AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-aj
October 08, 2001 - October 22, 2001
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
172s do indeed have a tank selector valve. It allows Lt-Both-Rt and Off
positions. My technique when flying one of these is to use both for about
50% of the fuel then switch tanks ala Piper, et. al. This gives you two
chances to run out of fuel, not one as the Both selection gives. I am not
real sure about the earlier 172s as it has been a long time since I was in
one, but I believe this is true of most 172s.
Also, when I do anything-turn the fuel pump on, select another tank,turn the
fuel pump off, etc., I leave my hand on the device for a few seconds and if
anything bad happens, I reverse the action. This makes it easier to invoke
the old adage "if something bad happens reverse the last action you took" or
something to that effect.
YMMV ad nauseum!
Sam Chambers
Long EZ N775AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master
>
> >>>And also to make it easier to remember to turn all of them on and off.
>
>
> "Remembering" is for folk who don't use checklists. . .
> <<
>
> Oh, oh, here we go..
>
> Making things simpler for the pilot is always a good thing. Crashes
happen
> all the time when someone forgets to switch tanks while other planes have
a
> "both" position - 150's and 172's don't crash because they are on the
wrong
> tank - it's not possible.
> Gary Casey
> C177RG, Lancair ES
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Master Contactor |
In a message dated 10/7/01 12:41:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
<< If you have brand-x parts, you might want to consider replacing all of
the steel parts with brass/bronze parts. >>
Bob: Do you carry brass/bronze star lock washers? I can purchase brass
nuts locally but cannot locate a source for brass star lock washers. Thanks.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, finish kit stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Oke" <wjoke(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
Hi all;
It was probably my comment that was referred to below. The aircraft type I
mentioned was the Dehavilland Dash-8; which is not a jet but a fairly
common, medium weight, twin turbo prop popular in the "commuter airline"
business. These aircraft tend to visit a lot of small, austere locations so
operating with a minimum of ground support stuff is a highly desirable
capability.
Anyway, I can state quite definitely that unassisted APU starts using the
internal aircraft batteries are a normal D-8 operation. Some operators also
do internal battery starts of the main engines (1,800 HP PW 120s, BTW)
although this is usually considered are extra stress on the engine hot ends
and a bit unreliable (low/sick battery means no start - not good for the pax
schedule) to do all the time.
A D-8 engine start pulls about 1500-1800 amps from a not especially large 24
V battery and so, yes there are lots of voltage transients and spikes during
a start. The various radios (VHF/VOR/ADF/transponder) are on a buss that
"sees" these transients and yet operate without significant problems.
Without going in the nit noy of the D-8 electrical system, the D-8
electrical designers do provide a separate buss supplied by an auxiliary
battery that does not see engine start voltage transients and still did not
see it necessary to put the usual comm and vor radios on this buss. A few
items such as the main gyro package and INS (if installed) are on the
protected buss because they take time to re-initialize after being "dumped"
by a voltage transient. Usually "time = money" in commercial aviation so
that's a reason to have a work around.
Anyway, to reiterate, there is no "avionics master" in a D-8 and the radios
are "on" all the time as soon as the main busses are powered. This is the
usual operation and presumably the designers of the radios made suitable
provisions in their equipment to tolerate a fair variety of over/under
voltage transients and similar abuse without significant operational or
durability problems.
I emphasize again that I am referring to commercial airline quality avionics
which may be a notch above what the average homebuilder wants to pay for to
install in an RV-6 or similar light aircraft.
Jim Oke
RV-6 builder (and sometime D-8 pilot)
> >>...or unless certain instruments or avionics cannot tolerate the low
> voltage
> caused by cranking (9.7 on my plane).<<
>
> Any device will tolerate low voltage - it's the sharp negative voltage
> transient that is the problem.
>
> Either I would like to be convinced that all the equipment will tolerate
> cranking loads or I will put an avionics master in my project.
> Incidentally, on the post about commercial jets, they don't use the
battery
> to start the engines - but what about the APU, which can be started off
the
> battery? Is that started with all the radios on? Just a guess, but I'll
> bet not.
>
> Gary Casey
> C177RG, Lancair ES
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
>
> Making things simpler for the pilot is always a good thing. Crashes
happen
> all the time when someone forgets to switch tanks while other planes
have a
> "both" position - 150's and 172's don't crash because they are on the
wrong
> tank - it's not possible.
Somewhat off-topic, but I'll reply to this anyway.
I learned, very nearly the extremely hard way, that it *is* possible for
a 172 to crash because its on the wrong tank. 172s (or at least the one
I was flying) have Off, L, R, and Both settings. The previous pilot had
for some reason switched to L. In a bit of a rush to get off to get home
before dark (Yeah, I know -- *really* dumb in hindsight), I didn't check
the switch position. I only found the switch in the wrong position on
the downwind checks before landing. I figure I had less than 15 minutes
of fuel in the L tank at that point.
A checklist might have helped. But maybe I would have skipped that check
because you *never* need to change the tank position on a Cessna.
> What can be forgotten will be forgotten eventually, checklist or not,
> student pilot or Air Transport Pilot.
Yup.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
>
>
>This is an interesting topic for me.
>If DO160 requires qualified electronic equipment to cope with all the
>voltage dips, surges and spikes on the electrical supply, then what
>specification dictates that the generation system should not deliver voltage
>dips, surges and spikes of even greater magnitude. This is surely a function
>of the generator AND the regulator working together, not to mention the
>magnitude of the load switching and speed changes.
MOST problems are a function of system design,
NOT performance of hardware selected. The worst
performing regulator, generator/alternator and
battery combination will not in and of themselves
combine to make an untenable electrical system.
A battery in good condition is the great mediator
Further, DO-160 speaks to emissions of potential noise
sources too. Alternators, starter generators
and regulators are all subject to scrutiny under
DO-160. Some TSO documents for starter generators
will also speak to allowable noise from a generator.
MIL-STD-704 also speaks to the kinds of
perturbation limits which one should design to in
fabricating an electrical system.
By-in-large, its EASY to control the ugly things
generated by appliances connected to the system;
we generally design them out by:
(1) use of modern RG batteries changed out when capacity
drops below some service level (but never less than
50%).
http://209.134.106.21/articles/battest.pdf
http://209.134.106.21/articles/rg_bat.html
http://209.134.106.21/articles/bat_thd.pdf
(2) keeping leadwires between battery, starter and
alternator as short as practical and no less than
4AWG wire . . . 2AWG if battery is remotely located
from engine (light, piston power a/c; larger wires
and batteries would apply to turbine powered aircraft).
(3) using single point ground system for all sensitive
systems. Remote grounding is suited only for devices
which are not strong antagonists nor victims of
noise (lamps, pitot heaters, little trim motors,
strobe power supplies, etc.).
(4) use of spike suppression diodes on large energy
storage devices (contactors and solenoid valves
are biggest sources). See:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/spike.pdf
http://209.134.106.21/articles/s704inst.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-1l.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/switch/s701-2.jpg
If you've done these four simple things, your
electrical system is going to be as quiet and friendly as
as the present technology will allow. Further, it
will be WAAAAayyyyyyy under the kinds of things
that DO-160 prescribes for allowable stresses.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: alternator fuse/circuit breaker |
>
>
>In a message dated 10/8/01 8:32:40 AM, nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
><< Interesting! Do you have copies of the electrical system's
> wiring diagrams or know where I can find them?
>
> >>
>
>I'll check. send me your persoal email and I will send it to you if I have
>it.
Thanks! E-mail: nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com
Fax: 316.685.8617
SnailMail: 6936 Bainbridge Road
Wichita, Ks 67226-1008
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Contactor |
>
>In a message dated 10/7/01 12:41:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
><< If you have brand-x parts, you might want to consider replacing all of
>the steel parts with brass/bronze parts. >>
>
>
>Bob: Do you carry brass/bronze star lock washers? I can purchase brass
>nuts locally but cannot locate a source for brass star lock washers. Thanks.
I have them in 5/16" for common contactors. B&C will have them
also. Drop me an address and I'll send you some.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
>
>Hi all;
>
>It was probably my comment that was referred to below. The aircraft type I
>mentioned was the Dehavilland Dash-8; which is not a jet but a fairly
>common, medium weight, twin turbo prop popular in the "commuter airline"
>business. These aircraft tend to visit a lot of small, austere locations so
>operating with a minimum of ground support stuff is a highly desirable
>capability.
>I emphasize again that I am referring to commercial airline quality avionics
>which may be a notch above what the average homebuilder wants to pay for to
>install in an RV-6 or similar light aircraft.
DO-160 makes no distinction between big and little
airplanes. It makes no assumptions about your intention
to put a Microair transceiver in a 737 or a Collins
Pro-Line in a Super-Cub . . . if you're going to play
in the aviation sand box, you gotta shovel it all.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
| From: | "Bob Japundza" <Bob.Japundza(at)realmed.com> |
Bob,
It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to deal with,
instead of having to turn on several different things separately, and
also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I think it's a
matter of builder preference.
Bob Japundza
RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
I think the real reason to not have an avionics master, is that you don't
have to worry about the whole radio stack going out when the switch fails
on you.
Designing in single point failures when there is an alternative is bad
design.
Rob Acker (RV-6).
>
>
> Bob,
>
> It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
> philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
>
> I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to deal with,
> instead of having to turn on several different things separately, and
> also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
> transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I think it's a
> matter of builder preference.
>
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
| From: | "Bob Japundza" <Bob.Japundza(at)realmed.com> |
In my system I have two essential busses...one is for essentials (fuel
pump, electronic ign, etc.) and the other is for avionics. If the
avionics switch fails, I can feed the avionics essential bus with a
backup switch that comes off the "primary" essential bus; that way I
have a backup in case my avionics master switch fails. The only thing I
have to remember is to switch off the main avionics switch when
switching on the emergency one so I don't "backfeed" the non-essential
(main bus) items. Which, in my estimation, would be a very rare thing
to happen anyway.
Bob Japundza
RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
> -----Original Message-----
> From: racker(at)rmci.net [mailto:racker(at)rmci.net]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:44 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Avionics Master
>
>
>
> I think the real reason to not have an avionics master, is
> that you don't
> have to worry about the whole radio stack going out when the
> switch fails
> on you.
>
> Designing in single point failures when there is an alternative is bad
> design.
>
> Rob Acker (RV-6).
>
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
> > philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
> >
> > I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to
> deal with,
> > instead of having to turn on several different things
> separately, and
> > also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
> > transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I
> think it's a
> > matter of builder preference.
> >
> > Bob Japundza
> > RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power receptacle |
The new Cessna single engine's are wired with the External Power connected
to the battery side of the Master Relay. This is intentional because
connecting to the aircraft side leaves you open for a potential electrical
system failure. Here is the scenario that would give you that failure:
1) You're battery is so dead, it won't even close the Battery Master
contactor. You may not know the contactor isn't closing. All you know is
that your airplane is dead.
2) You hook up the ground power, start your airplane, disconnect the ground
power, and launch into the sky. Your alternator is powering the airplane
without the battery online. It had the help of the ground power to get it
going.
3) You turn off one of your larger electrical loads, and without the battery
to buffer things, your bus voltage overshoots and trips your Over-Voltage
protection.
Without your alternator, or your battery, everything goes black. You can't
get your alternator back online because it won't self-excite. The battery
won't close the Battery Master contactor because it hasn't received a bit of
charging and is still dead. If you're in Day VFR conditions, things aren't
too bad. If it's a dark night, or you're in real IFR, things are looking
pretty bad.
The theory about connecting the ground power to the battery side of the
contactor is that the battery would have been charged from the time the
ground power was connected until the Over-voltage condition tripped things
off. The dead battery being online would most likely have even prevented
the O.V. condition from happening.
Some voltage regulators are designed to disable the O.V. protection if no
field current is being supplied to the alternator. This would prevent the
O.V. trip in the above scenario, but you would still be in danger of killing
the alternator during a low rpm, heavy load scenario.
I've talked to someone who had the above scenario happen to them in an older
Cessna R182. When the landing gear came up and the hydraulic power pack
motor shut off, the O.V. protection shut everything down. Fortunately, this
pilot got it back on the ground safely.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
I agree with the single point failure analysis and did NOT put an avionics
master in my RV-6. However, as an intellectual curiosity, why should this
even be an issue? Is not possible to construct an economical 12V switch that
won't fail in the first 5000 cycles? I mean the switch is only going to be
cycled once per flight so isn't it reasonable to expect a decent quality
switch to last a couple thousand hours? If so, then them that want 'em
should just replace 'em periodically, say at engine O/H.
Regards,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
Searching for Navion
>
> I think the real reason to not have an avionics master, is
> that you don't
> have to worry about the whole radio stack going out when the
> switch fails
> on you.
>
> Designing in single point failures when there is an alternative is bad
> design.
>
> Rob Acker (RV-6).
>
> >
> >
> > Bob,
> >
> > It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
> > philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
> >
> > I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to
> deal with,
> > instead of having to turn on several different things
> separately, and
> > also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
> > transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I
> think it's a
> > matter of builder preference.
> >
> > Bob Japundza
> > RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
I'm still learning this stuff myself, mostly from Bob's excellent book and
postings (thanks Bob).
I agree a modern switch would and should last a long time. But in using
only one switch, aren't you also only using one feed wire, one
fuse/breaker, etc? More designed in single point failures.
No avionics master, DO-160 components, seperate feeds for each radio is
what I decided on using.
Rob Acker (RV-6)
> <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> I agree with the single point failure analysis and did NOT put an
> avionics master in my RV-6. However, as an intellectual curiosity, why
> should this even be an issue? Is not possible to construct an
> economical 12V switch that won't fail in the first 5000 cycles? I mean
> the switch is only going to be cycled once per flight so isn't it
> reasonable to expect a decent quality switch to last a couple thousand
> hours? If so, then them that want 'em should just replace 'em
> periodically, say at engine O/H.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
> RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
> Searching for Navion
>
>
>>
>> I think the real reason to not have an avionics master, is
>> that you don't
>> have to worry about the whole radio stack going out when the
>> switch fails
>> on you.
>>
>> Designing in single point failures when there is an alternative is bad
>> design.
>>
>> Rob Acker (RV-6).
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Bob,
>> >
>> > It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
>> > philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
>> >
>> > I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to
>> deal with,
>> > instead of having to turn on several different things
>> separately, and
>> > also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
>> > transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I
>> think it's a
>> > matter of builder preference.
>> >
>> > Bob Japundza
>> > RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Internally regulated alternator |
Just my two cents worth. If you alternator dies and you have sufficient
battery power, say a RG35 and draw minimal amperage, you can out fly the
tanks. My Nippon Denso went south, most likely a diode since it dropped to
10 volts. Took it to a rebuilder and for a hundred buck have a life time
warrantee......aren't experimental GREAT.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Internally regulated alternator
>
>
>I've tried to send this request for your opinion to your e-mail but have
>failed so I will try the list.
>I built an RV-6A in 97 and on your advise installed B&C alternators,
>regulators, and starter. Quality equipment for sure, but at a price. I
>am now building an RV-3 and have decided to buy an engine from Aero
>Sport Power who normally supplies an un-modified Nippon Denso alternator
>that is internally regulated. It is my understanding that B&C's
>alternator is a modified Nippon Denso. Bart Lalonde of Aero Sport makes
>the point that these alternators, even with on/off instead of linear
>regulation, run in cars trouble free for many thousands of miles under
>harsher conditions of use. My own experience has been that in my 40+
>years of driving, I have never had an alternator problem.
>A B&C alternator with the linear regulator would cost an additional
>$440. And, I'm told you have a design for crow-bar system that could be
>added to give this protection with an internally regulated alternator.
See: http://209.134.106.21/articles/bleadov.pdf
>I feel B&C is a high quality product but I'm thinking the standard
>Nippon Denso may be a satisfactory tradeoff considering substantial cost
>differential? What do you think and are there any other things to
>consider in making a decision.
Lots of folk are flying the system you propose and
will swear by them. Give it a try.
>The Skytech Vs. B&C starter issue is covered in the Archives so I don't
>know whether to bring that one up again. Suffice it to say, I
>understand Skytech quality has improved somewhat lately and Aero Sport's
>considerable experience with their customers has been good. The $170
>cost differential also looks very enticing.
The B&C should be the first and last starter
you put on the airplane. I don't think anyone in
the lightweight starter business can hold a candle
to the value of B&C's starters. I hear that
Continental is finally going to put the B&C
starter on their IO-240 . . . after several abortive
attempts to clone the B&C under other labels.
There's a case where I think the cost differential
is a justifiable decision.
>Also, do you still provide custom wiring service for a fee and how can I
>contact you by phone?
No, gave that service up when I got buried under about
10 years worth of backlog. My numbers are still up on
the website at: http://www.aeroelectric.com along with
a number of discussions on starters in the articles
section.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
I believe the 172 POH suggests switching from both to either left or right
when parking the plane. This prevents cross-feeding the tanks if you're
parked on non-level ground.
Larry Bowen
RV-8 fuse
Email: Larry(at)BowenAero.com
Web: http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Frank
> and Dorothy
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 2:39 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: KISS
>
>
> I learned, very nearly the extremely hard way, that it *is* possible for
> a 172 to crash because its on the wrong tank. 172s (or at least the one
> I was flying) have Off, L, R, and Both settings. The previous pilot had
> for some reason switched to L. In a bit of a rush to get off to get home
> before dark (Yeah, I know -- *really* dumb in hindsight), I didn't check
> the switch position. I only found the switch in the wrong position on
> the downwind checks before landing. I figure I had less than 15 minutes
> of fuel in the L tank at that point.
>
> A checklist might have helped. But maybe I would have skipped that check
> because you *never* need to change the tank position on a Cessna.
>
> > What can be forgotten will be forgotten eventually, checklist or not,
> > student pilot or Air Transport Pilot.
>
> Yup.
>
> Frank.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
>
>I'm still learning this stuff myself, mostly from Bob's excellent book and
>postings (thanks Bob).
>
>I agree a modern switch would and should last a long time. But in using
>only one switch, aren't you also only using one feed wire, one
>fuse/breaker, etc? More designed in single point failures.
>
>No avionics master, DO-160 components, seperate feeds for each radio is
>what I decided on using.
>
>Rob Acker (RV-6)
"Separate feeds for each radio" . . . I don't understand.
By-in-large, radio failures are unique to the radio. Something
inside breaks and the radio is useless irrespective of how
many power sources you have.
I agree with the single point failure analysis and did NOT put an avionics
master in my RV-6. However, as an intellectual curiosity, why should this
even be an issue? Is not possible to construct an economical 12V switch that
won't fail in the first 5000 cycles? I mean the switch is only going to be
cycled once per flight so isn't it reasonable to expect a decent quality
switch to last a couple thousand hours? If so, then them that want 'em
should just replace 'em periodically, say at engine O/H.
Regards,
Greg Young
It's not just the switch but everything in the pathway from one
bus to the other. Recall that the definition of a "bus" is a means
loads in a way that single failures in supply to one load do not
precipitate to other loads. Fine. Take a chunk of brass, drill
it full of holes and hook all the breakers to it. Hmmmm . . .
suppose we don't have room for all the breakers in one row, now
the "bus bar" gets more complicated if it's to be a single piece
of metal . . . but it's doable. However, if we want an "avionics
bus" we now put a collection of things between the main bus and
the avionics bus . . . ANY ONE OF WHICH CAN DISCONNECT THE WHOLE
AVIONICS BUS. This is one of two reasons why our essential bus
concept has two, independent power paths.
In my system I have two essential busses...one is for essentials (fuel
pump, electronic ign, etc.) and the other is for avionics. If the
avionics switch fails, I can feed the avionics essential bus with a
backup switch that comes off the "primary" essential bus; that way I
have a backup in case my avionics master switch fails. The only thing I
have to remember is to switch off the main avionics switch when
switching on the emergency one so I don't "backfeed" the non-essential
(main bus) items. Which, in my estimation, would be a very rare thing
to happen anyway.
Bob Japundza
This is why the normal feed to the essential bus gets a diode
instead of something that the pilot has to work with . . . if one
wants an "avionics master" it could be a switch in series with
the diode . . . which prevents problems from inadvertent switch
operation. You still have a backup from the alternate feed path
which can be used for either loss of main path -OR- provides
power when you've shut the main bus down after an alternator
system failure.
It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
It's not my philosophy. The AMS came about when I was a lowly
tech writer at the Cessna single-engine plant about 1965.
The reason that the avionics master switch was born is based
on our lack of understanding about what killed radios in
1965 an the lack of industry wide standards like DO-160
to foster that understanding. If one really wants an avionics
master and doesn't mind the added parts count, then by all means
have one . . . but back it up with the alternate feed path
as described in virtually every one of our published power
distribution diagrams.
I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to deal with,
instead of having to turn on several different things separately, and
also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I think it's a
matter of builder preference.
Bob Japundza
Switches and controls work trouble free longer if they are
periodically cycled . . . a 12 o'clock dot of white paint on the
knobs facilitates quick and convenient readjustment of the control
to its normal operating position.
In the good 'ol days, a well stacked airplane had 8-10 radios.
Today it's more like three. Of all the airplanes I rent, the
maximum number of OFF/ON-Volume controls is two (dual nav/coms).
Most of them have avionics master switches and no alternate
feed path . . . that's why I fly dual, battery powered GPS
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerry Calvert" <rv6bldr(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Master Contactor |
Thanks Bob!
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Master Contactor
>
> >
> >Bob, Since I need a few wiring items, I thought they might include a
nut
> >and washer with the order. Let me see if they can help me and if not, I
> >will drop you a message.
>
> Mailman's already been here. If you can use them, fine. Otherwise
> throw them in your 20-year box . . .
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> ( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
> ( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
> ( - Epictetus )
> ----------------------------------------------
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Rephrase Question to Electric Bob |
Bob,
The way I phrased my question may have been misunderstood. Just to make
sure, when I said "Do you still do custom wiring services for a fee",
what I meant was, do you still provide a wiring diagram design based on
a customers specific equipment as you did for my RV-6A back in 97. Sorry
for the poor wording.
Rick Fogerson
RV-3 empenage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob A" <racker(at)rmci.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
> "Separate feeds for each radio" . . . I don't understand.
> By-in-large, radio failures are unique to the radio. Something
> inside breaks and the radio is useless irrespective of how
> many power sources you have.
I don't have multiple power leads going to one radio. "Seperate feeds..."
in my case means each radio is fed via its own dedicated fuse/hot lead off
the bus (vs. the Avionics Master philosophy of having multiple radios fed by
a single fuse /circuit breaker/hot lead).
Rob Acker (RV-6)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brass Star Lockwashers (was Master Contactor) |
Bob: You are the greatest! My address is 5732 Highbluff Terrace,
Pleasanton, CA 94588. Thank you.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, finish kit stuff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <glassman(at)tns.net> |
| Subject: | Trim switch speed |
Bob wrote:-
"Why not do it simpler and less expensively? Mount a micro-switch on
the flap mechanism such that with flaps at full-up, you have high speed
trim. Just bumping the flaps down the smallest amount (which you can do
at any speed) will get you low speed operation.
The Lears do this. 0-10 degrees of flap gets you
high speed, anything higher gets you low speed.
It avoids adding parts to your pitot-static system
and having to fiddle with a switch that's rather
delicate."
Isn't this the wrong way round? Isn't slow speed on the trim to be
preferred at higher speeds and high speed at lower ones?Also how do you
suggest two speeds can be achieved from a MAC servo?
Rob
RV9A wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Gentle do-better slips for lazy suppliers |
>
>> I've always said that it's a personal choice. We can elect
>> to put up with idiosyncrasies of poor design -OR- we can
>> put pressure on suppliers to strive for responsible service
>> to their customers.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
>Of course you're absolutely correct. Putting pressure on suppliers can be a
>time consuming and frustrating process
Here's the quick and dir . . . uh, . . . er . . SIMPLE way
to pressure a supplier:
When you talk to them at their airshow booth (or through any
other venue) be sure to ask all the potentially embarrassing
questions like: can I see your DO-160 qualification certificate?
(this should be published in the owners manual for the product
if they have one.) Does your product interface gracefully with
REAL airplanes? How about brownout? Noises on the bus? What
testing have you done? Can I talk to some of your customers?
These are just the things that every quality supplier should
be willing and ABLE to address. I'm sure you can think of more.
If you don't get a satisfactory answer to one of the important
questions, ask them if there are any plans to improve on the
answer. Finally, let them know that you're not interested in
their product because you don't think they've done all their
homework. Ask to convey this decision to the company's highest
authority available at the time. At least ask for that person's
name even if you don't plan to talk to them. The fact that
the sales person was asked to provide the name will prompt
THEM to talk to that person about the problem before you do.
Now, if you're ready to sign up to whatever wet-nursing the
product may expect of you as installer and pilot, wait a
month or so and order the thing anyhow. Don't mention your
earlier initial conversation . . . they probably won't remember
you anyhow. The thing you're trying to filter back to the
boss is that one of his/her sales-folk were unable to close
a sale and why. Statistically their sales efforts will only
be hitting .500 even tho you bought the thing anyhow.
Doesn't take much time or effort and it MIGHT result in positive
changes to the product later.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rephrase Question to Electric Bob |
>
>Bob,
>The way I phrased my question may have been misunderstood. Just to make
>sure, when I said "Do you still do custom wiring services for a fee",
>what I meant was, do you still provide a wiring diagram design based on
>a customers specific equipment as you did for my RV-6A back in 97. Sorry
>for the poor wording.
>
>Rick Fogerson
>RV-3 empenage
Oh, you mean the one page, customized power distribution diagram?
I can probably do that for you. Just can't take on any full-up
wirebook projects.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Besing" <azpilot(at)extremezone.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim switch speed |
The speeds can be variable if you have the Matronics governor. By nature, I
think the MAC servo is too fast for trim. I slowed it down a bit, and it is
much more manageable and not as touchy. It is much easier to make fine
adjustments while flying.
Paul Besing
RV-6A N197AB Arizona
http://www.lacodeworks.com/besing
Flying
Kitlog Pro Builder's Log Software
http://www.kitlog.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob W M Shipley" <glassman(at)tns.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Trim switch speed
Bob wrote:-
"Why not do it simpler and less expensively? Mount a micro-switch on
the flap mechanism such that with flaps at full-up, you have high speed
trim. Just bumping the flaps down the smallest amount (which you can do
at any speed) will get you low speed operation.
The Lears do this. 0-10 degrees of flap gets you
high speed, anything higher gets you low speed.
It avoids adding parts to your pitot-static system
and having to fiddle with a switch that's rather
delicate."
Isn't this the wrong way round? Isn't slow speed on the trim to be
preferred at higher speeds and high speed at lower ones?Also how do you
suggest two speeds can be achieved from a MAC servo?
Rob
RV9A wings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
Thanks for all the responses - too many too attach!
Yes, I'm afraid I was "putting words in your mouth," Bob. And I forgot that
the 172 has a left/right position on the fuel selector. And turbine engines
are at least sometimes started with the radios on line. But it raises an
eyebrow when I see comments like "that's what the checklist is for." As
working with high volume production of electronic products, I hear all the
time about adding a visual inspection step (read checklist) for whatever
problem there is. Just doesn't work. The only way to really fix something
is to take away the possibility of failure - you can't expect any human to
do it perfect all the time. I find that most comments on this list are
pushing the technology in the direction of eliminating the failure mode - a
most excellent and enlightened path.
Incidentally, I find that DO-160 is a bit vague in its requirements - at
least compared to most automotive electrical requirements (we have to meet
requirements of GM, Delphi, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Siemens, VDO, Volvo,
Peugeot, etc.)
Just my observation
Gary Casey
C177RG, Lancair ES project
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master |
>
>Thanks for all the responses - too many too attach!
>
>Yes, I'm afraid I was "putting words in your mouth," Bob. And I forgot that
>the 172 has a left/right position on the fuel selector. And turbine engines
>are at least sometimes started with the radios on line. But it raises an
>eyebrow when I see comments like "that's what the checklist is for." As
>working with high volume production of electronic products, I hear all the
>time about adding a visual inspection step (read checklist) for whatever
>problem there is. Just doesn't work. The only way to really fix something
>is to take away the possibility of failure - you can't expect any human to
>do it perfect all the time. I find that most comments on this list are
>pushing the technology in the direction of eliminating the failure mode - a
>most excellent and enlightened path.
