Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:47 AM - Re: Re: CJ6 Ariel Connector (Warren Hill)
2. 11:28 AM - Re: CJ6 Ariel Connector (Harv)
3. 04:12 PM - Bladder Tank Upgrade (dabear)
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: CJ6 Ariel Connector |
Harv,
No worries. I have several extra Chinese connectors and the necessary die to do
the conversion. Let me know your address off-line and I'll send you a converted
American PL-259 with a reducer that will work with your antenna. If you have
a CJ, the cable run from the base of the antenna to a radio installed at the
instrument is roughly 18 to 20 feet, depending on the path it takes.
The coaxial cable simply transfers the RF energy from the transmitter to the antenna.
At VHF frequencies, with a low loss cable and over such a short cable run,
there should be no problems due to losses as most of the transmitting we do
is line-of-sight. Mark's prior recommendation of RG-142B/U is a good one in
that the losses are minimal at aviation frequencies and the cable is near impervious
to high temperatures.
Warren Hill
k7wx@earthlink.net
On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Harv wrote:
>
> Warren
>
> Thanks for your advice and reply!
>
> As I'm in the UK sending it over might be a bit of a chore. I can get a connector
for the Chinese fitting from RS components here in the UK and if it is possible
to run a die down the thread to convert it I will certainly give that a
try. When I stopped and tried their connectors some weeks ago they looked to
be poor quality ali connectors so i'm not sure if they will take a die run through
the threads.
>
> Is 18 to 20ft run of cable from the ariel to radio the ball park figure for
obtaining the best radio range when transmitting?
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308753#308753
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: CJ6 Ariel Connector |
Warren
I've emailed you the details.
Thanks so much! :D
Harv
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=308804#308804
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: | Bladder Tank Upgrade |
I just had the bladder tanks put in my CJ giving me 12 Gallons extra a
side. I also had the vent (1 each side) shut off system installed.
Anyone else who has either or both of these systems installed in their
CJ, any comments on the operation, best practices, issues would be
appreciated. Here are my thoughts and findings:
1. I really appreciate having 64 Gallons on board for long trips. Not
that I'm using all of the capacity, but its nice having the choice where
to stop for the cheap fuel etc.
2. It is really sensative to yaw on feeding/draining. Fuel flow
imbalance can still happen
3. There is only a single fuel sender/sensor per tank and it works like
the standard unit. That means you can only read the last 60 litters or
so and not the whole 32 Gallons (121 litters)
4. There is foam in the tank to limit compression and fuel movement, it
has an interesting affect on the fuel in that fuel level indications can
change for a few seconds, then go back to the correct reading due to
"push over" or other abrupt moves.
Overall, a good "up grade" but I've only got 6 hours flying with the new
tanks.
Thoughts from those that also have the system???
Bear
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! --
|