Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:41 AM - Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? (Werner Schneider)
2. 07:07 AM - Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? (Bill Watson)
3. 08:29 AM - Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? (Mark Milgrom)
4. 08:43 AM - Re: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:05 AM - Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just won't die (Bill Boyd)
6. 10:24 AM - Re: one-wire alternators- the subject that just won't die (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 04:18 PM - ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (R&J. Curtis)
8. 05:54 PM - Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 05:59 PM - Re: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 (Eric Page)
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: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
And then you can have the "certified" one from Wichita
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/chargingport11-13044.php
Not sure if that price does include the installation and paperwork :)
Cheers Werner
do not archive
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: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
Jeez!
I like how Spruce says it's "backordered, ships in 5-10 business days",
as if someone is going to keeps some of those in inventory. Ha!
(do not archive)
On 8/14/2014 9:40 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> And then you can have the "certified" one from Wichita
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/chargingport11-13044.php
>
> Not sure if that price does include the installation and paperwork :)
>
> Cheers Werner
>
> do not archive
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
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: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
Hello all,
I am not (yet) building a plane but have been following this particular
topic with interest. Two days ago a new style USB connector was announced:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/08/small-reversible-usb-type-c-connector-finalized
Here's a quote from the article: "/The USB Promoter Group announced
today that it has finalized the design of the //USB Type-C plug
<http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/04/usb-if-posts-first-photos-of-new-reversible-type-c-connector/>//,
a new type of USB plug that's designed to completely replace every size
of all current USB connectors./"
And here's the official press release:
http://www.usb.org/press/USB_Type-C_Specification_Announcement_Final.pdf
Note that this new USB connector is designed to supply up to 100 watts
of power at 5 volts DC! To put that in perspective, today's iPhone
draws about 5 watts when charging and an iPad draws about 12. But as
battery capacity improves for handheld devices, manufacturers will no
doubt invent a way to charge future batteries faster by drawing power at
a higher rate.
So, in order to "future proof" your cockpit with the flexibility to
charge both today's and tomorrow's handheld electronic devices, it seems
logical to me to NOT install one of today's USB ports. Instead,
reconsider the idea of installing a cigarette lighter port or (gasp)
even a 110 volt AC outlet somewhere in your cockpit, then plugging in
the most appropriate off-the-shelf USB charger to suit your needs at
that time. For example, here's a newly-announced 4-port USB charger for
a cigarette lighter that can supply up to 12 watts per port:
http://www.aukey.com/product/car-charger-cc01-black
In conclusion: battery/charging technologies for handheld consumer
electronic devices are evolving quickly, so don't lock yourself into a
solution for your airplane that will not accommodate your future needs!
Mark Milgrom
On 8/14/14 9:40 AM, Werner Schneider wrote:
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> And then you can have the "certified" one from Wichita
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/chargingport11-13044.php
>
> Not sure if that price does include the installation and paperwork :)
>
> Cheers Werner
>
> do not archive
>
>
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: Panel mounted USB power ports for Apple devices? |
At 08:40 AM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>And then you can have the "certified" one from Wichita
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/chargingport11-13044.php
>
>Not sure if that price does include the installation and paperwork :)
Here's a classic demonstration of effects for burdens placed
on TC aviation by the regulatory processes. If the
commercial manifestation of this product can be retailed
for $10, certainly a 'robust' version tailored to aviation
could be retailed for $20. This presumes, of course, that
that the two markets offer similar production opportunities.
So even in aviation-volumes, it shouldn't need to sell for
more than $60.
I'm presently wrestling with a product that was added to
the TC of some production airplanes 40+ years ago in a time
when the demands for production and spares was perhaps
300 units a year. The device had a design fault that
masqueraded as an intermittent failure in associated
equipment. For decades. the manufacturer of the no-fault
equipment was called into 'fix' the problem . . . seems
that from time-to-time, they had demonstrable quality
control issues . . . so it just seemed likely that the
intermittent behaviors (especially on new airplanes)
was their fault also.
Every time the problem rose to the surface of problem stew
pot, a tiger-team would assemble to gather data, analyse,
deduce root and ancillary causes, and recommend remediation
and make the problem go away.
It wasn't until about 14 years ago that I was both
a member of such a team for perhaps the third time
in previous 20 years or so. At least I was now considered to be
a tiger with some juice. I saw the deficiency of design and
even offered to redesign the device for supplier
at no charge.
No joy. The product flow hand dwindled to much smaller
numbers and the paper-thrashing costs for bringing a
new product to market would have more than doubled the
price to the OEM . . . It was one of those cases where
the perceived expenses against returns just didn't
instill warm-fuzzies in powers that be several layers
up the chain of command. But the sum-total of costs
over time continued to peck away at both OEM and consumer
pocket books.