EXACTLY! . . . the best way to deal with an avionics master
switch is to not have or need one. I've not kept recorded
statistics on the subject but it's not and uncommon event
in my experience to find the AMS in the ON position when I
get into an airplane . . . every checklist says turn it OFF
at shutdown and few of the checklists say check to make sure
it's OFF before starting the engine.
It follows that the checklist is NOT the end-all/ be-all of
institutions for avoiding mishap.
>Incidentally, I find that DO-160 is a bit vague in its requirements - at
>least compared to most automotive electrical requirements (we have to meet
>requirements of GM, Delphi, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, Siemens, VDO, Volvo,
>Peugeot, etc.)
In what way? I've participated in $millions$ worth of DO-160
tests over the past 20 or so years . . . I hope we were not
adding meaning that was not there nor missing important
points of the tests for lack of understanding.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim switch speed |
>
>
>Bob wrote:-
>
>"Why not do it simpler and less expensively? Mount a micro-switch on
>the flap mechanism such that with flaps at full-up, you have high speed
>trim. Just bumping the flaps down the smallest amount (which you can do
>at any speed) will get you low speed operation.
>The Lears do this. 0-10 degrees of flap gets you
>high speed, anything higher gets you low speed.
>It avoids adding parts to your pitot-static system
>and having to fiddle with a switch that's rather
>delicate."
>
>Isn't this the wrong way round? Isn't slow speed on the trim to be
>preferred at higher speeds and high speed at lower ones?Also how do you
>suggest two speeds can be achieved from a MAC servo?
Correct. I got my tongue tangled around my eye-teeth
and couldn't see what I was saying.
The MAC actuators feature permanent magnet motors that
are easily controlled for speed by adjusting the applied
voltage. Our DIM14-5 lighting controller has been
used to provide an adjustable, regulated power at
something less than bus voltage for the purpose of
slowing the motor down. Matt's trim governor provides
this feature as part of product.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Gary:
"Incidentally, on the post about commercial jets, they don't use the battery
to start the engines - but what about the APU, which can be started off the
battery? Is that started with all the radios on? Just a guess, but I'll
bet not. Gary Casey"
The topic never comes up, but one presumes:
(a) the radios are protected a myriad of ways, and
(b) not just for starting engines, but for many reasons (Hydraulic pump
backup, airconditioning, electric power etc) the APU is started without the
need (or inclination) to turn off radios.
So the comparison is unnecessary (IMHO)
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | wx3o <wx3o(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OAT transducer and meter. |
Tom,
Target Department store has an automotive clock/OAT for $10. It runs off a AAA
cell. That is a lot of bang for the buck in my non-electric Taylorcraft : )
It might not suit your purposes, but hey, go look in the automotive section.
Best regards,
Mark Julicher
Tom Barnes wrote:
>
> List,
> I am in the market for an OAT. Does anyone have a strong opinion on
> where to get the biggest bang for the buck? I'd even consider building one.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom Barnes -6 all electric
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Just Saved a million bucks... |
Bob:
I exagerate of course - but your latest dictum on how to
question manufacturers at the airshow has probably saved me megabux in the
long run. The "checklist" to be used at the counter (usually with a number
of like potential customers listening in) really puts the fox in the chicken
house.
I like it; I like it.
Ferg Europa A064
cockpit installing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Anderson" <janderson412(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Avionics Master |
Interesting to note, the A/C type I fly ( med muli-turbine) all have a stack of
8 inclusive of GPS and no avionics master. Easy to understand why, switch failure
and it's ''silent night''!
John A
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Avionics Master
lls(at)aeroelectric.com>
>
>I'm still learning this stuff myself, mostly from Bob's excellent book and
>postings (thanks Bob).
>
>I agree a modern switch would and should last a long time. But in using
>only one switch, aren't you also only using one feed wire, one
>fuse/breaker, etc? More designed in single point failures.
>
>No avionics master, DO-160 components, seperate feeds for each radio is
>what I decided on using.
>
>Rob Acker (RV-6)
"Separate feeds for each radio" . . . I don't understand.
By-in-large, radio failures are unique to the radio. Something
inside breaks and the radio is useless irrespective of how
many power sources you have.
I agree with the single point failure analysis and did NOT put an avionics
master in my RV-6. However, as an intellectual curiosity, why should this
even be an issue? Is not possible to construct an economical 12V switch that
won't fail in the first 5000 cycles? I mean the switch is only going to be
cycled once per flight so isn't it reasonable to expect a decent quality
switch to last a couple thousand hours? If so, then them that want 'em
should just replace 'em periodically, say at engine O/H.
Regards,
Greg Young
It's not just the switch but everything in the pathway from one
bus to the other. Recall that the definition of a "bus" is a means
loads in a way that single failures in supply to one load do not
precipitate to other loads. Fine. Take a chunk of brass, drill
it full of holes and hook all the breakers to it. Hmmmm . . .
suppose we don't have room for all the breakers in one row, now
the "bus bar" gets more complicated if it's to be a single piece
of metal . . . but it's doable. However, if we want an "avionics
bus" we now put a collection of things between the main bus and
the avionics bus . . . ANY ONE OF WHICH CAN DISCONNECT THE WHOLE
AVIONICS BUS. This is one of two reasons why our essential bus
concept has two, independent power paths.
In my system I have two essential busses...one is for essentials (fuel
pump, electronic ign, etc.) and the other is for avionics. If the
avionics switch fails, I can feed the avionics essential bus with a
backup switch that comes off the "primary" essential bus; that way I
have a backup in case my avionics master switch fails. The only thing I
have to remember is to switch off the main avionics switch when
switching on the emergency one so I don't "backfeed" the non-essential
(main bus) items. Which, in my estimation, would be a very rare thing
to happen anyway.
Bob Japundza
This is why the normal feed to the essential bus gets a diode
instead of something that the pilot has to work with . . . if one
wants an "avionics master" it could be a switch in series with
the diode . . . which prevents problems from inadvertent switch
operation. You still have a backup from the alternate feed path
which can be used for either loss of main path -OR- provides
power when you've shut the main bus down after an alternator
system failure.
It seems to me that you're going to great lengths to defend your
philosophy of not having an avionics master switch based on DO-160.
It's not my philosophy. The AMS came about when I was a lowly
tech writer at the Cessna single-engine plant about 1965.
The reason that the avionics master switch was born is based
on our lack of understanding about what killed radios in
1965 an the lack of industry wide standards like DO-160
to foster that understanding. If one really wants an avionics
master and doesn't mind the added parts count, then by all means
have one . . . but back it up with the alternate feed path
as described in virtually every one of our published power
distribution diagrams.
I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to deal with,
instead of having to turn on several different things separately, and
also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I think it's a
matter of builder preference.
Bob Japundza
Switches and controls work trouble free longer if they are
periodically cycled . . . a 12 o'clock dot of white paint on the
knobs facilitates quick and convenient readjustment of the control
to its normal operating position.
In the good 'ol days, a well stacked airplane had 8-10 radios.
Today it's more like three. Of all the airplanes I rent, the
maximum number of OFF/ON-Volume controls is two (dual nav/coms).
Most of them have avionics master switches and no alternate
feed path . . . that's why I fly dual, battery powered GPS
Bob . . .
=
=
=
=
=
=
r download : http://explorer.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Avionics Master |
My first post to this list, after listening for several weeks.
I favor an avionics master switch mostly for the sake of easy/foolproof
shedding electrical load in event of alternator failure. In addition, I
plan to use an "engine system" master switch for efi pumps, efi computer,
electronic ignition. May have a 3rd for lighting and other "non-avionics,
non-engine" stuff ("non-essential bus"?)
Given that one chooses to install an avionics master switch, for reasons
good enough for himself, with ref to Rob Acker's comment, I am thinking that
I might have the avionics master switch take power "in to" the switch (for
all the avionics stuff) from a single bigger wire off the main bus, then run
that power via another same size wire out of the avionics master switch to
another bus, the avionics bus, which would have individual feeds and circuit
protection to each radio, nav aid, and intercom. Does this sound like
"mainstream" or "reasonable"?
Incidentally, I kind of liked the idea of a 3 position "master switch":
down is "off", middle is "essential" stuff (engine & lights in my case), the
"add avionics" in the full up position. However, for purposes of "accurate
switch actuation in a high stress situation" and "knowing where to
look/reach", I think I'd really prefer separate "on-off" switches for each
"bus" (engine, avionics, all other - such as lights, music gadget)
David Carter (tail light installation on RV-6)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob A" <racker(at)rmci.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Avionics Master
>
"Seperate feeds..."
> in my case means each radio is fed via its own dedicated fuse/hot lead off
> the bus (vs. the Avionics Master philosophy of having multiple radios fed
by
> a single fuse /circuit breaker/hot lead).
>
> Rob Acker (RV-6)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Avionics Master |
John Anderson wrote:
>
> I put one in my -6 because I like having only one switch to deal with,
> instead of having to turn on several different things separately, and
> also having to adjust individual volumes. Has nothing to do with
> transients, DO-160, etc. I like one-stop shopping ;). I think it's a
> matter of builder preference.
> Bob Japundza
>
*** In my Beech Sundowner, the avionics "switch" is actually a beefy
solenoid type relay. You can hear it "Clack" when you flip the switch.
The switch itself is a "locking bat" - you can't flip it unless you pull
the bat out a bit.
Also, the solenoid is normally-closed - you apply power to it to
DISCONNECT the avionics. This makes it "fail safe", in the sense that
failures of the solenoid control circuit will tend to make the solenoid
fail in the "avionics-on" position.
IMHO, if you must have an avionics master, this is a pretty good way
to do it.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Trim switch speed |
> Bob wrote:-
>
> "Why not do it simpler and less expensively? Mount a micro-switch on
> the flap mechanism such that with flaps at full-up, you have high speed
> trim. Just bumping the flaps down the smallest amount (which you can do
> at any speed) will get you low speed operation.
Seems to me that if you want a switch to change the trim speed, it would
be sensible to make it operable directly by the pilot rather than
requiring him to simultaneously change the flap position, and therefore
requiring him to move his hand from one switch to another.
I dunno, is it possible to have a 5-position switch? The way I see it is
spring-loaded to automatically return to the centre position. The centre
position = off, first off-centre = slow, second position = fast
Alternatively, a 3-position switch with some electronics so that if the
switch is held in the up position for (say) half a second, it will
change to fast trim movement. Or maybe a logarithmic trim movement speed
depending on the time the switch is held?
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nicholas Knobil" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
My RV-8 will be a day/night VFR aircraft piloted by a fair weather pilot
(me).
I've elected to have dual electronic ignitions triggered by crank angle
sensors on the flywheel.
I will also have a B&C 40A Alternator and B&C LR-3 Regulator.
I'm thinking about the value of having an auxiliary battery to run the
ignition(s) in the event that the alternator -and- the battery decide to
crap out simultaneously.
What do you guys think?
Regards,
Nick Knobil
RV-8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 08:45 PM, Nicholas Knobil wrote:
(snip)
> I've elected to have dual electronic ignitions triggered by crank angle
> sensors on the flywheel.
>
> (snip)
> I'm thinking about the value of having an auxiliary battery to run the
> ignition(s) in the event that the alternator -and- the battery decide to
> crap out simultaneously.
>
> I would consider this mandatory. (well, you asked for opinions ;-))
The cheapest way is to float a fairly small RG battery across the bus
which only feeds the ignitions. Make sure is has the capacity to run the
ignition (s) longer than it takes to run the tanks dry. IIRC, Klaus
Savier describes this at some length on his website (lightspeed
engineering) but it's been awhile since I looked.
I would strongly recommend buying Electric Bob's book, or at least
digesting his website, which has some good articles and wiring diagrams
for redundant archiecture.
I suspect Bob will give you a better, and more thorough answer on list
when he checks his mail.
Have Fun
James Freeman
RV8 QB fuse/finishing, recent 1.5 hours in a 180/CS RV8A-wow!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
The complexity of adding a small aux battery to keep at least one ignition
is trivial. Don't even think about doing this without one. The problem is
not the alternator and battery failing at the same time. The problem is a
single common component that fails and takes power to both ignitions.
I helped retrofit a dual Light Speed ignition (IO-360, crank sensor) on a
RV8 with an aux battery and an otherwise conventional electrical system
(huge improvement in performance over the mags). I am in the final steps on
my RV8A and have an electrical system designed for the dual Light Speed
installation and an all electric IFR panel. I choose to have dual Odyssey
batteries that feed independent and physically separate vital busses.
Feel free to contact me off list. Our local RV-8 builder group has a lot of
Light Speed lessons learned.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (moving to the hanger next month)
Vienna, VA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Nicholas Knobil
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aux Battery
My RV-8 will be a day/night VFR aircraft piloted by a fair weather pilot
(me).
I've elected to have dual electronic ignitions triggered by crank angle
sensors on the flywheel.
I will also have a B&C 40A Alternator and B&C LR-3 Regulator.
I'm thinking about the value of having an auxiliary battery to run the
ignition(s) in the event that the alternator -and- the battery decide to
crap out simultaneously.
What do you guys think?
Regards,
Nick Knobil
RV-8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics Master |
Just ordered the Over Voltage crow bar today. I have a split master and a
very nice volt amp gage that tells me when there is an over / under charge.
Problem today was the alternator continued to build voltage right up to 28
volts....I have a 12 volt system. That's even after the master and essential
were shut down. Had to kill the engine. Lucky for me I had just landed. Just
thought the list would like to know.
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Andrew Seefried" <seefried(at)oberon.ark.com> |
Nick,
My GIII electrical setup is similar to your RV-8 with dual electronic
ignitions. Since an alternator failure is a possibility, (probably rare
with good stuff like B&C) I've decided to have a backup, using suggestions
found here and in the Aeroelectric Connection book. Basically includes a 5A
Panasonic RG battery to run the essential bus. Its charge is maintained
through a heavy diode from the main bus. If I get a low voltage warning
I'll just turn off the master contactor and keep flying on the small
battery. My checklist will not suggest resetting breakers or a lot of
troubleshooting. I've tested the small battery and found it to provide 3.5
amps for 1 1/4 hours. One electronic ignition draws less than 2.5 amps so I
can also run one or two essential panel instruments as well. I can also
keep tabs on the voltage of the small battery and if the main battery is
still good I can throw a switch to provide power to essential bus from it as
well. I can e-mail the schematic drawing for your perusal if you like.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jaye and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)home.com> |
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was only planning on putting one
electronic ignition system in and leaving the other magneto intact to cater
to an electrical failure. Does the engine run better with one of each than
with two mags? Better with two electronic ignitions than one of each? Does
using both an elctronic system and a conventional magneto at the same time
just wear out and waste the magneto without it contributing anything?
On another thread, I never did get any nibbles on the idea of bolting a
bent-whip comm antenna to the vertical web of a tiprib so that it sticks out
into the fibreglas tip. Either it was so far off the mark or you good folks
are still chuckling.....
Scott in Vancouver
melting lead for the -6
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Seefried" <seefried(at)oberon.ark.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
>
> Nick,
> My GIII electrical setup is similar to your RV-8 with dual electronic
> ignitions. Since an alternator failure is a possibility, (probably rare
> with good stuff like B&C) I've decided to have a backup, using suggestions
> found here and in the Aeroelectric Connection book. Basically includes a
5A
> Panasonic RG battery to run the essential bus. Its charge is maintained
> through a heavy diode from the main bus. If I get a low voltage warning
> I'll just turn off the master contactor and keep flying on the small
> battery. My checklist will not suggest resetting breakers or a lot of
> troubleshooting. I've tested the small battery and found it to provide
3.5
> amps for 1 1/4 hours. One electronic ignition draws less than 2.5 amps so
I
> can also run one or two essential panel instruments as well. I can also
> keep tabs on the voltage of the small battery and if the main battery is
> still good I can throw a switch to provide power to essential bus from it
as
> well. I can e-mail the schematic drawing for your perusal if you like.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power receptacle |
>>Well, yes. But if you have a dead battery and need
a
>>jump-start, the ground battery will dump most (or a
>>lot) of it's energy into the dead on-board battery
>>instead of into your starter.
> Not so. There may be a short duration flow
> of energy from ground battery into ship's battery
> but it's not significant. Remember, it takes 14V+
> to charge a battery that delivers energy at 12.5V
> and below. Hooking a 12.5V battery to a dead
> battery will indeed produce some current flow but
> it's small compared to what's needed to get the
> engine going.
And yet, I've seen it happen many times... The "good"
ground battery won't turn the starter over until the
dead on-board battery is disconnected from the system.
And (before the dead battery is disconnected) there
is one helluva spark when the last jumper connection
is made, indicating current is flowing. I agree that
it takes 14.5 volts to charge a 12 volt battery, but
what about when the battery has been run down to 8 or
9 volts? I'd say 12.5 volts could overcome a 9 volt
forward potential fairly easily.
>>Wiring the ground power
>>receptacle to the aircraft side of the master
>>contactor will allow you to start your engine, flip
>>on the master switch and let your alternator
recharge
>>your battery.
> I've never wanted to run an engine to charge
> a battery...
> Don't even own a "trickle" charger and never had
> one while we ran the airport. When airplane down-
> time translates to zero cash flow, you need to get
> the critter running.
So you jump-start the engine with the ground battery,
launch, and let the engine recharge the battery!
>>Either way will work, just different philosophies.
Bill Irvine
Lancaster, CA
C-310
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
Jim,
The CDIs I have are Klaus', and I'm a devotee of Bob N's AeroE Connection.
You can't think I dreamed up all these good ideas on my own?!
I'm thinking that the aux battery should be wired to only one of the ignitions,
in order to maximize my range in event of a total (or almost total) electrical
failure.
My basic question was one of overall value vs. added complexity and weight.
Thanks for your response
Nick
Original Message:
-----------------
From: James Freeman flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:34:56 -0500
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aux Battery
On Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 08:45 PM, Nicholas Knobil wrote:
(snip)
> I've elected to have dual electronic ignitions triggered by crank angle
> sensors on the flywheel.
>
> (snip)
The cheapest way is to float a fairly small RG battery across the bus
which only feeds the ignitions. Make sure is has the capacity to run the
ignition (s) longer than it takes to run the tanks dry. IIRC, Klaus
Savier describes this at some length on his website (lightspeed
engineering) but it's been awhile since I looked.
I would strongly recommend buying Electric Bob's book, or at least
digesting his website, which has some good articles and wiring diagrams
for redundant archiecture.
I suspect Bob will give you a better, and more thorough answer on list
when he checks his mail.
Have Fun
James Freeman
RV8 QB fuse/finishing, recent 1.5 hours in a 180/CS RV8A-wow!
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2001, at 07:25 AM, nknobil(at)gwi.net wrote:
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
> The CDIs I have are Klaus', and I'm a devotee of Bob N's AeroE
> Connection.
>
> You can't think I dreamed up all these good ideas on my own?!
>
> I'm thinking that the aux battery should be wired to only one of the
> ignitions, in order to maximize my range in event of a total (or almost
> total) electrical failure.
>
> My basic question was one of overall value vs. added complexity and
> weight.
>
> Thanks for your response
>
> Nick
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: James Freeman flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:34:56 -0500
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aux Battery
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2001, at 08:45 PM, Nicholas Knobil wrote:
> (snip)
>> I've elected to have dual electronic ignitions triggered by crank angle
>> sensors on the flywheel.
>>
>> (snip)
>
> The cheapest way is to float a fairly small RG battery across the bus
> which only feeds the ignitions. Make sure is has the capacity to run the
> ignition (s) longer than it takes to run the tanks dry. IIRC, Klaus
> Savier describes this at some length on his website (lightspeed
> engineering) but it's been awhile since I looked.
>
> I would strongly recommend buying Electric Bob's book, or at least
> digesting his website, which has some good articles and wiring diagrams
> for redundant archiecture.
>
> I suspect Bob will give you a better, and more thorough answer on list
> when he checks his mail.
>
> Have Fun
>
> James Freeman
> RV8 QB fuse/finishing, recent 1.5 hours in a 180/CS RV8A-wow!
>
>
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)bellsouth.net> |
On Wednesday, October 10, 2001, at 07:25 AM, nknobil(at)gwi.net wrote:
(snip
>
>
> I'm thinking that the aux battery should be wired to only one of the
> ignitions, in order to maximize my range in event of a total (or almost
> total) electrical failure.
>
> My basic question was one of overall value vs. added complexity and
> weight.
>
>
snip
I think that the weight/complexity issues will be relatively trivial for
this. I'm building and IFR airplane, using the "all electric on a
budget" architecture with two alternators and a single battery, using
the forward battery location with an 0-360, CS and a single lightspeed
CD with a mag.
Since many have noted that the -8 tends to have a very forward CG with
this combination, I am considering weighing the airplane once completed,
and adding a smallish RG battery somewhere in the aft fuse to move the
CG aft a bit. Since the anticipated loads are under 3 amps or so, the
associated wiring can be pretty small.
Mouser or Digikey has a catalog page with a variety of RG batteries in
various shapes and capacities.
James Freeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Muzzy Norman E" <MuzzyNormanE(at)johndeere.com> |
<>
There are claims that performance of dual electronic ignition is slightly
better than single electronic ignition. The reason that I am looking at
Dual electronic ignition is a bit more basic. The IO360A3B6D engine (all of
the single drive, dual mag aka T-pack mag engines for that matter) has a
unique geometry associated with it. I have not been able to figure out how
to run a conventional mag in the single drive spot along with a crank
triggered electronic system. The length of the mag shaft is just different.
I sent my mags out to Klaus, and he reccomended throwing them away, saving
the weight, and going dual electronic. (I was trying to figure out if I
could use one flywheel trigger and one mag drive trigger).
Regards-
Norm Muzzy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
>>Or maybe a logarithmic trim movement speed
depending on the time the switch is held?<<
Lots of good comments on trim speed. On the S-TEC 60-2 I had once with
automatic trim the auto-trim speed was two-speed. The manually-actuated
trim was only one speed, though. If the autopilot decided to trim, the
wheel would turn slowly for about a second and then turn faster. What would
be wrong with a two-speed trim based on time? Someone mentioned that and it
sounds like a good idea to me.
Also I'm convinced - no avionics master for me! Question, though. I
understand the idea of feeding the avionics through a diode, but I wonder if
it is more reliable than a switch as there are a lot of "slings and arrows"
in the electrical system. An adequately-sized one would probably work just
fine, though. I would think I would want to oversize it by about a factor
of 10 and have one rated at maybe 300 volts. The radios would also be
operating about 1 volt below the main buss voltage. The real question is
mounting a typical in-line diode. I see them all the time in planes just
mounted by their leads and hanging in space. I distrust hanging anything by
a copper wire as it could fatigue and break from vibration - I know we would
be allowed to do that in a car. Is there a good tab-mounted diode that
would be appropriate? Comments?
Gary, no AMS, Casey
C177RG, Lancair ES project
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaye and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was only planning on putting one
> electronic ignition system in and leaving the other magneto intact to
cater
> to an electrical failure.
This is what I am doing
>Does the engine run better with one of each than
> with two mags? Better with two electronic ignitions than one of each?
I have been told that replacing one mag with the elec ign provides the vast
majority of improvement. Adding a second does not improve preformance very
much if at all.
> Does using both an elctronic system and a conventional magneto at the same
time
> just wear out and waste the magneto without it contributing anything?
The mag does not add to the performance but it does add "something." That
something is piece of mind for an all out, very rare electrical failure and
for hand starting with a dead battery.
Ross Mickey
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
Andrew,
Thanks for your response.
Do you have both CDIs wired to the E-bus, or just one?
I'd very much like to see your schematic if you don't mind (a picture's worth a
thousand words, right?)
Nick Knobil
RV8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Andrew Seefried seefried(at)oberon.ark.com
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 20:48:35 -0700
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
Nick,
My GIII electrical setup is similar to your RV-8 with dual electronic
ignitions. Since an alternator failure is a possibility, (probably rare
with good stuff like B&C) I've decided to have a backup, using suggestions
found here and in the Aeroelectric Connection book. Basically includes a 5A
Panasonic RG battery to run the essential bus. Its charge is maintained
through a heavy diode from the main bus. If I get a low voltage warning
I'll just turn off the master contactor and keep flying on the small
battery. My checklist will not suggest resetting breakers or a lot of
troubleshooting. I've tested the small battery and found it to provide 3.5
amps for 1 1/4 hours. One electronic ignition draws less than 2.5 amps so I
can also run one or two essential panel instruments as well. I can also
keep tabs on the voltage of the small battery and if the main battery is
still good I can throw a switch to provide power to essential bus from it as
well. I can e-mail the schematic drawing for your perusal if you like.
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aux Battery/Dual Ignition |
Regarding the current discussion abut alternate power sources for electronic
ignitions: I see the Unison Laser electronically controlled mags to have an
advantage here. With electrical power you have electronically controlled
timing on both mags. In the event of a loss of power to the mags they
automatically revert to conventional fixed timing but the engine operation
is not threatened. With this system I see no need for the added complexity
and weight of a backup electrical system for the engine ignition. As an
aside, after a couple of year's experience the system is performing
beautifully and providing all of the claimed advantages such as improved
economy, smoother operation and effortless starting.
Dick Sipp
RV4-N250DS
220 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
An approach that I got from another builder is to have "ON-OFF-ON"
switches for each electronic ignition. One position is for the main
battery, then off, then aux battery. Preflight is cycling the switches to
test both ignitions and both batteries. Takeoff and land with one on main
and the other on aux. Redundant batteries, switches and ignitions. The aux
battery gets charged thru one of Bob's diode units that has Fast-on tabs and
a mounting hole (to answer another question). Sound ok?
Gary K.
----- Original Message -----
From: <nknobil(at)gwi.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Do you have both CDIs wired to the E-bus, or just one?
>
> I'd very much like to see your schematic if you don't mind (a picture's
worth a thousand words, right?)
>
> Nick Knobil
> RV8 N80549
> Bowdoinham, Maine
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Andrew Seefried seefried(at)oberon.ark.com
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 20:48:35 -0700
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
>
>
>
> Nick,
> My GIII electrical setup is similar to your RV-8 with dual electronic
> ignitions. Since an alternator failure is a possibility, (probably rare
> with good stuff like B&C) I've decided to have a backup, using suggestions
> found here and in the Aeroelectric Connection book. Basically includes a
5A
> Panasonic RG battery to run the essential bus. Its charge is maintained
> through a heavy diode from the main bus. If I get a low voltage warning
> I'll just turn off the master contactor and keep flying on the small
> battery. My checklist will not suggest resetting breakers or a lot of
> troubleshooting. I've tested the small battery and found it to provide
3.5
> amps for 1 1/4 hours. One electronic ignition draws less than 2.5 amps so
I
> can also run one or two essential panel instruments as well. I can also
> keep tabs on the voltage of the small battery and if the main battery is
> still good I can throw a switch to provide power to essential bus from it
as
> well. I can e-mail the schematic drawing for your perusal if you like.
>
>
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
>>After reading your book (revision 9), I am convinced that I should be able
>to
>>create and install a functional, simple and safe electrical system for my
>>RV-7A. However I have a question that as a first time builder I would really
>>appreciate your guidance.
>>
>>In trying to construct an electrical system for my aircraft using your "fuse
>>block" strategy, it seems to me that if I wanted to fly night VFR legally, I
>>need to locate the fuse blocks such that the fuses are accessible during
>>flight..... per the FARs. Have I missed something?
>
> Can you quote the requirement that forces you to
> do this?
>
>
>> Your fuse block strategy
>>is great in that no panel space is needed, yet how do hombuilders meet the
>>requirements for fuse/fuse block accessibility while flying night VFR. I
>>agree with your statements regarding electrical system design and safety,
>but
>>can I still install the fuseblocks such that they are easily accessible only
>>on the ground and still fly at night legally??
>
> What would prevent you from flying legally at night with
> inaccessable fuses?
>
>
> Bob . . .
