I could fit such a loop on the underside of the fuselage and avoid the complications of wing based antennae...placement supposedly is not so critical as with the "V" shaped when it comes to proximity to other metal elements... then again this is all theory for me as I have no experience with loop antennae.
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
> The purpose of making the legs Vee shaped is to remove the null reception points
off the ends of a straight dipole. But you don't need 45 degree bends to
do this. A much shallower angle will still give adequate
> performance. And there is no problem with curlling the tips somewhat near the
leading edge.
>
>
The location and available space is less than ideal... I do try to avoid curling
the tips or getting them within 1/4 wave length of metallic wires/tubes, etc.
due to the tips being more the sensitive end of the assembly from a placement
standpoint... the best angle I'll be able to do is 120 deg between the legs.
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
> Understand we don't need the last db of signal strength in this application.
> In a composite fuselage a 23" length of wire dangling from the center
> conductor on the back of the radio would still give "adequate performance".
>
I am not sure i agree with the basic principle inherent in this statement (I keep
hearing a lot). While i agree that some of the "optimizations" don't have an
adequate reward ratio, I still try to do the best job I can under the circumstances.
If and when I cut corners, I want to do so fully understanding the tradeoffs
(and risks if any) so that i can make informed decisions.
Coax is a typical example... I am spending x6 the $$ to get RG400 rather than RG58U
being fully aware of all the arguments that from a sheer dB loss standpoint,
the difference will not be practically noticeable... the extra shielding however
is not just a matter of dB loss (in my eyes)... interference from strobes,
etc. comes to mind.
Thanks for all the posts... keep them coming !!!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410773#410773
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: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
user9253 wrote:
> When the wires at each end of 300 ohm TV antenna twin lead are connected together,
the twin lead will have the same bandwidth as copper tape. Jim Weir has
used twin lead for some of his antennas.
> Joe
Not familiar with this technique... theorizing here... the effective performance
depends on distance between leads, dielectric type, etc... this type of antenna
would have to be seriously tuned post installation...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410776#410776
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
<< copper foil antenna which can be mounted on the "outer" surface of the
wing... don't like to drill holes in structural elements >>
So the plan would be to drill 2 tiny holes in the wing skin and feed
pigtails through them for connection to the coax/balun? Or is it to have
the center of the Vee even with the rear edge with the cable in the aileron
slot for feeding to the wing interior perhaps via an existing gap?
<< Dave Morris Loop antenna >>
This is an excellent antenna, best if mounted horizontally as you propose.
RG-59 will work for the matching line. Depending on conditions you might
need to replace the tuning section every 10 to 15 years or so. The local
amateur radio club (see ARRL.org) can get you access to an antenna analyzer
which will tell you the condition of the antenna.
The effects of the rudder cables and elevator control are unknown. Not as
visually hidden but the top of the fuselage might work better electrically.
<< > In a composite fuselage a 23" length of wire dangling from the center
> conductor on the back of the radio would still give "adequate
> performance".
I am not sure i agree with the basic principle inherent in this statement >>
Try it, it is a simple, easy experiment.
<< RG400 rather than RG58U >>
For me the RG400 is worth the cost. Besides the lower loss and much better
shielding which you mention, RG400 is much more stable over time. I've seen
some really ratty RG58 come out of older airplanes over the years. Shocking
the radio still worked at all (see 23" dangling wire above).
Tom Kuffel
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: Copper Foil width for VOR antenna |
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
> So the plan would be to drill 2 tiny holes in the wing skin and feed
> pigtails through them for connection to the coax/balun? Or is it to have
> the center of the Vee even with the rear edge with the cable in the aileron
> slot for feeding to the wing interior perhaps via an existing gap?
>
2 tiny holes and feed pigtails to the balun which will be coiled up in an inside
space.
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
>
> This is an excellent antenna, best if mounted horizontally as you propose.
> RG-59 will work for the matching line. Depending on conditions you might need
to replace the tuning section every 10 to 15 years or so. The local amateur
radio club (see ARRL.org) can get you access to an antenna analyzer which will
tell you the condition of the antenna.
>
I have been researching loop antennas as I do like the small footprint, omni-directionality,
etc. What I am finding so far sounds very good... I am looking for
the gotcha... why are they not popular if they are so good?
The only answer I am able to come up with thus far is that impedance matching seems
too complicated for most people, you do need to invest in an SWR meter for
proper tuning! In other words you do need some background/experience in RF engineering.
