Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) (Stuart Hutchison)
2. 08:39 AM - The color of the hen house is not necessarily a sign of bad omelettes. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:49 AM - Re: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:54 AM - Re: Re: Relay failure modes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:34 AM - Re: Re: Solder Station (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:39 AM - Re: Relay failure modes (reaper)
7. 10:07 AM - Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Airdog77)
8. 12:39 PM - Re: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Charlie England)
9. 01:23 PM - Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Airdog77)
10. 01:25 PM - Re: crimp tool positioner (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 01:28 PM - Re: Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:34 PM - Re: crimp tool positioner (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 03:45 PM - Re: crimp tool positioner (dj45)
14. 04:00 PM - Kannad Integra ELT (Art Zemon)
15. 05:50 PM - Re: Kannad Integra ELT (C&K)
16. 06:19 PM - Re: Kannad Integra ELT (Ken Ryan)
17. 07:15 PM - Re: Kannad Integra ELT (Art Zemon)
18. 08:02 PM - Re: Kannad Integra ELT (C&K)
19. 10:10 PM - Re: Kannad Integra ELT (Werner Schneider)
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: Hardware supplies (was Coaxial Cable) |
Nothing to do with Coax Charlie, which is why I changed the subject line, but there
were references to good enough in relation to other components.
"Harbour Freight Aerospace" was just an attempt at humour (we call it Bunnings
Aerospace here in Aus), but I see Harbour Freight only sells tools, not so much
hardware my bad.
Nope, self righteous rants dont float my boat, I just thought this was an open
forum where we can all share constructive ideas.
Very Respectfully, Stu
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 05:54, Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 <kellym@aviating.com> 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 <ceengland7@gmail.com>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> <mailto: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 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: | The color of the hen house is not necessarily a sign |
of bad omelettes.
Was in Harbor Freight a few days ago and found
a package of tie-wraps that were specifically
labeled as "Dupont 6.6 nylon" and "UV exposure".
I think I'd used these with confidence.
I'm in process of cleaning things up a
bit and renewing some old stock items.
Will probably pick some of these up
next trip.
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: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
At 04:40 PM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
>
>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.
How was the original system found wanting?
> 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.
If plan-b is mechanically independent
of electrical system then why a 'backup'
electrical circuit?
When was the last time anyone suffered
a bad day in the cockpit from failure of
an purposefully maintained battery?
>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.
This drawing is labeled for a flap system
but is applicable to any PM motor driven
mechanism with limit switches.
http://tinyurl.com/jefoakh
It's not clear to me what advantages
are realized with the added complexity.
Bob . . .
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: Relay failure modes |
>
>I'm installing my battery contactor (Cole Hersee) 'cap down'.
That's fine.
>It seems extremely unlikely that G loading would 'open' the contactor,
Change 'unlikely' to 'impossible'
>
>but my question is what would be the system repercussions
>should a battery contactor open while the alternator was
>under normal system load?
Not a thing. You probably won't know the
contactor is open until you turn on the
master during next pre-flight (depending
on sequencing of switches).
>Would the crowbar overvoltage protect the avionics?
If the alternator were seriously unstable
sans battery . . . but this is unlikely.
If you have Klieg Lights on the wings or an
electro-hydraulic landing gear system, then
you may stall the system when those accessories
are activated . . . but unless you make some
LARGE changes in electrical system demands
before landing, you'll probably be unaware
of the loss of a battery contactor.
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: Solder Station |
At 08:45 PM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
><john_s_bright@yahoo.com>
>
>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.
that's about how long it takes my Metcal RFG-30
power supplies to warm up a 'electronics' tip.
The big honker chisel tips a bit longer. BTW,
after 40+ years of sifting through soldering
iron holders, this one is my favorite:
Emacs!
You can't buy them any more but the stand is from
Radio Shack . . one could probably fabricate or
purchase something similar elsewhere.
Took the base cover off and filled the cavity
with a 'potting compound' consisting of shot
shell pellets mixed with just enough epoxy to
make them really stick together (Plaster of
Paris might work as well). When the
epoxy sets, put the base cover back on. The
wet-sponge-tip-cleaner was replaced with
a wad of stainless steel pot scrubber. It
provides a good mechanical cleaning while
taking little heat out of the tip. It's also
easy to clean as bits of solder and tip-scum
shake right out of it.
I've been using this holder for close to
20 years with no urges to replace it.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Relay failure modes |
Great
I'm using a 2-10 per Z-11P for Batt/Alt so I guess
I would notice on shutdown.
Thanks!
dave
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466709#466709
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
>
> How was the original system found wanting?
The automatic extension system on the original system only had one parameter: to
drive the gear to extend when a preset airspeed, normally 90 knots, was reached
as the aircraft decreased airspeed. It's simply an optional automatic feature
to prevent a gear-up landing.