> >>
>
>Bob
>
>Thank you for your prompt response to my question......... The requirement as
>stated in the FARs which forces me to have accessibility to fuses at night in
>flight is contained in FAR section 91.205, section C (visual flight rules -
>night), paragraph (6): " One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each
>kind required, that are accessible to the pilot at night."
>
>Does this mean that the FAA somehow requires Certificated aircraft to have
>in-flight access to in-use fuses and that for experimental aircraft there is
>no such requirement? Does this regulation mean that only the SPARES need to
>be accessible at night and not the fuses in-use? I'm very confused, the
>regulation seems to be written very ambiguously. It seems to state that the
>fuses IN-USE don't have to be accessible, only the spares!! Please, what have
>I missed here?? Please help me understand how I can install your "fuse block"
>strategy in my aircraft, and still be in complete and proper compliance with
>the FARs for VFR at night.
Read the paragraph more closely. " . . . of each kind required, that are
ACCESSIBLE to the pilot at night." If we go back to the foundation for the
fuse discussion we can find stuff like this in both parts 23 and 25:
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be
used to protect any other circuit.
(c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must be
designed so that--
(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
each rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
The operative words here are found in (c)(2)(d): "If the ability to
reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential to safety
in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and
identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight."
As carriers of the flame in leading edge technology and philosophy
in aircraft design, the amateur built community understands that
(1) for every reason a system can fail that DOES pop the fuse, there are
100X more reasons for it to fail that DO NOT pop a fuse; (2) unlike
our brothers saddled with certified and conformed designs, we're
NOT going to tolerate nuisance tripping of any circuit protective
device. When a nuisance trip is encountered, we're gong to FIX the
design; (3) given that nuisance trips are not allowed,
then every trip of a fuse or breaker is a REAL problem that we
will NOT exacerbate in flight by giving it ANOTHER crack at
popping the fuse or breaker; (4) in light of fact (1) we've
decided that any electrical appliance needed for comfortable
completion of flight will have backup hardware or procedure to
deal with any failure - hence, there are no single pieces of
equipment "essential to safety in flight" which leads us to;
(5) no fuses or breakers are located in any place where the
pilot is either able or expected to access in flight and therefore
no spares need be carried.
>Why would the FAA have a requirement to have in-flight accessibility to spare
>fuses only, what help are spare fuses if the in-use ones are not accessible,
>sounds silly to me......
>
>Given the way the FARs are written regarding this point, I am kind of
>surprised that this question has not come up before......
It's come up many times over the years . . . I was just
turning your crank a little.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | " theslumlord" <theslumlord(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | Airpax Circuit breakers |
Dave Anders is using Airpax circuit breakers in his "world's fastest RV" He
researches all he does carefully. I understand that Airpax C.B.'s are
magnetic [and not thermal] The units are very light. Bob, can you comment
on Airpax?
Ralph Bookout, Slumlord, RV6 finishing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Run away alternator |
Bob , any thought on why the alternator would not shut down even after the
field was cut. It went to 28 volts. I have an order with you for the Over
voltage protection that's for sure.
Thanks
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <glassman(at)tns.net> |
Bob's reply was:-
The MAC actuators feature permanent magnet motors that
are easily controlled for speed by adjusting the applied
voltage. Our DIM14-5 lighting controller has been
used to provide an adjustable, regulated power at
something less than bus voltage for the purpose of
slowing the motor down. Matt's trim governor provides
this feature as part of product.
I'm sorry Bob I wasn't very clear. I'm more interested in a simple two
speed self switching system such as described using the Herga(?)
pressure switch and would like to know how this might be used with the
Mac or if this isn't possible how this could be achieved. Maybe a
magnetic reed switch or a microswitch could be mounted to the flap but
how would this be connected to the Mac servo to give the two speeds?
Rob
RV9A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
Bob,
I'm planning on dual electronic ignitions in my next RV-6A. One though
that I've had is using diodes between each battery source (after the master
contactor) such that either battery will power the ignitions (requiring no
manual intervention in an emergency). Another pair of diodes, in series with
oil pressure switches, would tie each raw battery source directly to the
electronic ignitions (i.e., four sources of power) so that if the master
contactors had to be turned off, and the engine was running, there would
still be power to the electronic ignitions. (Logic would be: Bat1 after
master OR Bat2 after master OR (Bat1 & Oil Pres.) OR (Bat2 & Oil Pres.)). Of
course the ignition switch would be in series with this resultant so that
they could still turn off the ignition... A small LED above the ignition
switch would indicate that ignition power was available to that circuit.
This approach results in two completely independent ignition systems that
are always powered as long as the engine is running OR the master is turned
ON. There is the ignition source voltage penalty of one diode drop relative
to the battery voltage available.
I plan to use a small 7 Ah gell cell as the Aux. battery with it's own
master contactor. The engine would always be started using the larger
battery. Past experience has indicated that starter induced voltage drops
sometimes caused electronic ignition power related problems (i.e., engine
kickback due to wrong electronic ignition timing). This approach would
guarantee steady power to the electronic ignition during engine startup.
My question is, what are your opinions on this approach?
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
Subject: RE: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aux Battery
From: "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net>
Jim,
The CDIs I have are Klaus', and I'm a devotee of Bob N's AeroE
Connection.
You can't think I dreamed up all these good ideas on my own?!
I'm thinking that the aux battery should be wired to only one of the
ignitions, in order to maximize my range in event of a total (or almost
total) electrical failure.
My basic question was one of overall value vs. added complexity and
weight.
Thanks for your response
Nick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Dual Batts - Electronic Ignitions |
Listers,
One advantage to a dual electronic ignition system is the ability to use
automotive spark plugs ($1.50 each) instead of aviation spark plugs $15.00
each). You can replace all eight plugs for the cost of one aviation plug!
An, with the electronic ignition system, you will not have to replace the
plugs as frequently.....
I have experimented extensively with using auto plugs on a magneto. It
doesn't work because auto plugs don't come in the correct RESISTANCE range.
Aviation plugs are approx. 1K ohm, while the lowest auto plug (available in
18 mm) is 10K ohms. The higher resistance results in a colder spark & higher
cylinder head temps. While auto plugs are available with 0 ohms resistance,
their use results in very bad ignition noise on the radios (even with
shielded leads, and shields over the plugs). And I'm not sure their use
would do the magneto life, but since the high voltage currents are higher,
I'm sure the point life would be affected.
I'm currently running an impulse magneto and an electronic ignition (with
four auto plugs) on my IFR RV-6A.
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jaye and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)home.com>
> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was only planning on
putting one
> electronic ignition system in and leaving the other magneto intact
to
cater
> to an electrical failure.
This is what I am doing
>Does the engine run better with one of each than
> with two mags? Better with two electronic ignitions than one of
each?
I have been told that replacing one mag with the elec ign provides
the vast
majority of improvement. Adding a second does not improve
preformance very
much if at all.
> Does using both an elctronic system and a conventional magneto at
the same
time
> just wear out and waste the magneto without it contributing
anything?
The mag does not add to the performance but it does add "something."
That
something is piece of mind for an all out, very rare electrical
failure and
Ross Mickey
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
Fred,
My first "ignition buss" design incorporated diode protection as you
suggest. I arranged the diodes in an auctioneer circuit such that both
ignitions would get power even if only one battery survived the worst case
casualty scenario. This design is fairly straight forward. In the final
design I scrapped the whole idea however. Here were the driving
considerations:
- Klaus (Light Speed) convinced me that the engine will run just fine on one
ignition. After installing a dual ignition on an RV-8, I found it very
difficult to tell a difference between one or both ignitions running.
- If there is no compelling reason to design around casualty scenarios to
maintain both ignitions, you end up with a simpler design - less parts, less
probability of system failure. Overall system reliability is enhanced.
- I would never set myself up to go flying with a known fault (e.g. one
ignition failed). As such, I avoid the "multiple failure" casualty modes.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8 (flying soon)
Vienna, VA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions
>
> Bob,
>
> I'm planning on dual electronic ignitions in my next RV-6A. One though
> that I've had is using diodes between each battery source (after the
master
> contactor) such that either battery will power the ignitions (requiring no
> manual intervention in an emergency). Another pair of diodes, in series
with
> oil pressure switches, would tie each raw battery source directly to the
> electronic ignitions (i.e., four sources of power) so that if the master
> contactors had to be turned off, and the engine was running, there would
> still be power to the electronic ignitions. (Logic would be: Bat1 after
> master OR Bat2 after master OR (Bat1 & Oil Pres.) OR (Bat2 & Oil Pres.)).
Of
> course the ignition switch would be in series with this resultant so that
> they could still turn off the ignition... A small LED above the ignition
> switch would indicate that ignition power was available to that circuit.
> This approach results in two completely independent ignition systems
that
> are always powered as long as the engine is running OR the master is
turned
> ON. There is the ignition source voltage penalty of one diode drop
relative
> to the battery voltage available.
> I plan to use a small 7 Ah gell cell as the Aux. battery with it's own
> master contactor. The engine would always be started using the larger
> battery. Past experience has indicated that starter induced voltage drops
> sometimes caused electronic ignition power related problems (i.e., engine
> kickback due to wrong electronic ignition timing). This approach would
> guarantee steady power to the electronic ignition during engine startup.
> My question is, what are your opinions on this approach?
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
> E. Windsor, CT 06088
> WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
> Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
>
> Subject: RE: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aux Battery
> From: "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net>
>
>
>
>
> Jim,
>
> The CDIs I have are Klaus', and I'm a devotee of Bob N's AeroE
> Connection.
>
> You can't think I dreamed up all these good ideas on my own?!
>
> I'm thinking that the aux battery should be wired to only one of
the
> ignitions, in order to maximize my range in event of a total (or almost
> total) electrical failure.
>
> My basic question was one of overall value vs. added complexity
and
> weight.
>
> Thanks for your response
>
> Nick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
Gary,
A better switch would be one of Bob's. I'm using them to provide:
- off in the down position
- batt 1 in the middle position
- batt 2 in the top position
One ignition switch is wired this way and the other has batt 2 in the upper position.
That way when both are in the (normal) upper position each is drawing from
a different battery. In my system both batteries are normally on line and
being charged.
This way everything is off when the ignition switches is in the down posiion and
each ignition system has 2 power sources.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary K [mailto:flyink(at)efortress.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
An approach that I got from another builder is to have "ON-OFF-ON"
switches for each electronic ignition. One position is for the main
battery, then off, then aux battery. Preflight is cycling the switches to
test both ignitions and both batteries. Takeoff and land with one on main
and the other on aux. Redundant batteries, switches and ignitions. The aux
battery gets charged thru one of Bob's diode units that has Fast-on tabs and
a mounting hole (to answer another question). Sound ok?
Gary K.
----- Original Message -----
From: <nknobil(at)gwi.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
>
>
> Andrew,
>
> Thanks for your response.
>
> Do you have both CDIs wired to the E-bus, or just one?
>
> I'd very much like to see your schematic if you don't mind (a picture's
worth a thousand words, right?)
>
> Nick Knobil
> RV8 N80549
> Bowdoinham, Maine
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Andrew Seefried seefried(at)oberon.ark.com
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 20:48:35 -0700
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Batts
>
>
>
> Nick,
> My GIII electrical setup is similar to your RV-8 with dual electronic
> ignitions. Since an alternator failure is a possibility, (probably rare
> with good stuff like B&C) I've decided to have a backup, using suggestions
> found here and in the Aeroelectric Connection book. Basically includes a
5A
> Panasonic RG battery to run the essential bus. Its charge is maintained
> through a heavy diode from the main bus. If I get a low voltage warning
> I'll just turn off the master contactor and keep flying on the small
> battery. My checklist will not suggest resetting breakers or a lot of
> troubleshooting. I've tested the small battery and found it to provide
3.5
> amps for 1 1/4 hours. One electronic ignition draws less than 2.5 amps so
I
> can also run one or two essential panel instruments as well. I can also
> keep tabs on the voltage of the small battery and if the main battery is
> still good I can throw a switch to provide power to essential bus from it
as
> well. I can e-mail the schematic drawing for your perusal if you like.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
| From: | "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
Hey Fred!
(For everyone else: Fred flew up from Connecticut to Maine on a cold, cloudy day
just to give me my first ride in an RV - after I'd been building one for a
year and a half. What a mensch!)
What's the point of the diodes and and the oil pressure switches? Wouldn't it
be easier to wire the CDIs to an always-hot, battery bus?
Nick Knobil
RV8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Stucklen, Frederic IFC stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 07:40:12 -0400
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions
Bob,
I'm planning on dual electronic ignitions in my next RV-6A. One though
that I've had is using diodes between each battery source (after the master
contactor) such that either battery will power the ignitions (requiring no
manual intervention in an emergency). Another pair of diodes, in series with
oil pressure switches, would tie each raw battery source directly to the
electronic ignitions (i.e., four sources of power) so that if the master
contactors had to be turned off, and the engine was running, there would
still be power to the electronic ignitions. (Logic would be: Bat1 after
master OR Bat2 after master OR (Bat1 & Oil Pres.) OR (Bat2 & Oil Pres.)). Of
course the ignition switch would be in series with this resultant so that
they could still turn off the ignition... A small LED above the ignition
switch would indicate that ignition power was available to that circuit.
This approach results in two completely independent ignition systems that
are always powered as long as the engine is running OR the master is turned
ON. There is the ignition source voltage penalty of one diode drop relative
to the battery voltage available.
I plan to use a small 7 Ah gell cell as the Aux. battery with it's own
master contactor. The engine would always be started using the larger
battery. Past experience has indicated that starter induced voltage drops
sometimes caused electronic ignition power related problems (i.e., engine
kickback due to wrong electronic ignition timing). This approach would
guarantee steady power to the electronic ignition during engine startup.
My question is, what are your opinions on this approach?
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
Subject: RE: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Aux Battery
From: "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net>
Jim,
The CDIs I have are Klaus', and I'm a devotee of Bob N's AeroE
Connection.
You can't think I dreamed up all these good ideas on my own?!
I'm thinking that the aux battery should be wired to only one of the
ignitions, in order to maximize my range in event of a total (or almost
total) electrical failure.
My basic question was one of overall value vs. added complexity and
weight.
Thanks for your response
Nick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
> An approach that I got from another builder is to have "ON-OFF-ON"
>switches for each electronic ignition. One position is for the main
>battery, then off, then aux battery. Preflight is cycling the switches to
>test both ignitions and both batteries. Takeoff and land with one on main
>and the other on aux. Redundant batteries, switches and ignitions. The aux
>battery gets charged thru one of Bob's diode units that has Fast-on tabs and
>a mounting hole (to answer another question). Sound ok?
you guys are making this too complicated . . .
the engine runs fine on ONE ignition. The fact
that you have two ignitions improves performance but
there is little value in piling redundancy
on top of redundancy except to drive up parts
count and cost of installation.
If you can go the all electric airplane route,
-AND- use B&C alternators to do it, you have
three sources of power with reliability factors
that are 10x better for EACH source than anything
we've enjoyed in the certified world.
We tend to WORRY a lot about reliability in
systems that have provided us so rich a history
of problems. Just gleaned another non-helpful,
non-information narrative from the pages of
AOPA Pilot. See:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/neveragain/neveragain.html
Regarding the current discussion abut alternate power sources
for electronic ignitions: I see the Unison Laser electronically
controlled mags to have an advantage here. With electrical
power you have electronically controlled timing on both
mags. In the event of a loss of power to the mags they
automatically revert to conventional fixed timing but
the engine operation is not threatened. With this system
I see no need for the added complexity and weight of a
backup electrical system for the engine ignition. As an
aside, after a couple of year's experience the system
is performing beautifully and providing all of the claimed
advantages such as improved economy, smoother operation
and effortless starting.
But at what cost and return on investment? ONE Electro-Air
or Lightspeed ignition teamed with a mag will give you
95+ percent of the performance increases offered by
two Unison systems . . . what do the Unisons sell for
now? Last time I looked, a pair would set you back
$5,000.
In my not so humble opinion, they're a horrible marriage
of technologies. Instead of launching their new product
as a 21st century concept, they put a band-aid on a
19th century device. They too have suffered from
the worry-itis; a malady that has infected every
corner of aviation with deep roots fertilized by
the folks who are PAID to worry . . . the FAA.
What really USEFUL piece of stuff could you add
to your panel with the $4300 saved by NOT
buying into a product that evolved from an FAA
driven worry-session?
I'd like to encourage all the folk who participate in
these worry-sessions to take one of the power distribution
diagrams from Appendix Z of the 'Connection and then
suggest how it needs to be changed to accommodate some
new or special condition. Let's see if we can start
simple and modify minimally (if at all) to address
concerns based on the physics.
I'll suggest we can achieve reliability and performance
that is head and shoulders above the spam cans while
REDUCING complexity, weight, cost and time to install.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>>can I still install the fuseblocks such that they are easily accessible
only
>>on the ground and still fly at night legally??
>
> What would prevent you from flying legally at night with
> inaccessable fuses?
>
>
> Bob . . .
Remainder clopped for space.
I respectfully disagree.
If you have a fuse failure that causes one of the several "required for
night flight" lighting circuits to fail you are then required to land at the
nearest airport.
If this is not a problem for you then go for it. Personally I would find
that inconvenient.
Then there is the fuse(s) for the xponder and radios etc if flying in class
B airspace. Again a forced landing at the nearest airport and then try to
explain to the FAA why their version of the regs (requiring in flight
replacement of these "critical to night flight and or class B airspace
flight" fuses) does not apply. Or in the case of an experimental aircraft
trying to get it licenced if the inspector notices your "critical" fuses are
not in-flight accessable.
With these guys logic and or your opinion simply does not count.
As I have has numerous fuse fatigue failures etc over the last 45 years I
dislike fuses quite a lot. I have never had a "real" failure where the fuse
was opened due to a short.
I have had however, several "in flight" smoke and fire internally to
avionics that did not blow the associated fuse.
On the other hand attempting to fix things in flight can be a very bad idea.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Annette Coulter" <coulter(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 14 Msgs - 10/10/01 |
> From: "Muzzy Norman E" <MuzzyNormanE(at)johndeere.com>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Batts
>
>
> < electronic ignition system in and leaving the other magneto intact to
cater
> to an electrical failure. >>
>
> There are claims that performance of dual electronic ignition is slightly
> better than single electronic ignition. The reason that I am looking at
> Dual electronic ignition is a bit more basic. The IO360A3B6D engine (all
of
> the single drive, dual mag aka T-pack mag engines for that matter) has a
> unique geometry associated with it. I have not been able to figure out
how
> to run a conventional mag in the single drive spot along with a crank
> triggered electronic system. The length of the mag shaft is just
different.
> I sent my mags out to Klaus, and he reccomended throwing them away, saving
> the weight, and going dual electronic. (I was trying to figure out if I
> could use one flywheel trigger and one mag drive trigger).
>
****************************************************
Norm - I also have an IO-360A3B6D. The rebuilder (Bart LaLonde [sp] at
Aerosport Power, Kamloops) recommended one mechanical mag in the existing
hole and one crank triggered electronic ignition. I haven't picked up the
engine yet so I can't look at it. I will give him a call and ask the model
number on the mag.
Lightspeed's website shows a magdrive trigger. Should be able to easily do
one mag drive and one crank trigger.
Q: What are you doing for the air intake? The forward facing IAC has me
whipped as of yet. The only ideas I have are from a Maul with an IO-540
with the same mounting on the IAC. The airbox is small, short, with a 6"
square filter. Somewhat in-elegant but workable if I can find one to buy or
copy.
carl (GlaStar - mounting control surfaces)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca>
> I would be very interested to hear comments on which electronic ignition
> system is better, Lasar or Lightspeed and why.
Comments from the archives...not mine!!! I have an impulse coupled left mag
for backup and hand cranking and a lightspped in the right mag slot for
performance.
Ross
RV6A
I attended a presentation on the Lasar system...looked good, but you have
the disadvantages of two magnetos to service/repair/replace, plus the
electronics...more stuff, more to go wrong.
Also Unison said the ONLY reason they have the regular mags is because it
was the only way the FAA would give them an STC for the system. But for the
FAA they would have left the mags out of the system.
Lightspeed ignition, which I preferred to Lasar. Bart explained that he
could get a little more aggressive with the timing on the Lightspeed, which
would equate to more HP. Others may have different priorities.
I believe that the Lasar system is the only one which advances both the
sparks in each cylinder, unless dual electric and dual ignition systems are
employed with the other two. Given the huge bore of these engines, that
could make a difference in performance given the time it takes the flame
front to cross the cylinder. Maybe the systems compensate somewhat for this
by additional advance; I don't know.
I chose the Lasar ignition because it is a certified system and is available
as
factory-installed equipment. In case something goes awry, I want to be able
to
work with a single supplier (Lycoming) to limit finger-pointing
CORRECTION: A while back I posted a note saying that LASAR systems
could be hand-cranked. This will be available in the future but
probably all the units currently on the market still have non-impulse
coupled magnetos and SHOULD NOT be hand cranked. This also applies to
LightSpeed ignitions.
The LASAR ignition doesn't do anything for me in the performance category
where I do most of my flying down low. It does buy me something when I am
doing long cross country flying up high (lower fuel burn, marginal
performance improvement). It decreases system reliability because now I
don't just have the reliability of the mags to deal with, I also have the
reliability of the electronics box.
When it comes to airplanes, I believe in the KISS principle. If it ain't
there it can't break. The Lasar system has the worst of both worlds:
mechanical mags AND microprocessor circuitry. Is the MTBF of the Lasar
system lower than for a pair of standard mags. My guess is that it isn't.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
Paul,
One can't consider the accessibility issue in isolation. It has to be part
of the overall design philosophy. IF you design out nuisance trips AND you
isolate critical components AND you analyze failure modes and provide
backups to assure that the failure of one or multiple components does not
affect the safety of flight (night or otherwise), etc. THEN you don't need
in-flight access to fuses. Even going thru this process, if you deem the
fuse itself as an intolerably unreliable component, then you can either make
it accessible for replacement or find an acceptably reliable alternative. I
think Bob's leading assumption is that modern fuses are as reliable as wire.
You obviously disagree with that so your design would and should differ.
Regards,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
Searching for Navion
>
>
> I respectfully disagree.
>
> If you have a fuse failure that causes one of the several
> "required for
> night flight" lighting circuits to fail you are then required
> to land at the
> nearest airport.
>
> If this is not a problem for you then go for it. Personally I
> would find
> that inconvenient.
>
> Then there is the fuse(s) for the xponder and radios etc if
> flying in class
> B airspace. Again a forced landing at the nearest airport and
> then try to
> explain to the FAA why their version of the regs (requiring in flight
> replacement of these "critical to night flight and or class B airspace
> flight" fuses) does not apply. Or in the case of an
> experimental aircraft
> trying to get it licenced if the inspector notices your
> "critical" fuses are
> not in-flight accessable.
>
> With these guys logic and or your opinion simply does not count.
>
> As I have has numerous fuse fatigue failures etc over the
> last 45 years I
> dislike fuses quite a lot. I have never had a "real" failure
> where the fuse
> was opened due to a short.
>
> I have had however, several "in flight" smoke and fire internally to
> avionics that did not blow the associated fuse.
>
> On the other hand attempting to fix things in flight can be a
> very bad idea.
>
> Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
> I attended a presentation on the Lasar system...looked good, but you have
> the disadvantages of two magnetos to service/repair/replace, plus the
> electronics...more stuff, more to go wrong.
> Also Unison said the ONLY reason they have the regular mags is because it
> was the only way the FAA would give them an STC for the system. But for
the
> FAA they would have left the mags out of the system.
I like having the regular mags to fall back on for several reasons. Under
certain conditions you can simply switch the Lasar off while in flight and
get oil and CHT reductions. I did this and observed a 10 degree reduction in
oil temp and about a 30 degree reduction in CHT. Of course EGTs will then go
up.
Because the conventional mag points have only a tiny amount of current
through them while the Lasar circuitry is in use they do not deteriorate
with use the way normal mag points do. Unison's recommendation is to send
the mags back to them for inspection and points service every 500 hours, and
they will likely change this to 1,000 hours soon. Otherwise, timing will not
drift as it will with regular mag points.
> Bart explained that he
> could get a little more aggressive with the timing on the Lightspeed,
which
> would equate to more HP.
You might recheck this data. The maximum Lasar advance is in excess of 40
degrees, as I recall the LightSpeed only goes up to thirty something. Of
course both systems only advance this far under certain conditions.
> I believe that the Lasar system is the only one which advances both the
> sparks in each cylinder, unless dual electric and dual ignition systems
are
> employed with the other two. Given the huge bore of these engines, that
> could make a difference in performance given the time it takes the flame
> front to cross the cylinder.
Exactly right. Having the spark plugs fire at two different times made no
sense to me at all for the reason you mention (flame front management). I am
replacing my cylinders right now and you can clearly see the flame front
pattern in the carbon on the top of the pistons. I think it makes sense to
not mess with this and have both plugs fire at once.
> A while back I posted a note saying that LASAR systems
> could be hand-cranked. This will be available in the future but
> probably all the units currently on the market still have non-impulse
> coupled magnetos and SHOULD NOT be hand cranked. This also applies to
> LightSpeed ignitions.
While the present Lasar system does not have an impulse coupling and
therefore cannot be hand propped while in mag mode, it CAN be hand propped
with the Lasar on. My starter went bad and my brave buddy really wanted to
go flying so he got out there and gave it a flip. It started right up on the
second flip. In fact it will hand prop easier with the Lasar than on mags
with impulse coupling because of the hotter spark.
Randy Lervold
RV-8, #80500, 133 hrs.
www.rv-8.com
Home Wing VAF
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
Its not a matter of reliability that is at issue. The regs are very specific
and I am unwilling to chance a debate with the FAA where the odds of winning
are ZERO.
My point is the simple fact (at least in the eyes of my local FSDO) that if
I choose to use a fuse (or a CB) for over current protection on a system
that must be functional for that mode of flight, (like recognition lights at
night) that over current protector must be resettable by the flight crew in
flight.
Further I have been specifically been told that I cannot get my experimental
acft licensed if I use fuses on these circuits and the fuse is not in flight
accessible.
I have also been told that getting past the initial license process does not
protect me from a later inspection that could result in being told its not
per regs and being grounded. Like a ramp check that the FAA does from time
to time.
I assume that you are suggesting redundant power paths to any such critical
systems. Or perhaps two sets of lights? While I agree with your comments in
general its not practical in all cases. Thus in some cases its best top bite
the bullet and follow the FAA regs. Its not logic that drives the design,
its a simple case of being within the regs so if you have a failure that
ends up being investigated you do not end up with a license suspension.
Consider you have a failed fuse and you land and are met by the FAA. They
look and find you do not have in-flight accessibility and when the fuse is
replaced the lights work. The next thing you get is a reg violation and
likely decertification of your aircraft as well as a pilots licence
suspension.
I do not have a problem with fuses nor do I think that in-flight trouble
shooting is wise. But I also have a lot of respect for the power of the FAA
inspector and the well known and time tested failure of winning when they
disagree.
As for fuses as reliable as wire, well look at the reliability of a fuse and
holder in the reliability handbook. Not even close.
I do not wish to put words in Bob's mouth, but I believe he believes in the
KISS principle and fix it on the ground. Thus if there is no in-flight
accessibility there is no chance you will try an in-flight fix and get
distracted. This works in most cases.
Paul
PS you suggest you are looking for a Navion. I have a friend with one for
sale. Contact Mel at rudin(at)olypen.cpm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg
Young
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
Paul,
One can't consider the accessibility issue in isolation. It has to be part
of the overall design philosophy. IF you design out nuisance trips AND you
isolate critical components AND you analyze failure modes and provide
backups to assure that the failure of one or multiple components does not
affect the safety of flight (night or otherwise), etc. THEN you don't need
in-flight access to fuses. Even going thru this process, if you deem the
fuse itself as an intolerably unreliable component, then you can either make
it accessible for replacement or find an acceptably reliable alternative. I
think Bob's leading assumption is that modern fuses are as reliable as wire.
You obviously disagree with that so your design would and should differ.
