AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Thu 05/21/15


Total Messages Posted: 26



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:31 AM - Transpondertest (Werner Schneider)
     2. 05:28 AM - Re: Transpondertest (user9253)
     3. 05:46 AM - Re: Re: Transpondertest (Kelly McMullen)
     4. 05:58 AM - Re: Re: Transpondertest (BobsV35B@aol.com)
     5. 06:00 AM - Re: Re: Transpondertest (Werner Schneider)
     6. 06:17 AM - Re: Transpondertest (Charlie England)
     7. 06:43 AM - Re: Transpondertest (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
     8. 06:44 AM - Re: Re: Transpondertest (Kelly McMullen)
     9. 07:17 AM - Re: Transpondertest (Werner Schneider)
    10. 08:12 AM - Re: Transpondertest (Kelly McMullen)
    11. 08:31 AM - Re: Transpondertest (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
    12. 08:32 AM - Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (Radioflyer)
    13. 08:38 AM - Re: Transpondertest (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
    14. 08:45 AM - Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (DeWitt Whittington)
    15. 09:20 AM - Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (Radioflyer)
    16. 09:47 AM - Re: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (Neal George)
    17. 11:16 AM - Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (Justin Jones)
    18. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (Peter Pengilly)
    19. 01:51 PM - Re: Mounting "things" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    20. 02:10 PM - Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state (Paul Millner)
    21. 02:21 PM - Re: Re: Mounting "things" (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
    22. 02:27 PM - Re: Re: Mounting "things" (Ronald Cox)
    23. 02:32 PM - Re: Re: Mounting "things" (Neal George)
    24. 03:00 PM - Thermocouple Wire Connections (Paul Millner)
    25. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: Mounting "things" (David Saylor)
    26. 09:11 PM - Re: Re: Mounting "things" (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: 04:31:17 AM PST US
    From: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
    Subject: Transpondertest
    Good morning folks, I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss). FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and 121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play. Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F? Many thanks for your input on that. Cheers Werner


    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: 05:28:56 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com>
    The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry made in the aircraft log book. It does not matter if the aircraft is only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398


    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: 05:46:20 AM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    The difference between an IFR certification and VFR is with the altimeter and transponder encoder checks(Mode C)..how many points they are checked for tolerance between each other and a reference, certified altimeter. The transponder and static system altimeter checks are normally done together with the transponder check because of the requirement for correspondence between the Mode C transponder output and the altimeter reading. The IFR check takes longer because of the need to check up to certified altitude, and consequently usually costs 2-3 times a VFR certification. It is possible for a US aircraft to not have Mode C encoder, and thus only need certification of the Mode A output, but then it is restricted generally from using certain airspace such as Class A,B&C as well as E above 10,000 MSL. As Joe said, either way the transponder has to be checked every 24 months. On 5/21/2015 5:27 AM, user9253 wrote: > > The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry made in the aircraft log book. It does not matter if the aircraft is only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked. > > -------- > Joe Gores > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398 > >


    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: 05:58:23 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    Good Morning Kelly. We should remember that if we avoid Class A, B, & C and fly only below 10,000 feet unless in a mountainous area, we don't need any stinkin' Transponder. <G> That means that we can fly in better than ninety percent of the USA without that particular expensive toy! Just gotta stay roughly thirty miles away from those big cities. Happy Skies, Old 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: 06:00:16 AM PST US
    From: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    Ok thanks, seems to be more stringent then under EASA where it is a recommendation only. With newer electronics I see the risk for malfunctioning being very low. Would save some money. Thanks Werner On 21.05.2015 14:44, Kelly McMullen wrote: > <kellym@aviating.com> > > The difference between an IFR certification and VFR is with the > altimeter and transponder encoder checks(Mode C)..how many points they > are checked for tolerance between each other and a reference, > certified altimeter. The transponder and static system altimeter > checks are normally done together with the transponder check because > of the requirement for correspondence between the Mode C transponder > output and the altimeter reading. The IFR check takes longer because > of the need to check up to certified altitude, and consequently > usually costs 2-3 times a VFR certification. > It is possible for a US aircraft to not have Mode C encoder, and thus > only need certification of the Mode A output, but then it is > restricted generally from using certain airspace such as Class A,B&C > as well as E above 10,000 MSL. As Joe said, either way the transponder > has to be checked every 24 months. > > On 5/21/2015 5:27 AM, user9253 wrote: >> >> The transponder needs to be checked once every two years and an entry >> made in the aircraft log book. It does not matter if the aircraft is >> only flown VFR or IFR, the transponder still must be checked. >> >> -------- >> Joe Gores >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442398#442398 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >


    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: 06:17:22 AM PST US
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    On 5/21/2015 6:29 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > <glastar@gmx.net> > > Good morning folks, > > I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss). > > FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be > compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and > 121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play. > > Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with > Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be > compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F? > > Many thanks for your input on that. > > Cheers Werner The transponder must be checked every 2 years to remain in compliance. Be sure to tell the shop that you just need a VFR certification; IFR is a bit more involved.


    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: 06:43:36 AM PST US
    From: ARGOLDMAN@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    Probably has something to do with the fact that although you personally only fly VFR, you are flying, or may fly, in an environment in which IFR, flight flolowing and other services depend on accurate altitude reports (via transponder ) from all of the aircraft in the system . Of course we all know that electronics never fail, that they are never installed correctly that they never vary in their response. Maybe instead of thinking why should I do it, you should think of if my setup is inaccurate and ATC or whoever is looking doesn't have a proper idea of my altitude perhaps that unseen shadow coming from my rear is made of aluminum or glass with everybody thinking that the different altitude reports are correct. As imperfect as the system is, it just may save your bacon. Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year? Rich In a message dated 5/21/2015 6:32:18 A.M. Central Daylight Time, glastar@gmx.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> Good morning folks, I need some help in FAA regulations (being a Swiss). FAR 43 Appendix F describes some transponder testing in order to be compliant with FAR 91.413, which in itself redirects to 91.215a and 121.345 as well as 135.143 and there more redirections come into play. Can someone explain me, if for a VFR only aircraft in the US with Transponder equipped you need to perform a regular system check to be compliant with the FAR's according to FAR 43 APP F? Many thanks for your input on that. Cheers Werner


    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: 06:44:11 AM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    Good morning Old Bob, Yes, I guess that is what I was trying to say. I don't know how tolerant ATC in the lower 48 would be to flying IFR without a transponder. I did that for about 5 yrs in Alaska, before I added the transponder, because about 1/3 of the IFR flights I did went through non-radar areas anyway. I didn't add an encoder until I moved to the lower 48 and knew I would be basing underneath a Mode C veil. Getting above 10,000 IFR in the C170B I had was pretty marginal anyway as it would only do about 13,500 with the cruise prop it had. These days, if I needed to make cross country trips of any distance, it would involve more evasion of Mode C areas, especially through the Rockies where the major roads and valleys seem to have either Class B or C areas. I'm not fond of the $250 it costs me for IFR certification of the static system and transponder, but over a couple years I would probably save that much gas by having all options available. Not mention the equipment was in the Mooney when I bought it. Narco AT-50 still going strong with an old TransCal bellows blind encoder. Kelly On 5/21/2015 5:56 AM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: > Good Morning Kelly. > We should remember that if we avoid Class A, B, & C and fly only below > 10,000 feet unless in a mountainous area, we don't need any stinkin' > Transponder. <G> > That means that we can fly in better than ninety percent of the USA > without that particular expensive toy! > Just gotta stay roughly thirty miles away from those big cities. > Happy Skies, > Old 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
    Time: 07:17:50 AM PST US
    From: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    Rich, I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes wrong. And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense. Werner > Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a > transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into > some controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder > (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble > for $1-200.00 per year? > Rich >


