AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 05/16/17


Total Messages Posted: 17



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 04:25 AM - Re: P-leads (Peter Mather)
     2. 07:05 AM - Re: P-leads (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 07:46 AM - WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power Consumption and Installation Manual (William Hunter)
     4. 11:01 AM - Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power Consumpti (rampil)
     5. 12:19 PM - Re: 12V Batteries (johnbright)
     6. 12:52 PM - coax splitter (Ken Ryan)
     7. 01:23 PM - Re: P-leads (Kelly McMullen)
     8. 02:04 PM - Re: coax splitter (Eric Page)
     9. 02:30 PM - Re: coax splitter (Eric Page)
    10. 02:31 PM - Re: P-leads (Peter Mather)
    11. 02:35 PM - Re: coax splitter (Eric Page)
    12. 04:42 PM - Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power Consumpti (user9253)
    13. 05:03 PM - What is the Design Model Number Of The B&C Alternator Field Plug Metal Terminal Ends (William Hunter)
    14. 05:20 PM - Re: P-leads (Kelly McMullen)
    15. 05:27 PM - Re: What is the Design Model Number Of The B&C Alternator Field Plug Metal Terminal Ends (William Hunter)
    16. 05:34 PM - Re: Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power Consumpti (William Hunter)
    17. 08:40 PM - Re: coax splitter (Charlie England)
 
 
 


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: 04:25:52 AM PST US
    From: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
    Subject: P-leads
    John I=99m flying a TB10 while building. This has a O-360 with the Bendix dual mag. These things are a disaster for maintenance =93 hugely expensive and parts difficult/impossible to buy Depending on the state of your build I would seriously look at changing the accessory housing and converting to a normal pair of Slicks. Better redundancy, cheap and easy to maintain and solid reliability. Rgds Peter From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Keen Sent: 14 May 2017 08:19 Subject: AeroElectric-List: P-leads Hi Bob, I have an engine with the Bendix dual magneto. It came without P-leads, so I=99m wondering whether they are something I can fabricate or if I will need to purchase them complete? Best regards, John. John Keen 0412 141 833 15 Scott St Scone NSW Australia 2337


    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: 07:05:38 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: P-leads
    At 06:24 AM 5/16/2017, you wrote: >John > >I=99m flying a TB10 while building. This has a >O-360 with the Bendix dual mag. These things are >a disaster for maintenance ' hugely expensive >and parts difficult/impossible to buy< >Depending on the state of your build I would >seriously look at changing the accessory housing >and converting to a normal pair of Slicks. >Better redundancy, cheap and easy to maintain and solid reliability. > >Rgds > >Peter Another alternative would be E-Mags http://tinyurl.com/n5vzcdp 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
    Time: 07:46:55 AM PST US
    From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
    Subject: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power
    Consumption and Installation Manual Does anyone have a copy of the instruction manual for this WesTack unit? My airplane has the Westack capacitance fuel probes and I am trying to figure out how much power two units would consume and if I can use the Dynon Skyview PIN 15. The instruction sheet I found online (attached) discusses the installation of the probes however it is really lacking on electrical hookup. .. Cheers!!! Bill Hunter


    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: 11:01:11 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power
    Consumpti
    From: "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com>
    The trade name is Westach, not WestTack Capacitive fuel level probes are pretty much passive devices that do not consume power (aside from perhaps a tiny amount through dielectric leakage) An RF voltage is applied to the probe and the capacitance is measured across the electrodes. There is no polarity to these electrodes and so there is really nothing to say about how to hook it up, the two wires go into the monitor box. The issue of compatibility is one of measurable range of capacitance in the measuring box, most are adjustable, maybe not all. The capacitance of the probe in fuel is a function of probe geometry and immersed level of fuel (assuming you never switch to auto gas). Your best bet is to call dynon and ask if their box can adjust to the Westach probe. -------- Ira N224XS Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469355#469355


    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: 12:19:35 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: 12V Batteries
    From: "johnbright" <john_s_bright@yahoo.com>
    How about electrically dependent RV-6A, IO-360, 8.5:1, SDS EFI/EI, Z-13/8? -------- John Bright, RV-6A, at Finish Kit Continental Titan IOX-360, 8.5:1, vertical sump, SDS EM-5 EFI and EI, injectors in heads. Aeroelectric Z-13/8 Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469357#469357


    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: 12:52:30 PM PST US
    From: Ken Ryan <keninalaska@gmail.com>
    Subject: coax splitter
    So I am revisiting my (untested) installation that allows me to use my com antenna with a handheld. First I was going to use that little iCom box until Bob revealed that it is junk. So instead I installed a good quality splitter with a bulkhead connector on the panel. My brain must not have been working very well when I did the installation because I didn't think it through. I just blindly hooked the com radio to the "S" the panel to the "1" and the com antenna to the "2" Later I got thinking that probably the com antenna should go to the "S" and the com radio and panel connector should use the "1" and the "2" So I pulled the thing out and got out my continuity tester, and all the center pins test for continuity with each other. So now I am thinking that it doesn't matter which goes where, and that I can just put it back the way it was. Before I do, I would like to confirm that all this thing is doing is connecting all three connectors together equally, and that there is no need or advantage to any particular order. I am attaching a spec sheet for the part, which is a Mini-Circuits Splitter ZFSC-2-1+ Thanks, Ken


    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: 01:23:42 PM PST US
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Subject: Re: P-leads
    While you may have flown a plane with a dual mag, that is about equivalent to a stay with Holiday Inn Express. If it was such a bad device, why in the heck were you flying behind something depending on it? Why isn't there an AD requiring removal? Yes, there were some issues with the dual mag when it was first introduced, both developmental and caused by mechanics unfamiliar with its specific needs. That is way in the past. There are numerous magneto shops that do quality overhauls of dual mags and know what is needed. PMA parts suppliers make most of the needed replacement parts. Properly installed and maintained, the dual mag is at least equal to the Slicks you suggest, perhaps better in terms of reliability. There are valid reasons to chose to change to individual mags, that have little to do with maintenance or cost. Parts are available within normal aircraft pricing. Slick mags may be cheaper than Bendix to purchase, but they will cost you more in the long run, because after the first overhaul, they are not economical to do subsequent overhauls. Reliable? compared to what? Certainly not more reliable than the comparable Bendix models. A vast majority of mechanics will choose Bendix over Slick any day. Need less maintenance, need less parts replaced, and deliver a hotter spark. Before TCM Bendix dropped its support for the dual mag, Lycoming charged typically $2500 to supply an engine with two single mags when the core engine had a dual mag. To make the changes needed, he is probably looking at similar or greater costs. Especially with shipping down under. Meanwhile, it is likely that by the time his mag needs an overhaul, there will be one or two electronic replacements available. Kelly A&P/IA On 5/16/2017 4:24 AM, Peter Mather wrote: > John > > Im flying a TB10 while building. This has a O-360 with the Bendix dual > mag. These things are a disaster for maintenance hugely expensive and > parts difficult/impossible to buy > > Depending on the state of your build I would seriously look at changing > the accessory housing and converting to a normal pair of Slicks. Better > redundancy, cheap and easy to maintain and solid reliability. > > Rgds > > Peter > > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *John Keen > *Sent:* 14 May 2017 08:19 > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: P-leads > > Hi Bob, > > I have an engine with the Bendix dual magneto. It came without P-leads, > so Im wondering whether they are something I can fabricate or if I will > need to purchase them complete? > > Best regards, > > John. > > *John Keen* > > 0412 141 833 > > 15 Scott St > > Scone NSW Australia 2337 >


    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: 02:04:52 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: coax splitter
    From: "Eric Page" <edpav8r@yahoo.com>
    I'm no RF engineer, but I don't think this will work as you hope. With both radios attached, one will be transmitting into the final amplifier of the other, in parallel with the antenna. It might work if you remove the non-transmitting radio and attach a 50-ohm terminator in its place (which obviously defeats the purpose of the installation). Otherwise impedance will probably not be seen as 50 ohms by the active transmitter, SWR will likely not be very good, and you risk damaging the non-transmitting radio. Also, from the data sheet you attached, see the Maximum Ratings table at the upper left corner: "Power input (as a splitter): 1W" -and- "Permanent damage may occur if any of these limits are exceeded." Typical handheld RF transmit power is 3-5W and panel mount radios are typically rated around 8W in 14V aircraft and 16W in 28V aircraft. I don't think this splitter is intended for this kind of application, but rather as an instrumentation tool, or as a means to connect two receivers to one antenna. I suspect the 1W rating allows some overhead if an active (amplified) antenna is used. Eric kenryan wrote: > So I am revisiting my (untested) installation that allows me to use my com antenna with a handheld. First I was going to use that little iCom box until Bob revealed that it is junk. So instead I installed a good quality splitter with a bulkhead connector on the panel. My brain must not have been working very well when I did the installation because I didn't think it through. I just blindly hooked the com radio to the "S" the panel to the "1" and the com antenna to the "2" > > Later I got thinking that probably the com antenna should go to the "S" and the com radio and panel connector should use the "1" and the "2" > > So I pulled the thing out and got out my continuity tester, and all the center pins test for continuity with each other. So now I am thinking that it doesn't matter which goes where, and that I can just put it back the way it was. > > Before I do, I would like to confirm that all this thing is doing is connecting all three connectors together equally, and that there is no need or advantage to any particular order. > > I am attaching a spec sheet for the part, which is a Mini-Circuits Splitter ZFSC-2-1+ > > Thanks, > > Ken Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469364#469364


    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: 02:30:58 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: coax splitter
    From: "Eric Page" <edpav8r@yahoo.com>
    Eric Page wrote: > I'm no RF engineer... Um, yeah, like I said... Ever hit the "submit" button and shortly regret it? OK, ignore the bit about one radio transmitting into the other. After reading an application note about splitter/combiners on Mini-Circuits' website, it's obvious these things offer isolation between the ports. So, one radio on port 1, one radio on port 2, antenna on the sum port. Power handling is another issue. The unit you have isn't rated for the power levels we're talking about. It looks like they have plenty of units that are, however. Eric With fingers crossed, tapping "submit" again... now! Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469366#469366


    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: 02:31:52 PM PST US
    From: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
    Subject: P-leads
    " If it was such a bad device, why in the heck were you flying behind something depending on it?" Try reading my post. I said it was "a disaster for maintenance" not that there was anything wrong with it as a functional unit or that it was unreliable. "Before TCM Bendix dropped its support for the dual mag" Exactly! I've owned 8 aircraft with all varieties of mag. The last 500 hr overhaul on a pair of Slicks cost me 240 total (UK price). My dual mag needs a 6yr overhaul this year and will cost me c2000. By all means go for a pair of Bendix if you prefer them over Slicks but I stand by my advice to avoid the dual mags if long term budget is important to you -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen Sent: 16 May 2017 21:22 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-leads --> <kellym@aviating.com> While you may have flown a plane with a dual mag, that is about equivalent to a stay with Holiday Inn Express. If it was such a bad device, why in the heck were you flying behind something depending on it? Why isn't there an AD requiring removal? Yes, there were some issues with the dual mag when it was first introduced, both developmental and caused by mechanics unfamiliar with its specific needs. That is way in the past. There are numerous magneto shops that do quality overhauls of dual mags and know what is needed. PMA parts suppliers make most of the needed replacement parts. Properly installed and maintained, the dual mag is at least equal to the Slicks you suggest, perhaps better in terms of reliability. There are valid reasons to chose to change to individual mags, that have little to do with maintenance or cost. Parts are available within normal aircraft pricing. Slick mags may be cheaper than Bendix to purchase, but they will cost you more in the long run, because after the first overhaul, they are not economical to do subsequent overhauls. Reliable? compared to what? Certainly not more reliable than the comparable Bendix models. A vast majority of mechanics will choose Bendix over Slick any day. Need less maintenance, need less parts replaced, and deliver a hotter spark. Before TCM Bendix dropped its support for the dual mag, Lycoming charged typically $2500 to supply an engine with two single mags when the core engine had a dual mag. To make the changes needed, he is probably looking at similar or greater costs. Especially with shipping down under. Meanwhile, it is likely that by the time his mag needs an overhaul, there will be one or two electronic replacements available. Kelly A&P/IA On 5/16/2017 4:24 AM, Peter Mather wrote: > John > > Im flying a TB10 while building. This has a O-360 with the Bendix > dual mag. These things are a disaster for maintenance hugely > expensive and parts difficult/impossible to buy > > Depending on the state of your build I would seriously look at > changing the accessory housing and converting to a normal pair of > Slicks. Better redundancy, cheap and easy to maintain and solid reliability. > > Rgds > > Peter > > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *John Keen > *Sent:* 14 May 2017 08:19 > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: P-leads > > Hi Bob, > > I have an engine with the Bendix dual magneto. It came without > P-leads, so Im wondering whether they are something I can fabricate > or if I will need to purchase them complete? > > Best regards, > > John. > > *John Keen* > > 0412 141 833 > > 15 Scott St > > Scone NSW Australia 2337 >