Recently, Marc Zeitlin concluded a 1-year effort to modify this automatic extension
system to add more parameters and eliminate the annoyances inherent to the
single-parameter system, i.e. gear deployment during slow flight and stall practice.
Marc added a lower speed parameter to create an upper and lower bracket for the
airspeed to ensure that it must be above 40 knots for the system to operate.
This is was to eliminate another annoyance of the system in that a circuit breaker
had to pulled on the ground lest the system kick in with an ensuing uncommanded
raising of the nose when the master switch was flipped on. Of course,
due to CG reasons, we canard types like to keep our nose towards the pavement
when the aircraft is not moving.
Finally, to ensure it was simply an emergency backup for landing, Marc added a
laser altimeter into the system and dialed it in to allow system operation only
at or below 350 ft AGL. In other words, no more system nuisance deployments
on high angle/slow climbouts.
>
> If plan-b is mechanically independent
> of electrical system then why a 'backup'
> electrical circuit?
There are different versions of the EZnoselift nose gear system. One backup system
is a mechanical setup where a ratchet wrench is used to ratchet the front
gear down if one experiences an electrical system failure. Another backup system
variant employs a small 1.2A battery that is used as an emergency power source
to get the gear down in case of an electrical system failure. Marc has
the mechanical backup system, and I have the backup battery system.
The reasons for picking either (or none) backup version is of course personal preference.
I chose the battery backup because it weighs considerably less, takes
up no panel space as does the mechanical unit, and most importantly --for
me-- if I'm working any non-standard issue while in the process of landing, I
don't want to be messing around with a ratchet (which itself weighs as much as
the small backup battery) and spending time getting the gear down when the flick
of a switch will do it for me.
> It's not clear to me what advantages
> are realized with the added complexity.
I'm not sure about the complexity of the system inherent to its design, either
this version or the previous version. I do understand my goals and requirements,
and how those stack up to availability of technology. I had the original
system with its auto extension system. I was willing to accept its deficiencies
for what it provided. After testing the backup battery I was also pleased
that for a very small battery and 4 wires I had a viable backup for nose gear
deployment separate from ship's power. When Marc developed his new auto extension
system with more parameters, it fit the bill of exactly the type of system
I was looking for (except no inclusion of the backup battery). Thus, through
Marc's design, technology caught up to my preferred requirements.
In regards to adding the two relays in place of one switch, I'll chalk it up managing
effort within the project itself. I have motivation to implement Marc's
new design for the features it offers, but I am not overly motivated to rip
out a lot of previous work simply to eliminate a bit of acceptable complexity
(in my book) in comparison to the effort required if I didn't add that complexity.
In short, yes, I want the best systems possible ... but moreover, I want to get
this bird in the air before I'm too old to fly it!
Thanks!
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466712#466712
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: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Airdog77 <Airdog77@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > How was the original system found wanting?
>
>
> The automatic extension system on the original system only had one
> parameter: to drive the gear to extend when a preset airspeed, normally 90
> knots, was reached as the aircraft decreased airspeed. It's simply an
> optional automatic feature to prevent a gear-up landing.
>
> Recently, Marc Zeitlin concluded a 1-year effort to modify this automatic
> extension system to add more parameters and eliminate the annoyances
> inherent to the single-parameter system, i.e. gear deployment during slow
> flight and stall practice.
>
> Marc added a lower speed parameter to create an upper and lower bracket
> for the airspeed to ensure that it must be above 40 knots for the system to
> operate. This is was to eliminate another annoyance of the system in that
> a circuit breaker had to pulled on the ground lest the system kick in with
> an ensuing uncommanded raising of the nose when the master switch was
> flipped on. Of course, due to CG reasons, we canard types like to keep our
> nose towards the pavement when the aircraft is not moving.
>
> Finally, to ensure it was simply an emergency backup for landing, Marc
> added a laser altimeter into the system and dialed it in to allow system
> operation only at or below 350 ft AGL. In other words, no more system
> nuisance deployments on high angle/slow climbouts.
>
>
> >
> > If plan-b is mechanically independent
> > of electrical system then why a 'backup'
> > electrical circuit?
>
>
> There are different versions of the EZnoselift nose gear system. One
> backup system is a mechanical setup where a ratchet wrench is used to
> ratchet the front gear down if one experiences an electrical system
> failure. Another backup system variant employs a small 1.2A battery that
> is used as an emergency power source to get the gear down in case of an
> electrical system failure. Marc has the mechanical backup system, and I
> have the backup battery system.
>
> The reasons for picking either (or none) backup version is of course
> personal preference. I chose the battery backup because it weighs
> considerably less, takes up no panel space as does the mechanical unit, and
> most importantly --for me-- if I'm working any non-standard issue while in
> the process of landing, I don't want to be messing around with a ratchet
> (which itself weighs as much as the small backup battery) and spending time
> getting the gear down when the flick of a switch will do it for me.