    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: 08:12:22 AM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    From what I have seen, the old transponders with cavity tubes needed testing and every 6-10 years would need to be tuned up with the aging of the cavity tube. When mine was off, some ATC radars would see it, others not, or with 1200 instead of assigned code. After tuning, has been perfect. I don't have enough experience with solid state transponders, but my guess is they don't need testing, and probably hard fail or continue working. Probably will take FAA 30 yrs to realize that and another 10 years to amend the rules. On 5/21/2015 7:15 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > <glastar@gmx.net> > > Rich, > > I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with > altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare > that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space > with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of > my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes > wrong. > > And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it > does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a > partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense. > > Werner >> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a >> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go >> into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a >> transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it >> worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year? >> Rich >> > >


    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: 08:31:54 AM PST US
    From: ARGOLDMAN@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    All of which may be true. And, please, Werner, don't consider this as a personal note toward you and your setup... such is not intended. Lesee-- 3 different independent altimeters?? I assume that these are all connected to their own static system and there is no commonality in plumbing or location of static port(s). I also assume that they each have separately been checked for accuracy. I will also have to assume that your GPS is WAAS. If they all agree then your indications are probably accurate-------------- However the ATC does not depend on your indication which is, of course determined by however you set your Kollsman window either correctly or incorrectly, and static system error (including undetected leaks). What they see on their scopes may be quite different than your indication in that they look at more absolute numbers not depending on what your indication are and not depending on the local baro setting. If memory serves me correctly, part of the examination includes making a table of inaccuracies to determine if the entire system is within limits. That is why there is not barometric setting on an encoder.(available to the pilot) All of the aircraft may be off of their indicated altitude but they will all be off by the same amount and thus their relative altitude indication is taken away from the possible error of the pilot and/or many other sources. Rich In a message dated 5/21/2015 9:19:50 A.M. Central Daylight Time, glastar@gmx.net writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net> Rich, I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes wrong. And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense. Werner > Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a > transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go into > some controlled airspace and are not required to have a transponder > (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it worth the trouble > for $1-200.00 per year? > Rich >


    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: 08:32:03 AM PST US
    Subject: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp@airpost.net>
    Are the Ford electromechanical voltage regulators (e.g., VR749) so much inferior to the newer Solid State (electronic) voltage regulators? What is a generic solid state unit equivalent to the Ford generics? --Jose Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442410#442410


    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: 08:38:12 AM PST US
    From: ARGOLDMAN@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Transpondertest
    Again, the testing is not specifically for the transponder, or the encoder but is a total system check including the static system. Interestingly enough, if the transponder is removed from it's mounting, at any time after an inspection, I believe that the testing has to be redone. Rich In a message dated 5/21/2015 10:13:25 A.M. Central Daylight Time, kellym@aviating.com writes: --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com> >From what I have seen, the old transponders with cavity tubes needed testing and every 6-10 years would need to be tuned up with the aging of the cavity tube. When mine was off, some ATC radars would see it, others not, or with 1200 instead of assigned code. After tuning, has been perfect. I don't have enough experience with solid state transponders, but my guess is they don't need testing, and probably hard fail or continue working. Probably will take FAA 30 yrs to realize that and another 10 years to amend the rules. On 5/21/2015 7:15 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider > <glastar@gmx.net> > > Rich, > > I'm not against testing in general, but I have a transponder with > altitude readout, 3 different independent altimeters, I can compare > that against (plus GPS) and I fly regularly in ATC controlled space > with active radar coverage so I see general a pretty good testing of > my output and will get immediate attention of ATC if something goes > wrong. > > And I'm very interested in everybody having a transponder output as it > does enhance safety. If you remember the Gillham Encoders had a > partial fail rate and a seperate AD for testing which made sense. > > Werner >> Hell, if you are really against the testing, you really don't need a >> transponder at all in uncontrolled airspace and if you want to go >> into some controlled airspace and are not required to have a >> transponder (certain incidences) you can arrange that.---- Is it >> worth the trouble for $1-200.00 per year? >> Rich >> > >


