I have been asked to do a 400 trip in a cessna aircraft TOMORROW
and to film the trip using my sony camcorder

on previous occassions the built in microphones captures way too much
ambient noise and next to nothing of the intercom and tower
conversations and even placing an extension mic in one side of the
headphones is not satisfactory (noise cancelling circuitry in the
headsets seems to cause interference in the camera)

So in a hurry last time I did a direct connection from the headphone
socket to the line-in knowing that it would be too much of a mismath...
and it was...way too much signal

This time around I would like to get it somewher near perfect but I dont
have any figures on the output of the headphones OR the line-in of the
camera ... and I only have a few hours to get some result.

Can anyone give me a ballpark figure on what value resistor I could use
in the line to cut the signal in half

Legend wrote:
I have been asked to do a 400 trip in a cessna aircraft TOMORROW
and to film the trip using my sony camcorder

on previous occassions the built in microphones captures way too much
ambient noise and next to nothing of the intercom and tower
conversations and even placing an extension mic in one side of the
headphones is not satisfactory (noise cancelling circuitry in the
headsets seems to cause interference in the camera)

So in a hurry last time I did a direct connection from the headphone
socket to the line-in knowing that it would be too much of a mismath...
and it was...way too much signal

This time around I would like to get it somewher near perfect but I dont
have any figures on the output of the headphones OR the line-in of the
camera ... and I only have a few hours to get some result.

Can anyone give me a ballpark figure on what value resistor I could use
in the line to cut the signal in half



Many Thanks go to **Russ and **Phil again
by combining their suggestions and using 2 x 10k 2gang pots I came up
with a circuit that mixed 25% ambeint (engine) noise with 75%
radio/intercom traffic at an ideal volume with no distortion and dropped
the intercom/radio track on the left channel of the sound track and the
ambient noise on the right channel of the sound track on my movie...
and all without burning out the aircrafts electrical system and falling
to my death from a great hight in a burning plane...
....AIA a very successful trip

.... and to the others....
I live to be a target for abuse in here some other day
-LEGEND

Off the record: Sounds as if there is a question of confidence [at least a
hint] in the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft in question?/
Absolutely sure that even though you shorted out the Navcom and
Communications that a properly trained pilot would have no problem returning
the Cessna to a viable position on the ground. IMHO
"Legend" wrote in message
...
Legend wrote:
I have been asked to do a 400 trip in a cessna aircraft TOMORROW
and to film the trip using my sony camcorder

on previous occassions the built in microphones captures way too much
ambient noise and next to nothing of the intercom and tower
conversations and even placing an extension mic in one side of the
headphones is not satisfactory (noise cancelling circuitry in the
headsets seems to cause interference in the camera)

So in a hurry last time I did a direct connection from the headphone
socket to the line-in knowing that it would be too much of a mismath...
and it was...way too much signal

This time around I would like to get it somewher near perfect but I dont
have any figures on the output of the headphones OR the line-in of the
camera ... and I only have a few hours to get some result.

Can anyone give me a ballpark figure on what value resistor I could use
in the line to cut the signal in half



Many Thanks go to **Russ and **Phil again
by combining their suggestions and using 2 x 10k 2gang pots I came up with
a circuit that mixed 25% ambeint (engine) noise with 75% radio/intercom
traffic at an ideal volume with no distortion and dropped the
intercom/radio track on the left channel of the sound track and the
ambient noise on the right channel of the sound track on my movie...
and all without burning out the aircrafts electrical system and falling
to my death from a great hight in a burning plane...
...AIA a very successful trip

... and to the others....
I live to be a target for abuse in here some other day
-LEGEND

Art wrote:

Off the record: Sounds as if there is a question of confidence [at least a
hint] in the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft in question?/
Absolutely sure that even though you shorted out the Navcom and
Communications that a properly trained pilot would have no problem returning
the Cessna to a viable position on the ground. IMHO

my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet
glided it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after
running out of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the lack
on reverse thrust.

I doubt that any type of "JET Aircraft" has a glide ratio of 30,000 feet to
6000 miles. That is totally impossible!! 6 miles probably and I would
expect to drop a skin or too having to resort to using the braking system
rather than having available reverse thrust from the engines. Aeronautically
the glide ratio for any jet airplane will not allow that distance of a "free
fall" from only 30,000 feet. Maybe you were thinking of the "Gossamer
Albatross"?? Superior glide ratio but would definately not make it to 30,000
feet altitude.
"Legend" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:

Off the record: Sounds as if there is a question of confidence [at least
a hint] in the pilot's ability to operate the aircraft in question?/
Absolutely sure that even though you shorted out the Navcom and
Communications that a properly trained pilot would have no problem
returning the Cessna to a viable position on the ground. IMHO

my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet glided
it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after running out
of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the lack on reverse
thrust.

my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet
glided it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after
running out of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the
lack on reverse thrust.