Regards,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
Searching for Navion
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary A. Sobek" <rv6flier(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
--- Paul Messinger wrote:
>
>
> Its not a matter of reliability that is at issue. The regs are very
> specific
> and I am unwilling to chance a debate with the FAA where the odds of
> winning
> are ZERO.
>
> My point is the simple fact (at least in the eyes of my local FSDO)
> that if
> I choose to use a fuse (or a CB) for over current protection on a
> system
> that must be functional for that mode of flight, (like recognition
> lights at
> night) that over current protector must be resettable by the flight
> crew in
> flight.
>
> Further I have been specifically been told that I cannot get my
> experimental
> acft licensed if I use fuses on these circuits and the fuse is not in
> flight
> accessible.
>
> I have also been told that getting past the initial license process
> does not
> protect me from a later inspection that could result in being told
> its not
> per regs and being grounded. Like a ramp check that the FAA does from
> time
> to time.
>
> I assume that you are suggesting redundant power paths to any such
> critical
> systems. Or perhaps two sets of lights? While I agree with your
> comments in
> general its not practical in all cases. Thus in some cases its best
> top bite
> the bullet and follow the FAA regs. Its not logic that drives the
> design,
> its a simple case of being within the regs so if you have a failure
> that
> ends up being investigated you do not end up with a license
> suspension.
>
> Consider you have a failed fuse and you land and are met by the FAA.
> They
> look and find you do not have in-flight accessibility and when the
> fuse is
> replaced the lights work. The next thing you get is a reg violation
> and
> likely decertification of your aircraft as well as a pilots licence
> suspension.
>
> I do not have a problem with fuses nor do I think that in-flight
> trouble
> shooting is wise. But I also have a lot of respect for the power of
> the FAA
> inspector and the well known and time tested failure of winning when
> they
> disagree.
>
> As for fuses as reliable as wire, well look at the reliability of a
> fuse and
> holder in the reliability handbook. Not even close.
>
> I do not wish to put words in Bob's mouth, but I believe he believes
> in the
> KISS principle and fix it on the ground. Thus if there is no
> in-flight
> accessibility there is no chance you will try an in-flight fix and
> get
> distracted. This works in most cases.
>
> Paul
Paul:
I am licensed and flying Day / Night VFR with NON-Inflight serviceable
Fuses. You cannot get to the FUSES without landing the aircraft. First
Flight 19 September 1997. Approaching 1,000 hours. Never blown a
fuse. Only electrical problem was B&C alternator going off line
crossing the Canadian Board into the US. Alternator was not the
problem. Problem was CORROSION on the alternator ground path to the
engine. Have replace one of two landing lights, one strobe light, and
all of the interior light bulbs. Never had a fuse blow.
I am an Electrical Engineer by trade, have an FAA A & P License, and an
EAA Tech Counselor.
=====
Gary A. Sobek
"My Sanity" RV-6 N157GS O-320 Hartzell,
959+ Flying Hours So. CA, USA
http://SoCAL_WVAF.tripod.com
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
Sorry Paul, I misinterpreted your point. Sounds like it's the more
intractable problem of differing FAR interpretations between
FSDO's/inspectors. If you're up against a hard case and logic fails then I
suppose you do what you have to. The scary part is that guy could ramp check
and ground an aircraft that was perfectly acceptable in another region. I
guess there are a few in every profession that got thru on the wrong side of
the bell-shaped curve. It's a shame you drew him. Good luck to you.
Regards,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
Searching for Navion
p.s. I already talked to Mel about his Navion and got a stack of pictures.
It's one still under consideration.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Paul
> Messinger
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 2:34 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>
>
>
>
> Its not a matter of reliability that is at issue. The regs
> are very specific
> and I am unwilling to chance a debate with the FAA where the
> odds of winning
> are ZERO.
>
> My point is the simple fact (at least in the eyes of my local
> FSDO) that if
> I choose to use a fuse (or a CB) for over current protection
> on a system
> that must be functional for that mode of flight, (like
> recognition lights at
> night) that over current protector must be resettable by the
> flight crew in
> flight.
>
> Further I have been specifically been told that I cannot get
> my experimental
> acft licensed if I use fuses on these circuits and the fuse
> is not in flight
> accessible.
>
> I have also been told that getting past the initial license
> process does not
> protect me from a later inspection that could result in being
> told its not
> per regs and being grounded. Like a ramp check that the FAA
> does from time
> to time.
>
> I assume that you are suggesting redundant power paths to any
> such critical
> systems. Or perhaps two sets of lights? While I agree with
> your comments in
> general its not practical in all cases. Thus in some cases
> its best top bite
> the bullet and follow the FAA regs. Its not logic that drives
> the design,
> its a simple case of being within the regs so if you have a
> failure that
> ends up being investigated you do not end up with a license
> suspension.
>
> Consider you have a failed fuse and you land and are met by
> the FAA. They
> look and find you do not have in-flight accessibility and
> when the fuse is
> replaced the lights work. The next thing you get is a reg
> violation and
> likely decertification of your aircraft as well as a pilots licence
> suspension.
>
> I do not have a problem with fuses nor do I think that
> in-flight trouble
> shooting is wise. But I also have a lot of respect for the
> power of the FAA
> inspector and the well known and time tested failure of
> winning when they
> disagree.
>
> As for fuses as reliable as wire, well look at the
> reliability of a fuse and
> holder in the reliability handbook. Not even close.
>
> I do not wish to put words in Bob's mouth, but I believe he
> believes in the
> KISS principle and fix it on the ground. Thus if there is no in-flight
> accessibility there is no chance you will try an in-flight fix and get
> distracted. This works in most cases.
>
> Paul
> PS you suggest you are looking for a Navion. I have a friend
> with one for
> sale. Contact Mel at rudin(at)olypen.cpm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg
> Young
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>
>
> <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> Paul,
> One can't consider the accessibility issue in isolation. It
> has to be part
> of the overall design philosophy. IF you design out nuisance
> trips AND you
> isolate critical components AND you analyze failure modes and provide
> backups to assure that the failure of one or multiple
> components does not
> affect the safety of flight (night or otherwise), etc. THEN
> you don't need
> in-flight access to fuses. Even going thru this process, if
> you deem the
> fuse itself as an intolerably unreliable component, then you
> can either make
> it accessible for replacement or find an acceptably reliable
> alternative. I
> think Bob's leading assumption is that modern fuses are as
> reliable as wire.
> You obviously disagree with that so your design would and
> should differ.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
> RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
> Searching for Navion
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
> Further I have been specifically been told that I cannot get my
> experimental acft licensed if I use fuses on these circuits and the
> fuse is not in flight accessible.
Where are you getting these stories from? Lots of aircraft I know of
should be getting decertified right about now, including all those
certified aircraft with non-inflight accessible circuit protection .
> As for fuses as reliable as wire, well look at the reliability of a
> fuse and holder in the reliability handbook. Not even close.
Can you post the MTBF figures from the reliability handbook you are getting
your numbers from?
If you have read Bob's book, you know we are using ATC/ATO fuseblocks (we
are not talking about the old unreliable glass tube in a twist socket
type, 'ya know the kind in all those Cessnas getting decertified during
ramp checks everyday ).
I can't remember EVER hearing of someones ATC/ATO fuse block failing,
including my own use of them over the last 15 years.
> I do not wish to put words in Bob's mouth, but I believe he believes in
> the KISS principle and fix it on the ground. Thus if there is no
> in-flight accessibility there is no chance you will try an in-flight
> fix and get distracted. This works in most cases.
What can you possibly fix in flight, circuit protection accessible or not?
A fuse/circuit breaker opens up because the wire attached to it is about to
burn up. Unless you are going to crawl under the dash or into the tailcome
to fix the component that's causing the wire to overheat, you have no
business re-enabling the circuit protection (inflight or on the ground,
unless of course you like the idea of possibly starting a fire).
Good luck with whatever approach you decide on.
Rob Acker (RV-6, fuses in an easy to reach location, but fuse changing not
permitted in flight because inflight fires are a bad thing)
> > -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg
> Young
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>
>
> <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> Paul,
> One can't consider the accessibility issue in isolation. It has to be
> part of the overall design philosophy. IF you design out nuisance trips
> AND you isolate critical components AND you analyze failure modes and
> provide backups to assure that the failure of one or multiple
> components does not affect the safety of flight (night or otherwise),
> etc. THEN you don't need in-flight access to fuses. Even going thru
> this process, if you deem the fuse itself as an intolerably unreliable
> component, then you can either make it accessible for replacement or
> find an acceptably reliable alternative. I think Bob's leading
> assumption is that modern fuses are as reliable as wire. You obviously
> disagree with that so your design would and should differ.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
> RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
> Searching for Navion
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | 2-10 Master Switch |
Bob,
Earlier this month you said...
>Later versions of that drawing call out a 2-10 . . . double
> pole, three position, ON-ON-ON function. This allows the single
>switch to mimic the function of the nearly sacred split rocker
>master switch. Bottom position - ALL OFF, mid position - BATTERY
>ONLY, upper position, BATTY and ALTERNATOR ON.
Where are these "later versions"? I have all of your updates and can't find
them.
Ross Mickey
RV6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave Qualley <dqualley(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Electrical System Drawings |
I'm in the process of drawing up a version of Bob's Z-10 to suit my application...
Over the past months/years I've seen some nice drawings that people have made up,
and posted on their construction websites. For whatever reason I didn't bookmark
these sites, and I can't find them now that I need them..
Does anyone have an AutoCAD file, or other DXF files of their wiring drawings that
I could use as a starting point? I figured there's no point in redrawing all
the
symbols and so on if I can get it from someone else..
I want to create a full set of drawings showing all the wiring and connections
for
future reference, and to help me think out the installation.
Email any large files to me directly at dqualley(at)home.com
Thanks,
Dave
Murphy Super Rebel
80% done..
Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
Where are you getting these stories from? Lots of aircraft I know of
should be getting decertified right about now, including all those
certified aircraft with non-inflight accessible circuit protection .
Can you site an example (acft make, model and circuit) where the
inaccessible in flight protection is on a required for flight non redundant
circuit?
There is no problem with most FAA inspectors and as far as many acft flying
no question. However if you have a problem that brings their attention like
a lighting failure in class B and then are required to land where the FAA is
around, good luck.
> As for fuses as reliable as wire, well look at the reliability of a
> fuse and holder in the reliability handbook. Not even close.
Can you post the MTBF figures from the reliability handbook you are getting
your numbers from?
This is not worth arguing the point (sorry but I do not want to get into a
'details' argument). If its not obvious that a piece of wire is more
reliable than a fuse block with fuse and the connections to the wire/block
and block/fuse than we have nothing to discuss. If you are really interested
look up the numbers in the latest mil spec reliability handbook. The
reliability of the additional connections at the fuse block is lower than a
wire and the most unreliable part is the switch not counting the light bulb.
Use of MTBF is only valid when comparing different systems as to which is
more reliable during the conceptual/preliminary design phase. I have 30
years in aerospace engineering in the design and management of the design of
electrical/electronic systems for satellites and we never used reliability
failure rate info for more than the conceptual design phase (at the system
level). Thus a trade between a fuse assy vs a circuit breaker is appropriate
as is the study of a redundant system (where in many cases the unreliability
of the switching circuit is greater than a single string system. Thus a
redundant system can be less reliable than a well designed single string
design. But then there were no FAA inspectors around. :-) We used fuses as
there is no way to reset CB's :-)
Reliability is NOT the issue I was raising. Its the interpretation of the
REGS by the local FAA inspector asking why you had to land.
In any event, I was pointing out that blind use of fuses MAY, under unusual
circumstances, cause grief that is so easy to avoid. Simply locating that
fuse block where it can be reached is no big deal IF you worry about rigid
adherence of the regs.
However having an instrument panel with no section of exposed fuse holders
and or circuit breakers is a red flag to inspectors who are used to a panel
with dozens showing.
As for personal experience, having experienced both CB random tripping and
fuse failing including the latest ATO types is reason enough for me to have
accessibility. I also never had a mag fail in 46 years of flight, but
believe two is needed for flight. I have experienced several avionics
internal fires that were current limited and never tripped the CB. Lots of
smoke however. This on new factory installed systems. FAA, on one occasion
asked who did the installation and when they learned it was factory that was
the end of discussion.
All I was doing in my original post was pointing out that rigid
interperation of the regs do not permit hidden fuses in all cases. I feel
that if you do not like the regs get them changed do not just ignore them.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Current Draw, Was Magneto wiring |
> > << i know i'm supposed to use 18 gauge shielded wires to the P
> > lead on the magnetos
> >
> The Zx diagrams in Bob's book show 20 gauge from switch to mags,
> which is what I used.
>
> What's your source to use 18? I may need to upgrade!
>
> Mike Thompson
OK. Let's see if someone knows what current draw the magnetos pull
from the 12 volt line. Then we'll know if something heavier than 20
Gauge is warranted.
I checked Tony's Firewall Forward, BTW - 16 AWG!!
Mike Thompson
Austin, TX
-6 N140RV (Reserved)
Firewall Forward
http://personals.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Magneto Current Draw, Was Magneto wiring |
>
>> > << i know i'm supposed to use 18 gauge shielded wires to the P
>> > lead on the magnetos
>> >
>> The Zx diagrams in Bob's book show 20 gauge from switch to mags,
>> which is what I used.
>>
>> What's your source to use 18? I may need to upgrade!
>>
>> Mike Thompson
>
>
>OK. Let's see if someone knows what current draw the magnetos pull
>from the 12 volt line. Then we'll know if something heavier than 20
>Gauge is warranted.
>I checked Tony's Firewall Forward, BTW - 16 AWG!!
Magnetos have NO current draw from the airplane's electrical
system. The p-leads are used to literally short out the points
in the magneto (simulated failure of the capacitor if you will)
in order to make it stop working. The current in this lead is
not significant with respect to sizing the wire. 22AWG wire would
work, as will anything heavier. The primary thought for somewhat
heavier wire like 20 or 18AWG is for mechanical robustness for
a lead that connects directly to some portion of the engine.
A couple of builders have purchased the shielded trio wire
from our website catalog and simply paralleled all three
conductors into single read (22-18AWG) terminals at each end.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Airpax Circuit breakers |
>
>Dave Anders is using Airpax circuit breakers in his "world's fastest RV" He
>researches all he does carefully. I understand that Airpax C.B.'s are
>magnetic [and not thermal] The units are very light. Bob, can you comment
>on Airpax?
>Ralph Bookout, Slumlord, RV6 finishing
Airpax is a blue-chip, old-guard supplier to the
electronics industry for about as many years as
I can remember. Never used much of their products
in my designs.
I encounter them most often on projects funded by
those nearly bottomless pockets of the taxpayers.
If one has the urge to go breakers, you'd be hard
pressed to find better quality.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
>
>>
>> I would be very interested to hear comments on which electronic ignition
>> system is better, Lasar or Lightspeed and why.
>>
>>
I don't think there's a nickle's worth of difference
in terms of performance of the two systems. I've
known both of these suppliers for 15+ years or so
and judge them both technically competent and
ethical.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com> |
| Subject: | Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
Bernie, Nick, and others,
I thought about a design based upon just line side source, but don't like
the idea that one has to remember to turn both the master contactors off,
AND the ignition switches off (at the end of a flight) to completely power
down the aircraft. If a line side sourced ignition were to be left ON, then
the battery would go dead. (Leaving a Magneto hot won't do that..) Since
most engine shutdowns are done with the mixture control, leaving the
ignition ON is a real possibility, and could result in getting stranded
someplace with dead batteries. The diode solution, with oil pressure
switches in series with the line side source, and diode sources from both
master contactors, removes that situation.
The diode failure mode check would be facilitated through the use of the
Power LED indicator prior to startup (The LED would be on the resultant hot
wire to the ignition system.) Also, unless over stressed, diodes rarely
fail.
I have a lot of time to think about it as I'm still building up the
fuselage and have yet to order the electronic ignitions or the engine.....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
Hey Fred!
(For everyone else: Fred flew up from Connecticut to Maine on a
cold, cloudy day just to give me my first ride in an RV - after I'd been
building one for a year and a half. What a mensch!)
What's the point of the diodes and and the oil pressure switches?
Wouldn't it be easier to wire the CDIs to an always-hot, battery bus?
Nick Knobil
RV8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
| From: | "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
What a cunnin' idea, Fred!
I have to say, tho', that our personal friend Bob N. might say that turnin' them
switches off are what checklists are for..
With many years of experience in the computer field, I've often described the source
of a problem to be "a short in the operator". Your idea of having the ignitions
wired through oil-pressure switches is elegant, but do you think the
extra complexity and parts-count makes it worth it?
Nick Knobil
RV-8 N80549 (Pre-natal)
Bowdoinham, Maine
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Stucklen, Frederic IFC stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 06:34:05 -0400
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions
Bernie, Nick, and others,
I thought about a design based upon just line side source, but don't like
the idea that one has to remember to turn both the master contactors off,
AND the ignition switches off (at the end of a flight) to completely power
down the aircraft. If a line side sourced ignition were to be left ON, then
the battery would go dead. (Leaving a Magneto hot won't do that..) Since
most engine shutdowns are done with the mixture control, leaving the
ignition ON is a real possibility, and could result in getting stranded
someplace with dead batteries. The diode solution, with oil pressure
switches in series with the line side source, and diode sources from both
master contactors, removes that situation.
The diode failure mode check would be facilitated through the use of the
Power LED indicator prior to startup (The LED would be on the resultant hot
wire to the ignition system.) Also, unless over stressed, diodes rarely
fail.
I have a lot of time to think about it as I'm still building up the
fuselage and have yet to order the electronic ignitions or the engine.....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
Hey Fred!
(For everyone else: Fred flew up from Connecticut to Maine on a
cold, cloudy day just to give me my first ride in an RV - after I'd been
building one for a year and a half. What a mensch!)
What's the point of the diodes and and the oil pressure switches?
Wouldn't it be easier to wire the CDIs to an always-hot, battery bus?
Nick Knobil
RV8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
I never thought two ignitions did anything for performance, only
reliability. I have a dual ignition Subaru and I just heard of yet ANOTHER
single ignition Subaru going down because of the single ignition failure.
I considered some type of automatic circuit to be an overcomplication, so
just switching both on for takeoff and landing would relieve me of the
momentary panic of one ignition dying on takeoff (which is the place I'm
sure it would quit). I would then switch one off during cruise. I suppose
you could have one switch for both ignitions on either bat 1 or bat 2 but I
would just assume add one more switch.
I do like the idea of the off-on-on toggle verses the rocker switches.
One swipe will get them both on or both off.
> you guys are making this too complicated . . .
> the engine runs fine on ONE ignition. The fact
> that you have two ignitions improves performance but
> there is little value in piling redundancy
> on top of redundancy except to drive up parts
> count and cost of installation.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
I have each Light Speed ignition feed directly from it's respective battery
(two Odyssey 625s). These feeds are independent of each other as well as
the other busses in the system. To avoid leaving the ignitions on when the
rest of the electrical system is turned off I installed two small buzzers
under the cowl, one in parallel with each ignition (buzzer wire has a 1/2
amp pc board type fuse in line to isolate a buzzer fault from the ignition).
The ground from these buzzers comes from the alternator light connection.
This way the buzzer(s) only sound when the ignition(s) are on and the engine
is not running. This should eliminate the problem of leaving an ignition
hot.
Carl Froehlich
RV-8A (almost done)
Vienna, VA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions
>
> Bernie, Nick, and others,
>
> I thought about a design based upon just line side source, but don't
like
> the idea that one has to remember to turn both the master contactors off,
> AND the ignition switches off (at the end of a flight) to completely power
> down the aircraft. If a line side sourced ignition were to be left ON,
then
> the battery would go dead. (Leaving a Magneto hot won't do that..) Since
> most engine shutdowns are done with the mixture control, leaving the
> ignition ON is a real possibility, and could result in getting stranded
> someplace with dead batteries. The diode solution, with oil pressure
> switches in series with the line side source, and diode sources from both
> master contactors, removes that situation.
> The diode failure mode check would be facilitated through the use of the
> Power LED indicator prior to startup (The LED would be on the resultant
hot
> wire to the ignition system.) Also, unless over stressed, diodes rarely
> fail.
> I have a lot of time to think about it as I'm still building up the
> fuselage and have yet to order the electronic ignitions or the engine.....
>
> Fred Stucklen
> N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
> E. Windsor, CT 06088
> WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
> Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
>
>
> Hey Fred!
>
> (For everyone else: Fred flew up from Connecticut to Maine on a
> cold, cloudy day just to give me my first ride in an RV - after I'd been
> building one for a year and a half. What a mensch!)
>
> What's the point of the diodes and and the oil pressure switches?
> Wouldn't it be easier to wire the CDIs to an always-hot, battery bus?
>
> Nick Knobil
> RV8 N80549
> Bowdoinham, Maine
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignition |
>>> I would be very interested to hear comments on which electronic ignition
> system is better, Lasar or Lightspeed and why.<<
I'll add my 2 cents worth..
I won't comment on the relative reliability or cost, but in operational
terms the difference is in the redundancy philosophies. The advantage I see
in either over the fixed-timing mags is the ability to add spark advance at
high altitude. Below 8 or 10,000 feet I think there would be little benefit
as the fixed spark advance is not far off. The engine's spark advance
requirement is nearly the same at sea level full throttle rich or at 8,000
feet leaned out. Above that altitude, though, the engine suffers from the
slower flame travel without a corresponding spark advance. I would bet that
at 15,000 feet there will be maybe a 5% power and 10% fuel economy gain to
be had. High altitude take-offs would also be enhanced.
The LASAR system reverts to a magneto upon electrical or electronic system
failure, eliminating the need for a separate backup electrical power source.
The other systems available need a backup power source. To me, that's about
the difference. The Lightspeed (or other fully electronic system) also has
the option of having only one system installed so the backup can be the
mag - which also eliminates the need for a backup power supply. However,
having one fixed-timing mag negates some of the benefit as only one spark
plug is advanced in timing at high altitude. This probably provides most of
the advantage, but leaves some on the table. If I were going to the trouble
to have an electronic system I would want to go the whole way and have two.
There are probably advantages of a hotter spark during cranking, but the
mags work "okay" in that mode, so the real benefit is small.
Just my opinion.
Gary Casey
C177RG, Lancair ES project
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignition |
| From: | "Bob Japundza" <Bob.Japundza(at)realmed.com> |
I have an Electroair ignition in my RV-6. I added the electronic
ignition after I was already flying, and there was quite a difference in
engine operation (for the better; check the RV archives there's plenty
of info on the subject.) On the first flight after the upgrade the
engine felt stronger. Now my ignition system is in the early 80's,
technology-wise, as Jeff says...
The biggest difference between Lasar and the others is price. There's
not much difference between the Electroair and Lightspeed, pricewise,
but how the ignition leads are run is a little different. It's my
understanding that the Lightspeed can be hand-propped but the Electroair
can't. I found the NGK plugs Lightspeed recommends have a better
service life than the Autolite plugs Electroair recommends. I will say
that I'm very pleased with my Electroair...Jeff Rose is a super guy to
deal with--I called him on a Sunday afternoon with a question during
installation and he was eager to help.
With any of the electronic ignitions you have to spend quite a bit of
time over 12,000ft to really take advantage of fuel savings. On average
now I'd say my fuel burn is 1/2gal/hr less overall, since I'm a
flatlander slugging it out down low. The biggest advantages are slower,
smoother idle, easier starting, and maintenance. I run automotive plugs
off the electronic ignition--$1.99 vs. $20.00 each.
I have a few friends that have the Lasar system and each one of them
have had problems (setup problems, failures, etc.) There are no
mechanical parts in my Elecroair; its very robustly built. No points
that need adjusting (granted, I still have the mag which requires
periodic maintenance, but mags are pretty simple devices.) IMHO the
Lasar system is much more mechanically complex than what Electroair or
Lightspeed sell, and three times the price. The difference in price
could pay for a summer's worth of gas for a lot of flying.
On my new project I will stick with one electronic ignition having a mag
as a backup...I can't justify the expense or complexity of a second
electronic ignition/battery backup system because like Bob says 95% of
your performance comes from one unit. On runup there is a barely
noticeable drop in RPM when the mag is shut off.
Bob Japundza
RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 228 hours
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2001 10:29 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electronic Ignition
>
>
> III"
>
>
> >
>
> >>
> >> I would be very interested to hear comments on which
> electronic ignition
> >> system is better, Lasar or Lightspeed and why.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> I don't think there's a nickle's worth of difference
> in terms of performance of the two systems. I've
> known both of these suppliers for 15+ years or so
> and judge them both technically competent and
> ethical.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> ( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
> ( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
> ( - Epictetus )
> ----------------------------------------------
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | philip condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
| Subject: | Large #2 wire / firewall passthru thingie |
Hi Bob,
I need one of the firewall wire passthru thingies that you sell. Is
there a web-site or order form available so I can order one.....thanks
in advance
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | philip condon <pcondon(at)mitre.org> |
Sorry Bob, A brief memory fart....I got your aeroelectric web site up
now & looking for the thingie I need.....seeya
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual ignitions |
There is another approach. Run a tac that will let you know when one
ignition has failed. You could run separate tacs for each ignition I
suppose. It doesn't cost much to run both ignitions and i for one don't want
to have to figure out why the engine quite while in a tight spot. The
knowledge that one ignition has indicated failure is enough to get me on the
ground, rather it be a light or enunciator.
Rick N656T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
If you have a King Transponder, there is an internal 2 amp fuse that can not
be changed without removing the transponder and opening the case. Every
plane that has one is illegal??? I think not. I might be able to access the
glass fuses in my Bellanca 14-13-2, but replace them while having controlled
flight? I think it would be close to impossible.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
----- Original Message -----
From: <racker(at)rmci.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
> Further I have been specifically been told that I cannot get my
> experimental acft licensed if I use fuses on these circuits and the
> fuse is not in flight accessible.
Where are you getting these stories from? Lots of aircraft I know of
should be getting decertified right about now, including all those
certified aircraft with non-inflight accessible circuit protection .
> As for fuses as reliable as wire, well look at the reliability of a
> fuse and holder in the reliability handbook. Not even close.
Can you post the MTBF figures from the reliability handbook you are getting
your numbers from?
If you have read Bob's book, you know we are using ATC/ATO fuseblocks (we
are not talking about the old unreliable glass tube in a twist socket
type, 'ya know the kind in all those Cessnas getting decertified during
ramp checks everyday ).
I can't remember EVER hearing of someones ATC/ATO fuse block failing,
including my own use of them over the last 15 years.
> I do not wish to put words in Bob's mouth, but I believe he believes in
> the KISS principle and fix it on the ground. Thus if there is no
> in-flight accessibility there is no chance you will try an in-flight
> fix and get distracted. This works in most cases.
What can you possibly fix in flight, circuit protection accessible or not?
A fuse/circuit breaker opens up because the wire attached to it is about to
burn up. Unless you are going to crawl under the dash or into the tailcome
to fix the component that's causing the wire to overheat, you have no
business re-enabling the circuit protection (inflight or on the ground,
unless of course you like the idea of possibly starting a fire).
Good luck with whatever approach you decide on.
Rob Acker (RV-6, fuses in an easy to reach location, but fuse changing not
permitted in flight because inflight fires are a bad thing)
> > -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg
> Young
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>
>
> <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
> Paul,
> One can't consider the accessibility issue in isolation. It has to be
> part of the overall design philosophy. IF you design out nuisance trips
> AND you isolate critical components AND you analyze failure modes and
> provide backups to assure that the failure of one or multiple
> components does not affect the safety of flight (night or otherwise),
> etc. THEN you don't need in-flight access to fuses. Even going thru
> this process, if you deem the fuse itself as an intolerably unreliable
> component, then you can either make it accessible for replacement or
> find an acceptably reliable alternative. I think Bob's leading
> assumption is that modern fuses are as reliable as wire. You obviously
> disagree with that so your design would and should differ.
>
> Regards,
> Greg Young
> RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
> Searching for Navion
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Current Draw, Was Magneto wiring |
There isn't a current draw on the P lead; not part of the electrical system.
It is a grounding wire. Strength is the consideration as you don't want it
to break leaving your mags HOT!
