Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:16 AM - Re: Glass for IFR (Jack Lockamy)
2. 07:32 AM - Re: Glass for IFR (Bob J.)
3. 08:00 AM - Re: Glass for IFR (linn Walters)
4. 08:21 AM - Traveling ()
5. 09:00 AM - Meske tip up conversion (Jeff Dowling)
6. 09:26 AM - Splitters for Sale (Richard Dudley)
7. 09:27 AM - ANR Headsets (Neal George)
8. 10:07 AM - Re: Glass for IFR (Bob J.)
9. 10:38 AM - Re: ANR Headsets (Rob Prior)
10. 11:18 AM - Re: ANR Headsets (John Jessen)
11. 11:41 AM - Re: Glass for IFR (Phil Sisson)
12. 12:06 PM - Re: Glass for IFR (linn Walters)
13. 12:15 PM - vacuum stuff .... (linn Walters)
14. 12:30 PM - Comparing Bose X headset to the QCII, was ANR Headseats (N67BT@aol.com)
15. 12:33 PM - Regarding Bose QC headsets Was: Re: ANR Headsets (Dave Cordner)
16. 01:27 PM - Re: Comparing Bose X headset to the QCII, was ANR Headseats (Cory Emberson)
17. 01:33 PM - Re: Glass for IFR (ronlee@pcisys.net)
18. 02:59 PM - Re: Glass for IFR (Tim Lewis)
19. 05:21 PM - Aircraft Spruce (Aircraft Spruce)
20. 06:09 PM - cowl plugs (Bill VonDane)
21. 06:18 PM - Re: cowl plugs (Bobby Hester)
22. 06:36 PM - Re: Aircraft Spruce (Paul Trotter)
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: Glass for IFR |
Maybe the better way to approach inevitable vacuum pump failures is to have
the pump rebuilt/replaced every 500 hrs instead of waiting for it to fail.
I believe this is the same timeframe (500 hrs) that Slick magnetos are also
recommended to be rebuilt/replaced. Would be any easy way to remember when
the pump needed replacing (i.e. 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 hrs, etc.)
Certainly would be cheap insurance and if nothing else... peace of mind when
flying in the soup as others have mentioned.
Jack
do not archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Glass for IFR |
The best approach is to use a wet vacuum pump and a separator. I know of
many wet vaccum pumps that outlived the engines they were installed in. I
don't know of a single dry pump that I've ever seen that didn't fail in the
shear coupler. I've never seen on where the vanes wore out. If the dry
pumps didn't have the silly shear coupler they would be far more reliable.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 3/2/07, Jack Lockamy <jacklockamy@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe the better way to approach inevitable vacuum pump failures is to
> have the pump rebuilt/replaced every 500 hrs instead of waiting for it to
> fail. I believe this is the same timeframe (500 hrs) that Slick magnetos
> are also recommended to be rebuilt/replaced. Would be any easy way to
> remember when the pump needed replacing (i.e. 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 hrs,
> etc.)
>
>
> Certainly would be cheap insurance and if nothing else... peace of mind
> when flying in the soup as others have mentioned.
>
>
> Jack
>
>
> do not archive
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
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: Glass for IFR |
Bob J. wrote:
> The best approach is to use a wet vacuum pump and a separator. I know
> of many wet vaccum pumps that outlived the engines they were installed in.
They're heavier, and the separator isn't that efficient. That's why the
dry pump is standard on most 'newer' engines.
> I don't know of a single dry pump that I've ever seen that didn't
> fail in the shear coupler. I've never seen on where the vanes wore out.
Well, that's why the pump fails. The vanes are plasticized carbon, and
the centripetal force keeps the vanes in contact with the pumps outer
wall, which causes them to wear down slowly. The vanes are the
sacrificial parts. When the vanes get thin ..... about 1/4" wide or so,
they jam in the ports and the shear coupling fails.
> If the dry pumps didn't have the silly shear coupler they would be
> far more reliable.