Art wrote:
I doubt that any type of "JET Aircraft" has a glide ratio of 30,000
feet to 6000 miles. That is totally impossible!! 6 miles probably
and I would expect to drop a skin or too having to resort to using
the braking system rather than having available reverse thrust from
the engines. Aeronautically the glide ratio for any jet airplane will
not allow that distance of a "free fall" from only 30,000 feet. Maybe
you were thinking of the "Gossamer Albatross"?? Superior glide ratio
but would definately not make it to 30,000 feet altitude.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1983/1983-25.htm

The aircraft took off from Ottawa bound for Edmonton with less than half the
fuel required to make the trip. A computer known as the "Fuel Quantity
Information System Processor" was not working properly so the ground crew
made manual calculations for the amount of needed fuel. However, they used
pounds/liter for the specific gravity factor instead of kilograms/liter.
This was first model of aircraft of Air Canada to use kilograms. The
aircraft ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. With only standby instruments
(magnetic compass, artificial horizon, airspeed indicator and altimeter) and
no slats or flaps, the plane landed safely on a 7,200 ft. runway at Gimli, a
former Air Force base converted into a racing drag strip. The plane became
known as the "Gimli Glider." The TV movie Falling from the Sky: Flight 174
was made about this incident in 1995.

I am familiar with that issue with the Air Canada Aircraft. However the post
indicated "gliding from 30k altitude to a location 8500 km away". As I
responded it is outside the glide ratio for any commercial and/or military
aircraft in current use. The implication of justified use of air speed and
juducious fuel monitoring is how the experienced pilots accomplished that
amazing feat. Yes, indeed it would be nice if that could be done but even
Burt Rutan could not have his nice litle project bird glide from over 60k
altituce that kind of distance. Cheers: Maybe a Labats or Footers is in
order, Eh!!
"Leif Neland" wrote in message
. ..
my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet
glided it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after
running out of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the
lack on reverse thrust.

Art wrote:
I doubt that any type of "JET Aircraft" has a glide ratio of 30,000
feet to 6000 miles. That is totally impossible!! 6 miles probably
and I would expect to drop a skin or too having to resort to using
the braking system rather than having available reverse thrust from
the engines. Aeronautically the glide ratio for any jet airplane will
not allow that distance of a "free fall" from only 30,000 feet. Maybe
you were thinking of the "Gossamer Albatross"?? Superior glide ratio
but would definately not make it to 30,000 feet altitude.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1983/1983-25.htm

The aircraft took off from Ottawa bound for Edmonton with less than half
the
fuel required to make the trip. A computer known as the "Fuel Quantity
Information System Processor" was not working properly so the ground crew
made manual calculations for the amount of needed fuel. However, they used
pounds/liter for the specific gravity factor instead of kilograms/liter.
This was first model of aircraft of Air Canada to use kilograms. The
aircraft ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. With only standby instruments
(magnetic compass, artificial horizon, airspeed indicator and altimeter)
and
no slats or flaps, the plane landed safely on a 7,200 ft. runway at Gimli,
a
former Air Force base converted into a racing drag strip. The plane became
known as the "Gimli Glider." The TV movie Falling from the Sky: Flight 174
was made about this incident in 1995.

Art wrote:

I am familiar with that issue with the Air Canada Aircraft. However the post
indicated "gliding from 30k altitude to a location 8500 km away". As I
responded it is outside the glide ratio for any commercial and/or military
aircraft in current use. The implication of justified use of air speed and
juducious fuel monitoring is how the experienced pilots accomplished that
amazing feat. Yes, indeed it would be nice if that could be done but even
Burt Rutan could not have his nice litle project bird glide from over 60k
altituce that kind of distance. Cheers: Maybe a Labats or Footers is in
order, Eh!!
"Leif Neland" wrote in message
. ..

my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet
glided it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after
running out of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the
lack on reverse thrust.

Art wrote:

I doubt that any type of "JET Aircraft" has a glide ratio of 30,000
feet to 6000 miles. That is totally impossible!! 6 miles probably
and I would expect to drop a skin or too having to resort to using
the braking system rather than having available reverse thrust from
the engines. Aeronautically the glide ratio for any jet airplane will
not allow that distance of a "free fall" from only 30,000 feet. Maybe
you were thinking of the "Gossamer Albatross"?? Superior glide ratio
but would definately not make it to 30,000 feet altitude.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1983/1983-25.htm

The aircraft took off from Ottawa bound for Edmonton with less than half

the

fuel required to make the trip. A computer known as the "Fuel Quantity
Information System Processor" was not working properly so the ground crew
made manual calculations for the amount of needed fuel. However, they used
pounds/liter for the specific gravity factor instead of kilograms/liter.
This was first model of aircraft of Air Canada to use kilograms. The
aircraft ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. With only standby instruments
(magnetic compass, artificial horizon, airspeed indicator and altimeter)

and

no slats or flaps, the plane landed safely on a 7,200 ft. runway at Gimli,

a

former Air Force base converted into a racing drag strip. The plane became
known as the "Gimli Glider." The TV movie Falling from the Sky: Flight 174
was made about this incident in 1995.

It ain't 8500 KM from Toronto Pearson to either runway at Gimli.

There was a vaguely similar event involving an Air Transat charter which
started leaking fuel over the Atlantic, and made a deadstick in IIRC,
the Azores. It involved a distance rather like 8500 km, but it wasn't
all a glide.

rm

Thanks Bob: I was just repeating what had been posted buy the other bloke,
Eh!!
If my memory does not fail me 6000 statute miles is apx 8500 km, correct??
NOT SPECIFICALLY relating to the Pearson to Gimli feat, Eh!! Please read ALL
relevant post before flaming again. Thanks & have a very fine Canada Day
celebration and holiday with your friends and family. Personally I'd like to
be back in Peterborough this weekend along the Trent Canal.
Again maybe a Blue Label Labatts will be in order. Cheers Gov.
"BobMac" wrote in message
...
Art wrote:

I am familiar with that issue with the Air Canada Aircraft. However the
post
indicated "gliding from 30k altitude to a location 8500 km away". As I
responded it is outside the glide ratio for any commercial and/or
military
aircraft in current use. The implication of justified use of air speed
and
juducious fuel monitoring is how the experienced pilots accomplished
that
amazing feat. Yes, indeed it would be nice if that could be done but
even
Burt Rutan could not have his nice litle project bird glide from over
60k
altituce that kind of distance. Cheers: Maybe a Labats or Footers is in
order, Eh!!
"Leif Neland" wrote in message
. ..

my pilot was experienced in gliding as well

did you see the story on TV recently where a captain of a jumbo jet
glided it from 30,000 feet to a safe landing 6000 miles away after
running out of fuel then blew all but 2 tires on landing due to the
lack on reverse thrust.

Art wrote:

I doubt that any type of "JET Aircraft" has a glide ratio of 30,000
feet to 6000 miles. That is totally impossible!! 6 miles probably
and I would expect to drop a skin or too having to resort to using
the braking system rather than having available reverse thrust from
the engines. Aeronautically the glide ratio for any jet airplane will
not allow that distance of a "free fall" from only 30,000 feet. Maybe
you were thinking of the "Gossamer Albatross"?? Superior glide ratio
but would definately not make it to 30,000 feet altitude.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1983/1983-25.htm

The aircraft took off from Ottawa bound for Edmonton with less than half

the

fuel required to make the trip. A computer known as the "Fuel Quantity
Information System Processor" was not working properly so the ground
crew
made manual calculations for the amount of needed fuel. However, they
used
pounds/liter for the specific gravity factor instead of kilograms/liter.
This was first model of aircraft of Air Canada to use kilograms. The
aircraft ran out of fuel at 41,000 feet. With only standby instruments
(magnetic compass, artificial horizon, airspeed indicator and altimeter)

and

no slats or flaps, the plane landed safely on a 7,200 ft. runway at
Gimli,

a

former Air Force base converted into a racing drag strip. The plane
became
known as the "Gimli Glider." The TV movie Falling from the Sky: Flight
174
was made about this incident in 1995.

It ain't 8500 KM from Toronto Pearson to either runway at Gimli.

There was a vaguely similar event involving an Air Transat charter which
started leaking fuel over the Atlantic, and made a deadstick in IIRC,
the Azores. It involved a distance rather like 8500 km, but it wasn't
all a glide.

rm