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
http://www.eaa.org for latest flying rules
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Thompson" <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto Current Draw, Was Magneto wiring
> > << i know i'm supposed to use 18 gauge shielded wires to the P
> > lead on the magnetos
> >
> The Zx diagrams in Bob's book show 20 gauge from switch to mags,
> which is what I used.
>
> What's your source to use 18? I may need to upgrade!
>
> Mike Thompson
OK. Let's see if someone knows what current draw the magnetos pull
from the 12 volt line. Then we'll know if something heavier than 20
Gauge is warranted.
I checked Tony's Firewall Forward, BTW - 16 AWG!!
Mike Thompson
Austin, TX
-6 N140RV (Reserved)
Firewall Forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Thompson <grobdriver(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Current Draw, Was Magneto wiring |
--- Cy Galley wrote:
>
>
> There isn't a current draw on the P lead; not part of the electrical
> system.
> It is a grounding wire. Strength is the consideration as you don't
> want it
> to break leaving your mags HOT!
Yeah - that was a real dumb shit moment.
The good thing is I did it on lists where everybody knows there is lots
we (as individuals) don't know.
Which is why we're here.
Ok. Something else learned - or reminded of, in this case.
Mag switches ground the mags.
Mag switches ground the mags.
Mag switches ground the mags.
Mike Thompson
Austin, TX
-6 N140RV (Reserved)
Firewall Forward
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Magneto Current Draw, Was Magneto wiring |
Cy Galley wrote:
>
>
> There isn't a current draw on the P lead; not part of the electrical system.
> It is a grounding wire. Strength is the consideration as you don't want it
> to break leaving your mags HOT!
*** Strong yes. In a way. In my experience as a tech in factory test
equipment maintenance, it's important that:
A wire connected to something that moves a lot should be LIMP.
In other words, it should be stranded, with a lot of strands.
We had a special sort of wire for connection to test sets that was
literally as limp as a wet noodle.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Dual ignitions |
| From: | "nknobil(at)gwi.net" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
Dumb Question:
What's a TAC?
Nick Knobil
RV-8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Rick turboflyer(at)mediaone.net
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:22:45 -0700
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual ignitions
There is another approach. Run a tac that will let you know when one
ignition has failed. You could run separate tacs for each ignition I
suppose. It doesn't cost much to run both ignitions and i for one don't want
to have to figure out why the engine quite while in a tight spot. The
knowledge that one ignition has indicated failure is enough to get me on the
ground, rather it be a light or enunciator.
Rick N656T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ground power receptacle |
>
>> Not so. There may be a short duration flow
>> of energy from ground battery into ship's battery
>> but it's not significant. Remember, it takes 14V+
>> to charge a battery that delivers energy at 12.5V
>> and below. Hooking a 12.5V battery to a dead
>> battery will indeed produce some current flow but
>> it's small compared to what's needed to get the
>> engine going.
>
>And yet, I've seen it happen many times... The "good"
>ground battery won't turn the starter over until the
>dead on-board battery is disconnected from the system.
> And (before the dead battery is disconnected) there
>is one helluva spark when the last jumper connection
>is made, indicating current is flowing. I agree that
>it takes 14.5 volts to charge a 12 volt battery, but
>what about when the battery has been run down to 8 or
>9 volts? I'd say 12.5 volts could overcome a 9 volt
>forward potential fairly easily.
there will be some flow of energy into the
discharged battery but it doesn't last long.
If the ground power battery is an RG, it should
crank the engine -AND- support the cross-flow
between batteries. I've got a couple of new
RG batteries sitting on the bench. I'll run
one of them down and get some data from
an experiement.
>>>Wiring the ground power
>>>receptacle to the aircraft side of the master
>>>contactor will allow you to start your engine, flip
>>>on the master switch and let your alternator
>recharge
>>>your battery.
>
>> I've never wanted to run an engine to charge
>> a battery...
>
>> Don't even own a "trickle" charger and never had
>> one while we ran the airport. When airplane down-
>> time translates to zero cash flow, you need to get
>> the critter running.
>
>So you jump-start the engine with the ground battery,
>launch, and let the engine recharge the battery!
Hook up the ground power cables to your car with
the engine running. Wait a couple of minutes for
the on-board battery to wake up . . . then crank
the engine. The best way is to put a charger
on and get the battery up to 50% or better capacity.
take only 30 minutes.
Except for purely fair-weather flying, would you
want to take off with a known low capacity
battery? It's so easy to avoid battery run-down
charge on the battery if you have a ground power
jack . . . why would you simply jump-start and fly?
Bill, tried to send you a CD rom it came back.
I guess I need an address update.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GLL" <gllikar(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Batts & Coils |
Hello List.
Many thanks to the list owner. This is my first post to this list. I have
a EA81 with a adapted Toyota ND distributor. I used the Toyota version
because it is larger in diameter and has a ball bearing at the top of the
shaft. An unexpected benefit was a smoother idle. It has dual pickups
hooked up to dual coils. The coils are routed through a coil combiner diode
setup from the race car world. My question is about the diode setup. Does
anyone know how reliable these are and when it does fail what is the failure
mode? Do the diodes short out or open up?
Cheers
GLL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GLL" <gllikar(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Batts & Coils |
Had second thoughts on my first post.
Should have started a new thread, didn't mean to but-in. Sorry.
GLL
>
> Hello List.
>
> Many thanks to the list owner. This is my first post to this list. I
have
> a EA81 with a adapted Toyota ND distributor. I used the Toyota version
> because it is larger in diameter and has a ball bearing at the top of the
> shaft. An unexpected benefit was a smoother idle. It has dual pickups
> hooked up to dual coils. The coils are routed through a coil combiner
diode
> setup from the race car world. My question is about the diode setup.
Does
> anyone know how reliable these are and when it does fail what is the
failure
> mode? Do the diodes short out or open up?
>
> Cheers
> GLL
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Dual ignitions |
Short for tachometer, at least my rendition. Your not an engineer are you :)
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
nknobil(at)gwi.net
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual ignitions
Dumb Question:
What's a TAC?
Nick Knobil
RV-8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Rick turboflyer(at)mediaone.net
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:22:45 -0700
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Dual ignitions
There is another approach. Run a tac that will let you know when one
ignition has failed. You could run separate tacs for each ignition I
suppose. It doesn't cost much to run both ignitions and i for one don't want
to have to figure out why the engine quite while in a tight spot. The
knowledge that one ignition has indicated failure is enough to get me on the
ground, rather it be a light or enunciator.
Rick N656T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
The regs DO NOT say that replacement in flight is required for systems that
are legally required. The regs DO say that the ability to replace fuses in
flight is required for systems that are deemed essential to SAFETY in
flight, (NOT LEGALITY). The problem is that the regs are NOT specific about
what is essential to flight safety. Evidently some FAA inspectors are
interpreting it differently from their FAA certification comrades. I know
that at one major airframer, the entire electrical system is considered not
essential to flight safety because the engine and vacuum pumps will continue
to run.
The issue is not whether we are going to adhere to the regs, but whether we
are going to run into an inspector that does not know what the industry-wide
accepted interpretation is.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential
to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and
identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight --
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of each
rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
> Its not a matter of reliability that is at issue. The regs are
> very specific
> and I am unwilling to chance a debate with the FAA where the odds
> of winning
> are ZERO.
>
> My point is the simple fact (at least in the eyes of my local
> FSDO) that if
> I choose to use a fuse (or a CB) for over current protection on a system
> that must be functional for that mode of flight, (like
> recognition lights at
> night) that over current protector must be resettable by the
> flight crew in
> flight.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BrooksRV6(at)webtv.net (Chris Brooks) |
I recently read a post from someone that had a "D" engine with the
single drive dual mag who wanted to use a single mag with a Lightspeed
ignition. If there is a single mag that will bolt in place of the dual
please let me know. My current plan is to take my dual mag and remove
the distributor gear, points, coil, and harness from one side of it,
converting it to a single mag. Other than a larger case it shouldn't
weigh much more than a single mag. I can then add a Lightspeed ignition
triggered from the flywheel. Does anyone see any flaws with this
approach?
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual mag & E.I. |
Chris
I am building a Glasair with a "D" engine. My thought was the
same. Discard the dual mag, run a single in the hole, and an
electronic ignition on the other side. I have this set up on my
Glasair 1 I am flying now. I have been told that a single mag will
work in the dual hole. I am just about done with my engine and I
see no reason why it won't work that way. I am, however, not
going to follow this route on the new airplane. I am going with dual
batteries, busses and alternators and dual electronic ignitions. The
odds of both systems failing is very remote and probably no worse
than a mag failure.
My 2 cents.
Jim
Glll 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick DeCiero <rsdec1(at)star.net> |
| Subject: | alternators etc. |
Fellow builders,
My 2 cents worth regarding several posts over the past week dealing
with alternators. I do not have the time to figure out how to build a
reliable alternator system for my Murphy Rebel. Heck, I been trying to
get the airframe together for 7 years. I can and do enjoy many facets of
the building process. I had a lot of fun tailoring my electrical system
to my desires. After flying a Cessna 172 for several years I knew what I
liked and disliked about the electrical system, panel and switch/breaker
placements. With the help of Bob's book and this list, my electrical
system is now complete with a main bus ATO fuse block and an essentail
bus fuse block mounted on the lower left sidewall in the cockpit. Two of
the last things that I will buy are the alternator and the starter. They
merely bolt on at the end and are fairly expensive. I plan to use the
B&C alternator and starter and have already installed the B&C
regulator. Granted, these seem expensive but if you consider the
quality, reliability and experience that you are getting and
realistically (key word here) compare that with the time you will have
to spend to get to the same level, I think you will be willing to pay
for these high quality systems. Some builders have the time and talent
to develop their own gadgets and some don't.
Keep on building,
Rick D.
Rebel N754SM final control system hookup and misc odds and ends (read
about 3 more months)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Annette Coulter" <coulter(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Dual mag & E.I. |
Chris -
I've got a D Lyc and my partner says the rebuilder says he put a single mag
and a crank triggered electronic on it. I tried to call the rebuilder Fri,
but work got in the way (disgusting habit - work). I'll call him Monday and
get an answer.
carl
> From: BrooksRV6(at)webtv.net (Chris Brooks)
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual mag & E.I.
>
Brooks)
>
> I recently read a post from someone that had a "D" engine with the
> single drive dual mag who wanted to use a single mag with a Lightspeed
> ignition. If there is a single mag that will bolt in place of the dual
> please let me know. My current plan is to take my dual mag and remove
> the distributor gear, points, coil, and harness from one side of it,
> converting it to a single mag. Other than a larger case it shouldn't
> weigh much more than a single mag. I can then add a Lightspeed ignition
> triggered from the flywheel. Does anyone see any flaws with this
> approach?
> Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "W T Bartlett" <wtbartlett(at)Prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Dual ignitions |
I don't think this is too useful an idea. When I switch the electronic
ignition off I get a 100rpm drop, but when I switch the mag off iget no rpm
drop. I can see that result with one tach.
Bill N7WB
> There is another approach. Run a tac that will let you know when one
>ignition has failed. You could run separate tacs for each ignition I
>suppose. It doesn't cost much to run both ignitions and i for one don't
want
>to have to figure out why the engine quite while in a tight spot. The
>knowledge that one ignition has indicated failure is enough to get me on
the
>ground, rather it be a light or enunciator.
Rick N656T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electrical System Drawings |
>
>
>I'm in the process of drawing up a version of Bob's Z-10 to suit my application...
>
>Over the past months/years I've seen some nice drawings that people have made
up,
>and posted on their construction websites. For whatever reason I didn't bookmark
>these sites, and I can't find them now that I need them..
>
>Does anyone have an AutoCAD file, or other DXF files of their wiring drawings
that
>I could use as a starting point? I figured there's no point in redrawing all
the
>symbols and so on if I can get it from someone else..
>
>I want to create a full set of drawings showing all the wiring and connections
for
>future reference, and to help me think out the installation.
>
>Email any large files to me directly at dqualley(at)home.com
You can download these self-extracting zip files
that will produce a number of AutoCAD drawings which
will contain much of what's needed to do a complete
wirebook. These drawings use the symbols I use in
my articles and in illustrations for hte AeroElectric
Connection.
http://209.134.106.21/articles/wirebook.exe
http://209.134.106.21/articles/seminar.exe
If you're don't have AutoCAD R14 or later to open
these files, you can download the following:
a password file for installation of a downloadable
shareware version of Intellicad wich will open and
edit AutoCAD drawings:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/cad/password.txt
The CAD software install program:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/cad/setuplcad.exe
. . . and an instruction manual.
http://209.134.106.21/articles/cad/Using IntelliCAD 2000.pdf
In a few days, I'll post the latest versions of the
appendix Z drawings both in .pdf form as the Revision
10 Appendiz Z and in AutoCAD .dwg form.
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 Master Switch |
>
>Bob,
>
>Earlier this month you said...
>
>>Later versions of that drawing call out a 2-10 . . . double
> > pole, three position, ON-ON-ON function. This allows the single
> >switch to mimic the function of the nearly sacred split rocker
> >master switch. Bottom position - ALL OFF, mid position - BATTERY
> >ONLY, upper position, BATTY and ALTERNATOR ON.
>
>
>Where are these "later versions"? I have all of your updates and can't find
>them.
My apologies . . . I've been working on the drawing set
in anticipation of their inclusion in Revision 10 to the
book. I was under the mistaken impression that I'd been
posting copies as they were completed. Not so. I'll
go ahead and finish the whole appendix Z set and the
publish them. I'll announce their availability on the
list when it happens. I'm also going to publish the
.dwg AutoCAD files.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
>
>Its not a matter of reliability that is at issue. The regs are very specific
>and I am unwilling to chance a debate with the FAA where the odds of winning
>are ZERO.
Don't debate them, ask them to help you UNDERSTAND the
requirements . . .
>My point is the simple fact (at least in the eyes of my local FSDO) that if
>I choose to use a fuse (or a CB) for over current protection on a system
>that must be functional for that mode of flight, (like recognition lights at
>night) that over current protector must be resettable by the flight crew in
>flight.
>
>Further I have been specifically been told that I cannot get my experimental
>acft licensed if I use fuses on these circuits and the fuse is not in flight
>accessible.
Please ask them to cite the specific regulation that
requires this. Parts 23, 25 et. al. are not applicable
to EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.
>I have also been told that getting past the initial license process does not
>protect me from a later inspection that could result in being told its not
>per regs and being grounded. Like a ramp check that the FAA does from time
>to time.
Which regs?
>I do not have a problem with fuses nor do I think that in-flight trouble
>shooting is wise. But I also have a lot of respect for the power of the FAA
>inspector and the well known and time tested failure of winning when they
>disagree.
It may well be that your inspector has endowed himself
regulations.
I've uploaded copies of FAR 21, 23, 25, 43 and 91 to my
experimental server. These are text files that are
easily uploaded, read and searched with an ordinary
word processor of choice.
See:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/FaaDocs/far-23.txt
http://209.134.106.21/articles/FaaDocs/far-25.txt
http://209.134.106.21/articles/FaaDocs/far-21.txt
http://209.134.106.21/articles/FaaDocs/far-43.txt
http://209.134.106.21/articles/FaaDocs/far-91.txt
When I search these documents for the word "critical"
I find many, many references to aspects of the airplanes
design, performance and construction that discuss issues
surrounding structures, aerodynamics, engines and
handling qualities . . . ALL of which have to do with
ultimate controllability and endurance of airframe.
When I look for the word "failure" . . . we again
see lots of discussion about the aforementioned
hardware . . . only in part 91 did I find much discussion
about any electrical/electronics failures . . . and
these dealt mostly with procedures for communications
failure.
I also found, "In the event of failure of
any light of the anticollision light system, operation
of the aircraft may continue to a location where
repairs or replacement can be made." This means
you can continue flight to intended destination.
It's not an imperative to land quickly. Conspicuous
by it's omission is any reference to position lights
failure.
The only sentence in part 91 that carries an imperative
is where it talks about radio failure under IFR ops
in VFR conditions we read, "If the failure occurs
in VFR conditions, or if VFR conditions are
encountered after the failure, each pilot shall
continue the flight under VFR and land as soon
as practicable."
If one takes the context under which these two words
are used in the certification of production aircraft
for sale to the general public, it becomes real
clear as to what kinds of things are "critical" and
how one is expected to deal with "failure".
I think the reason that radios, instruments, whether
electrically powered or not, are not discussed in terms
of criticality is because one ASSUMES that these things
FAIL regularly . . . and that there are (or should
be) plan B alternatives in place for any single
failure.
One can LEGALLY fly IFR with one VOR receiver if all
you intend to do is shoot a VOR approach at both
your destination and/or alternate approaches and the
weather forecasts are cooperating. Obviously not a
bright thing to do. If you can do this legally,
how "critical" can the VOR radio be in terms
of regulations?
Not very. Fortunately now, you can carry DUAL for under $200
but one VOR is still legal. Nothing in the regs speaks
to extra-ordinary effort to deal with failures (fuses
or otherwise). This has to be because these items
should NOT be critical; you simply have backups and/or
other ability to deal COMFORTABLY with the situation.
For a good rundown on what REGS apply to your task,
check out:
http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/amateur/
and
http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ra/begin.html
Look specifically in the referenced documents for
duties with respect to: Parts 21 (one or two citations),
23 (no citations), 25 (no citations), 43 (no citations),
45 (a couple of citations on markings) and 91 (a few
more citations) . . . There is very little of the
certified world that applies in a regulatory sense aginst
the design and construction of our airplanes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Runaway alternator |
>
>
> Bob , any thought on why the alternator would not shut down even after the
>field was cut. It went to 28 volts. I have an order with you for the Over
>voltage protection that's for sure.
>Thanks
>Richard
Sure . . . it's because MANY if not ALL automotive alternators
have failure modes that can BYPASS the effects of any control
circuits for a normally operating alternator. This is why
we've always suggested that really nice automotive products
be modified for external regulation and ov protection so that
we can be sure of performance in a failed regulator situation.
You'll also need an alternator disconnect contactor to go with
your ov module . . . the ov module is capable of shutting down
an externally regulated alternator with no assistance. An
INTERNALLY regulated alternator needs to be physically disconnected
from the bus in an OV condition. See:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/bleadov.pdf
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim & Jeanette Oberst" <joberst(at)hsnp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
I agree with all the logic... but I have a problem with this, too. I
designed my panel with only 3 breakers... for trims and flaps... because I
wanted to be able to pull these off in case of a runaway. The fuses are not
accessible during flight.
However, when I discussed my design with the local DAR, he was very
negative... mumbled things about "safety of flight", etc., especially since
I'll be using my airplane for IFR flight. I just don't think that logic
will move the "old-timers" to abandon their notions of how things should be.
As a result, I have to consider a major redesign of my panel and electrical
system as one alternative. (The other alternatives are finding another DAR
who is OK with this approach, and working through a detailed discussion of
what I do for each fuse blowing... which I'd rather not do, since I'd then
be back in the business of talking logic with a "safety expert".)
Frankly, I wish I had followed the "old" approach from the beginning, and I
wouldn't be wrestling with this problem.
Jim Oberst
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>
> The regs DO NOT say that replacement in flight is required for systems
that
> are legally required. The regs DO say that the ability to replace fuses
in
> flight is required for systems that are deemed essential to SAFETY in
> flight, (NOT LEGALITY). The problem is that the regs are NOT specific
about
> what is essential to flight safety. Evidently some FAA inspectors are
> interpreting it differently from their FAA certification comrades. I know
> that at one major airframer, the entire electrical system is considered
not
> essential to flight safety because the engine and vacuum pumps will
continue
> to run.
>
> The issue is not whether we are going to adhere to the regs, but whether
we
> are going to run into an inspector that does not know what the
industry-wide
> accepted interpretation is.
>
> David Swartzendruber
> Wichita
>
> 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
>
> (d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential
> to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and
> identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
>
> (e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight --
>
> (1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
each
> rating, whichever is greater; and
>
> (2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
>
>
> > Its not a matter of reliability that is at issue. The regs are
> > very specific
> > and I am unwilling to chance a debate with the FAA where the odds
> > of winning
> > are ZERO.
> >
> > My point is the simple fact (at least in the eyes of my local
> > FSDO) that if
> > I choose to use a fuse (or a CB) for over current protection on a system
> > that must be functional for that mode of flight, (like
> > recognition lights at
> > night) that over current protector must be resettable by the
> > flight crew in
> > flight.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
>
>I agree with all the logic... but I have a problem with this, too. I
>designed my panel with only 3 breakers... for trims and flaps... because I
>wanted to be able to pull these off in case of a runaway. The fuses are not
>accessible during flight.
>
>However, when I discussed my design with the local DAR, he was very
>negative... mumbled things about "safety of flight", etc., especially since
>I'll be using my airplane for IFR flight. I just don't think that logic
>will move the "old-timers" to abandon their notions of how things should be.
>As a result, I have to consider a major redesign of my panel and electrical
>system as one alternative. (The other alternatives are finding another DAR
>who is OK with this approach, and working through a detailed discussion of
>what I do for each fuse blowing... which I'd rather not do, since I'd then
>be back in the business of talking logic with a "safety expert".)
Ask him if I could call him . . or he can call
me collect some evening . . . I'd like to talk
to him.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Batts & Coils |
>
>
>Hello List.
>
>Many thanks to the list owner. This is my first post to this list. I have
>a EA81 with a adapted Toyota ND distributor. I used the Toyota version
>because it is larger in diameter and has a ball bearing at the top of the
>shaft. An unexpected benefit was a smoother idle. It has dual pickups
>hooked up to dual coils. The coils are routed through a coil combiner diode
>setup from the race car world. My question is about the diode setup. Does
>anyone know how reliable these are and when it does fail what is the failure
>mode? Do the diodes short out or open up?
Diodes fail shorted most often but they very
rarely fail. The energy carried by the diodes
in a coil combiner is very small, i.e. the
diodes are lightly stressed compared to their
capabilities. I'd be more concerned about the
integrity of connections to plug wires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Maybe I'm missing something here, but I was only planning on putting one
>electronic ignition system in and leaving the other magneto intact to cater
>to an electrical failure. Does the engine run better with one of each than
>with two mags? Better with two electronic ignitions than one of each? Does
>using both an elctronic system and a conventional magneto at the same time
>just wear out and waste the magneto without it contributing anything?
Not at high power settings . . . when the manifold
pressures are high then both ignitions are firing about
the same time. As manifold pressure reduces, the electronic
ignition will advance to a point where the magento spark
is ultimately too late to contribute anything. None-the-less,
it's still there to do a job as backup.
I recommend that builders run out their mags. The engines
generally come with them and you don't get much credit for
having the supplier keep the mags. Sooooo . . . take one
mag off, put one electronic ignition on. When first mag
craps, put second mag on. Don't go fully electronic until
you got your money's worth out of the mags.
>On another thread, I never did get any nibbles on the idea of bolting a
>bent-whip comm antenna to the vertical web of a tiprib so that it sticks out
>into the fibreglas tip. Either it was so far off the mark or you good folks
>are still chuckling.....
On a wing tip or vertical fin tip? It might work
pretty well under a vertical fin cap.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>
>Nick,
>My GIII electrical setup is similar to your RV-8 with dual electronic
>ignitions. Since an alternator failure is a possibility, (probably rare
>with good stuff like B&C) I've decided to have a backup, using suggestions
>found here and in the Aeroelectric Connection book. Basically includes a 5A
>Panasonic RG battery to run the essential bus.
I am unfamiliar with what's being described here. It
doesn't conform to published drawings. Not saying it
won't "function" but it's not recommended.
> Its charge is maintained
>through a heavy diode from the main bus.
I published a piece on battery isolation diodes at:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/bat_iso2.pdf
> If I get a low voltage warning
>I'll just turn off the master contactor and keep flying on the small
>battery.
> My checklist will not suggest resetting breakers or a lot of
>troubleshooting. I've tested the small battery and found it to provide 3.5
>amps for 1 1/4 hours. One electronic ignition draws less than 2.5 amps so I
>can also run one or two essential panel instruments as well. I can also
>keep tabs on the voltage of the small battery and if the main battery is
>still good I can throw a switch to provide power to essential bus from it as
>well. I can e-mail the schematic drawing for your perusal if you like.
I'd like to see it . . .
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Dual ignitions |
Ok you are showing no drop. Your electronic ignition took a dump still
showing no drop. Do you continue to fly or does something else tell you one
ignition has failed in flight . Or did I miss something?
Rick N565T
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of W T
Bartlett
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re:Dual ignitions
I don't think this is too useful an idea. When I switch the electronic
ignition off I get a 100rpm drop, but when I switch the mag off iget no rpm
drop. I can see that result with one tach.
Bill N7WB
> There is another approach. Run a tac that will let you know when one
>ignition has failed. You could run separate tacs for each ignition I
>suppose. It doesn't cost much to run both ignitions and i for one don't
want
>to have to figure out why the engine quite while in a tight spot. The
>knowledge that one ignition has indicated failure is enough to get me on
the
>ground, rather it be a light or enunciator.
Rick N656T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
In a message dated 10/13/2001 4:37:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
> Ask him if I could call him . . or he can call
> me collect some evening . . . I'd like to talk
> to him.
>
> Bob . . .
>
That,s a wonderful response for this Bob : "get him" for all of us
.Constantly battling the " old " mentalities is such an ongoing challenge for
us " uncertified " folks . I would happily pay for the phone call if I could
listen in ! Chris.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
>
>In a message dated 10/13/2001 4:37:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com writes:
>
>
>> Ask him if I could call him . . or he can call
>> me collect some evening . . . I'd like to talk
>> to him.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>That,s a wonderful response for this Bob : "get him" for all of us
>.Constantly battling the " old " mentalities is such an ongoing challenge for
>us " uncertified " folks . I would happily pay for the phone call if I could
>listen in ! Chris.
I've done these kinds of calls several times in the
past . . . perhaps 3 or 4 in all. By-in-large, the
odds are not good . . at least initially. I sent
books to all of them and encouraged them to join
the various lists. I had only one case where the
guy immediately warmed up to the notion that amateur
built aircraft were the leading edge of both art
an science of producing small aircraft. It would
be interesting to talk to all of them again after
several years.
But nothing happens if you don't try . . .
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim & Jeanette Oberst" <joberst(at)hsnp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks |
Bob, thanks for the generous offer. I will see if I can set something up in
the near future.
Jim.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR & Fuseblocks
>
> >
> >I agree with all the logic... but I have a problem with this, too. I
> >designed my panel with only 3 breakers... for trims and flaps... because
I
> >wanted to be able to pull these off in case of a runaway. The fuses are
not
> >accessible during flight.
> >
> >However, when I discussed my design with the local DAR, he was very
> >negative... mumbled things about "safety of flight", etc., especially
since
> >I'll be using my airplane for IFR flight. I just don't think that logic
> >will move the "old-timers" to abandon their notions of how things should
be.
> >As a result, I have to consider a major redesign of my panel and
electrical
> >system as one alternative. (The other alternatives are finding another
DAR
> >who is OK with this approach, and working through a detailed discussion
of
> >what I do for each fuse blowing... which I'd rather not do, since I'd
then
> >be back in the business of talking logic with a "safety expert".)
>
> Ask him if I could call him . . or he can call
> me collect some evening . . . I'd like to talk
> to him.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 10/13/01 |
Hi Bob,
The schematic shows the OV module with Red and Black wires. The OV module I
received has Yellow and Black wires. Is the black wire still ground?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 2-10 Master Switch |
> My apologies . . . I've been working on the drawing set
> in anticipation of their inclusion in Revision 10 to the
> book. I was under the mistaken impression that I'd been
> posting copies as they were completed. Not so. I'll
> go ahead and finish the whole appendix Z set and the
> publish them. I'll announce their availability on the
> list when it happens. I'm also going to publish the
> .dwg AutoCAD files.
>
> Bob . . .
Thanks, Bob.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
How do I degauss the rollbar for my RV-8A? I'm about ready to attach it
to the fuselage....wondering if it would be easier to get it degaussed
before it's attached? Who would have the necessary tools/equipment to do
such a thing? If it's not too expensive and helps my compass to read
more accurately, I figure it's worth it....