Can't agree with that! That's like replacing a fuse with a piece of
metal. If the shear coupling didn't fail when the pump jammed ..... some
other, weaker, link in the food chain would have to ...... maybe
internal to the engine. Who knows??? I sure wouldn't want to find out!
FYI ..... I had a dry pump last more than 2000 hours on an O-235 ......
and yes, it failed as I was climbing out through the soup. Sigh.
Linn
>
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
> On 3/2/07, Jack Lockamy <jacklockamy@verizon.net
> <mailto:jacklockamy@verizon.net>> wrote:
>
> Maybe the better way to approach inevitable vacuum pump failures
> is to have the pump rebuilt/replaced every 500 hrs instead of
> waiting for it to fail. I believe this is the same timeframe (500
> hrs) that Slick magnetos are also recommended to be
> rebuilt/replaced. Would be any easy way to remember when the pump
> needed replacing (i.e. 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 hrs, etc.)
>
>
>
> Certainly would be cheap insurance and if nothing else... peace of
> mind when flying in the soup as others have mentioned.
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
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 |
|
Hi All,
Im in Silver City, NM on a business trip, and will have Saturday free 3/3/07).
If theres anyone in the area that would like a fellow builder see their project,
or needs some electrical help, send me an email with your contact information
and Ill see what I can do to help you out.
Im leaving early Sunday morning for New England (CT).
Fred Stucklen
RV-6A N925RV 2008 hrs (sold)
RV-6A N926RV 720 hrs
RV-7A N924RV (Reserved)
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: | Meske tip up conversion |
Whew, just finished adding the Meske tip up conversion. Way more time
consuming than I thought but it works and should be very useful. The
directions and supplied hardware could be better though.
Shemp
N915JD
300 + Chicago
Jack Lockamy wrote:
>
> Maybe the better way to approach inevitable vacuum pump failures is to
> have the pump rebuilt/replaced every 500 hrs instead of waiting for it
> to fail. I believe this is the same timeframe (500 hrs) that Slick
> magnetos are also recommended to be rebuilt/replaced. Would be any
> easy way to remember when the pump needed replacing (i.e. 500, 1000,
> 1500, 2000 hrs, etc.)
>
>
>
> Certainly would be cheap insurance and if nothing else... peace of
> mind when flying in the soup as others have mentioned.
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> do not archive
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: | Splitters for Sale |
Listers,
I have two different splitters that I do not need and would like to
sell. They are:
1. DIM Antenna Technologies Type DM H22-1 Diplexer. From the Chief
Aircraft catalog: "Single VOR and single GS. Will permit operation of
one NAV and one glide slope receiver from one VOR antenna. VSWR 1.5:1.
Weight 0.25 lbs." Has one BNC input and two BNC outputs. $45.00
2. Comant Industries CI 5120 Dual VOR/GS Splitter. Distributes input
from one VOR/LOC/GS antenna to two VOR/LOC/GS receivers. BNC input and
outputs. $30.00
I'll pay the shipping.
Richard Dudley
RV-6A flying
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 |
|
Listers -
I am considering replacing my LightSPEED 20XL ANR headsets with one of the
in-ear types.
Are there any audiologists among us who would care to comment on the
relative quality of protection offered by the traditional cup-style vs.
in-ear headsets?
Neal George
RV-7 N8ZG (wiring panel)
do not archive
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: Glass for IFR |
On 3/2/07, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Bob J. wrote:
>
> The best approach is to use a wet vacuum pump and a separator. I know of
> many wet vaccum pumps that outlived the engines they were installed in.
>
> They're heavier, and the separator isn't that efficient. That's why the
> dry pump is standard on most 'newer' engines.
>
So what if they're heavier. They last forever! We're talking a pound or
two difference. The reason why dry pumps became fashionable was because
someone thought it would be a clever way to cut costs in certificated
aircraft production.
> I don't know of a single dry pump that I've ever seen that didn't fail
> in the shear coupler. I've never seen on where the vanes wore out.