    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: 02:35:30 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: coax splitter
    From: "Eric Page" <edpav8r@yahoo.com>
    Eric Page wrote: > After reading an application note about splitter/combiners on Mini-Circuits' website... Here's the application note, in case anyone else is interested: https://www.minicircuits.com/app/AN10-006.pdf Eric Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469367#469367


    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: 04:42:45 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power
    Consumpti
    From: "user9253" <fransew@gmail.com>
    The Dynon SkyView installation manual on page 7-49 states, " > Capacitive fuel level sensors are only supported on pins 8, 22, 23, and 31 on the SV-EMS- > 220/221 D37. Capacitive sensors must output a variable voltage within the ranges of 0-5 volts DC." The Westach document that you linked states that its output is 0 to 5 VDC. The two units should be compatible. Like rampil posted, best bet is to call Dynon support. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469370#469370


    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: 05:03:44 PM PST US
    From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
    Subject: What is the Design Model Number Of The B&C Alternator
    Field Plug Metal Terminal Ends .. Cheers!!! Bill Hunter I am replacing the field wire of my B&C SD-60 alternator and I need to buy a new metal terminal end. It looks like a Packard 56 male snap in termonal end however Packard 56 end is too thick to slide into the plastic plug. Does anyone know the design model number? THANKS!!!


    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: 05:20:05 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: P-leads
    From: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com>
    Just because TCM dropped support for the mag does not mean it doesn't exist. It also does not mean that in the USA cost is significantly different than maintaining two separate mags. Disaster for maintenance implies unexpected failures in my book. Examples done by quality mag shops in the US are not prone to failure before 500 hours, and are not out of sight on overhaul cost. Some engines they are used on, such as the O-320-H2AD, there is no single mag model made, you cannot convert. Seems you could do an exchange with a US magneto shop for a lot less than what you are quoting. I'm not a fan of the dual head magneto, but it isn't nearly as bad as you portray. Your Slick overhaul, if the price is for both, you can't achieve that in the US, and overhaul at 1000 hours will exceed the cost of new. In most any turbo-charged application the Slicks won't make 500 hours. In the US overhauling a Slick will cost as much or more than overhauling a Bendix. On 5/16/2017 2:30 PM, Peter Mather wrote: > > " If it was such a bad device, why in the heck were you flying behind something depending on it?" > > Try reading my post. I said it was "a disaster for maintenance" not that there was anything wrong with it as a functional unit or that it was unreliable. > > "Before TCM Bendix dropped its support for the dual mag > > Exactly! > > I've owned 8 aircraft with all varieties of mag. The last 500 hr overhaul on a pair of Slicks cost me 240 total (UK price). My dual mag needs a 6yr overhaul this year and will cost me c2000. > > > By all means go for a pair of Bendix if you prefer them over Slicks but I stand by my advice to avoid the dual mags if long term budget is important to you > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen > Sent: 16 May 2017 21:22 > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: P-leads > > --> <kellym@aviating.com> > > While you may have flown a plane with a dual mag, that is about equivalent to a stay with Holiday Inn Express. If it was such a bad device, why in the heck were you flying behind something depending on it? Why isn't there an AD requiring removal? > Yes, there were some issues with the dual mag when it was first introduced, both developmental and caused by mechanics unfamiliar with its specific needs. That is way in the past. There are numerous magneto shops that do quality overhauls of dual mags and know what is needed. > PMA parts suppliers make most of the needed replacement parts. > Properly installed and maintained, the dual mag is at least equal to the Slicks you suggest, perhaps better in terms of reliability. > There are valid reasons to chose to change to individual mags, that have little to do with maintenance or cost. Parts are available within normal aircraft pricing. Slick mags may be cheaper than Bendix to purchase, but they will cost you more in the long run, because after the first overhaul, they are not economical to do subsequent overhauls. Reliable? > compared to what? Certainly not more reliable than the comparable Bendix models. A vast majority of mechanics will choose Bendix over Slick any day. Need less maintenance, need less parts replaced, and deliver a hotter spark. > Before TCM Bendix dropped its support for the dual mag, Lycoming charged typically $2500 to supply an engine with two single mags when the core engine had a dual mag. To make the changes needed, he is probably looking at similar or greater costs. Especially with shipping down under. Meanwhile, it is likely that by the time his mag needs an overhaul, there will be one or two electronic replacements available. > Kelly > A&P/IA > > On 5/16/2017 4:24 AM, Peter Mather wrote: >> John >> >> Im flying a TB10 while building. This has a O-360 with the Bendix >> dual mag. These things are a disaster for maintenance hugely >> expensive and parts difficult/impossible to buy >> >> Depending on the state of your build I would seriously look at >> changing the accessory housing and converting to a normal pair of >> Slicks. Better redundancy, cheap and easy to maintain and solid reliability. >> >> Rgds >> >> Peter >> >> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >> *John Keen >> *Sent:* 14 May 2017 08:19 >> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: P-leads >> >> Hi Bob, >> >> I have an engine with the Bendix dual magneto. It came without >> P-leads, so Im wondering whether they are something I can fabricate >> or if I will need to purchase them complete? >> >> Best regards, >> >> John. >> >> *John Keen* >> >> 0412 141 833 >> >> 15 Scott St >> >> Scone NSW Australia 2337 >> > > > > > > >


    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: 05:27:49 PM PST US
    From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
    Subject: What is the Design Model Number Of The B&C Alternator
    Field Plug Metal Terminal Ends I meant female terminal end .. Cheers!!! Bill Hunter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Hunter Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:02 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: What is the Design Model Number Of The B&C Alternator Field Plug Metal Terminal Ends --> <billhuntersemail@gmail.com> .. Cheers!!! Bill Hunter I am replacing the field wire of my B&C SD-60 alternator and I need to buy a new metal terminal end. It looks like a Packard 56 male snap in termonal end however Packard 56 end is too thick to slide into the plastic plug. Does anyone know the design model number? THANKS!!!


    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: 05:34:20 PM PST US
    From: "William Hunter" <billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe
    Power Consumpti Thanks Joe and Rampil, The probes were working on the previous installation and I was happy with the system however I am doing a complete rewire and the previous setup had a 2 AMP CB that provided the power to the probes. I since realized that the EMS PIN 18 is a 12 VDC power source and it was powering a FLOSCAN 201B fuel flow sensor. If the Flowscan plus the two capacitance probes are less than the 80 miliamps that the pin can provide I want to power the probes with the PIN 15 so then I do not have to have the battery master on should I want to check the fuel levels. THANKS AGAIN!!! Bill Hunter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of user9253 Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 4:41 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: WestTack (Westberg Manufacturing) Fuel Probe Power Consumpti The Dynon SkyView installation manual on page 7-49 states, " > Capacitive fuel level sensors are only supported on pins 8, 22, 23, > and 31 on the SV-EMS- > 220/221 D37. Capacitive sensors must output a variable voltage within the ranges of 0-5 volts DC." The Westach document that you linked states that its output is 0 to 5 VDC. The two units should be compatible. Like rampil posted, best bet is to call Dynon support. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=469370#469370


    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: 08:40:28 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: coax splitter
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    On 5/16/2017 2:49 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > So I am revisiting my (untested) installation that allows me to use my > com antenna with a handheld. First I was going to use that little iCom > box until Bob revealed that it is junk. So instead I installed a good > quality splitter with a bulkhead connector on the panel. My brain must > not have been working very well when I did the installation because I > didn't think it through. I just blindly hooked the com radio to the > "S" the panel to the "1" and the com antenna to the "2" > > Later I got thinking that probably the com antenna should go to the > "S" and the com radio and panel connector should use the "1" and the "2" > > So I pulled the thing out and got out my continuity tester, and all > the center pins test for continuity with each other. So now I am > thinking that it doesn't matter which goes where, and that I can just > put it back the way it was. > > Before I do, I would like to confirm that all this thing is doing is > connecting all three connectors together equally, and that there is no > need or advantage to any particular order. > > I am attaching a spec sheet for the part, which is a Mini-Circuits > Splitter ZFSC-2-1+ > > Thanks, > > Ken Don't do it. A splitter doesn't do the same thing as a switch box (hence, the different names). A splitter will send an antenna's signal to two *receivers*. The switch box (cheesy though it is) actually switches the antenna between two radios. Because it switches, it's ok to attach both *transceivers* to the box. Only one gets connected at a time. If you connect two transceivers through the splitter to one antenna, then one transmitter will attempt to transmit directly into the other's receiver. Not a good plan. Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus




    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! --