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GLL" <gllikar(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Batts & Coils |
That is good news, thanks Bob.
GLL
>
> Diodes fail shorted most often but they very
> rarely fail. The energy carried by the diodes
> in a coil combiner is very small, i.e. the
> diodes are lightly stressed compared to their
> capabilities. I'd be more concerned about the
> integrity of connections to plug wires.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> >
> >
> >Hello List.
> >
> >Many thanks to the list owner. This is my first post to this list. I
have
> >a EA81 with a adapted Toyota ND distributor. I used the Toyota version
> >because it is larger in diameter and has a ball bearing at the top of the
> >shaft. An unexpected benefit was a smoother idle. It has dual pickups
> >hooked up to dual coils. The coils are routed through a coil combiner
diode
> >setup from the race car world. My question is about the diode setup.
Does
> >anyone know how reliable these are and when it does fail what is the
failure
> >mode? Do the diodes short out or open up?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike & Lee Anne (mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca)" <mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Help, interference between Comm and engine monitor |
Bob et.al....I've tried a bunch of stuff, and haven't exhausted the
troubleshooting ideas yet. However, after ten days, frustration is
rising, so I'm appealing for some direction. My apologies in advance
for a long post. Problem is an Electronics International (UBG-16)
engine monitor in which all the monitored temperatures change when I key
the mic to transmit from the radio. Problem appears to be stray RF to
this untrained eye. However a) the problem shouldn't exist, so I'm
trying to understand why, and b) if I can't find/fix the source of the
problem, I need to at least treat the symptoms. Here's the data points.
Project is wood (a falco) and is still in the shop under construction.
Systems are wired a la AeroElectric Connection ( without which I never
would have made it anywhere THIS far - everything else appears to work
flawlessly - thanks!).
Temperatures change from roughly 70 fahrenheit (ambient) to 240 range
consistently upon transmit keying. I've tried various frequencies and
there are variations. I can't discern a pattern, but I have the details
if you think it would help to know them.
The monitor has alot wrapped up in it. 4 CHT's, 4 EGT's, OAT, Oil
Temp/Press, Fuel flow, fuel pressure, etc. The only affected elements
are the temperature items (mind you, there is no pressure or flow since
the engine isn't running. Temperatures at least display ambient so that
I can test something).
There are three AMP CPC connectors on the back of the instrument.
Problem still occurs if I disconnect the two that read all the probes,
leaving just the power/dimmer connector hooked up. In this situation,
the probe connectors have about 6" pigtails still attached to the
instrument.
I've hooked the antenna output up to all three antenna's in the aircraft
(tail, wing, and the nav antenna in the other wing). Same case on all.
I've also tried to key transmit with only 3 feet of antenna cable
attached (distance from back of radio tray to a connector at centre
console). Don't shoot me for doing this with no antenna, but I wanted
the data point. In this case, there is no problem. I also tried to
connect a temporary antenna at this 3 foot point, in which case the
problem re-appears.
I borrowed the local radio shop's antenna tester (a Telewave 44A) and
got a forward reading of 9.75, with a reverse reading of virtually zero
on the proper comm 1 antenna in the tail (good, right?). The wing comm
antenna showed 9.0 and 0.4, with the wing nav antenna showing 12.5 and
1.75. Qualitative test works OK, as I can send and recieve from
overhead aircraft or a handheld up the street.
I can also reproduce the problem by keying the transmit button on my
handheld ICOM, and waving the antenna around behind the panel. (Hence
the reason I think this is RF) However, the locations are very
specific. The problem does NOT occur if I probe around the fuse panel,
switches or the instrument itself. It DOES occur if I touch the tip of
the rubber ducky to the bundle of headset/intercomm wires which come
from the radio tray and run forward along the side of the tray toward
the panel. These wires are shielded, and the headset leads follow the
'shield at one end only' philosophy.
The antenna follows the same path along this bundle, parallel for about
two feet, so I suspect a solution would be to try to route the antenna
cable differently from the fine wires associated with radio/intercomm.
This will be a pain, so I haven't done it yet, nor do I recall it being
a recommended "isolation" step in the radio installation - what do you
think? Would you expect this to be a legit "source" of the problem, or
should I be able to do this, except that something else is wrong.
The comm is a UPS SL-40. The intercom is an NAT.
Something I've considered checking is to create a separate power source
for the EI instrument. I think this would tell me whether the RF from
the comm (any comm) is climbing back up the power leads to the EI
instrument, or thru the air and into the probes. But then again, maybe
it's not RF. Maybe it's a slight change in voltage to the instrument,
since the probes measure a voltage difference right? Aaagh, my brain
hurts! A little knowledge is turning into a dangerous thing for me.
Also, I've talked to the EI staff. They've never encountered a problem
like this - which I think is good, since it means mine is something I
created and therefore should be solvable. While they've been helpful
and hypothesized along with me, I think I've reached the limits of
experimentation from that angle.
There endith the data available at this time. Any ideas what's next?
Again, apologies to all for the long post.
Thanks in advance.
Mike Wiebe
Falco C-FMWW
Eight years spent.
2 months until first flight,
+/- time for electrical gremlins.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Batts & Coils |
Having investigated these devices in detail the following is usefull.
First there are many diodes in series to get the HV rating.
Should one diode fail short the others still provide protection and the
functionality continues.
Should a open occur in the 'string' the HV will normally just jump the tiny
gap and again functionality continues. There is an occasional failure of the
potting on the back of the assy. Thus it is strongly recommended the
component be mounted with an insulator between it and the mounting surface.
Both shorts and opens can be tested using a 100V DC current limited
"ohmmeter/voltmeter". The forward drop varies by brand but is in the
40-70VDC range. By measuring the voltage on an annual basis you can test the
parts for any diode failures. Just test it when it is new and both legs
should be the same or its bad out of the box. Then if the voltage does not
change from test to test its just fine.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Batts & Coils
>
>
>Hello List.
>
>Many thanks to the list owner. This is my first post to this list. I have
>a EA81 with a adapted Toyota ND distributor. I used the Toyota version
>because it is larger in diameter and has a ball bearing at the top of the
>shaft. An unexpected benefit was a smoother idle. It has dual pickups
>hooked up to dual coils. The coils are routed through a coil combiner
diode
>setup from the race car world. My question is about the diode setup. Does
>anyone know how reliable these are and when it does fail what is the
failure
>mode? Do the diodes short out or open up?
Diodes fail shorted most often but they very
rarely fail. The energy carried by the diodes
in a coil combiner is very small, i.e. the
diodes are lightly stressed compared to their
capabilities. I'd be more concerned about the
integrity of connections to plug wires.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nicholas Knobil" <nknobil(at)gwi.net> |
| Subject: | Z-1 Dwg Fuseable Link & Breaker? |
Dear Bob,
What's the logic behind installing a 22AWG fuseable link and a 5A CB on
either side of the master switch in drawing Z-1? I guess you want to
protect the wire between the bus and the switch, but why not run it from one
of the ATC-fused tabs on the fuseblock?
I do unsterstand the desire to have the CB in place so you can take the
alternator off-line, it's just the other that has me guessing...
Is it because of increased reliability of the fuseable link over the ATC
fuse on the fuseblock?
As always, my thanks, to you, and everyone else, for a list that boasts a
very high signal-to-noise ratio.
Nick Knobil
RV8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Z-1 Dwg Fuseable Link & Breaker? |
>
>
>Dear Bob,
>
>What's the logic behind installing a 22AWG fuseable link and a 5A CB on
>either side of the master switch in drawing Z-1? I guess you want to
>protect the wire between the bus and the switch, but why not run it from one
>of the ATC-fused tabs on the fuseblock?
>
>I do unsterstand the desire to have the CB in place so you can take the
>alternator off-line, it's just the other that has me guessing...
>
>Is it because of increased reliability of the fuseable link over the ATC
>fuse on the fuseblock?
The difference in I(squared)*T constant for fuses versus circuit
breakers is about 1:10 or more. You can put a 5A breaker and a
20A fuse in series with each other . . . short the line against
a 12v battery and you may very well open the fuse first.
Soooooo . . . since we're looking to extend the bus from its
semi-remote location with the fuses out to the circuit breaker
needed for crowbar OV protection, we need to protect that length
of wire with an I(squared)*T constant that is greater than the
breaker . . . hence the fusible link (You can probably pop
a 20A breaker through a 22AWG piece of wire with a dead short).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Results of the battery charging battery experiment. |
A few days ago, someone expressed concerns about using
a ramp battery cart to jump start an airplane when the
ship's really dead, Dead, DEAD battery was till connected
across the ground power jack.
A couple of days ago, I put a 3A load on one of my portable
instrumentation batteries (32A.H. Panasonic RG battery). This
is a fairly new battery. I've deep discharged it perhaps
4 times in the past year, otherwise, it has sat on the
shelf after spending a day on a 14.2 volt power supply
to charge it.
After I unhooked the load . . . the battery voltage was
about 100 millivolts. It slowly rose to about 3 volts after
a minute or two. I set up a 40A power supply for 12.5 volts
and connected it across the dead battery.
The current rose initially to about 10A. The power supply
was set up to maintain 12.5 volts at the dead battery's
terminals and I watched as the "charge" current climbed
slowly. It stabilized at 15A in about 10 minutes and has
held constant after that time.
Given that a battery delivers significant energy at
12.5 volts or below, I think this experiment justifies
the statement I offered a few days ago that a dead battery
in the airplane does not present a significant load to
a battery cart that is soon expected to put out hundreds
of amps to crank an engine.
Now, obviously if one connects a ground power cart set
up for 14-15 volts, the dead batter will request more
charging current. After I saw that the battery charge
rate was not going to increase further at the 12.5 volt
"bus" I increased the power supply's output to 14.5 volts
and the charge current rose to just over 22 amps.
This indicates that the dead battery represents little
more than a nuisance drain on any common form of ground
power used to service airplanes.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | red versus yellow wires on OVM-14 |
>
>Hi Bob,
>The schematic shows the OV module with Red and Black wires. The OV module I
>received has Yellow and Black wires. Is the black wire still ground?
Yes. The red/blk ov modules are an earlier configuration
which have been relatively trouble free . . . less than
1% return for the fleet after about 5 years of sales.
However, the original design proved a tad skittish
in some aircraft and produced some nuisance tripping
situations. I changed the design to accommodate a
new requirement and changed the red wire to yellow
so that we can tell the difference.
If anyone has problems with an older version, we're
updating them at no charge.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "W T Bartlett" <wtbartlett(at)Prodigy.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Dual ignitions |
If the electronic ignition took a dump I would show a 100 Rpm drop and would
land nearest paved field. If my mag took a dump it would show no drop and I
wouldn't know it 'till my next mag check, so I would continue to fly in
blissful ignorance. I fly with a FP prop. If I flew with a CS prop I
wouldn't know if either failed, the MP change for a 100 RPM drop wouldn't be
obvious. Two tachs wouldn't help.
If you had two mags and one failed would you know it before next mag check?
Bill N7WB
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re:Dual ignitions
>
>
> Ok you are showing no drop. Your electronic ignition took a dump still
> showing no drop. Do you continue to fly or does something else tell you
one
> ignition has failed in flight . Or did I miss something?
> Rick N565T
> -----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com> |
That is in the "don't try this at home" category. If you poke around on the
www, there used to me a magnetic distribution chain called Crucible
Magnetic. They had an out let in Dallas and I suppose other cities. Anyway,
they had the required gizmo.
But before you go nuts over all that you might first ask if you are in
pursuit of an ingenious solution to a non-existent problem. First remember
that the inverse square rule applies to magnets as well as planets. You get
a few inches from the source and it's all but over.
How many planes do you see flying around that have been degaussed? I'll bet
near zero. The issue is only, do you have enough adjustment in the compass?
If not you have two choices. Balancing balls and magnetic shielding. The
latter is a nickel alloy sheet, maybe .030 or so and available from the
compass mfg. Say you have an electric gyro just below the glare shield and
you just have to have the obsolete mag compass staring you on the face for
the next 2000 hours...
Anyway you would put your nickel shield on the underside of the glare
should, between the gyro and the compass.
As for me, I'm for sticking it way over on the side panel where you don't
have to stare at it. Yes it must work, but the mag compass is a back-up and
nothing more. Your GPS track data is way easier to fly, especially partial
panel.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
czechsix(at)juno.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: degaussing
How do I degauss the rollbar for my RV-8A? I'm about ready to attach it
to the fuselage....wondering if it would be easier to get it degaussed
before it's attached? Who would have the necessary tools/equipment to do
such a thing? If it's not too expensive and helps my compass to read
more accurately, I figure it's worth it....
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A fuselage
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "R Colman" <ronincolman(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Dual ignitions |
Good points!!
If you had a fuel flow computer you see the decreased fuel economy. Absent
that quick give away you would see a drop in CHT as the fuels that was being
burned turns into the worlds most expensive coolant.
Bet your mag fail five times before your elec fails once.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of W T
Bartlett
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re:Dual ignitions
If the electronic ignition took a dump I would show a 100 Rpm drop and would
land nearest paved field. If my mag took a dump it would show no drop and I
wouldn't know it 'till my next mag check, so I would continue to fly in
blissful ignorance. I fly with a FP prop. If I flew with a CS prop I
wouldn't know if either failed, the MP change for a 100 RPM drop wouldn't be
obvious. Two tachs wouldn't help.
If you had two mags and one failed would you know it before next mag check?
Bill N7WB
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re:Dual ignitions
>
>
> Ok you are showing no drop. Your electronic ignition took a dump still
> showing no drop. Do you continue to fly or does something else tell you
one
> ignition has failed in flight . Or did I miss something?
> Rick N565T
> -----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jaye and Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott(at)home.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dual Batts
>
I was thinking about the wingtip. I know it will be 90degrees of vertical
polarization, but comm antennas seem to work just as well in banked turns-so
I was hoping....
>
> >On another thread, I never did get any nibbles on the idea of bolting a
> >bent-whip comm antenna to the vertical web of a tiprib so that it sticks
out
> >into the fibreglas tip. Either it was so far off the mark or you good
folks
> >are still chuckling.....
>
> On a wing tip or vertical fin tip? It might work
> pretty well under a vertical fin cap.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vern Smith <vismith(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Help, interference between Comm and engine |
monitor
Hi Mike..you might wish to try ferrite chokes which slip over each wire, low cost
and usually works...a
small value ceramic capacitor across your 12 volt supply leads. or a 1 mh rf choke
in series with the
positive lead may help..see Radio Amateur Handbook..regards ,Vern Smith
"Mike & Lee Anne (mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca)" wrote:
>
> Bob et.al....I've tried a bunch of stuff, and haven't exhausted the
> troubleshooting ideas yet. However, after ten days, frustration is
> rising, so I'm appealing for some direction. My apologies in advance
> for a long post. Problem is an Electronics International (UBG-16)
> engine monitor in which all the monitored temperatures change when I key
> the mic to transmit from the radio. Problem appears to be stray RF to
> this untrained eye. However a) the problem shouldn't exist, so I'm
> trying to understand why, and b) if I can't find/fix the source of the
> problem, I need to at least treat the symptoms. Here's the data points.
>
> Project is wood (a falco) and is still in the shop under construction.
> Systems are wired a la AeroElectric Connection ( without which I never
> would have made it anywhere THIS far - everything else appears to work
> flawlessly - thanks!).
>
> Temperatures change from roughly 70 fahrenheit (ambient) to 240 range
> consistently upon transmit keying. I've tried various frequencies and
> there are variations. I can't discern a pattern, but I have the details
> if you think it would help to know them.
>
> The monitor has alot wrapped up in it. 4 CHT's, 4 EGT's, OAT, Oil
> Temp/Press, Fuel flow, fuel pressure, etc. The only affected elements
> are the temperature items (mind you, there is no pressure or flow since
> the engine isn't running. Temperatures at least display ambient so that
> I can test something).
>
> There are three AMP CPC connectors on the back of the instrument.
> Problem still occurs if I disconnect the two that read all the probes,
> leaving just the power/dimmer connector hooked up. In this situation,
> the probe connectors have about 6" pigtails still attached to the
> instrument.
>
> I've hooked the antenna output up to all three antenna's in the aircraft
> (tail, wing, and the nav antenna in the other wing). Same case on all.
> I've also tried to key transmit with only 3 feet of antenna cable
> attached (distance from back of radio tray to a connector at centre
> console). Don't shoot me for doing this with no antenna, but I wanted
> the data point. In this case, there is no problem. I also tried to
> connect a temporary antenna at this 3 foot point, in which case the
> problem re-appears.
>
> I borrowed the local radio shop's antenna tester (a Telewave 44A) and
> got a forward reading of 9.75, with a reverse reading of virtually zero
> on the proper comm 1 antenna in the tail (good, right?). The wing comm
> antenna showed 9.0 and 0.4, with the wing nav antenna showing 12.5 and
> 1.75. Qualitative test works OK, as I can send and recieve from
> overhead aircraft or a handheld up the street.
>
> I can also reproduce the problem by keying the transmit button on my
> handheld ICOM, and waving the antenna around behind the panel. (Hence
> the reason I think this is RF) However, the locations are very
> specific. The problem does NOT occur if I probe around the fuse panel,
> switches or the instrument itself. It DOES occur if I touch the tip of
> the rubber ducky to the bundle of headset/intercomm wires which come
> from the radio tray and run forward along the side of the tray toward
> the panel. These wires are shielded, and the headset leads follow the
> 'shield at one end only' philosophy.
>
> The antenna follows the same path along this bundle, parallel for about
> two feet, so I suspect a solution would be to try to route the antenna
> cable differently from the fine wires associated with radio/intercomm.
> This will be a pain, so I haven't done it yet, nor do I recall it being
> a recommended "isolation" step in the radio installation - what do you
> think? Would you expect this to be a legit "source" of the problem, or
> should I be able to do this, except that something else is wrong.
>
> The comm is a UPS SL-40. The intercom is an NAT.
>
> Something I've considered checking is to create a separate power source
> for the EI instrument. I think this would tell me whether the RF from
> the comm (any comm) is climbing back up the power leads to the EI
> instrument, or thru the air and into the probes. But then again, maybe
> it's not RF. Maybe it's a slight change in voltage to the instrument,
> since the probes measure a voltage difference right? Aaagh, my brain
> hurts! A little knowledge is turning into a dangerous thing for me.
>
> Also, I've talked to the EI staff. They've never encountered a problem
> like this - which I think is good, since it means mine is something I
> created and therefore should be solvable. While they've been helpful
> and hypothesized along with me, I think I've reached the limits of
> experimentation from that angle.
>
> There endith the data available at this time. Any ideas what's next?
> Again, apologies to all for the long post.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Mike Wiebe
> Falco C-FMWW
> Eight years spent.
> 2 months until first flight,
> +/- time for electrical gremlins.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick" <turboflyer(at)mediaone.net> |
Tried to send e-mail direct from the web site but it failed. I got this from
the address below.
"Complain to the systems administrator of your mailserver.
This is the most effective route. Your systems administrator may
not even be aware that they are running an open relay. Letting them
know might be a great service to them and to your fellow customers.
If they are aware, and are too lazy or do not know how to secure their
mail server, please ask them to contact admin(at)orbz.org. We'll be
happy to speak to them about securing their server; we'll explain
why open relays are bad, and we can walk them through securing their
relay"
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(reason: 550 ORBZ Open Relay see
<http://www.orbz.org/b.php?24.130.1.20>)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to dr-teeth.eucleides.com.:
>>> MAIL From:
<<< 550 ORBZ Open Relay see <http://www.orbz.org/b.php?24.130.1.20>
554 5.0.0 ... Service unavailable
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
At 08:19 PM 10/14/2001Rick sez:
>
>Tried to send e-mail direct from the web site but it failed. I got this from
>the address below.
Actually you sent the mail using your own mail client with your ISP's SMTP
server. It is an open relay and my mail server blocks all open spam relays.
Clicking a mailto: URL on a web page triggers your own e-mail client. The
following paragraph you have quoted is precisely correct.
Our mail servers successfully block thousands of spams every day.
Unfortunately some legit e-mail like yours gets blocked because of someone
else's problem. If you go to the URL referenced in the bounce message you
will see the details of the server listing.
You'll note that the actual misconfigured relay (input) is 66.27.243.85.
Contact mediaone.net and explain to them they have a mail server listed in
ORBZ and because of this you're experiencing a denial of service.
>"Complain to the systems administrator of your mailserver.
>This is the most effective route. Your systems administrator may
>not even be aware that they are running an open relay. Letting them
>know might be a great service to them and to your fellow customers.
>If they are aware, and are too lazy or do not know how to secure their
>mail server, please ask them to contact admin(at)orbz.org. We'll be
>happy to speak to them about securing their server; we'll explain
>why open relays are bad, and we can walk them through securing their
>relay"
>
>
>
>
> ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
>
> (reason: 550 ORBZ Open Relay see
><http://www.orbz.org/b.php?24.130.1.20>)
>
> ----- Transcript of session follows -----
>... while talking to dr-teeth.eucleides.com.:
> >>> MAIL From:
><<< 550 ORBZ Open Relay see <http://www.orbz.org/b.php?24.130.1.20>
>554 5.0.0 ... Service unavailable
>
>
** L I N U X ** .~. Paul A. Franz, P.E. Engineering Software
The Choice /V\ Blackdog Software Network Consulting and Sales
of the GNU /( )\ <http://blackdog.bellevue.wa.us/> Custom Web Services
Generation
-
(425) 641-8202, (425) 641-1773 FAX Internet FAX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "H. Mead" <rv(at)uknz.worldonline.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Problems with LED substituted for filament lamp on |
LR3B-14 Voltage Regulator
Dear Bob,
(This is an edited copy of an email I sent to B&C late last week):
I have recently fitted a LR3B-14 Voltage Regulator in a Long-Ez rebuild.
Nice unit, well made, etc. However having substituted a 12V rated LED
(620 ohm resistor included) for the LoVolt warning lamp supplied so as
to provide some conformity/aesthetic appeal to the warning lights
system, I find that the LED remains on, albeit rather dimly, when the
bus voltage is 14.2 Volts or more.
Simulating this scenario using a bench power supply, I found that there
was a quiescent current of 5mA through the 620ohm resistor and LED, i.e.
a PD of about 3.1V (though I didn't measure this) between Terminal 5 and
the positive supply. This would suggest that the regulator low volt
terminal (5) does not have a high enough voltage present in the LoVolt
light 'off state', to prevent forward biasing the LED.
Placing about 3kohms worth of resistance the LoVolt LED supply line was
enough to effectively turn the LED off under normal operations, (14.2V
on the bus). It meant however, that the LED intensity was not sufficient
visible during a true LoVolt situation.
The solution as I see it, (if the regulator itself isn't faulty - I
suspect 5mA through a standard filament lamp does not make it illuminate
to the same extent as it does an LED) is to use a small relay to control
the LED.
The question is what voltage rating would you recommend for the relay
coil, (too low and the same problem arises, too high and the light never
comes on until it's too late)?
Thanks for your time.
Kind regards,
Hamish Mead
Hereford, UK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Problems with LED substituted for filament lamp |
on LR3B-14 Voltage Regulator
Rather than adding a relay, why don't you try adding a pull-up resistor from
bus to terminal 5.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
> I have recently fitted a LR3B-14 Voltage Regulator in a Long-Ez rebuild.
> Nice unit, well made, etc. However having substituted a 12V rated LED
> (620 ohm resistor included) for the LoVolt warning lamp supplied so as
> to provide some conformity/aesthetic appeal to the warning lights
> system, I find that the LED remains on, albeit rather dimly, when the
> bus voltage is 14.2 Volts or more.
>
> The solution as I see it, (if the regulator itself isn't faulty - I
> suspect 5mA through a standard filament lamp does not make it illuminate
> to the same extent as it does an LED) is to use a small relay to control
> the LED.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Compass Compensation |
It was written..
>>>>How many planes do you see flying around that have been degaussed? I'll
bet
near zero. The issue is only, do you have enough adjustment in the compass?
If not you have two choices. Balancing balls and magnetic shielding...>>
There is another way to skin this cat..a close cousin to compensator
balls.....
Here is a post I did to my Viking group when this question was asked:
"I had similar compass problems in my 72 17-30A
I watched these guys on the list try degaussing, but I am a longtimeboater,
and one of my best friends owns Maine Compass service, specializing in
compass repair and compensation. Boat guys have been working on this
problem for at least a few hundred years more than the avaition guys!
It was a busy summer, and it took me a while to corner my boat compass
guy, ut after 20 minutes taxiing on a compass rose, he used a marine "Deck
Magnet " (small bar magnet, labeled North and South , encased in
plastic.)
In my case he glued it to the top of the windshield with clear RTV..Compass
is now within 5 degrees on all headings..5-3 degrees high on all
headings.
He is a lot less bamboozled by compasses than us aviation types..the
Coast Guard requires annual compass adjustment on all commercial vessels.
His feeling is that degaussing is a big waste of time, and that the
iron(steel tubing) in the fuselage frames, in my case the x bars, is the
problem. No matter how much you degauss..iron always has a flux field.
Airframes are alway slightly magnetized, and they really shouldn't change
much, though in winter storage, steel boats compasses will need changing
if the boat is not parked in the same orientation as last season, as the
fields align with the earth over time!
He comps a lot of steel hulled commercial vessels..they use big magnets!
The adjusters in most a/c compasses are quite small, and they won't comp
out the big fields that tube frame a/c have.
The SIRS brand compasses are built with larger comp irons . Ever look at
the candlepin bowling ball sized compass comp balls on a ship?
You need to find a compass adjuster..if you live near a coast, it
shouldn't be much of a problem..an avionics shop is the supposed place to
get
compasses adjusted, if you can find one with someone that knows about
these things. You can probably bribe a marine guy with cash/no reciept..I
just
did it with airplane rides and beers afterwards... These guys usually
like boat rides, and hey, an airplane ride..coool!
You might find that you can accurately comp your compass on N-S or
E-W.but not the other way..they are separate adjustments..if it is off E-W
it
needs a longitudinal magnet, if off N-S it needs a lateral comp magnet.
Another interesting fact..the adjusters only swing through 180
degrees..they are simply an eccentric piece of iron..if 1/2 turn has no
effect..it
ain't gonna happen.
Remember to use a brass screwdriver(non ferrous metal) (pound a piece of
brazing rod flat, grind the end), and you can sit on a compass rose, and
alternately face N-s and E W to comp..actually once you find north, you
can set your DG and use that as it is easier than aligning every time.
If you lack an airport compass rose, determine Mag North by taxing with the
GPS on, Then set your DG and use it to compensate your mag compass.
The procedure is to align North, turn S, split the comp, back to N, back
to S then when it is as good as possible, start playing with external
magnets,on the same plane as the compass magnets..once this is set, do the
same
with E-W compensation.
According to my compass guy, most of the magnetic interference is from the
two tubes in front of the windshield. According to him, magnetic fields
don't really travel very far, and those really are the only significant
metal in close enough proximity to the compass to make any kind of
difference.
He also mentioned that in the past, he has had customers remove deck magnets
for painting, and reinstall them with the n-s orientation reversed..remember
that they are marked n-s, and if you glue one to the windshield, make sure
to glue it the same way as you taped it on when you were determining how
much magnet you needed. He commented that it was a pretty big magnet that
we used..about 2" long.
Also remember to move the box of experimental/trial magnets to the back seat
when you are determining how big a magnet you need......or they will do
funny things to the compass. Even wearing a watch will affect a
compass..try moving a nail or a steel screwdriver next to your compass and
watch the effect!
I had said my compass was within 5 degrees, but it is actually dead on..the
base is glued a little crookedly to the windshield, so the "lubber
line"(that little mark that lines up with the card) is a few degrees off
center..hence the evenly high reading on all headings. That said I don't
seem to have much luck steering a much tighter course than 3-5 degrees
anyway!
Happy flying,
Sorry for the choppy nature of this post, but it is an edited version of
another letter I wrote.
I hope this clears some of the mystery out of Mag compasses.