    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: 08:45:31 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    From: DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington@gmail.com>
    This is the one I think: www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/*r15100*a.php I've used Zeftronics regulators for years. Wonderful designs and products. Dee DeWitt (Dee) Whittington Richmond, VA 804-677-4849 iPhone 804-358-4333 Home On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Radioflyer <skyeyecorp@airpost.net> wrote: > skyeyecorp@airpost.net> > > Are the Ford electromechanical voltage regulators (e.g., VR749) so much > inferior to the newer Solid State (electronic) voltage regulators? What is > a generic solid state unit equivalent to the Ford generics? > --Jose > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442410#442410 > >


    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: 09:20:00 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    From: "Radioflyer" <skyeyecorp@airpost.net>
    Yeah, I had a Zeftronics unit in my C172 and was very happy with it. Good customer support, too. However, the question really remains...is this $180 unit really that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442414#442414


    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: 09:47:41 AM PST US
    From: Neal George <ngeorge@continentalmotors.aero>
    Subject: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    If you need it for a certificated aircraft, yes, you're sorta stuck with a $200 regulator, whether Zeftronics, PlanePower, etc.. If Experimental, the VR144-series is the solid-state version and sells for less than $20 at NAPA et al. Neal ========================== Yeah, I had a Zeftronics unit in my C172 and was very happy with it. Good customer support, too. However, the question really remains...is this $180 unit really that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit?


    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: 11:16:07 AM PST US
    From: Justin Jones <jmjones2000@mindspring.com>
    Subject: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    The VR166 that bob discusses in "The Aeroeletric Connection" is a great soli d state regulator. They can be purchased at any automotive retailer and are a round the $20 mark. I purchased mine from www.rockauto.com and they are a sh iny chrome. Looks good on the firewall. They are not adjustable but you can a d a diode to the field wire if you need to increase the voltage output of th e alternator. Zeftronics has a PMA regulator that is based on this design. > On May 21, 2015, at 07:44, DeWitt Whittington <dee.whittington@gmail.com> w rote: > > This is the one I think: > > www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/r15100a.php > > I've used Zeftronics regulators for years. Wonderful designs and products. > > Dee > > > DeWitt (Dee) Whittington > Richmond, VA > 804-677-4849 iPhone > 804-358-4333 Home > > >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Radioflyer <skyeyecorp@airpost.net> wro te: .net> >> >> Are the Ford electromechanical voltage regulators (e.g., VR749) so much i nferior to the newer Solid State (electronic) voltage regulators? What is a g eneric solid state unit equivalent to the Ford generics? >> --Jose >> >> >> >> >> Read this topic online here: >> >> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=442410#442410 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ========== >> - >> Electric-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroE lectric-List >> ========== >> FORUMS - >> _blank">http://forums.matronics.com >> ========== >> b Site - >> -Matt Dralle, List Admin. >> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >> ========== > > > 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D 3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D >


    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: 01:35:13 PM PST US
    From: Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com>
    Subject: Re: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    I thought there are potential noise issues here of 'switching' regulators against 'linear' designs. The switchers have the potential to cause noise on the audio system, the linear regulators do not induce noise but are much more expensive. Peter On 21/05/2015 17:45, Neal George wrote: > > If you need it for a certificated aircraft, yes, you're sorta stuck with a $200 regulator, whether Zeftronics, PlanePower, etc.. > > If Experimental, the VR144-series is the solid-state version and sells for less than $20 at NAPA et al. > > Neal > ========================== > > Yeah, I had a Zeftronics unit in my C172 and was very happy with it. Good customer support, too. However, the question really remains...is this $180 unit really that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit? > >