>
> Well, that's why the pump fails. The vanes are plasticized carbon, and
> the centripetal force keeps the vanes in contact with the pumps outer wall,
> which causes them to wear down slowly. The vanes are the sacrificial
> parts. When the vanes get thin ..... about 1/4" wide or so, they jam in the
> ports and the shear coupling fails.
>
I don't see how a vane can jam into a port. I've taken dry pumps apart and
the ports are only a 1/4" or so in diameter. When they fail due to vane
wear what will happen is that they will fall out of the stator in the open
area ahead of the port, then will jam between the body of the pump and the
next vane that comes along.
I can show you a box of about a half dozen cores we have on our airport of
dry pumps, all of them have vanes in excellent shape. The vanes will
outlast the shear coupler. Ask any A&P that has replaced many of these and
I will bet you a beer you will get the same answer. In every single one
I've seen the drive coupling failed. Why? To use your analogy of the fuse,
imagine a 5A fuse on a 10A circuit. Now lets analyze the design of a dry
pump. Lets say the shear coupling is more rigid, perhaps 50% stronger. Now
lets say a vane fails, what happens? The pump will grind itself internally
to death, and if it causes a seizure of the pump, then a stronger shear
coupler will fail. As long as the bits an pieces can't get into the engine,
or the instruments, there's no problem. Which normally they can't unless
the dry pump is used to inflate deice boots. In those installations however
they have screens to prevent junk from getting in the boots (Piper Aerostar
comes to mind.)
Wet pumps such as the Garwins have a thinned down section of the drive shaft
to act as a shear coupler if the pump seized. In dry pumps the shear
couplers are plastic, it doesn't take much torque to make them fail.
> If the dry pumps didn't have the silly shear coupler they would be far
> more reliable.
>
> Can't agree with that! That's like replacing a fuse with a piece of
> metal. If the shear coupling didn't fail when the pump jammed ..... some
> other, weaker, link in the food chain would have to ...... maybe internal to
> the engine. Who knows??? I sure wouldn't want to find out!
>
The weak link would then be the carbon stator and the vanes, and if they
fail there should not be any cascading effect other than no vacuum
pressure. I believe the shear couplers fail from being subject constant
pounding of the engine power pulses.
FYI ..... I had a dry pump last more than 2000 hours on an O-235 ...... and
> yes, it failed as I was climbing out through the soup. Sigh.
> Linn
>
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
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: ANR Headsets |
On 9:26 2007-03-02 "Neal George" <neal.george@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Are there any audiologists among us who would care to comment on the
> relative quality of protection offered by the traditional cup-style
> vs. in-ear headsets?
I'm not an audiologist, but I did stay in a holiday inn expresss...
Just kidding. I have a pair of the in-ear silicone earplugs, that I had
made to wear while riding my motorcycle. I tried them out in flight, and
found that the combination of the silicone plugs, and my David Clark
10-13.4 headset, almost matched the comfort and audio level of my
Lightspeed 20XL. I've also worn the earplugs on an airline flight between
North America and China, and was happy with the performance there as well.
The earplugs were made by Custom Protect Ear (http://www.protectear.com)
and are the "Convertible Vented" model. They are vented to prevent ear
damage with altitude changes.
All that being said, I think my next headset purchase will be a pair of
Bose Quiet Comfort headphones, plus the aviation mod kit
(http://www.uflymike.com/) to add a boom microphone. The Quiet Comfort
headset is reportedly as good as the X headset in noise cancellation, at
1/3 the price point. I wish I knew someone with this setup so I could give
it a try first, though.
-Rob
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 |
|
I just bought the QC-II with the idea of using the add on mic. Flying
yesterday on Delta, they were fine, but I wonder about how they would
perform in a more challenging environment. Certainly comfortable. Anyone
using them with the add on mic that can give us a pirep?
John J
do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Prior
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: ANR Headsets
On 9:26 2007-03-02 "Neal George" <neal.george@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Are there any audiologists among us who would care to comment on the
> relative quality of protection offered by the traditional cup-style
> vs. in-ear headsets?
I'm not an audiologist, but I did stay in a holiday inn expresss...
Just kidding. I have a pair of the in-ear silicone earplugs, that I had
made to wear while riding my motorcycle. I tried them out in flight, and
found that the combination of the silicone plugs, and my David Clark
10-13.4 headset, almost matched the comfort and audio level of my Lightspeed
20XL. I've also worn the earplugs on an airline flight between North
America and China, and was happy with the performance there as well.
The earplugs were made by Custom Protect Ear (http://www.protectear.com) and
are the "Convertible Vented" model. They are vented to prevent ear damage
with altitude changes.
All that being said, I think my next headset purchase will be a pair of Bose
Quiet Comfort headphones, plus the aviation mod kit
(http://www.uflymike.com/) to add a boom microphone. The Quiet Comfort
headset is reportedly as good as the X headset in noise cancellation, at
1/3 the price point. I wish I knew someone with this setup so I could give
it a try first, though.
-Rob
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 |
|
Many people are starting to realize the problems associated with the plastic
couplings and are replacing it every two years. The guys who are doing this
are getting a lot of trouble free time from the dry pumps. The problem seems
to be the life of the coupling is getting pushed too far The vanes are
designed to go a long time, and in industrial applications, they do, unless
they ingest something like foam from an aged out filter. . Maybe a $11
coupling every couple of years or so, along with a new garter filter, may
save a lot of grief and money..
Just an opinion,
Phil
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: Glass for IFR |
Bob J. wrote:
> On 3/2/07, linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net
> <mailto:pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net>> wrote:
>
> Bob J. wrote:
>
>> The best approach is to use a wet vacuum pump and a separator. I
>> know of many wet vaccum pumps that outlived the engines they were
>> installed in.
>
> They're heavier, and the separator isn't that efficient. That's
> why the dry pump is standard on most 'newer' engines.
>
>
> So what if they're heavier. They last forever! We're talking a pound
> or two difference. The reason why dry pumps became fashionable was
> because someone thought it would be a clever way to cut costs in
> certificated aircraft production.
>
>> I don't know of a single dry pump that I've ever seen that
>> didn't fail in the shear coupler. I've never seen on where the
>> vanes wore out.
>
> Well, that's why the pump fails. The vanes are plasticized
> carbon, and the centripetal force keeps the vanes in contact with
> the pumps outer wall, which causes them to wear down slowly. The
> vanes are the sacrificial parts. When the vanes get thin .....
> about 1/4" wide or so, they jam in the ports and the shear
> coupling fails.
>
>
> I don't see how a vane can jam into a port. I've taken dry pumps
> apart and the ports are only a 1/4" or so in diameter. When they fail
> due to vane wear what will happen is that they will fall out of the
> stator in the open area ahead of the port, then will jam between the
> body of the pump and the next vane that comes along.
I've not seen that failure mode. The vanes I've seen (personally, and
in my limited experience) all had plenty of 'room' left on the vane.
However, there was wear on the ports and the face (side of the pump) had
a little 'tit' worn there that 'could' have caused the failure. There
wasn't any other explanation for the failure.
> I can show you a box of about a half dozen cores we have on our
> airport of dry pumps, all of them have vanes in excellent shape. The
> vanes will outlast the shear coupler. Ask any A&P that has replaced
> many of these and I will bet you a beer you will get the same answer.
> In every single one I've seen the drive coupling failed. Why? To use
> your analogy of the fuse, imagine a 5A fuse on a 10A circuit. Now
> lets analyze the design of a dry pump. Lets say the shear coupling is
> more rigid, perhaps 50% stronger. Now lets say a vane fails, what
> happens? The pump will grind itself internally to death, and if it
> causes a seizure of the pump, then a stronger shear coupler will
> fail. As long as the bits an pieces can't get into the engine, or the
> instruments, there's no problem. Which normally they can't unless the
> dry pump is used to inflate deice boots. In those installations
> however they have screens to prevent junk from getting in the boots
> (Piper Aerostar comes to mind.)
The rubber shear coupling degrades over time and heat in the engine
compartment, so it's nowhere as structurally sound as when it was born.
The busted couplings broke into chunks when 'tested'.
> Wet pumps such as the Garwins have a thinned down section of the drive
> shaft to act as a shear coupler if the pump seized. In dry pumps the
> shear couplers are plastic, it doesn't take much torque to make them
> fail.
I've encountered the swame necked-down shaft on dry pumps too. I
thought the couplings were a rubber compound, but they could be a
flexible plastic. In any event, they don't have a long lifespan under
good conditions. Maybe changing the coupling instead of the pump every
500 hours is a better cost idea. I dunno.
>> If the dry pumps didn't have the silly shear coupler they would
>> be far more reliable.
>
> Can't agree with that! That's like replacing a fuse with a piece
> of metal. If the shear coupling didn't fail when the pump jammed
> ..... some other, weaker, link in the food chain would have to
> ...... maybe internal to the engine. Who knows??? I sure
> wouldn't want to find out!
>
>
> The weak link would then be the carbon stator and the vanes, and if
> they fail there should not be any cascading effect other than no
> vacuum pressure. I believe the shear couplers fail from being subject
> constant pounding of the engine power pulses.
Could be.
Linn
do not archive
>
>
> FYI ..... I had a dry pump last more than 2000 hours on an O-235
> ...... and yes, it failed as I was climbing out through the soup.
> Sigh.
> Linn
>
>
> Regards,
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 flying F1 under const.
>
>
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: | vacuum stuff .... |
Phil Sisson wrote:
> Many people are starting to realize the problems associated with the
> plastic couplings and are replacing it every two years. The guys who
> are doing this are getting a lot of trouble free time from the dry
> pumps. The problem seems to be the life of the coupling is getting
> pushed too far The vanes are designed to go a long time, and in
> industrial applications, they do, unless they ingest something like
> foam from an aged out filter. ...
>
This comment triggered an old memory. In the electronic test industry,
they use vacuum to suck the boards down on the test fixture pins. The
pumps were wearing out really fast, and the vanes and down time were
getting significant ..... and as the pump efficiency dropped, so did the
pass rate on the boards. Late one afternoon I found the problem ....
purely by chance. The test tech was cleaning up the fixture area ....
yup, you guessed it .... with the vacuum hose for the fixtures. The
coarse particle filter was sealed so we never saw the big chunks, but
the little grit ate the vanes up real quick.
Linn
do not archive
> Maybe a $11 coupling every couple of years or so, along with a new
> garter filter, may save a lot of grief and money..
>
>
>
> Just an opinion,
>
>
>
> Phil
>
>
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: | Comparing Bose X headset to the QCII, was ANR Headseats |
I have both the Quiet Comfort II headphones and the X aviation headset. I
have not used the aviation set in an airplane yet (RV7A soon to fly) but have
tried the QCs once, while flying, to listen to MP3s. That was not very
satisfying as the noise in my Grumman almost drowned out the music.
After reading your post Rob, I turned on some thumpy dance music in my
living room and ran a non scientific comparison between the two. In my subjective
opinion, I would say that the X set noise reduction, approaches twice the
effectiveness as the QC in both passive and active modes.
Some other factors to consider:
The X is more comfortable, although it will be hotter on warm days.
The X is much more robust in construction and has much heavier cables and
connectors.
I initially had power switch problems with the QC. It's a cheap slide
switch.
The X is stereo/mono selectable.
The X has individual L/R volume controls.
The mic position on the X can be reversed.
The X has auto shut off.
The X has 2 AA batteries as opposed to 1 AAA for the QC.
I don't remember the length of the warrantee on the QCs but that could be a
factor.
There's a 5 yr warrantee on the X set.
I bought my X set used, but within the warrantee period. One of the metal
headband yokes was broken. Bose rebuilt the head band with two new metal
yokes and included new head and ear cushions, all at no charge including return
shipping.
With all that said, I still don't know why they are THAT expensive.
Anyway, I reported, you decide.
Bob Trumpfheller
mesawood.com
In a message dated 3/2/2007 11:39:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, rv7@b4.ca
writes:
All that being said, I think my next headset purchase will be a pair of
Bose Quiet Comfort headphones, plus the aviation mod kit
(http://www.uflymike.com/) to add a boom microphone. The Quiet Comfort
headset is reportedly as good as the X headset in noise cancellation, at
1/3 the price point. I wish I knew someone with this setup so I could give
it a try first, though.
-Rob
<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> AOL now offers free
email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at
http://www.aol.com.
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 |
|
Regarding quiet comfort (non aviation) Bose headsets. I recently had a
problem with a QC1 set of headsets, called Bose to arrange repair.
Bad news, they could not/ would not repair.
Good news for $100 they sent me a pair of the QC2 headsets. I had to send
the QC1's to their depot for evaluation and received the new set in less
than 10 days.
I travel a lot for business (as passenger) I will NEVER go on another trip
with out the QC headsets. Most recent long trip, Denver - LA, Singapore,
Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Tokyo, Seattle - (replaced battery) back to Denver.
Nearly 40 hours on one AAA
Arrive at your destination feeling better, and travel more comfortably.
Bose did not ask for original receipts, so......
Get aviation ANR headsets too, you'll be glad you did. There are sources for
upgrade kits to take passive to ANR. Use Google to find, very easy to do.
Dave Cordner
RV-7 N898DC (rsvd)
Fuse
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rob Prior
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: ANR Headsets
On 9:26 2007-03-02 "Neal George" <neal.george@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Are there any audiologists among us who would care to comment on the
> relative quality of protection offered by the traditional cup-style
> vs. in-ear headsets?
I'm not an audiologist, but I did stay in a holiday inn expresss...
Just kidding. I have a pair of the in-ear silicone earplugs, that I had
made to wear while riding my motorcycle. I tried them out in flight, and
found that the combination of the silicone plugs, and my David Clark
10-13.4 headset, almost matched the comfort and audio level of my
Lightspeed 20XL. I've also worn the earplugs on an airline flight between
North America and China, and was happy with the performance there as well.
The earplugs were made by Custom Protect Ear (http://www.protectear.com)
and are the "Convertible Vented" model. They are vented to prevent ear
damage with altitude changes.
All that being said, I think my next headset purchase will be a pair of
Bose Quiet Comfort headphones, plus the aviation mod kit
(http://www.uflymike.com/) to add a boom microphone. The Quiet Comfort
headset is reportedly as good as the X headset in noise cancellation, at
1/3 the price point. I wish I knew someone with this setup so I could give
it a try first, though.
-Rob
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: Comparing Bose X headset to the QCII, was ANR Headseats |
Hi all,
If it's any help, the Kitplanes website (www.kitplanes.com) has three of my four headset review articles as free content on their website. The in-the-ear feature isn't in the free content section just yet, but it appeared in the Feb 07 issue. There may be some info in there that may be helpful. Each article has a feature comparison chart, including prices at the time it went to press, and contact info.
I loved the Bose X and bought a set for myself. I also use it when doing tricky
audio transcription- the sophisticated audio electronics does wonders for so-so
audio.
Of the in-the-ear headsets, I liked the Clarity Aloft a lot, and found the Quiet
Technologies Halo to work well, too. The LS Mach 1 was cool, but tookme some
time to get used to it.
This has been a great thread.
best,
CoryEmberson
Contributing Editor
Kitplanes Magazine
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 |
|
> Many people are starting to realize the problems associated with the
plastic couplings and are replacing it every two years.
Not a bad idea if it is really the coupling that fails. In my
case I saw the innards broken. That likely led to the coupling shearing
as opposed to the other way.
I will have to examine the Rapco 215cc I get to see if it is easy to
replace the coupling.