Dave Leonard
'72 Bellanca Super Viking 300
Not experimental, but I sure enjoy the support from this group..Those
certificated guys don't seem to know much theory, just how to change parts!
They don't seem much good at improvising!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike & Lee Anne (mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca)" <mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Compass Compensation |
Re: the degaussing idea. A guy I know with a wooden airplane (yes, another Falco)
found that his control sticks - which are quite long in the Falco - did cause compass
interference when moved fore and aft, since his compass was in the panel. I have
no
idea how he did it, but he apparently did degauss the control sticks which solved
his
problem. So a) it can be done in small quantities (not sure about an entire airframe),
and b) it can be helpful.
Personally, I told him he should be worried about other "directional considerations"
if
he had the stick far enough forward to affect the compass.....
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
>>If the electronic ignition took a dump I would show a 100 Rpm drop and
would
land nearest paved field. If my mag took a dump it would show no drop and I
wouldn't know it 'till my next mag check, so I would continue to fly in
blissful ignorance. I fly with a FP prop. If I flew with a CS prop I
wouldn't know if either failed, the MP change for a 100 RPM drop wouldn't be
obvious. Two tachs wouldn't help.<<
The effectiveness of a "mag drop" depends, I believe, on the idea that the
timing of both ignition systems is the same. Under light load conditions
like during the run-up the timing of the electronic system is probably more
advanced and the magneto is lagging, creating the "no mag drop" symptom.
Try shutting off the mag during a full throttle run-up. It should exhibit a
drop then. All this doesn't help much when at altitude and the timing
situation is probably the same as during the run-up. I think this is a
condition you are stuck with when using one electronic system. Also, I
recall an electronic tach that looked at both mags and had a diagnostic
function that gave a warning if one failed. Would that system work in this
case? It would save panel space compared to using two tachs just for
diagnostic purposes.
Gary Casey
C177RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual ignitions |
>The effectiveness of a "mag drop" depends, I believe, on the idea that the
>timing of both ignition systems is the same. Under light load conditions
>like during the run-up the timing of the electronic system is probably more
>advanced and the magneto is lagging, creating the "no mag drop" symptom.
Magnetos are timed assuming worst case, max manifold
pressure. Dual spark plugs lights the fires on both
sides of the combustion chamber and two flame fronts
meet in the middle . . . shut off one mag and the
single flame front has to travel all the way across the
top of piston which yields an effect of retarding timing
and the engine slows down. The lower the manifold pressure,
the slower the flame fronts and the more pronounced will
be the magneto-drop when one is turned OFF.
The magneto check does two things. It shows that each
magneto is independently capable of running the engine
-AND- the fact that both mags drop by the same amount
says they are timed the same.
ignition will be advanced in response to the low power
setting . . . the mag will be late and shutting it off
will produce little or no drop . . . Of course, shutting
of the electronic ignition will leave the late timed
mag to run the engine and rpms will drop some amount.
will be observed between independently operated
and simultaneously operated systems . . . and it
doesn't matter. The fact that the engine continues
to run well with either system shut of says that they're
both working.
Also, I
>recall an electronic tach that looked at both mags and had a diagnostic
>function that gave a warning if one failed. Would that system work in this
>case? It would save panel space compared to using two tachs just for
>diagnostic purposes.
What's the likelihood that an electronic system
is going to fail? What notification of failure did
you have if a magneto failed and what would one do
about it? The reliability of electronic ignition
is a factor of 10 or more greater than magnetos.
Likelihood of loosing TWO on any given 4-hour
flight is down in the very tiny numbers indeed.
If you had one crap and didn't know it, you would
certainly catch it at the next run-up before takeoff.
I don't think I'd loose much sleep over not having
a failure warning light on my electronic ignition.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------------
( "We have two ears and one mouth so that we )
( can listen twice as much as we speak." )
( - Epictetus )
----------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dean van winkle" <dvanwinkle(at)royell.net> |
"Bob & Mary Welch" ,
| Subject: | Fw: Can't Cry Hard Enough |
>
> -----
> Subject: Can't Cry Hard Enough
>
>
> This website contains, in movie clips and song, a loving tribute to those
> who died in the attack on NYC and DC.
>
> http://www.deafdate.com/
>
> Joan Brannigan, Computer Resource Specialist
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
"AeroElectric List" ,
"RV List"
| Subject: | Dynon Screen Brightness |
I am very interested in the Dynon EFIS but concerned that the screen might
not be bright enough for a bubble canopy aircraft. Dynon is currently flight
testing with a Cessna and a Beaver. Both have closed cabins with roofs. I
asked the factory how many "nits" the screen has and here is their answer:
>There are 450 "nits" in the screen, with good contrast. Not only is
>it good to be bright, but the contrast is something that makes
>the screen very visible.
>We will be sending out a memo this week to update everyone
> on our development. Thank you for your interest.
I had been asking several Lists about brightness a few weeks ago and one
gentleman posted this very informed sounding letter:
>I can tell you from experience that anything less than 400 nits in a
>transmissive AMLCD will NOT be sunlight readable, and even that is very
marginal
>in shaft sunlight. We tested about a dozen 10.4" displays and only two were
>acceptable.
>This was for a portable test product, so we were power conscious. There
are
>10.4" displays out there with 1000 nit backlights, but they are power hogs
>(would not be an issue for this app.). Our method of testing was to roll
them
>out into our parking lot (Florida) and fire them up. Most failed
miserably.
>Many salesmen were just as disappointed, I guess they never checked.
>A newer technology is promising. It's the transflective AMLCD and is a
>combination of a reflective and transmissive AMLCD. In bright light, the
>incident light is reflected off the back of the display and helps improve
>contrast. In dark conditions, the backlight provides the contrast in
typical
>AMLCD fashion. Sharp demo'd a prototype for us and it worked quite well.
>Smaller versions are available right now, but we needed a 10.4". The
notebook
>and PDA guys are really pushing these because of the power savings.
So it kind of sounds like the Dynon EFIS will do the job. Now, when can I
get one?
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Dynon Screen Brightness |
Norman,
I'd be leery of this until I actually saw it in sunlight. I looked at the
Powersport engine monitor in their demo RV-6 at Oshkosh 2000 and found the
display marginal (washed out and hard to read) even at the optimal viewing
angle. Off angle it was unusable. IIRC their screen was 600 nits. Good
contrast and a wide viewing angle will certainly help but in a bright RV
cockpit you need all the nits you can get. I've been looking for a 10.4
display and my minimum is 700 nits with 1000+ preferred. Haven't found one
yet at a reasonable price.
I also own a Compaq Ipaq with a transreflective display. I have not flown
with it yet but I'm not thrilled with it's display in sunlight without the
backlight which needs a power adapter if used any length of time. There's a
lot of pent up demand just waiting for the perfect display. Specs are a
starting point but I'm going to have to see them in sunlight to be
convinced. The last thing I want is to be straining to read my gauges in
flight.
Regards,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
Searching for Navion
>
> I am very interested in the Dynon EFIS but concerned that the
> screen might
> not be bright enough for a bubble canopy aircraft. Dynon is
> currently flight
> testing with a Cessna and a Beaver. Both have closed cabins
> with roofs. I
> asked the factory how many "nits" the screen has and here is
> their answer:
>
> >There are 450 "nits" in the screen, with good contrast. Not only is
> >it good to be bright, but the contrast is something that makes
> >the screen very visible.
>
> >We will be sending out a memo this week to update everyone
> > on our development. Thank you for your interest.
>
> I had been asking several Lists about brightness a few weeks
> ago and one
> gentleman posted this very informed sounding letter:
>
> >I can tell you from experience that anything less than 400 nits in a
> >transmissive AMLCD will NOT be sunlight readable, and even
> that is very
> marginal
> >in shaft sunlight. We tested about a dozen 10.4" displays
> and only two were
> >acceptable.
> >This was for a portable test product, so we were power
> conscious. There
> are
> >10.4" displays out there with 1000 nit backlights, but they
> are power hogs
> >(would not be an issue for this app.). Our method of
> testing was to roll
> them
> >out into our parking lot (Florida) and fire them up. Most failed
> miserably.
> >Many salesmen were just as disappointed, I guess they never checked.
> >A newer technology is promising. It's the transflective
> AMLCD and is a
> >combination of a reflective and transmissive AMLCD. In
> bright light, the
> >incident light is reflected off the back of the display and
> helps improve
> >contrast. In dark conditions, the backlight provides the contrast in
> typical
> >AMLCD fashion. Sharp demo'd a prototype for us and it
> worked quite well.
> >Smaller versions are available right now, but we needed a 10.4". The
> notebook
> >and PDA guys are really pushing these because of the power savings.
>
> So it kind of sounds like the Dynon EFIS will do the job.
> Now, when can I
> get one?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic IFC" <stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com> |
Bob,
I did have an electronic ignition failure while in flight. (the mag saved
my butt). Turns out the inductive pickup went intermittent. But as you've
stated, the chances of a failure are very slim if everything has been
installed correctly. Having two systems fail at the same time (assuming no
power loss) is almost impossible....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1750 hrs/7 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
What's the likelihood that an electronic system
is going to fail? What notification of failure did
you have if a magneto failed and what would one do
about it? The reliability of electronic ignition
is a factor of 10 or more greater than magnetos.
Likelihood of loosing TWO on any given 4-hour
flight is down in the very tiny numbers indeed.
If you had one crap and didn't know it, you would
certainly catch it at the next run-up before takeoff.
I don't think I'd loose much sleep over not having
a failure warning light on my electronic ignition.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | klehman <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 10/15/01 |
Hamish
You could try putting one or two LED's in series as they won't light
until each one has about 1.7 volts accross it. Or about 0.6 volts for a
silicon diode.
Ken
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> (This is an edited copy of an email I sent to B&C late last week):
>
> I have recently fitted a LR3B-14 Voltage Regulator in a Long-Ez rebuild.
> Nice unit, well made, etc. However having substituted a 12V rated LED
> (620 ohm resistor included) for the LoVolt warning lamp supplied so as
> to provide some conformity/aesthetic appeal to the warning lights
> system, I find that the LED remains on, albeit rather dimly, when the
> bus voltage is 14.2 Volts or more.
>
> Simulating this scenario using a bench power supply, I found that there
> was a quiescent current of 5mA through the 620ohm resistor and LED, i.e.
> a PD of about 3.1V (though I didn't measure this) between Terminal 5 and
> the positive supply. This would suggest that the regulator low volt
> terminal (5) does not have a high enough voltage present in the LoVolt
> light 'off state', to prevent forward biasing the LED.
>
> Placing about 3kohms worth of resistance the LoVolt LED supply line was
> enough to effectively turn the LED off under normal operations, (14.2V
> on the bus). It meant however, that the LED intensity was not sufficient
> visible during a true LoVolt situation.
>
> The solution as I see it, (if the regulator itself isn't faulty - I
> suspect 5mA through a standard filament lamp does not make it illuminate
> to the same extent as it does an LED) is to use a small relay to control
> the LED.
>
> The question is what voltage rating would you recommend for the relay
> coil, (too low and the same problem arises, too high and the light never
> comes on until it's too late)?
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Kind regards,
> Hamish Mead
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>Hi Bob,
>Sorry to bother you again but I'd like some information that I cannot seem to
find
>on your site.
>1) I purchased a "bubble pack" voltage regulator that has four terminals
>which are marked: I,A,S, & F. What are these terminals and where should they
go
>on my plane. The present regulator has only 2 connections one directly to the
Field of
>the alternator and the other to the master switch. I think this is one of the
cheap
>regulators that came with Van's kits in the late eighties.
>I'm still fighting the pulsating volt and amp variations. I have gone over
>all the connections as you suggested but so far no joy.
>and also had the alternator checked by a local alternator shop and all is OK on
their
>test equipment. This leaves the regulator as the last item.
Figure Z-2 of the downloadable set of diagrams available from
http://www.aeroelectric.com/errata/R9Z_0400.pdf
will show you this wiring.
"F" goes to field of alternator.
"I" is not used
"A" and "S" are tied together and run to your field
breaker via the DC power master switch.
Be sure to get a good ground of the regulator's
base to the aircraft.
>2) The other problem is a "whine" in my headsets. It only seems to be audible
at
>low (taxi) speeds but is quite annoying. I am certain that it is coming from the
>alternator and it may clear when I can get the pulsating voltage solved.
Do you have a single point ground system as described
in the 'Connection? Are your headset and microphone
jacks insulated from the airframe?
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: LED substitute lamp on LR3B-14 |
>
>Dear Bob,
>
>(This is an edited copy of an email I sent to B&C late last week):
>
>I have recently fitted a LR3B-14 Voltage Regulator in a Long-Ez rebuild.
>Nice unit, well made, etc. However having substituted a 12V rated LED
>(620 ohm resistor included) for the LoVolt warning lamp supplied so as
>to provide some conformity/aesthetic appeal to the warning lights
>system, I find that the LED remains on, albeit rather dimly, when the
>bus voltage is 14.2 Volts or more.
The lamp driver circuit was designed to power a lamp
having a normal load of at least 80 milliampers and
to have no visible light at 5 ma. The 5 ma "leakage"
comes from a collector-base resistor on the lamp driver
that will cause the bulb to illuminate in case the LR-3
looses all connections to the bus (of course the lamp
needs to enjoy its own connection to +14 . . . don't
share a supply with either of the LR-3 power input leads).
To run an LED, you need to parallel the led with a 180 ohm
resistor. This will raise the threshold of illumination for
the lamp to something on the order of 8 milliamperes. Then
select a series resistor that will produce 50-30 ma at
11.5 volts drop (220 to 390 ohms) when the lamp is
lit.
This combination of resistors should take care of normal
ops . . you might want to make sure that the lamp comes
on steady when both +14 supplies are removed from the
LR-3.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman" <nhunger(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Screen Brightness |
Concerning how bright things are and what is acceptable, I researched
Powersports display that the post below declares is marginal. The poster
thought the screen was 600 nits and thinks that 700 is required. According
to Powersport's webpage
http://www.powersportaviation.com/Home/Engines/glass.htm
their screen is 350 nits. Dynon reports that their screen is 450 nits. This
information puts Dynon almost 30% brighter than Powersport and I wonder if
the original poster feels that this would be bright enough?
> I'd be leery of this until I actually saw it in sunlight. I looked at the
> Powersport engine monitor in their demo RV-6 at Oshkosh 2000 and found
the
> display marginal (washed out and hard to read) even at the optimal viewing
> angle. Off angle it was unusable. IIRC their screen was 600 nits. Good
> contrast and a wide viewing angle will certainly help but in a bright RV
> cockpit you need all the nits you can get. I've been looking for a 10.4
> display and my minimum is 700 nits with 1000+ preferred. Haven't found one
> yet at a reasonable price.
I have asked Dynon to take a unit outside and play with it in the sun. If
and when they get back to me I will report their claims. For now I am still
hoping that the Dynon display is good enough because I want one.
Norman Hunger
RV6A Delta BC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Two Speed Elevator Trim |
>
>> Norman,
>> I'm interested in the two-speed electric elevator trim. Did you ever get a
>> good answer to the question you posed on this topic last week (attached
>> below)?
>
>I'm now tossing around the ideas.
>
>1. A switch on the panel that selects slow speed or fast speed. Slow speed
>has the power routed through a speed controler.
>2. A microswitch on the flap pushrod that is tripped at the first movement
>of the flaps and then routes the power through a speed controler.
>3 The Herga pressure switch that plumbs into the pitot system and routes
>the trim power though a speed controler when below 110 mph.
>
>It's looking like #1 or #2. I have plenty of time before I have to choose.
>I'm leaning twards the flap microswitch. It can be set up to activate at the
>very first movement of the flaps which is about when you will want it.
I've published a schematic for a trim speed regulator
installation at:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/trim/trim4.pdf
The speed control switch could be panel mounted -OR-
a microswitch on the flap mechanism to switch to low
speed ops when flaps are fully retracted.
I'm modifying the dimmer boards that B&C uses in
the DIM series lighting controllers to accept potentiometers
right on the board . . . this will allow the full range
of dimmer assemblies to be used as adjustable, constant
voltage sources for trim speed, CD players, etc.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andrew Larkin <aj_larkin(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | noisy transmit with Microair 760 com radio |
The Microair 760 in my Glastar is working great except that when I transmit there
is a lot of
random-sounding static. I get unsolicited comments from the control tower that
I'm "strength 4,
readability 3". When receiving or with the engine off there is no noise. The
noise seems to be
less at idle but turning off the alternator or either mag doesn't seem to affect
it. The radio
and my 403mc intercom are wired as per Bob's diagram. I have two headphone/mic
jacks behind the
right seat, and another set on the panel (bypassing the intercom). Anyone have
any advice on
troubleshooting? I'm wondering if the PTT wires should be shielded as well as
the mic wires.
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike & Lee Anne (mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca)" <mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Engine monitor vs. Comm 1....Bob? |
Hi Bob.....waiting breathlessly for an opinion. Just wanted to make sure
that a) the attached was not lost in cyberspace when originally sent, b)
I've offended with the question in some way, or c) god forbid, I've stumped
you (not bloody likely!). Any thoughts?
Mike
"Mike & Lee Anne (mwiebe(at)sympatico.ca)" wrote:
> Bob et.al....I've tried a bunch of stuff, and haven't exhausted the
> troubleshooting ideas yet. However, after ten days, frustration is
> rising, so I'm appealing for some direction. My apologies in advance
> for a long post. Problem is an Electronics International (UBG-16)
> engine monitor in which all the monitored temperatures change when I key
> the mic to transmit from the radio. Problem appears to be stray RF to
> this untrained eye. However a) the problem shouldn't exist, so I'm
> trying to understand why, and b) if I can't find/fix the source of the
> problem, I need to at least treat the symptoms. Here's the data points.
>
> Project is wood (a falco) and is still in the shop under construction.
> Systems are wired a la AeroElectric Connection ( without which I never
> would have made it anywhere THIS far - everything else appears to work
> flawlessly - thanks!).
>
> Temperatures change from roughly 70 fahrenheit (ambient) to 240 range
> consistently upon transmit keying. I've tried various frequencies and
> there are variations. I can't discern a pattern, but I have the details
> if you think it would help to know them.
>
> The monitor has alot wrapped up in it. 4 CHT's, 4 EGT's, OAT, Oil
> Temp/Press, Fuel flow, fuel pressure, etc. The only affected elements
> are the temperature items (mind you, there is no pressure or flow since
> the engine isn't running. Temperatures at least display ambient so that
> I can test something).
>
> There are three AMP CPC connectors on the back of the instrument.
> Problem still occurs if I disconnect the two that read all the probes,
> leaving just the power/dimmer connector hooked up. In this situation,
> the probe connectors have about 6" pigtails still attached to the
> instrument.
>
> I've hooked the antenna output up to all three antenna's in the aircraft
> (tail, wing, and the nav antenna in the other wing). Same case on all.
> I've also tried to key transmit with only 3 feet of antenna cable
> attached (distance from back of radio tray to a connector at centre
> console). Don't shoot me for doing this with no antenna, but I wanted
> the data point. In this case, there is no problem. I also tried to
> connect a temporary antenna at this 3 foot point, in which case the
> problem re-appears.
>
> I borrowed the local radio shop's antenna tester (a Telewave 44A) and
> got a forward reading of 9.75, with a reverse reading of virtually zero
> on the proper comm 1 antenna in the tail (good, right?). The wing comm
> antenna showed 9.0 and 0.4, with the wing nav antenna showing 12.5 and
> 1.75. Qualitative test works OK, as I can send and recieve from
> overhead aircraft or a handheld up the street.
>
> I can also reproduce the problem by keying the transmit button on my
> handheld ICOM, and waving the antenna around behind the panel. (Hence
> the reason I think this is RF) However, the locations are very
> specific. The problem does NOT occur if I probe around the fuse panel,
> switches or the instrument itself. It DOES occur if I touch the tip of
> the rubber ducky to the bundle of headset/intercomm wires which come
> from the radio tray and run forward along the side of the tray toward
> the panel. These wires are shielded, and the headset leads follow the
> 'shield at one end only' philosophy.
>
> The antenna follows the same path along this bundle, parallel for about
> two feet, so I suspect a solution would be to try to route the antenna
> cable differently from the fine wires associated with radio/intercomm.
> This will be a pain, so I haven't done it yet, nor do I recall it being
> a recommended "isolation" step in the radio installation - what do you
> think? Would you expect this to be a legit "source" of the problem, or
> should I be able to do this, except that something else is wrong.
>
> The comm is a UPS SL-40. The intercom is an NAT.
>
> Something I've considered checking is to create a separate power source
> for the EI instrument. I think this would tell me whether the RF from
> the comm (any comm) is climbing back up the power leads to the EI
> instrument, or thru the air and into the probes. But then again, maybe
> it's not RF. Maybe it's a slight change in voltage to the instrument,
> since the probes measure a voltage difference right? Aaagh, my brain
> hurts! A little knowledge is turning into a dangerous thing for me.
>
> Also, I've talked to the EI staff. They've never encountered a problem
> like this - which I think is good, since it means mine is something I
> created and therefore should be solvable. While they've been helpful
> and hypothesized along with me, I think I've reached the limits of
> experimentation from that angle.
>
> There endith the data available at this time. Any ideas what's next?
> Again, apologies to all for the long post.
>
> Thanks in advance.
> Mike Wiebe
> Falco C-FMWW
> Eight years spent.
> 2 months until first flight,
> +/- time for electrical gremlins.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Brightness |
I am looking for a bright 6.5" color TFT display. I am getting close to
starting the engine and filling the panel and I need to finish my homemade
engine monitor (PC-based). I was going to order an NEC 300 NIT display
(either separately or with an Arcom SBC kit) but now I'm hesitating. I have
a high-wing with skylights so it shouldn't be as bad as a bubble canopy, but
even the 6.5" displays aren't cheap and I don't want to waste money. If
anyone has any tips or sources for a small bright display, please send info
to me off-line. I gave up on a 10" display which is just as well since it
takes up too much of my panel. I thought going to a smaller one would get
me a brighter and cheaper display but apparently not.
Thanks for any help, Gary K.
Pelican/Stratus
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Redundant systems |
>> I did have an electronic ignition failure while in flight. (the mag
saved
my butt). Turns out the inductive pickup went intermittent. But as you've
stated, the chances of a failure are very slim if everything has been
installed correctly. Having two systems fail at the same time (assuming no
power loss) is almost impossible....<<
I've been thinking about the discussion of "redundancy" with regard to one
electronic/one mag ignition. The previous posts imply that the mag can fail
undetected because of the timing difference between the electronic system
and the mag. This then fails one of the tests for redundancy. For
instance, assume that the mag fails early in a long flight - over hostile
terrain of course. That means that you are going to make the whole flight
without a backup ignition and not know it. This is what brought down the
737's a while back - the backup hydraulic system would fail and there wasn't
a good way to detect it until the primary also failed. The idea of a
"single failure mode" being all that is necessary to worry about only works
if you can detect that failure. Am I worrying about nothing? One previous
post said the mag is much more likely to fail than the electronic system and
another reported on an electronic system failure. The population of
electronic systems is very small so one known failure is a lot. Sounds like
an ignition monitoring system might be worthwhile.
Gary Casey
C177RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: noisy transmit with Microair 760 com radio |
>
>The Microair 760 in my Glastar is working great except that when I transmit there
is a lot of
>random-sounding static. I get unsolicited comments from the control tower that
I'm "strength 4,
>readability 3". When receiving or with the engine off there is no noise. The
noise seems to be
>less at idle but turning off the alternator or either mag doesn't seem to affect
it. The radio
>and my 403mc intercom are wired as per Bob's diagram. I have two headphone/mic
jacks behind the
>right seat, and another set on the panel (bypassing the intercom). Anyone have
any advice on
>troubleshooting? I'm wondering if the PTT wires should be shielded as well as
the mic wires.
>
>Thanks.
The fact that your problem is transmit only suggests
an antenna problem.
If you've already checked potential for noise from
the alternator/mags, we need to consider vibration
induced noises . . . like from a poor connection in
the antenna coax. I have some portable antennas I
use to bypass the ship's antenna for these kinds of
investigations.
Cut a 47" piece of wire (22-14AWG . . . not critical)
in half and solder one of the pieces to the center conductor
and the other to the shield of about 15' of RG-58 coax.
Put a BNC connector on the other end.
Tape the dipole antenna to a piece of wood about 8' long
so that when the mast is standing upright, the antenna
is as far up the mast as possible and still supported by
it . . . i.e., the end of the bottom antenna wire will
be about 4' off the ground. Rig a wooden base to hold your
test antenna mast.
Set outside the airplane so that prop blast won't
blow it over. Hook to radio and then see if folks you
talk to can report any better performance. If the test
antenna works "better" . . .be sure to go back to the
original antenna to make sure the problem still exists.
Do you have access to an SWR meter or better yet, an
antenna analyzer to check out the ship's antenna and
feedline quality?
See:
http://www.mfjenterprises.com/products.php?prodid=MFJ-259B
http://www.wb0w.com/mfj/manuals/mfj259man.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Results of the battery charging battery experiment |
Part II
I was on my way out of town when I published the first part
of this posting. I thought it would be useful to finish
the experiment and then post the whole thing . . .
>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>A few days ago, someone expressed concerns about using
>a ramp battery cart to jump start an airplane when the
>ship's really dead, Dead, DEAD battery was till connected
>across the ground power jack.
>
>A couple of days ago, I put a 3A load on one of my portable
>instrumentation batteries (32A.H. Panasonic RG battery). This
>is a fairly new battery. I've deep discharged it perhaps
>4 times in the past year, otherwise, it has sat on the
>shelf after spending a day on a 14.2 volt power supply
>to charge it.
>
>After I unhooked the load . . . the battery voltage was
>about 100 millivolts. It slowly rose to about 3 volts after
>a minute or two. I set up a 40A power supply for 12.5 volts
>and connected it across the dead battery.
>
>The current rose initially to about 10A. The power supply
>was set up to maintain 12.5 volts at the dead battery's
>terminals and I watched as the "charge" current climbed
>slowly. It stabilized at 15A in about 10 minutes and has
>held constant after that time.
>
>Given that a battery delivers significant energy at
>12.5 volts or below, I think this experiment justifies
>the statement I offered a few days ago that a dead battery
>in the airplane does not present a significant load to
>a battery cart that is soon expected to put out hundreds
>of amps to crank an engine.
>
>Now, obviously if one connects a ground power cart set
>up for 14-15 volts, the dead batter will request more
>charging current. After I saw that the battery charge
>rate was not going to increase further at the 12.5 volt
>"bus" I increased the power supply's output to 14.5 volts
>and the charge current rose to just over 22 amps.
>
>This indicates that the dead battery represents little
>more than a nuisance drain on any common form of ground
>power used to service airplanes.
I left the battery on charge with the 40 amp bench supply
set for 14.2 volts. After about 10 minutes, the charge current
had risen to over 30A . . . a short time later, the power
supply went into current limit mode (just like an alternator
would if you tried to "overload" it). I didn't hang
around to see how long it took for the thing to drop below
40 amps but I suspect it wasn't very long . . . it's only
a 32 a.h. battery and 40A would totally recharge it in under
one hour.
The point is that as the battery's chemistry began to wake
up after being flogged into unconsciousness, internal
resistance of the battery begins to recover to a normally
low value. This is exactly the phenomenon that has lured
unwary and ignorant pilots of spam cans into believing that
just because the ammeter laid over nicely after start-up,
that all was well with their electrical system.
After launching into the blue (or grey) the battery recharge
current keeps climbing (if the battery were cold, the climb
rate would be slower and may peak out at a lower value) but
the pilot is already busy with other things. Adding ship's
loads to battery recharge loads maxed out the alternator.
Hundreds if not thousands of times in the history of
alternators on small airplanes, the 60A b-lead breaker
opens and the pilot is unaware of loss of alternator because
he has no active notification of low bus voltage and he
presses blissfully on until the panel goes dark.
This bench demonstration of battery performance further
re-enforces my personal notion that you need to be wary
of launching with a battery that is known to be in a discharged
state. Upsizing the capabilities of b-lead protection is
a BIG step forward in avoiding unhappy events. However,
situations like this are few and far between on most
airplanes . . . when you find your alternator maxed
out, remember that it's under an extra-ordinary stress
that is seldom demonstrated . . . just keep an eye on
it.
