---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 02/26/17: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:39 AM - Re: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) (Stuart Hutchison) 2. 06:50 AM - crimp tool positioner (dj45) 3. 08:42 AM - Re: crimp tool positioner (don van santen) 4. 08:56 AM - Re: crimp tool positioner (don van santen) 5. 09:21 AM - Re: crimp tool positioner (don van santen) 6. 10:55 AM - Re: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) (Charlie England) 7. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 02:42 PM - Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Airdog77) 9. 03:41 PM - Re: Relay failure modes (reaper) 10. 06:45 PM - Re: Solder Station (johnbright) 11. 06:47 PM - Re: Solder Station (johnbright) 12. 08:56 PM - Re: Re: Solder Station (Alec Myers) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:39:16 AM PST US From: Stuart Hutchison Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) Sometimes the temptation to order from Harbour Freight Aerospace is strong, but its important to ask yourself and perhaps the forum whether a part is critical before deciding. FMEA applies to everything we do, not just the electrics. For example, many regular greases doesnt fare well in freezing conditions and mild steel (non-hardened) axel washers have been known to gall and lock up a wheel, with potentially disastrous consequences. Yes, Tefzel wires all round for me please Id rather not have to endure acrid PVC fumes if my wiring cooks off there would be enough to contend with already. Having experienced numerous in-flight overheats in electronic systems on the P-3 Orion (Kapton wiring), my cockpit will be well ventilated with efficient inflow plus smoke removal (exit) doors as well since I cant open the slider canopy in-flight. Call me crazy, but iPad/iPhone overheat (in rarified air, poor ventilation and direct sunlight) concerns me too, so I am designing a lightweight stainless steel, smoke and flame proof sleeve with an external ventilation tube to contain the device if a thermal runaway were to occur. V/R Stu > On 25 Feb 2017, at 03:25, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > I'm with Charlie. There are huge differences with the other examples you cite, such as hardware store fasteners vs AN hardware. > The difference in performance and safety between RG58 and RG400 is minuscule for a very real price difference. > RG58 has been the accepted aircraft coax for at least 50 yrs. AFAIK RG400 didn't become recommended until after the turn of the century. Mainly over performance with WAAS GPS, not safety, not anything else that matters for other avionics. > I'll not argue Tefzel vs automotive wire. There is a huge durability difference there, as well as insulation thickness difference. > OTOH I have inspected many aircraft with RG58 installed 50-60 yrs ago and it is still performing fine. Unlike the general wiring that was used back then. > > On 2/24/2017 9:02 AM, Robert McCallum wrote: >> Charlie; >> >> I've followed your many posts and generally "good opinions" on many >> subjects over a lengthy period of time and respect those opinions and >> advice, but in this case I'm curious. >> >> Did you wire your bird with automotive PVC wire because it was "good >> enough" or did you use Tefzel insulated wire because that's what is >> recognized as "correct" current practice? Did you use "hardware store" >> hardware because it's probably "good enough" or did you use correct "AN >> hardware"? Did you use proper "braided hoses" (Aeroquip style) or did >> you use "good enough" rubber hoses? >> >> I'm a bit mystified why you seem to be advocating "good enough" RG-58 >> when "better" (by how much may be debatable) RG-400 is readily available >> for a small overall increase in $$$$. Wouldn't it seem that doing "the >> best we know how" be the most prudent "best" approach?? There is no >> labour difference, the fittings are essentially the same, the only >> actual "difference" might be a hundred dollars or so which in the >> overall scheme of things is peanuts for the average finished project? >> There's also "pride of workmanship" and the self satisfaction of doing >> it right as opposed to "good enough". Just my alternate view two cents >> worth. >> >> Respectfully >> >> Bob McC >> >> >> >>> ---------- Original Message ---------- >>> From: Charlie England >>> Date: February 24, 2017 at 9:06 AM >>> >>> Here are links to cable specs for RG58a/u (stranded; note that RG58 >>> can be had with solid center conductor, so beware when ordering), and >>> RG400. I picked this site/brand to get both sets of specs in the same >>> format. >>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/28-rg58 >>> >>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/128-rg400 >>> >>> Relevant data: >>> 400's center conductor is 0.0384" vs 58's 0.0355" >>> >>> dielectric (center insulation) is the same dia, but 400 has marginally >>> better properties; relevant only at the extreme high end of design >>> use: capacitance of 400 is 29.4pF/ft, vs 58's 30.8pF/ft >>> >>> test freq of 400 is 12.4 GHz, vs 58's 1 GHz (but we use the cable at a >>> max of ~1 GHz) >>> >>> 400's loss at 1 GHz is 14.7 dB/100ft; 58's is 22.6 dB/100ft >>> (unfortunately, I had to pull this spec from other sources; it doesn't >>> show up in the linked pages) >>> >>> Doing the math, for a 10 foot run (more than enough to mount the >>> antenna on the belly of most planes), 400's loss would be 1.47dB vs >>> 58's 2.26dB. For those that don't know, dB's are a logarithmic >>> measurement. 0.79dB of difference is so small that it could get lost >>> in the noise of connector quality, installation technique, phase of >>> the moon... >>> >>> At comm & nav frequencies (~100 MHz; 1/10 thefrequency), the spread >>> would be even smaller. >>> >>> Biggest difference is the outer jacket material; 400 is rated to 200 >>> C, while 58 is PVC rated to 85 C. Unless you're bonding it to your >>> cylinder head, that shouldn't be a big factor. >>> >>> Yes, 400 is 'better'. But is 58 good enough? There are planes flying >>> with 58 that is still good after 40 years..... >>> >>> Charlie >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Art Zemon < art@zemon.name >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I have been following this thread because I, too, am trying to >>> decide which coax to buy for my plane. I'm a computer engineer; I >>> shied away from EE in college and especially antenna design >>> because... well... I heard that antenna designers were a special >>> kind of crazy.. :-) >>> >>> Seriously, though, if I understand correctly, in the context of an >>> installation in a homebuilt airplane, the biggest difference >>> between RG58 and RG400 seems to be that the RG400 is less loss-y. >>> Yes? In other words, if an antenna puts a weak signal in one end >>> of the coax, the signal that reaches the radio receiver will be >>> stronger if the coax is RG400 than if it is RG58. >>> >>> I'm looking at 10 feet of coax from the GPS and comm antennas to >>> the receivers, including service loops. I am looking at 20 feet >>> for the VOR/GS antenna. The transponder antenna will be less than >>> 10 feet. >>> >>> At those distances, does RG400 vs RG58 matter? How do I evaluate it? >>> >>> And then there is the LMR-195 that Bob just showed us. How does >>> that fit in? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -- Art Z. >>> >>> -- >>> https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ >>> >>> /"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for >>> myself, what am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel/ >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:50:40 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: crimp tool positioner From: "dj45" Hi all, Can some one tell me what positioner I need for the standard D-sub pins for an MH860 crimp tool? Also known as M22520/7-01 Thanks Dan -------- Do not archive Dan Stanton N801S CH 801 N226BS CH701 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466663#466663 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:42:34 AM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimp tool positioner m22520/208 Stein has them for $65. On Feb 26, 2017 06:56, "dj45" wrote: > > Hi all, Can some one tell me what positioner I need for the standard > D-sub pins for an MH860 crimp tool? Also known as M22520/7-01 > Thanks > Dan > > -------- > Do not archive > > Dan Stanton > N801S CH 801 > N226BS CH701 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466663#466663 > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:56:24 AM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimp tool positioner sorry, that is for the /2-01 On Feb 26, 2017 06:56, "dj45" wrote: > > Hi all, Can some one tell me what positioner I need for the standard > D-sub pins for an MH860 crimp tool? Also known as M22520/7-01 > Thanks > Dan > > -------- > Do not archive > > Dan Stanton > N801S CH 801 > N226BS CH701 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466663#466663 > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:21:57 AM PST US From: don van santen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: crimp tool positioner m22520/7-02 available at mouser On Feb 26, 2017 06:56, "dj45" wrote: > > Hi all, Can some one tell me what positioner I need for the standard > D-sub pins for an MH860 crimp tool? Also known as M22520/7-01 > Thanks > Dan > > -------- > Do not archive > > Dan Stanton > N801S CH 801 > N226BS CH701 > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466663#466663 > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:55:43 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) From: Charlie England I'm not sure what Harbor Freight {anything} has to do with RG58a/u coax that's FAA certified for a/c use, but if self-righteous rants float your boat... On 2/26/2017 2:36 AM, Stuart Hutchison wrote: > > Sometimes the temptation to order from Harbour Freight Aerospace is strong, but its important to ask yourself and perhaps the forum whether a part is critical before deciding. FMEA applies to everything we do, not just the electrics. For example, many regular greases doesnt fare well in freezing conditions and mild steel (non-hardened) axel washers have been known to gall and lock up a wheel, with potentially disastrous consequences. > > Yes, Tefzel wires all round for me please Id rather not have to endure acrid PVC fumes if my wiring cooks off there would be enough to contend with already. Having experienced numerous in-flight overheats in electronic systems on the P-3 Orion (Kapton wiring), my cockpit