Ron
Lee
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
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: Glass for IFR |
I lost my vac pump right at 500 hours, in the soup (RV-6A). I tend to
agree with replacing them every 500 hours (or perhaps a bit sooner). :-)
However, for my RV-10, I've bought the new SigmaTek Aeon vacuum pump (to
run the artificial horizon which is my failover source of attitude info
if there's a problem with my AF-3500 EFIS). The Aeon is on sale at AC$
right now. It uses a dual action piston rather than rotating vanes. It
has a 5 year, 2000 hour warranty. Seems promising.
Tim
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 850 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
Jack Lockamy wrote:
>
> Maybe the better way to approach inevitable vacuum pump failures is to
> have the pump rebuilt/replaced every 500 hrs instead of waiting for it
> to fail. I believe this is the same timeframe (500 hrs) that Slick
> magnetos are also recommended to be rebuilt/replaced. Would be any
> easy way to remember when the pump needed replacing (i.e. 500, 1000,
> 1500, 2000 hrs, etc.)
>
>
>
> Certainly would be cheap insurance and if nothing else... peace of
> mind when flying in the soup as others have mentioned.
>
>
>
> Jack
>
>
>
> do not archive
>
> *
>
>
> *
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 |
|
We noticed a posting recently regarding Aircraft Spruce and Tru Trak
indicators, and wanted to reply to the readers. Tru Trak sends these
turn and bank indicators to us bulk packaged 4 in a box, and we have to
repackage them as individual units. This is why the packaging did not
look like "Tru Tak" packaging. Our customer service department exchanged
the first unit for another one, and of course the second one looked just
the same; they should have checked first and would have found that we
get them bulk packed from the manufacturer. Both units were of course
new, not used, and our customer is satisfied with the unit. Please let
us know if you ever have any questions or concerns.
Aircraft Spruce Customer Service
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Does anyone know if the cowl plugs that vans sells will work for an -8
too? It doesn't say anything on the site about the -8... Does anyone
have these and have any feedback?
http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?&browse=airframe&produc
t=cowl_plugs
-Bill
www.rv8a.com
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
RV-7/8 - fits RV-6/7/8/9 airplane cowls without scoop
Part Number = COWL PLUG HORIZ
Price = $59.95
Surfing the web with my laptop from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my RV7A website: http://webpages.charter.net/bobbyhester/MyFlyingRV7A.htm
Bill VonDane wrote:
> Does anyone know if the cowl plugs that vans sells will work for an -8
> too? It doesn't say anything on the site about the -8... Does anyone
> have these and have any feedback?
>
> http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?&browse=airframe&product=cowl_plugs
> <http://www.vansaircraft.com/cgi-bin/catalog.cgi?&browse=airframe&product=cowl_plugs>
>
> -Bill
> www.rv8a.com <http://www.rv8a.com>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Spruce |
This was my order that ACS mentions below. I should point out that I called ACS
customer service and discussed the packaging and was not told the information
below and therefore requested a replacement. ACS replaced the unit without
question. Of course if they had told me about the packaging in the first place
it would have avoided the hassle. I would also like to say the I got a call
from a customer service manager a couple of days ago to explain the situation.
I thought this was good follow up on their part.
Paul
Do Not Archive
.----- Original Message -----
From: Aircraft Spruce
To: RV-List@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:17 PM
Subject: RV-List: Aircraft Spruce
We noticed a posting recently regarding Aircraft Spruce and Tru Trak indicators,
and wanted to reply to the readers. Tru Trak sends these turn and bank indicators
to us bulk packaged 4 in a box, and we have to repackage them as individual
units. This is why the packaging did not look like "Tru Tak" packaging.
Our customer service department exchanged the first unit for another one, and
of course the second one looked just the same; they should have checked first
and would have found that we get them bulk packed from the manufacturer. Both
units were of course new, not used, and our customer is satisfied with the unit.
Please let us know if you ever have any questions or concerns.
Aircraft Spruce Customer Service
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! --
|