If you're launching into the grey, I'd really recommend
ground charging the battery to full capacity before
launch. Just because it's a "good" battery doesn't
help if a need to put the spurs into it arises when
it's already out of breath.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Redundant systems |
Gary,
I don't think this fails any redundancy test. Dual ignition provides passive
redundancy in that the engine continues to operate without any active
intervention. Even in a dual mag system it is still possible to have an
undetected failure in flight. But even if you detect the failure, what
action are you going to take? You'd land right? In the nearest field or
road? Closest airport? Most convenient airport with a mechanic? Final
destination? It depends and becomes a personal risk decision. If you're on a
hamburger flight and you'd likely return to your home field, how long would
you be in the air with a known failure? What length of time is OK? If an
hour local flight is OK but a 3 hour X/C is not then check the ignition
every hour in flight.
If you want to just consider probabilities, you really DO get the product of
the probabilities for independent systems. To drastically simplify this
since my engineering days are long past, if each ignition system has a MTBF
of 1000 hrs then the probability of failure is 1/1000 in an hour. The
probability of both systems failing in that hour is 1/1000 times 1/1000 or
1/1,000,000. Someone current on the math could deal with the confidence
levels, failure distributions and such but suffice to say the chance of dual
failures on the same flight is very remote. Detection in flight does not
change that. It's kind of like buying a 2nd lottery ticket, you've doubled
your chances but it's still very remote. I'd worry more about carb ice.
Something to think about.
Regards,
Greg Young
RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) RIP
Searching for Navion
>
>
> >> I did have an electronic ignition failure while in
> flight. (the mag
> saved
> my butt). Turns out the inductive pickup went intermittent.
> But as you've
> stated, the chances of a failure are very slim if everything has been
> installed correctly. Having two systems fail at the same time
> (assuming no
> power loss) is almost impossible....<<
>
> I've been thinking about the discussion of "redundancy" with
> regard to one
> electronic/one mag ignition. The previous posts imply that
> the mag can fail
> undetected because of the timing difference between the
> electronic system
> and the mag. This then fails one of the tests for redundancy. For
> instance, assume that the mag fails early in a long flight -
> over hostile
> terrain of course. That means that you are going to make the
> whole flight
> without a backup ignition and not know it. This is what
> brought down the
> 737's a while back - the backup hydraulic system would fail
> and there wasn't
> a good way to detect it until the primary also failed. The idea of a
> "single failure mode" being all that is necessary to worry
> about only works
> if you can detect that failure. Am I worrying about nothing?
> One previous
> post said the mag is much more likely to fail than the
> electronic system and
> another reported on an electronic system failure. The population of
> electronic systems is very small so one known failure is a
> lot. Sounds like
> an ignition monitoring system might be worthwhile.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | antenna analyzer |
| From: | "Bob Japundza" <Bob.Japundza(at)realmed.com> |
Hi Bob,
In your previous post you mention the use of an antenna analyzer. IIRC,
you rent these unit out to people, don't you? I would be interested in
seeing if my belly mounted bent-whip antenna can be tuned to work a
little better...it doesn't seem to work too well in my RV-6. I fly a
lot of formation and whenever I'm within a few feet of another airplane
the reception/transmission quality seems to go down.
On my new project (F1 Rocket) I would like to explore the possibility of
running homemade a com antenna inside the gear-leg fairing. I've heard
that this works well, but I've never heard directly from someone who's
done it. The gear legs themselves are titanium (if that makes any
difference); I think I can get away with running the antenna 3" away
from and directly parallel to the gear leg on the front side. Do you
think this would make for a workable setup, in theory?
Thanks!
Bob Japundza
RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying 230 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz) |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Brightness |
I'm developing my own moving map package, and have been researching this
to death. Rumor has it that some unnamed company in Kansas is getting
by with a display around 700 nits, which is just adequate in direct
sunlight. 700-800 nit displays might be sufficient with the proper
index matching and glass treatments. 1000-1300 nit displays are
considered direct sunlight readable, and neccessitate pretty hefty
backlights which do have the accompanied power draw and heat
dissipation. The display I've chosen is almost $1000, which is why
these packages just aren't that cheap yet. I'm putting mine in my
RV-6A, which has a full plexi bubble canopy and a fairly short
glareshield, so should be about as bad a viewing condition as you can
imagine!
Mitch Faatz
Gary K wrote:
>
>I am looking for a bright 6.5" color TFT display. I am getting close to
>starting the engine and filling the panel and I need to finish my homemade
>engine monitor (PC-based). I was going to order an NEC 300 NIT display
>(either separately or with an Arcom SBC kit) but now I'm hesitating. I have
>a high-wing with skylights so it shouldn't be as bad as a bubble canopy, but
>even the 6.5" displays aren't cheap and I don't want to waste money. If
>anyone has any tips or sources for a small bright display, please send info
>to me off-line. I gave up on a 10" display which is just as well since it
>takes up too much of my panel. I thought going to a smaller one would get
>me a brighter and cheaper display but apparently not.
>
>Thanks for any help, Gary K.
>Pelican/Stratus
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Dynon Screen Brightness |
At 15:28 17/10/2001, you wrote:
>I have asked Dynon to take a unit outside and play with it in the sun. If
>and when they get back to me I will report their claims. For now I am still
>hoping that the Dynon display is good enough because I want one.
In my limited experience (using a laptop in a C172 a couple of times),
direct sunlight is not the only problem. When there are reflections of
bright/dark areas (eg windows and the rest of the cockpit), these are more
important than absolute brightness. The part of the screen that isn't
reflecting a window is clear enough to read, but where the bright part is
visible, you can't read the screen at all. Note that I'm not talking about
light directly on the screen, but reflections of sky. Kind of like when
you're watching TV in a darkish room on a sunny day. The reflections of the
windows off the TV screen can make watching the TV difficult.
I guess this would be less of an issue if the screen is small... likely it
would either all be reflecting a window or not, and a movement of the
pilot's head would be able to move the reflection off the screen.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Harrill <KHarrill(at)osa.state.sc.us> |
| Subject: | Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions |
I wired a truck backup warning beeper to my ignition switches through an oil
pressure switch such that with no oil pressure and either ignition switch
"on" a warning beep sounds from under the cowl. This circuit is independent
of the master switch. I have one mag and one Lightspeed. I am not flying
yet so I don't know how annoying this might get.
Ken Harrill
RV-6, paint finished
-----Original Message-----
From: Stucklen, Frederic IFC [mailto:stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aux. Battery & Electronic Ignitions
Bernie, Nick, and others,
I thought about a design based upon just line side source, but don't like
the idea that one has to remember to turn both the master contactors off,
AND the ignition switches off (at the end of a flight) to completely power
down the aircraft. If a line side sourced ignition were to be left ON, then
the battery would go dead. (Leaving a Magneto hot won't do that..) Since
most engine shutdowns are done with the mixture control, leaving the
ignition ON is a real possibility, and could result in getting stranded
someplace with dead batteries. The diode solution, with oil pressure
switches in series with the line side source, and diode sources from both
master contactors, removes that situation.
The diode failure mode check would be facilitated through the use of the
Power LED indicator prior to startup (The LED would be on the resultant hot
wire to the ignition system.) Also, unless over stressed, diodes rarely
fail.
I have a lot of time to think about it as I'm still building up the
fuselage and have yet to order the electronic ignitions or the engine.....
Fred Stucklen
N925RV (1740 hrs/8 Yrs)
E. Windsor, CT 06088
WK Email: stuckle(at)ifc.utc.com
Hm/Travel Email: wstucklen1(at)juno.com
Hey Fred!
(For everyone else: Fred flew up from Connecticut to Maine on a
cold, cloudy day just to give me my first ride in an RV - after I'd been
building one for a year and a half. What a mensch!)
What's the point of the diodes and and the oil pressure switches?
Wouldn't it be easier to wire the CDIs to an always-hot, battery bus?
Nick Knobil
RV8 N80549
Bowdoinham, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Redundant systems |
Electronics International's tach monitors both ingition systems and
annunciates a failure. They can and will custom tailor the signal
conditioning to whatever your system needs.
Sam Chambers
Long-EZ N775AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Redundant systems
>
> >> I did have an electronic ignition failure while in flight. (the mag
> saved
> my butt). Turns out the inductive pickup went intermittent. But as you've
> stated, the chances of a failure are very slim if everything has been
> installed correctly. Having two systems fail at the same time (assuming no
> power loss) is almost impossible....<<
>
> I've been thinking about the discussion of "redundancy" with regard to one
> electronic/one mag ignition. The previous posts imply that the mag can
fail
> undetected because of the timing difference between the electronic system
> and the mag. This then fails one of the tests for redundancy. For
> instance, assume that the mag fails early in a long flight - over hostile
> terrain of course. That means that you are going to make the whole flight
> without a backup ignition and not know it. This is what brought down the
> 737's a while back - the backup hydraulic system would fail and there
wasn't
> a good way to detect it until the primary also failed. The idea of a
> "single failure mode" being all that is necessary to worry about only
works
> if you can detect that failure. Am I worrying about nothing? One
previous
> post said the mag is much more likely to fail than the electronic system
and
> another reported on an electronic system failure. The population of
> electronic systems is very small so one known failure is a lot. Sounds
like
> an ignition monitoring system might be worthwhile.
>
> Gary Casey
> C177RG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Duckett <perfeng(at)3rivers.net> |
Norm,
You might have to have Bob confirm this but, from a painters stand
point, unless your using large non-ferrous flakes (like House of Kolor)
that looks like glitter, I'd say not really. Most mixing formulas for
today's "metallic" topcoats are mainly made of Mica with some aluminum
power. Generally speaking , they average around 75-200 grams per
gallon. When applied in three coats I would estimate you have less than
2 grams per square inch of surface. That's Mica and Aluminum.
If there is any degradation, I would think it would be so small you'd
need lab conditions to realize them.
Jim D. N708JD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Brightness |
Mitchell Faatz wrote:
>
>
> I'm developing my own moving map package, and have been researching this
> to death. Rumor has it that some unnamed company in Kansas is getting
> by with a display around 700 nits, which is just adequate in direct
> sunlight. 700-800 nit displays might be sufficient with the proper
> index matching and glass treatments. 1000-1300 nit displays are
> considered direct sunlight readable, and neccessitate pretty hefty
> backlights which do have the accompanied power draw and heat
> dissipation. The display I've chosen is almost $1000, which is why
> these packages just aren't that cheap yet. I'm putting mine in my
> RV-6A, which has a full plexi bubble canopy and a fairly short
> glareshield, so should be about as bad a viewing condition as you can
> imagine!
>
> Mitch Faatz
>
> Gary K wrote:
>
> >
> >I am looking for a bright 6.5" color TFT display. I am getting close to
> >starting the engine and filling the panel and I need to finish my homemade
> >engine monitor (PC-based). I was going to order an NEC 300 NIT display
> >(either separately or with an Arcom SBC kit) but now I'm hesitating. I have
> >a high-wing with skylights so it shouldn't be as bad as a bubble canopy, but
> >even the 6.5" displays aren't cheap and I don't want to waste money. If
> >anyone has any tips or sources for a small bright display, please send info
> >to me off-line. I gave up on a 10" display which is just as well since it
> >takes up too much of my panel. I thought going to a smaller one would get
> >me a brighter and cheaper display but apparently not.
> >
> >Thanks for any help, Gary K.
> >Pelican/Stratus
> >
> >
>
If it's pc based, & fed with serial data, why not use an
iPaq? The screen is too fragile for actual hand-held use by
klutzes like me, but the screen is 'transreflective' &
actually gets brighter in sunlight. The working assumption
is that you are trusting your engines health to Gates & Co,
& can live with the wince operating system :->
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Metallic Paint Affects Antenna Reception? |
>
>Here one that's news to me. Is this true?
>
>> One thing Dick Martin pointed out to me is that if you have wing tip
>> antennas do not use metallic paint on the wing tips. Evidently it effects
>> the reception and transmission.
>
>> ????????????
>> ?????
>
>I have a Bob archer wingtip antenna. Is it not going to work with metallic
>paint?
I guess I'm not familiar with the various coatings and how
much "metal" they might contain. Intuitively, if a coating
has enough metal in it that one can measure continuity from
one edge of a painted part to the other edge with an ohmmeter,
there's probably enough conductivity to affect antenna
performance. If it's just aluminum flakes to get the
little sparkles effect, then I suspect there's no harm
to the antenna performance. I think you'd just have to try
it.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: antenna analyzer |
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>In your previous post you mention the use of an antenna analyzer. IIRC,
>you rent these unit out to people, don't you? I would be interested in
>seeing if my belly mounted bent-whip antenna can be tuned to work a
>little better...it doesn't seem to work too well in my RV-6. I fly a
>lot of formation and whenever I'm within a few feet of another airplane
>the reception/transmission quality seems to go down.
I don't think an airplane more than 10 feet away
would have any noticeable effect on performance.
How do you mean "quality goes down"? Stations you
could hear before joining up with another airplane
are now weaker?
Used to have one for rent but by the time it
went out and back enough times to break even for
having purchased the critter, it was so beat up
that I was having to spend a lot of time maintaining
it. Put the last refurb on it and sold it on Ebay.
Can you get a Bird thruline wattmeter from a local
avionics shop?
>On my new project (F1 Rocket) I would like to explore the possibility of
>running homemade a com antenna inside the gear-leg fairing. I've heard
>that this works well, but I've never heard directly from someone who's
>done it. The gear legs themselves are titanium (if that makes any
>difference); I think I can get away with running the antenna 3" away
>from and directly parallel to the gear leg on the front side. Do you
>think this would make for a workable setup, in theory?
It can be tuned to LOOK like a good antenna to the transmitter
but it is bound to have very marked directional and gain
qualities that I don't think you'll like. The only gear
legs that have shared space with antennas were made of
fiberglas.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
""
| Subject: | Lasar combination thermocouple |
A while back, several listers noted that they were having trouble getting
the thermocouple side of the dual CHT probe which comes from Unison to work
properly. This dual CHT device contains also a thermistor which tells the
controller when the engine is too hot for additional spark advance, on those
so equipped. Anyway, this thermocouple is only supplied in an ungrounded
type. Many engine monitors are set up to look at grounded thermocouples,
and I set up my RMI monitor to do the same. The fix in my case was to
connect a 100 ohm resistor from one of the offending thermocouple leads to
ground, suggested by Ron M., the RMI designer. The observation of this
trouble was when I switched to that cylinder, it read fine for about one
minute and then went to 00 reading.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
6A N66AP released from Class B prison
5 glorious hours yesterday!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson(at)usjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Metallic Paint Affects Antenna Reception? |
My wingtips have metallic paint on them, and I picked up a VOR which is
about 5 miles away no problem. Oh yeah, that was when the plane was in the
metal hanger with the door shut. In the next few weeks, I hope to test the
G/S reception of the antenna as well. This is a Bob Archer wingtip
VOR/LOC/GS antenna.
Alex Peterson
Maple Grove, MN
6A N66AP flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wndwlkr711(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Brightness |
Gary,
Check out www.bluemountainavionics.com. This one will be very hard to beat
for the price! It also comes in three sizes.
George Stanley
RV-6A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James E. Clark" <jclark(at)conterra.com> |
| Subject: | Screen Brightness |
Ahhhh, Three sizes????
I thought it came in 6" and 10.4". Is there another???
While at OSH. I spoke at length with them about a 6" version that would fit
into a standard rack space. The 6" they kinda had on display would NOT. So
is that what you mean ...two 6" and one 10.4"???
Just curious.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Wndwlkr711(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Screen Brightness
Gary,
Check out www.bluemountainavionics.com. This one will be very hard to beat
for the price! It also comes in three sizes.
George Stanley
RV-6A wings
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wndwlkr711(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Brightness |
James,
Yes, three sizes. There is also an 8 inch.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pat_hatch" <pat_hatch(at)email.msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Redundant systems |
Sam,
Could you elaborate on how the Electronics Internationals tach monitors both
ignition systems? I have their R-1 gauge with dual electronic ignitions and
I have read through their manual and cannot find any reference to this. It
does say that during the "mag" check you will see a large drop in RPM for 1
sec when switching from BOTH to LEFT mag while the microprocessor switches
to the other mag. My gauge has no annunciator that I can see that would
indicate a failure. Is there a more recent mod to the gauge perhaps? I
recently had my R-1 modified by E.I. for the electronic ignition and larger
numbers, but they did not mention anything about this.
Pat Hatch
RV-4, N17PH @ VRB, 700 hours TT
O-320, Hartzell C/S
RV-6, Fuselage
O-360, Hartzell C/S
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Chambers" <schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Redundant systems
<schamber@glasgow-ky.com>
>
> Electronics International's tach monitors both ingition systems and
> annunciates a failure. They can and will custom tailor the signal
> conditioning to whatever your system needs.
>
> Sam Chambers
> Long-EZ N775AM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Redundant systems
>
>
> >
> > >> I did have an electronic ignition failure while in flight. (the mag
> > saved
> > my butt). Turns out the inductive pickup went intermittent. But as
you've
> > stated, the chances of a failure are very slim if everything has been
> > installed correctly. Having two systems fail at the same time (assuming
no
> > power loss) is almost impossible....<<
> >
> > I've been thinking about the discussion of "redundancy" with regard to
one
> > electronic/one mag ignition. The previous posts imply that the mag can
> fail
> > undetected because of the timing difference between the electronic
system
> > and the mag. This then fails one of the tests for redundancy. For
> > instance, assume that the mag fails early in a long flight - over
hostile
> > terrain of course. That means that you are going to make the whole
flight
> > without a backup ignition and not know it. This is what brought down
the
> > 737's a while back - the backup hydraulic system would fail and there
> wasn't
> > a good way to detect it until the primary also failed. The idea of a
> > "single failure mode" being all that is necessary to worry about only
> works
> > if you can detect that failure. Am I worrying about nothing? One
> previous
> > post said the mag is much more likely to fail than the electronic system
> and
> > another reported on an electronic system failure. The population of
> > electronic systems is very small so one known failure is a lot. Sounds
> like
> > an ignition monitoring system might be worthwhile.
> >
> > Gary Casey
> > C177RG
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | antenna analyzer |
| From: | "Bob Japundza" <Bob.Japundza(at)realmed.com> |
> I don't think an airplane more than 10 feet away
> would have any noticeable effect on performance.
> How do you mean "quality goes down"? Stations you
> could hear before joining up with another airplane
> are now weaker?
I can communicate well before joining up with the other airplanes, but
as soon as I get close to anybody transmitting/receiving to the other
aircraft can get unintelligible.
> It can be tuned to LOOK like a good antenna to the transmitter
> but it is bound to have very marked directional and gain
> qualities that I don't think you'll like. The only gear
> legs that have shared space with antennas were made of
> fiberglas.
With my bent-whip on the belly, coverage is much better on either side
of the aircraft, but not very good directly in front of or behind the
antenna. So, when I'm flying directly to or from a controlled field, I
can usually pick up ATIS 20 or so miles out. If I'm flying
perpendicular to a station, the signal strength is usually much better.
Sometimes I'll temporarily make a turn to listen to ATIS then turn back
inbound.
My thought is I can roll an antenna together at least as good as my bent
whip--if not better. What do you think of using one antenna on the
forward side of one gearleg and one on the back side of the other,
connected through an antenna switch? That way if reception is poor you
can try the other antenna. Can it be done without the switch?
Bob Japundza
RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Bean <jim-bean(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: antenna analyzer |
It looks like the gear legs are acting like the radiators of a Yagi
antenna, the kind used for TV reception. If the whip is behind the gear
then the gear should reinforce signals coming from behind and block from
the front as you have noted. Putting another antenna in front should
work but the switching is big and heavy so check that out before making
any changes.
Fiberglass gear legs would be a boon on the RV's, particularly the RV-8
as the canopy prevents any antennas on the top of the rear fuselage.
Jim Bean
RV-8 panel
Bob Japundza wrote:
> With my bent-whip on the belly, coverage is much better on either side
> of the aircraft, but not very good directly in front of or behind the
> antenna. So, when I'm flying directly to or from a controlled field, I
> can usually pick up ATIS 20 or so miles out. If I'm flying
> perpendicular to a station, the signal strength is usually much better.
> Sometimes I'll temporarily make a turn to listen to ATIS then turn back
> inbound.
>
> My thought is I can roll an antenna together at least as good as my bent
> whip--if not better. What do you think of using one antenna on the
> forward side of one gearleg and one on the back side of the other,
> connected through an antenna switch? That way if reception is poor you
> can try the other antenna. Can it be done without the switch?
>
> Bob Japundza
> RV-6 N244BJ O-360C/S flying
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: antenna analyzer |
>
>> I don't think an airplane more than 10 feet away
>> would have any noticeable effect on performance.
>> How do you mean "quality goes down"? Stations you
>> could hear before joining up with another airplane
>> are now weaker?
>
>I can communicate well before joining up with the other airplanes, but
>as soon as I get close to anybody transmitting/receiving to the other
>aircraft can get unintelligible.
This sounds more like a case of receiver overload.
Remember, your receiver is optimized for communicating
be capable of picking a 1 microvolt signal out of the
atmospheric noise and delivering an intelligible signal
to your ears. Now, when you set a few yards of the wing
of another aircraft, the signal rises a million fold
in intensity. MOST receivers cannot handle this dynamic
range with any grace.
What you need is a POOR antenna. I've used attenuators
in the transmission line to both reduce my outgoing
signal and the incoming signal by a factor of 100 or
more.
>> It can be tuned to LOOK like a good antenna to the transmitter
>> but it is bound to have very marked directional and gain
>> qualities that I don't think you'll like. The only gear
>> legs that have shared space with antennas were made of
>> fiberglas.
>
>With my bent-whip on the belly, coverage is much better on either side
>of the aircraft, but not very good directly in front of or behind the
>antenna. So, when I'm flying directly to or from a controlled field, I
>can usually pick up ATIS 20 or so miles out. If I'm flying
>perpendicular to a station, the signal strength is usually much better.
>Sometimes I'll temporarily make a turn to listen to ATIS then turn back
>inbound.
This is a separate problem . . . most antenna installations
on aircraft have the less than ideal, circular radiation
pattern. I'm just finishing up an effort on one of Raytheon's
products to improve on the utility of a UHF communications
antenna that performed badly on the belly . . . had to move
it to the vertical fin tip to get good and reasonably equal
coverage in all quadrants.
Moving your antenna as little as a foot for or aft can
make a big difference. But isn't 20 miles out sufficient
into various location/performance options, you might achieve
some improvement but how many holes do you want to put in
your airplane to explore all the options?
>My thought is I can roll an antenna together at least as good as my bent
>whip--if not better. What do you think of using one antenna on the
>forward side of one gearleg and one on the back side of the other,
>connected through an antenna switch? That way if reception is poor you
>can try the other antenna. Can it be done without the switch?
The close proximity of metal to the antenna is bound
to degrade it's performance seriously. The rule of thumb
at least 1/2 wavelength separation (44 inches at VHF
comm frequencies). As you get closer, effects on antenna
performance will get exponentially stronger.
If you can pick up the ATIS 20mi out as a WORST case
scenario, I'd say your belly mounted antenna is working
pretty good.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: antenna analyzer |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> This sounds more like a case of receiver overload.
> Remember, your receiver is optimized for communicating
> be capable of picking a 1 microvolt signal out of the
> atmospheric noise and delivering an intelligible signal
> to your ears. Now, when you set a few yards of the wing
> of another aircraft, the signal rises a million fold
> in intensity. MOST receivers cannot handle this dynamic
> range with any grace.
>
*** Here's a place where humble ham radio transceivers may have it
over the expensive aircraft stuff. There has been a lot of research
done over the past 20 years into making receivers with wide dynamic
range and good large-signal performance. Typical techniques include
high level balanced mixers and RF input amps that look like they
belong in small transmitters, as well as carefully designed AGC
chains.
Whenever a new ham rig comes out, the magazines immediately test it
for large signal performance. Word gets out. Manufacturers play "specs"
games, but stuff generally gets better. Of course, in the aircraft
world, if something is TSO'ed, that means it's good enough, right?
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
> What you need is a POOR antenna. I've used attenuators
> in the transmission line to both reduce my outgoing
> signal and the incoming signal by a factor of 100 or
> more.
>
>
> >> It can be tuned to LOOK like a good antenna to the transmitter
> >> but it is bound to have very marked directional and gain
> >> qualities that I don't think you'll like. The only gear
> >> legs that have shared space with antennas were made of
> >> fiberglas.
> >
> >With my bent-whip on the belly, coverage is much better on either side
> >of the aircraft, but not very good directly in front of or behind the
> >antenna. So, when I'm flying directly to or from a controlled field, I
> >can usually pick up ATIS 20 or so miles out. If I'm flying
> >perpendicular to a station, the signal strength is usually much better.
> >Sometimes I'll temporarily make a turn to listen to ATIS then turn back
> >inbound.
>
> This is a separate problem . . . most antenna installations
> on aircraft have the less than ideal, circular radiation
> pattern. I'm just finishing up an effort on one of Raytheon's
> products to improve on the utility of a UHF communications
> antenna that performed badly on the belly . . . had to move
> it to the vertical fin tip to get good and reasonably equal
> coverage in all quadrants.
>
> Moving your antenna as little as a foot for or aft can
> make a big difference. But isn't 20 miles out sufficient
> into various location/performance options, you might achieve
> some improvement but how many holes do you want to put in
> your airplane to explore all the options?
>
>
> >My thought is I can roll an antenna together at least as good as my bent
> >whip--if not better. What do you think of using one antenna on the
> >forward side of one gearleg and one on the back side of the other,
> >connected through an antenna switch? That way if reception is poor you
> >can try the other antenna. Can it be done without the switch?
>
> The close proximity of metal to the antenna is bound
> to degrade it's performance seriously. The rule of thumb
> at least 1/2 wavelength separation (44 inches at VHF
> comm frequencies). As you get closer, effects on antenna
> performance will get exponentially stronger.
>
> If you can pick up the ATIS 20mi out as a WORST case
> scenario, I'd say your belly mounted antenna is working
> pretty good.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz) |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Brightness |
Charlie and Tupper England wrote:
>>>
>If it's pc based, & fed with serial data, why not use an
>iPaq? The screen is too fragile for actual hand-held use by
>klutzes like me, but the screen is 'transreflective' &
>actually gets brighter in sunlight. The working assumption
>is that you are trusting your engines health to Gates & Co,
>& can live with the wince operating system :->
>
>Charlie
>
The iPaq is too puny. And it's certainly not what I would call sunlight
readable. It is the *most* sunlight readable among HPC's available
today, but that's not saying too much. I want to display LOTS of data!
Larger screens and higher resolutions can give you more readable text
and much better situation awareness. I want to know what's coming
ahead, not just where I am. I wouldn't be too leary of WinCE though,
I'm not an RTOS zealot. The OS has better uptime than the Lyncosaur! ;)
Mitch Faatz
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Doble" <mark_doble(at)hp.com> |
| Subject: | joining wires... |
What is the best way (cheapest) to join two wires....(say 22 AWG under
behind the panel).
is it acceptable to strip then ends...solder the wires together and then
place a heat shrink over this...
or do you need to use butt splices?
any recommendations?
thanks,
Mark.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: joining wires... |
>
>What is the best way (cheapest) to join two wires....(say 22 AWG under
>behind the panel).
>
>is it acceptable to strip then ends...solder the wires together and then
>place a heat shrink over this...
>
>or do you need to use butt splices?
>
>any recommendations?
>
>thanks,
>
>Mark.
Soldered and crimped terminations are functionally
equivalent. See:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/rules/review.html
If you have the tools and talent to solder then
have at it. The rules for insulation support adjacent
to crimped/soldered joints are the the same.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: joining wires... |
Hi Mark,
You may have paid a lot for youre aircraft kit, why
not pay a few dollars more for good, nice wire splices?
I would go for the splices,
Jesse
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul A. Franz, P.E." <paul(at)eucleides.com> |
| Subject: | