Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:37 AM - Re: Jack Norris Book on "Props" / "Logic of Flight" (Bob J.)
2. 07:01 AM - Re: Jack Norris Book on "Props" / "Logic of Flight" (Sherman Butler)
3. 07:31 AM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (Paul Besing)
4. 05:55 PM - Re: GPS/XM antenna interference (linn Walters)
5. 06:01 PM - Re: How rediculous is this?! (linn Walters)
6. 07:20 PM - Re: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power, B&C alternators ()
7. 07:54 PM - Re: Re: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power, B&C alter... (Vanremog@aol.com)
8. 08:30 PM - Re: Re: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power, B&C alter... (Bob J.)
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: Jack Norris Book on "Props" / "Logic of Flight" |
I got mine at OSH after his forum. His style of writing is very 'rambling'
to put it mildly and the book is unedited. IMO both of which has made the
book somewhat frustrating to read.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
On 8/16/07, Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> wrote:
>
>
> > My book from Jack Norris arrive in the mail today.
> >
> > One side is: "Propellers" the other side is "Logic of Flight".
> >
> > The paperback book measures 7" X 9" X 1 1/8" thick.
> >
>
> My copy of the book came just a couple of days ago. It's really packed
> with information. I can easily see why it took so long to write - it
> will probably take me about a year to read it!
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> 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: Jack Norris Book on "Props" / "Logic of Flight" |
I submitt a data point for information, as this is not my field. Per my aerodyamicsist:
Jack Noriss didn't actually do any of the work that he is touting. His good friend
Dr. Andy Bower had just finished the work shortly before he died. In a
nut shell Bower figured out how to calculate a vortex integral on the fly that
would be used to predict prop performance. McCauley and Hartzell and everyone
else for that matter is using a method for predicting performance done by Henry
Borst in the 1940's for the Army Air Corps. McCauley, Hartzell and Hamelton
props have shown better performance against a Norris designed prop. There are
more practical methods of design a propeller and if you are interested in propeller
design, and there are several books, from conceptual to very rigorous
available.
"Bob J." <rocketbob@gmail.com> wrote: I got mine at OSH after his forum. His
style of writing is very 'rambling' to put it mildly and the book is unedited.
IMO both of which has made the book somewhat frustrating to read.
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
Idaho Falls
---------------------------------
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: GPS/XM antenna interference |
I have a Garmin 396...I have the XM/Sat antenna literally 1/4" from eachother and
they have not had a single problem in over 100 hours. And, I had to use and
extender cable. They are behind the back seat on the turtledeck of my RV-4.
Paul Besing
linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Charles Reiche wrote:
This is not the test of an "active" antenna, that being really one that
tranmits RF, like com antennas, active traffic (tcas, skywatch) and transponder
antennas.... also satcom ( as far from every other antenna as possible)
5V at the antenna just means there is a preamp in the antenna.
Charlie, lemme disagree here. Almost all (never say 'all' or 'never') active antennas
are receiver antennas. Such as those with a preamp, like the GPS antennas
we're talking about here. Almost all (same caveat here) transmit antennas
are passive. There are exceptions to both these categories, but none apply
to aviation AFAIK.
Passive antennas are ones such as ADF loop and sense, GPS, XM radio, Marker
Beacon, and stormscope antennas.
True .... good examples of passive receiver antennas.
You can line those GPS and XM antennas right up next to each other no problems!
And passive receiver antennas too.
Linn
do not archive
Charlie
Make sure you have enough cable loss or attenuation with your GNS X30 WAAS system!
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Palermo
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: GPS/XM antenna interference
Mark The antennas will not interact with each other but should be at least 24
inches from other types of active antennas(comm). If you want to see if it is
an active antenna, take the tnc off, turn on the gns 430w/530w and measure from
the center conductor to the shield with a voltmeter and you will find that
there is 5 vdc at that point.
Vincent Palermo
On Aug 13, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Doug Weiler wrote:
On 8/12/07 1:05 PM, "Fiveonepw@aol.com" <Fiveonepw@aol.com> wrote:
At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active antennas(ae?) next to
each other as their active electronics could degrade or corrupt data from them.
I've been unable to find any such restrictions in the installation information
provided with the equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual Horizons with
XM satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS, for a total of
3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to mount these on a common
shelf at the top of the firewall under the cowl.
Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which tells me little
of it's "active" capability or if these are simple (non-active) devices, although
I know the antenna for the 430W is a dedicated unit (not same as non-W unit).
The antenna for the ADI is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have any actual experience
with this or know of any installation requirements/recommended practices
for these devices, or is this more Urban Legend?
Mark Phillips
(with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
Mark:
I have my normal GPS antenna mounted immediately adjacent to my XM WX antenna (for
my Anywhere Map system). There seems to be no issues what so ever. I would
not place them near a transmitting antenna however.
Doug Weiler
RV-4, 400 hrs
---------------------------------
AOL.com.
il Forum -
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List href="http://forums.matronics.com">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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: GPS/XM antenna interference |
Doug Weiler wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/07 1:05 PM, "Fiveonepw@aol.com" <Fiveonepw@aol.com> wrote:
>
> At an OSH forum it was recommended to not locate active
> antennas(ae?) next to each other as their active electronics could
> degrade or corrupt data from them. I've been unable to find any
> such restrictions in the installation information provided with
> the equipment which includes GNS430W, GRT Dual Horizons with XM
> satellite and internal GPS, Trutrak ADI with it's own GPS, for a
> total of 3 GPS antennas(ae?) and one XM receiver. I'd like to
> mount these on a common shelf at the top of the firewall under the
> cowl.
>
There that caveat 'could'. Now don't get me wrong .... I'm not an
'expert', but have extensive electronics background. Sleeping in the
Holiday Inn Express really didn't help shed any light on this thread.
The 'active' part is an amplifier that boosts the meager signal from the
satellite. I'm sure it's possible to design an active receiver antenna
that radiates enough garbage to impact another active receiver next to
it. However, the design just wouldn't get past certification. So I
feel confident in saying 'go for it'.
> Each antenna appears to have a simple coaxial connection which
> tells me little of it's "active" capability or if these are simple
> (non-active) devices, although I know the antenna for the 430W is
> a dedicated unit (not same as non-W unit). The antenna for the
> ADI is a Laipac Tech model GLP1.
>
The antennas I'm talking about (satellite receiver types) generally use
5V to power the unit, through the same coax that the signal comes
through. I'm not familiar with the ADI antenna.
> Before I contact the various suppliers tomorrow, does anyone have
> any actual experience with this or know of any installation
> requirements/recommended practices for these devices, or is this
> more Urban Legend?
>
No actual experience on my part ..... just applying the thought process
to the 'problem'. So, to answer this question, my advice is not to talk
to the various suppliers. There opinion will probably be couched in CYA
rather than sound electronic principles. They also know nothing
(relatively) about the other equipment and haven't a clue if there would
be a problem. Now, before y'all get the guns out .... there are some
really widely knowledgeable techs and engineers out there .... but
finding them is the problem.
> Mark Phillips
> (with apologies for posting to multiple lists!)
>
> Mark:
>
> I have my normal GPS antenna mounted immediately adjacent to my XM
> WX antenna (for my Anywhere Map system). There seems to be no
> issues what so ever. I would not place them near a transmitting
> antenna however.
>
Amen!
Linn
do not archive
>
>
> Doug Weiler
> RV-4, 400 hrs
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> AOL.com.
>
>
> il Forum -
>>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> ; - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> matronics.com
>
>
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: How rediculous is this?! |
Sheesh ..... 4 days after you send the email, it finally arrives. Not
much better than the Postal Service!!!
Tim Bryan wrote:
> Hi Linn,
>
>
>
> It came from the previous post. I realize he didn't mean it exactly
> so no flame was intended by me. However for your comments, the idea
> of considering someone who buys an airplane, gets someone to check em
> out, and goes flying without ever getting a license; they are not
> pilots. The idea of airplanes being piloted by "unskilled and
> untrained pilots" is scary to me and should not be happening as they
> are not pilots. I realize non-pilots do get out there but building
> airplanes targeted at that audience however I don't really think is
> happening.
>
Not targeted ..... but there are builders out there that bought a kit
and will try and fly it ..... without any training at all. I've seen
some rather comical attempts at flight by folks that built a lightplane
(heavy ultralight) and decided to go fly .... probably after extensive
sessions with Flight Simulator.
> Airplanes should be built for
>
(or by)
> pilots who are trained and skilled.
>
Yup, there's that 'should' word.
> Now the level of skill and training certainly varies and may be what
> he was referring to.
>
Could have been. I've seen both critters ..... wanna be builders and
wanna be pilots.
I just hope I'm not in either category!!! ;-)
Linn
do not archive
>
>
> Tim
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of linn Walters
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 9:15 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: How rediculous is this?!
>
>
>
> Tim Bryan wrote:
>
> "unskilled and untrained pilot"
>
>
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> Yup. Don't know where that quote came from, but there are a lot of
> 'em out there ..... giving the rest of us a bad name. You can buy an
> airplane, get someone to 'check you out' and go fly without ever
> having to get your license. Not a good recipe for a long life, but
> they're out there. Be afraid, really afraid.
> Linn
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>
>http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
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: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power, B&C alternators |
Tim: there both good but you hit the nail on the head cost. Both have good products
and service.
I can point out to some nice features of the Plane Power unit that the B&C does
not have:
-Custom cooling fans for proper rotation (B&C runs stock fan backward)
-High Altitude Brushes
Plane power also like B&C is anodized, balanced and they use top parts. Plane
power manufactures many parts in house.
The OV production uses the same type of crow-bar OV module that Bob recommends
and B&C sells, but it is integrated into the unit.
You can't go wrong with either, but one advantage that may not be obvious is
getting an emergency temp replacement on a X-C trip. Away from home base, the
plane power could in a pinch be replaced with a stock alternator from an automotive
parts store. Even though the Plane power units are modified, the wiring
is basically the same as a stock internally regulated alternator.
Plane power has a larger output unit 70 amps verses 60 amps. If you want to accept
the weight, I would consider the 70 amp unit, especially if you are going
with a fancy panel and inflight entertainment. It's about 3 lbs more. It's nice
to keep your total load below say 50-60% of max rating. It's simple math,
heat. Lower the heat the better the service life/reliability. Since the Plane-power
has the regulator on-board, protecting it from heat with heat a shield and
blast tube is value added.
Cheers George
From: Tim Lewis <Tim_Lewis@msm.umr.edu>
Subject: RV-List: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power,
B&C alternators
I'm thinking of buying either a 60 Amp alternator made by either Plane
Power ($375 including internal regulator and OV from Van's) or B&C
($595 + $228 for regulator & OV = $823) for my RV-10. The Plane Power
price and simplicity are quite appealing. I've heard good things about
Plane Power, and have heard of only a single failure in the field. B&C
also has a very good reputation. So I'm seeking experiences, both good
and bad, from people who have put a few hours on a Plane Power (or B&C)
alternator.
Thanks,
Tim Lewis
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
---------------------------------
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.
Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
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: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power, B&C |
alter...
In a message dated 8/17/2007 7:22:04 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
Plane power also like B&C is anodized, balanced and they use top parts.
====================================================
I believe that George meant to say alodined (chem film per MIL-C-5541)
rather than anodized (per MIL-A-8625) because, if you were to anodize the housing,
you would have to do it selectively (not in the area that makes chassis
ground contact), since anodizing is insulative. My B&C is chem filmed and chem
film (chromate) is conductive.
GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 864hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
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: Seeking good and bad experiences with Plane Power, B&C |
alter...
Alternatively consider the Denso 100211-1680 alternator, available brand new
from many sources for about $200. Its rated at 42A and weighs 6lbs. This
is the same alternator that Niagara Airparts used to sell, and it has
built-in OV protection. I have had one for 700+ hours and its been
rock-solid reliable. The most appealing thing about this alternator is the
availability of it as a rebuilt unit at a local auto parts store. Once I
had a friend I was flying with have an alternator crap out on a trip, and we
were able to get him going again after a short hop to the a auto parts store
after landing at the nearest airport along our route. His alternator was
one of Van's old 35A units.
I have a source for these new alternators, email me off-line if interested.
Niagara will still sell the brackets for $75.00.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying F1 under const.
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! --
|