Last winter, a rash of events in brand new airplanes
emerged. I helped craft a no-cert band-aid which
somebody decided to cut in half. The band-aid went
on the airplane and everybody relaxed. The half-a-
band-aid had a manufacturing cost on the order of $10
but the market price was $hundreds$ . . .
Now, the half band-aid isn't working and a new
pride of tigers are under the gun to 'fix it this
time' but don't spend any more money on that piece
of crap gizmo from the guys who actually have
nothing to do with the real problem.
This time, an opportunity presented for taking the
already qualified guts out of one box and putting
it into the enclosure for the problem child. Simply
a matter of exploiting a 30-year old gizmo with a high
volume production rate and long successful track
record by making it form, fit and function replacement
for the 40 year old gizmo that should have been
replaced decades ago.
There's a constellation of factors that have made
it close to impossible for aviation to evolve with
the agility and economics enjoyed by most other
high-tech products. Suffice it to say, that the
price of the 'approved' USB power supply is not
terribly surprising. If this product surfaced say
30 years ago for the same price (adjusted for
inflation) a dozen companies would have
jumped in and kick-@$$ to compete with it and the
price would go down.
All of this and a million more examples were predicted
over a century ago . . .
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: one-wire alternators- the subject that just won't |
die
Charlie: I have the same question. Did you ever hear back and I somehow
missed it here?
-Bill Boyd
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Bob,
>
> Please forgive me, but I need a refresher on why one-wire (internally
> regulated) alternators are no longer recommended for a/c; even banned from
> 'the Book'. I do remember (scratch that; know from experience) that if the
> B-lead contactor opens while the alternator is under load, there can be a
> 'load dump' (high voltage spike) issue that can kill the electronics (the
> regulator) in the alternator. Makes sense. But if the only way the B-lead
> contactor is allowed to open is due to an overvoltage fault, does it
> matter? At that point, it's a given that the regulator is already toast,
> and the entire alternator will be swapped out to fix it. Given the very
> high reliability of modern automotive alternators, and that the only time
> the B-lead contactor would need to open under load is during a true OV
> fault event, what's the compelling reason to keep the 'not recommended'
> philosophy?
>
> I've had a couple of different career paths involving running a soldering
> iron & modifying stuff (both consumer and industrial electronics
> maintenance), so I'm not 'afraid' to dig into an alternator to modify it
> for external regulation. But I'm of the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'
> school.
>
> I'd like to be educated on what I'm overlooking in terms of risk, failure
> modes (fire?), etc.
>
> If it's reasonable to bring the one-wire alternator (with contactor style
> OV protection)back into the mix, the next question will be about
> integrating a backup dynamo style alternator without spending close to half
> an Aviation Unit for the hardware. :-)
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Charle
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: one-wire alternators- the subject that just |
won't die
At 11:04 AM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>Charlie: I have the same question. Did you ever hear back and I
>somehow missed it here?
>
>-Bill Boyd
See http://tinyurl.com/ndz7gtw
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: | ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's.
My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to
recommendations on a new experimental aircraft? I don't presently have an
ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near future. Also interested in
initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.
What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when? Does the
406 have a large advantage? I know that it can pinpoint location much more
accurately.
Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406? What great advantage do you
receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?
That should be enough questions for now!
Roger Curtis
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: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
At 06:16 PM 8/14/2014, you wrote:
>
>I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz
>ELT's. My question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as
>to recommendations on a new experimental aircraft? I don't
>presently have an ELT, but will be purchasing one in the near
>future. Also interested in initial cost and cost of maintenance ie. batteries.
>
>What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and
>when? Does the 406 have a large advantage? I know that it can
>pinpoint location much more accurately.
>
>Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406? What great advantage
>do you receive when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?
Are you seeing new 121.5/243Mhz ELTs for sale?
I think part 91 prohibits them as new installations
after 6-21-95 . . .
Emacs!
Then there is the matter of just how useful the
older ELT will be in finding your wreck. See:
http://tinyurl.com/kz93ymy
I'm seeing ACK 406 ELTs with GPS data
ports for 500-700 dollars.
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: ELT: 406 vs 121.5 |
$1,800? The ACK E-04 406MHz ELT new installation kit is $589 at Aircraft Spruce:
http://bit.ly/1lZI2q7
Eric
> On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:16 PM, "R&J. Curtis" <RnJCurtis@charter.net> wrote:
> I know that there have been some discussions on 121.5 Mhz vs 406 Mhz ELT's. My
question is, what is the general consensus of opinion as to recommendations
on a new experimental aircraft? I don't presently have an ELT, but will be purchasing
one in the near future. Also interested in initial cost and cost of
maintenance ie. batteries.
>
> What are the expectations that the 406 will be mandated, and when? Does the
406 have a large advantage? I know that it can pinpoint location much more accurately.
>
> Should I spring for the extra bucks for a 406? What great advantage do you receive
when you pay $1800+ as apposed to $600?
>
> That should be enough questions for now!
>
> Roger Curtis
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! --
|