    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: 01:51:49 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Mounting "things"
    At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Hi Bob, Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very handy. I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those. Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they" actually called the little beasties? They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local industrial surplus store called The Yard. After my initial studies on their utility, I purchased all they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they didn't have any more. About a year later, another bin of them showed up on the dusty racks. Bought all of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more since. I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article on DIY Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78. I'd like to find a source if possible. Don't need thousands, but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them. My neighbor is looking for some as well. Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten. Thanks, Ron Cox McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could manufacture and sell for any less. These should do the job for you. Emacs! 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: 02:10:35 PM PST US
    From: Paul Millner <millner@me.com>
    Subject: Ford Voltage Regulator vs Solid state
    >> is this $180 unit really that much better than the $25 legacy Ford unit? My experience in my Cessna is that the modern automotive units go into a voltage runaway if the overvoltage unit trips, or you turn off the alternator side of the master switch. Bad thing. The only way to recover is to shut down the engine, thereby stopping alternator power generation. That's not practical in the air. Paul


    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: 02:21:41 PM PST US
    From: ARGOLDMAN@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Mounting "things"
    Those are devices made by Rotoloc (_rotoloc.com_ (http://www.rotoloc.com) ). They used to be carried by Mcmaste carr but I don't see them in the current online catalog-- perhaps they still have them and the omission was an over site. I used lots of them of various lengths and diameters. the mfgr should give you a dealer, or at least a distributor. Rich In a message dated 5/21/2015 3:53:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time, nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes: At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Hi Bob, Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very handy. I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those. Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they" actually called the little beasties? They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local industrial surplus store called The Yard. After my initial studies on their utility, I purchased all they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they didn't have any more. About a year later, another bin of them showed up on the dusty racks. Bought all of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more since. I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article on DIY Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78. I'd like to find a source if possible. Don't need thousands, but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them. My neighbor is looking for some as well. Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten. Thanks, Ron Cox McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could manufacture and sell for any less. These should do the job for you. Bob . . .


    Message 22


  • 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: 02:27:38 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Mounting "things"
    From: Ronald Cox <flyboyron@gmail.com>
    Thanks, McMaster-Carr has them, as Bob said. Just ordered some. They're not identical to the one I was asking about, but will serve the purpose just as well as the "originals". Probably more substantial, too. http://www.mcmaster.com/#perforated-base-studs/=xa5g0j As for Rotaloc (the correct spelling) they do apparently make them. http://www.rotaloc.com/products/bf/bf_m1_main.html Thanks to all! Ron On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:20 PM, <ARGOLDMAN@aol.com> wrote: > Those are devices made by Rotoloc (rotoloc.com <http://www.rotoloc.com> > ). > > They used to be carried by Mcmaste carr but I don't see them in the > current online catalog-- perhaps they still have them and the omission was > an over site. I used lots of them of various lengths and diameters. > > the mfgr should give you a dealer, or at least a distributor. > > Rich > > In a message dated 5/21/2015 3:53:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes: > > > At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little > doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very > handy. > > I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last > half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those. > > Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they" > actually called the little beasties? > > > * They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local industrial surplus > store called The Yard. After my initial studies on their utility, I > purchased all they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they didn't > have any more. About a year later, another bin of them showed up on the > dusty racks. Bought all of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more > since. I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article on DIY > Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78.*I'd like to find a source if > possible. Don't need thousands, > but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them. > My neighbor is looking for some as well. > > Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems > able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten. > > Thanks, > Ron Cox > > > * McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could manufacture and > sell for any less. These should do the job for you. * > > Bob . . . > >


    Message 23


  • 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: 02:32:06 PM PST US
    From: Neal George <ngeorge@continentalmotors.aero>
    Subject: Re: Mounting "things"
    Click-Bond has a line of similar devices... neal At 07:57 PM 5/20/2015, you wrote: Hi Bob, Several years ago, you were liquidating your stock of these little doodads, and I bought a bunch. Wish I'd bought more, because they're very handy. I assume you don't have any left to sell. I'm down to my last half-dozen or so, and am jealously guarding those. Any idea where you originally got them, or even what "they" actually called the little beasties? They came from the 'you name it' bins of a local industrial surplus store called The Yard. After my initial studies on their utility, I purchased all they had. Sold out pretty quickly. They said they didn't have any more. About a year later, another bin of them showed up on the dusty racks. Bought all of those too and sold out. Haven't see any more since. I've considered fabricating some. Even wrote an article on DIY Bond Studs for Kitplanes Aug 2013, p78. I'd like to find a source if possible. Don't need thousands, but I could probably use a few dozen if I can find them. My neighbor is looking for some as well. Just thought I'd check, since your phenomenal memory seems able to retrieve all kinds of stuff that I'd have long ago forgotten. Thanks, Ron Cox McMaster-Carr has these devices. Not sure I could manufacture and sell for any less. These should do the job for you. [Emacs!] Bob . . .


    Message 24


  • 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: 03:00:33 PM PST US
    From: Paul Millner <millner@me.com>
    Subject: Thermocouple Wire Connections
    >> Explain, plz, difference of what? How do you arrive at plus or minus 50 degrees? Just interested in how you got to that much variation. Each junction between different types of wire registers a voltage difference... that's how thermocouples work. Our aircraft thermocouples are typically chromel-alumel (exception is CHTs for Insight GEM which are iron-constantine. Almost everyone else uses only chromel-alumel) If you use copper wire to extend a lead, then you make two junctions near the engine, chromel-copper and alumel-copper. And you make two junctions near the instrument, same pairings. If the end near the engine is 50 degrees warmer than the end near the instrument, not uncommon, then you introduce a net voltage change... 'cause the chromel - copper - chromel won't cancel out due to the temperature difference. This is *unlike* the earlier discussion of dissimilar metal connectors; there both ends of the connector are pretty much the same temperature. The voltage change and error is proportional to the temperature difference between the uncompensated junctions (chromel-copper-chromel and alumel-copper-alumel). It's not directly proportionate, 'cause the thermocouple effect is non-linear; but for this kind of differences, it's close enough to linear to estimate fairly accurately. Paul


    Message 25


  • 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: 03:24:19 PM PST US
    From: David Saylor <saylor.dave@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Mounting "things"
    I've had pretty good luck using a flathead screw pointed up through a large-area countersunk washer: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/nas549washers2.php?clickkey=14605 I scratch up the washer with some 80G. Then dab a little adhesive in the countersink and the bit recess after most of the threads are through. --Dave


    Message 26


  • 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: 09:11:11 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Mounting "things"
    At 05:22 PM 5/21/2015, you wrote: >I've had pretty good luck using a flathead screw >pointed up through a large-area countersunk washer: > ><http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/nas549washers2.php?clickkey =14605>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/hapages/nas549washers2.php?cl ickkey=14605 > >I scratch up the washer with some 80G.=C2 Then >dab a little adhesive in the countersink and the >bit recess after most of the threads are through. > >--Dave I fiddled with that process a bit. The biggest 'risk' is to end up with a stud that is not firmly fastened to its base. If the builder wishes to use metallic lock nuts on the stud, it can really ruin your day if the stud twists on its base after it's glued down to the airframe. I experimented with several techniques for securing the stud to the washer that included high strength epoxies under the head of the stud-screw, in the threads just under the head, in the threads and under the faying surface of a retaining nut on the away-side of the washer. Even sliver soldered a few. Strength was great but finish was ugly. I was able to achieve attachments that offered a twist out resistance about 2x the torque needed to drive the metallic lock nut. But the process was labor intensive. I didn't think I could compete well with those parts from McMaster. If I stumble across any more attractive options, I'll bring them to the list muy pronto. 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! --