will be well ventilated with efficient inflow plus smoke removal (exit) doors as well since I cant open the slider canopy in-flight. Call me crazy, but iPad/iPhone overheat (in rarified air, poor ventilation and direct sunlight) concerns me too, so I am designing a lightweight stainless steel, smoke and flame proof sleeve with an external ventilation tube to contain the device if a thermal runaway were to occur. > > V/R Stu > > >> On 25 Feb 2017, at 03:25, Kelly McMullen wrote: >> >> >> I'm with Charlie. There are huge differences with the other examples you cite, such as hardware store fasteners vs AN hardware. >> The difference in performance and safety between RG58 and RG400 is minuscule for a very real price difference. >> RG58 has been the accepted aircraft coax for at least 50 yrs. AFAIK RG400 didn't become recommended until after the turn of the century. Mainly over performance with WAAS GPS, not safety, not anything else that matters for other avionics. >> I'll not argue Tefzel vs automotive wire. There is a huge durability difference there, as well as insulation thickness difference. >> OTOH I have inspected many aircraft with RG58 installed 50-60 yrs ago and it is still performing fine. Unlike the general wiring that was used back then. >> >> On 2/24/2017 9:02 AM, Robert McCallum wrote: >>> Charlie; >>> >>> I've followed your many posts and generally "good opinions" on many >>> subjects over a lengthy period of time and respect those opinions and >>> advice, but in this case I'm curious. >>> >>> Did you wire your bird with automotive PVC wire because it was "good >>> enough" or did you use Tefzel insulated wire because that's what is >>> recognized as "correct" current practice? Did you use "hardware store" >>> hardware because it's probably "good enough" or did you use correct "AN >>> hardware"? Did you use proper "braided hoses" (Aeroquip style) or did >>> you use "good enough" rubber hoses? >>> >>> I'm a bit mystified why you seem to be advocating "good enough" RG-58 >>> when "better" (by how much may be debatable) RG-400 is readily available >>> for a small overall increase in $$$$. Wouldn't it seem that doing "the >>> best we know how" be the most prudent "best" approach?? There is no >>> labour difference, the fittings are essentially the same, the only >>> actual "difference" might be a hundred dollars or so which in the >>> overall scheme of things is peanuts for the average finished project? >>> There's also "pride of workmanship" and the self satisfaction of doing >>> it right as opposed to "good enough". Just my alternate view two cents >>> worth. >>> >>> Respectfully >>> >>> Bob McC >>> >>> >>> >>>> ---------- Original Message ---------- >>>> From: Charlie England >>>> Date: February 24, 2017 at 9:06 AM >>>> >>>> Here are links to cable specs for RG58a/u (stranded; note that RG58 >>>> can be had with solid center conductor, so beware when ordering), and >>>> RG400. I picked this site/brand to get both sets of specs in the same >>>> format. >>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/28-rg58 >>>> >>>> http://www.awcwire.com/part.aspx?partname=m17/128-rg400 >>>> >>>> Relevant data: >>>> 400's center conductor is 0.0384" vs 58's 0.0355" >>>> >>>> dielectric (center insulation) is the same dia, but 400 has marginally >>>> better properties; relevant only at the extreme high end of design >>>> use: capacitance of 400 is 29.4pF/ft, vs 58's 30.8pF/ft >>>> >>>> test freq of 400 is 12.4 GHz, vs 58's 1 GHz (but we use the cable at a >>>> max of ~1 GHz) >>>> >>>> 400's loss at 1 GHz is 14.7 dB/100ft; 58's is 22.6 dB/100ft >>>> (unfortunately, I had to pull this spec from other sources; it doesn't >>>> show up in the linked pages) >>>> >>>> Doing the math, for a 10 foot run (more than enough to mount the >>>> antenna on the belly of most planes), 400's loss would be 1.47dB vs >>>> 58's 2.26dB. For those that don't know, dB's are a logarithmic >>>> measurement. 0.79dB of difference is so small that it could get lost >>>> in the noise of connector quality, installation technique, phase of >>>> the moon... >>>> >>>> At comm & nav frequencies (~100 MHz; 1/10 thefrequency), the spread >>>> would be even smaller. >>>> >>>> Biggest difference is the outer jacket material; 400 is rated to 200 >>>> C, while 58 is PVC rated to 85 C. Unless you're bonding it to your >>>> cylinder head, that shouldn't be a big factor. >>>> >>>> Yes, 400 is 'better'. But is 58 good enough? There are planes flying >>>> with 58 that is still good after 40 years..... >>>> >>>> Charlie >>>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Art Zemon < art@zemon.name >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> I have been following this thread because I, too, am trying to >>>> decide which coax to buy for my plane. I'm a computer engineer; I >>>> shied away from EE in college and especially antenna design >>>> because... well... I heard that antenna designers were a special >>>> kind of crazy.. :-) >>>> >>>> Seriously, though, if I understand correctly, in the context of an >>>> installation in a homebuilt airplane, the biggest difference >>>> between RG58 and RG400 seems to be that the RG400 is less loss-y. >>>> Yes? In other words, if an antenna puts a weak signal in one end >>>> of the coax, the signal that reaches the radio receiver will be >>>> stronger if the coax is RG400 than if it is RG58. >>>> >>>> I'm looking at 10 feet of coax from the GPS and comm antennas to >>>> the receivers, including service loops. I am looking at 20 feet >>>> for the VOR/GS antenna. The transponder antenna will be less than >>>> 10 feet. >>>> >>>> At those distances, does RG400 vs RG58 matter? How do I evaluate it? >>>> >>>> And then there is the LMR-195 that Bob just showed us. How does >>>> that fit in? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -- Art Z. >>>> >>>> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 01:45:48 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? > > >Attached is a diagram showing the implementation of these relays to >allow me to continue to use my SPST (1-1) ON-OFF-ON landing gear >up/down switch as per my original design. Could you publish the complete schematic showing supply, switchgear, motor and limit switches (if any). I'm having a hard time putting my head around the need for a 3 pole relay in the first place . . . Thanks! Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 02:42:20 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? From: "Airdog77" Hi Bob, I've attached the entire schematic here for clarity. I was reluctant to add all of it earlier since this is the result of Marc Zeitlin's work over the past year to improve the canard electric nose gear system. This modified system shown is specifically Jack Wilhelmson's from eznoselift.com. In the diagram, everything to the right of the P1 connector is Jack's original system. Everything to the left (virtually all of it) is Marc's new system. The one issue I've been asking about on the Cozy forum is how to tie back in the backup battery (in red, lower right corner) that was/is a part of Jack's original system, but left out of Marc's new variant since Marc has a mechanical means of lowering the gear in case of an electrical failure. This diagram is my latest version, showing my swapping out the required 3PDT gear up/down switch with the DPDT and SPDT relays to allow me to use my original SPST switch. Thanks! Wade -------- Airdog Wade Parton Building Long-EZ 916WP www.longezpush.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466680#466680 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/nose_gearmzeitlin_aex_123.pdf ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 03:41:17 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Relay failure modes From: "reaper" nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect wrote: > > > We've studied some contactor failures due > to manufacturing error . . . a few more due > to electrical abuse (starter contactors down > stream of a soggy battery). But for the most > part, kept a cap-checked and charge battery > installed and even that risk drops dramatically. > Others were subject to moisture ingress due > to location and poor choice of installation > orientation. > > > Bob . . . I'm installing my battery contactor (Cole Hersee) 'cap down'. It seems extremely unlikely that G loading would 'open' the contactor, but my question is what would be the system repercussions should a battery contactor open while the alternator was under normal system load? Would the crowbar overvoltage protect the avionics? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466684#466684 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:45:11 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Solder Station From: "johnbright" I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you plug in and wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to that, I set the temp, maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s. I suppose it's great for my hobby use. -------- John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDSEFI EM-5, injectors in heads. Aeroelectric Z-12. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466686#466686 ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:50 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Solder Station From: "johnbright" I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you plug in and wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to that, I set the temp, maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s. I suppose it's great for my hobby use. -------- John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDSEFI EM-5, injectors in heads. Aeroelectric Z-12. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466687#466687 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 08:56:07 PM PST US From: Alec Myers Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Solder Station Forgive me, but i had to go and check: the Metcal is at temperature and melting solder five seconds after power on. On Feb 26, 2017, at 21:45, johnbright wrote: I received the FX888D-23BY. So far in my life I've had 30w irons you plug in and wait till it melts solder. This one is a joy relative to that, I set the temp, maybe 650F is good... it gets to that in 20s. I suppose it's great for my hobby use. -------- John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDSEFI EM-5, injectors in heads. Aeroelectric Z-12. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466687#466687 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse 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.