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
> The effects of the rudder cables and elevator control are unknown. Not as visually
hidden but the top of the fuselage might work better electrically.
>
As i understand this particular challenge... any long conductor near the loop should
theoretically act as a reflector, which means in that direction the reception
will be affected. Worst case, one may have a dead spot if the conductive
element (rudder cable/elevator controls) are near the antenna's plane. Loop antenna
or not, the effects are the same ... am I missing something?
The top of the fuselage is indeed further removed from most elements which would
interfere with the antenna (except for the salty water in my head). Considering
that a loop antenna in that location is full wavelength with a minimum of
1dB of gain... I believe I will investigate the possibility of placing the loop
antenna there. For the loop antenna, I could use regular Tefzel wire and mount
the whole thing on the inside :-)
I will have to curve the whole antenna downward to match the curvature of the fuselage,
but this should have minimal effect on performance, especially if using
a Delta Loop (3 sided triangular loop) as this would allow me to angle the
tip backwards with the widest part of the loop placed in the widest section of
the fuselage.
kuffel(at)cyberport.net wrote:
>
> In a composite fuselage a 23" length of wire dangling from the center conductor
on the back of the radio would still give "adequate performance".
>
> Try it, it is a simple, easy experiment.
>
Technically a wet string would work... that doesn't mean I want to use wet strings
in my airplane :-)... I do find the irony in it though... millions are spent
on antenna design... when wet noodles would do the trick :-)
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=410783#410783
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EAA SPORTAIR Workshop attendee has question |
Some months ago I bought a brand new Ideal Stripmaster (is the "Custom" a different
tool?) on eBay for around $30. I also got an additional die set for larger
wires for around $12. It chews up Tefzel insulation like nobody's business.
It works so well I giggled the first time I used it!
Ideal makes several models of Stripmaster, the difference being the factory-installed
die set. I just worked out the best overlap between dies/wire sizes and
purchased accordingly.
At about the same time, I bought a full-cycle ratcheting crimper with five or six
sets of quick-change crimping dies in a nice blow-mold case for around $50.
Quality appears high and it works beautifully.
I just started a 3-day trip today; I can post exact make/model on these items Fri
evening.
Eric
On Oct 17, 2013, at 12:47 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
wrote:
>
> At 07:52 PM 10/16/2013, charluzze wrote:
>> Hi Bob,
>> After taking the EAA Sportair avionics workshop and learning about you, I'm
now trying to identify the best wire-cutting and crimping tools to buy and I had
a few questions I'd really like your opinion on, because I'm willing to spend
on high quality tools but I'm not aware of the brands/models to consider .
>> "Ideal Industries" makes a wire stripper called "Custom Stripmaster"; for avionics
and mil-spec work with 'die-type' blades, described in your article. If
I'm willing to spend $191, is this the best one to get, and are there other brands
worth considering?
>> Also, for terminal crimping I'm looking at 'Klein Tools T1710 Compound-Action
Ratcheting Crimper - Insulated Terminals' which crimps 10-22 AWG insulated terminals
to "meet or exceed MIL-SPEC pull-out tests", costs $239.16. Is this a
good choice or are there other mil-spec brands to consider?
>> Your advice will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Those tools are certainly top-notch and would serve
> you well. If money is not a severe constraint, then
> by all means acquire these tools. You're talking
> $450 for some tools that may not see much service
> after you've finished your airplane. Know that there
> are many terminals being installed with much less
> expensive tools. See:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kfk6jss
>
> With some practice, Tefzel wires can be stripped with
> a simple, $5 flush-cutter . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/lv8jwe7
>
> If you have the money to invest in top
> shelf tools, go for it. But if learning to
> do the job with $50 worth of tools leaves
> you $400 to invest in an upgrade to your
> GPS . . . or perhaps some nifty vaccinations
> against Dark Panel Syndrome for the flight
> bag . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh
>
> . . . then perhaps a more detailed review
> of your purchase goals is in order.