>
>
> > It's not clear to me what advantages
> > are realized with the added complexity.
>
>
> I'm not sure about the complexity of the system inherent to its design,
> either this version or the previous version. I do understand my goals and
> requirements, and how those stack up to availability of technology. I had
> the original system with its auto extension system. I was willing to
> accept its deficiencies for what it provided. After testing the backup
> battery I was also pleased that for a very small battery and 4 wires I had
> a viable backup for nose gear deployment separate from ship's power. When
> Marc developed his new auto extension system with more parameters, it fit
> the bill of exactly the type of system I was looking for (except no
> inclusion of the backup battery). Thus, through Marc's design, technology
> caught up to my preferred requirements.
>
> In regards to adding the two relays in place of one switch, I'll chalk it
> up managing effort within the project itself. I have motivation to
> implement Marc's new design for the features it offers, but I am not overly
> motivated to rip out a lot of previous work simply to eliminate a bit of
> acceptable complexity (in my book) in comparison to the effort required if
> I didn't add that complexity.
>
> In short, yes, I want the best systems possible ... but moreover, I want
> to get this bird in the air before I'm too old to fly it!
>
> Thanks!
> Wade
>
> --------
> Airdog
> Wade Parton
> Building Long-EZ 916WP
> www.longezpush.com
>
My experience with retracts is somewhat limited (couple hundred hrs in a
Swift), but something that seems common with backup gear systems is using
an alternative method instead of a duplicate method. I'd assume that the
ratchet method effectively bypasses or ignores the motor itself, while the
backup power path you're using assumes that the motor itself, or its
wiring, won't fail. The Swift I flew (electric pump driving hydraulic
actuators) had a hand-cranked cable system to extend the gear. Nothing
automatic about it, but if you had an electrical *or* hydraulic failure of
any sort, you could still get the gear down.
Is yours a nose-only retract, or all 3 legs? IIRC, the original VariEze
just had a sacrificial pad under the nose, so if you forgot to extend the
gear, you just rubbed off a bit of the pad. Is it different for the Long?
Charlie
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: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
Hi Charlie,
Yes, the ratchet method does bypass the gear motor. So if the electronics on the
gear motor is bad, then you're right in that the backup battery wouldn't of
course help anyway. As I mentioned to Bob, the ratchet system also takes up
a lot of space behind the panel, which there is very little to start with in a
Long-EZ. And again there's the heavier weight of it. As with any design endeavor
on our planes that we build, I had to balance the pros and cons of each
component that could possibly be pressed into use, this being one of them.
Since I only have the conventional Long-EZ retractable nose gear like the Vari-Eze
(vs. all 3 gear retracting), then a nose gear up landing becomes more about
hurt pride and a day in the shop fixing a nose boo-boo. Of course this was
a major deciding factor in going with a small, light backup battery that can be
stuffed into a corner --and in a Long-EZ, that's saying a lot! ;) -- over the
ratchet system.
Here's a quote off of Jack Wilhelmson's EZNoseLift.com site, which I think helps
explain the automatic retraction/extension system (yes, which is normally separate
than the backup battery issue):
"What is the main advantage of the automatic system over the manual system?
The automatic system relieves the pilot of concern about forgetting to extend the
gear due to distractions. A very large percentage of canard pilots have forgotten
to extend the gear. While this is not the major catastrophe that it is
in other aircraft, it is still causes damage to both the aircraft and the pilots
confidence (EGO). I personally have forgotten to put the gear down. It is very
unnerving especially to passengers. Also at large airports it becomes a reportable
incident to the FAA. Some pilots have admitted to forgetting to put the
gear down two or three times."
Although the quote above may not necessarily paint canard pilots in a favorable
light [maybe that's why I'm building one... ha!], it is being honest.
Regards,
Wade
--------
Airdog
Wade Parton
Building Long-EZ 916WP
www.longezpush.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466717#466717
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: | Re: crimp tool positioner |
At 11:14 AM 2/26/2017, you wrote:
>m22520/7-02 available at mouser
>
Unless you can find one on eBay or some
such used, they're pretty pricey . . . I'd
made some in the past but couldn't put my hands
on one. Went out to the shop and carved
one out:
Emacs!
3/8" rod stock of alum or steel works. I've used
3/8" grade 3 bolts as material source. The exact
diameter is not critical.
Turn down a 0.156" x 0.368" "smoke stack" on
the end and then drill with #48 drill at least
0.5" deep.
Attach to your Daniels tool with a small dab of
RTV or E6000 . . . just enough to keep it from
falling out.
The positioner you see above placed the crimps
on these pins . . .
Emacs!
. . . right where I wanted them.
Bob . . .
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: | Re: 3PDT switch swap for relay? |
>
>In short, yes, I want the best systems possible ... but moreover, I
>want to get this bird in the air before I'm too old to fly it!
>
>Thanks!
>Wade
Understand . . .
Bob . . .
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: crimp tool positioner |
At 08:47 AM 2/26/2017, you 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
P.S. if you haven't already ordered/purchased one,
you can have the DIY sample laying here on my
desk . . . all my Daniels tools have positioners.
Shoot me an address . . .
Bob . . .
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: crimp tool positioner |
Thank you Bob, with that info. I can make one here.
Once again, you have bailed my butt out.
--------
Do not archive
Dan Stanton
N801S CH 801
N226BS CH701
N24DS CH750
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=466726#466726
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: | Kannad Integra ELT |
Folks,
Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
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 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: Kannad Integra ELT |
A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not
need an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps
position
or
the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft
power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly
transmit that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps
position when activated.
The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how
much of this still applies to the current units.
Ken
On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>
> 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 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: Kannad Integra ELT |
I chose the Kannad because it was the smallest and the lightest. As time
has passed, however, I came to desire that my ELT always have my GPS
position ready to send as soon as I hit the button. So I ordered the NEMA
connector for the Kannad that will allow that, but it is a very expensive
part and I have been waiting for it for nearly two months now.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, C&K <yellowduckduo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not need
> an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps position
> or
> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft
> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transmit
> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
> activated.
>
> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how much
> of this still applies to the current units.
>
> Ken
>
> On 27/02/2017 6:55 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
>> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
>> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>>
>> 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 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: Kannad Integra ELT |
That's really good info. Thank you two. I had not realized that the Kannad
did not continually know its location. Since I am building a metal
airplane, I don't think the Kannad's internal antenna will be of any use at
all.
-- Art Z.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com> wrote:
> I chose the Kannad because it was the smallest and the lightest. As time
> has passed, however, I came to desire that my ELT always have my GPS
> position ready to send as soon as I hit the button. So I ordered the NEMA
> connector for the Kannad that will allow that, but it is a very expensive
> part and I have been waiting for it for nearly two months now.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, C&K <yellowduckduo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that does not need
>> an external antenna but does take several minutes to locate its gps position
>> or
>> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps and aircraft
>> power whenever my master switch is on, and can therefore instantly transmit
>> that gps position without taking minutes to locate the gps position when
>> activated.
>>
>> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from the kannad
>> immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH loss of an external
>> antenna on competing ELT's is a significant concern. I don't know how much
>> of this still applies to the current units.
>>
>
--
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 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: Kannad Integra ELT |
I've been told that enough signal leaks out that they work just fine in
a metal fuselage.
I don't have a kannad but In Canada we can get an email confirming
satellite reception when testing Elt's and I've never heard a complaint
about kannad reception.
I can say that the satellites pick up tests from an Ack unit in the back
of a metal T hangar just fine so I can believe the kannads function as
claimed.
Ken
On 27/02/2017 10:13 PM, Art Zemon wrote:
> That's really good info. Thank you two. I had not realized that the
> Kannad did not continually know its location. Since I am building a
> metal airplane, I don't think the Kannad's internal antenna will be of
> any use at all.
>
> -- Art Z.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com
> <mailto:keninalaska@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I chose the Kannad because it was the smallest and the lightest.
> As time has passed, however, I came to desire that my ELT always
> have my GPS position ready to send as soon as I hit the button. So
> I ordered the NEMA connector for the Kannad that will allow that,
> but it is a very expensive part and I have been waiting for it for
> nearly two months now.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, C&K <yellowduckduo@gmail.com
> <mailto:yellowduckduo@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <yellowduckduo@gmail.com <mailto:yellowduckduo@gmail.com>>
>
> A couple of years ago my choice came down to a kannad that
> does not need an external antenna but does take several
> minutes to locate its gps position
> or
> the Ack that receives gps location from my portable nav gps
> and aircraft power whenever my master switch is on, and can
> therefore instantly transmit that gps position without taking
> minutes to locate the gps position when activated.
>
> The satelites should get a rough triangulated position from
> the kannad immediately but not a precise gps position. OTOH
> loss of an external antenna on competing ELT's is a
> significant concern. I don't know how much of this still
> applies to the current units.
>
>
> --
> 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 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: Kannad Integra ELT |
Hello Art,
it is a fine piece of equipment and the internal antenna is a plus, but
I do not understand your price question as an example:
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/artex11-13989.php
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/av/elts_zack/elt406.php
are several hundred $ cheaper or even less then half the price of the Kannad
Cheers Werner
On 28.02.2017 00:55, Art Zemon wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Do you have any thoughts about the Kannad Integrat ELT? It is several
> hundred dollars less expensive than the competition.
> https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/kannadintegraeasy.php
>
>
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! --
|