>
> Join us on the AeroElectric-List . . . a forum
> of about 1600 builders who are wrestling with
> these same questions and many more every day.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/57wytb
>
> I think you'll find that time spent in this
> forum will be very useful to you in the fabrication
> of your airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: EAA SPORTAIR Workshop attendee has question |
My .02=0A=0AI recently bought a new wire stripper from Klein Tools:=0Ahttp:
//www.amazon.com/Klein-Tools-11063-Katapult-Stripper/dp/B0035KF232=0A=0AIt'
s a pretty standard one-squeeze unit with very good quality.- I bought mi
ne from the local electrical wholesaler for about $25.- A word of caution
- it is fairly easy to nick the copper w/ these.- You must be careful to
CENTER the wire in the proper cutting slot for your size wire.- Very oft
en I strip wire using the slot for the next size up wire.- In other words
, when stripping 22 AWG wire, I put it in the #20 slot.=0A=0AWhen you get g
ood at using this tool it is very fast.- Replacement blades are about $15
.- All-in-all a good tool at a good value.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A__________
______________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aer
oelectric.com>=0ATo: charluzze <charluzze@yahoo.com> =0ASent: Thursday, Oct
ober 17, 2013 12:47 PM=0ASubject: AeroElectric-List: Re: EAA SPORTAIR Works
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0A=0AAt 07:52 PM
10/16/2013, you wrote:=0A> Hi Bob,=0A> After taking the EAA Sportair avion
ics workshop and learning about you, I'm now trying to identify the best wi
re-cutting and crimping tools to buy and I had a few questions I'd really l
ike your opinion on, because I'm willing to spend on high quality tools but
I'm not aware of the brands/models to consider .=0A> "Ideal Industries" ma
kes a wire stripper called "Custom Stripmaster"; for avionics and mil-spec
work with 'die-type' blades, described in your article. If I'm willing to s
pend $191, is this the best one to get, and are there other brands worth co
nsidering?=0A> Also, for terminal crimping I'm looking at 'Klein Tools T171
0 Compound-Action Ratcheting Crimper - Insulated Terminals' which crimps 10
-22 AWG insulated terminals to "meet or exceed MIL-SPEC pull-out tests", co
sts $239.16. Is this a good choice or are there other mil-spec brands to co
nsider?=0A> Your advice will be greatly appreciated.=0A=0A- Those tools
are certainly top-notch and would serve=0A- you well. If money is not a
severe constraint, then=0A- by all means acquire these tools. You're tal
king=0A- $450 for some tools that may not see much service=0A- after
you've finished your airplane. Know that there=0A- are many terminals be
ing installed with much less=0A- expensive tools.- See:=0A=0Ahttp://ti
nyurl.com/kfk6jss=0A=0A- With some practice, Tefzel wires can be strippe
d with=0A- a simple,- $5 flush-cutter . . .=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/lv
8jwe7=0A=0A- If you have the money to invest in top=0A- shelf tools,
go for it. But if learning to=0A- do the job with $50 worth of tools lea
ves=0A- you $400 to invest in an upgrade to your=0A- GPS . . . or per
haps some nifty vaccinations=0A- against Dark Panel Syndrome for the fli
ght=0A- bag . . .=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/d5mrjgh=0A=0A- . . . then p
erhaps a more detailed review=0A- of your purchase goals is in order.=0A
=0A- Join us on the AeroElectric-List . . . a forum=0A- of about 1600
builders who are wrestling with=0A- these same questions and many more
every day.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/57wytb=0A=0A- I think you'll find tha
t time spent in this=0A- forum will be very useful to you in the fabrica
==============
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Relay for Critical Power Feed |
Yes, this does look like a better choice for the feed to my ECU. For my fuel pumps,
I think having each pump connected to a different engine bus is a simpler
way to go.
Tom
Sent from my iPad
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: To CAD or not to CAD . . . that is the question |
IMHO TurboCAD is the worst way to go. Get Draftsight. It's a free download
and uses the AutoCAD command set. It recognizes all dwg files and will even
save them in the version of AutoCAD that created them.
Like I said, MHO.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Sacha <uuccio@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
>
> --> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> Whether you use CAD to
>
> produce the final wire-book or not, your
>
> gathering of bits and pieces into recipes
>
> for success is STILL best accomplished
>
> on paper with pencil. Multiple sheets of
>
> paper.
>
> Thank you for the advice, I'm sure those words are wise ones... I'm
> curious about CAD so I think I will eventually put the effort in and learn
> it (thanks to the two people on the list who offered to relay a shipment
> of TurboCAD to me ... I absolutely love this list...). But for the
> moment I will draw everything out in pencil and paper as you suggest.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
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 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Teledyne stripall |
Greetings,
I just picked up a used Teledyne stripall and I'm hoping someone can
help me with determining whether it works or not. It doesn't have any
blades and I'd like to verify it works before I order blades.
I assume I should have some voltage across some of the terminals. If
anyone could tell me what those values should be I would appreciate it.
If anyone could direct me to a copy of the instructions and/or a repair
manual, that would also be appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
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! --
|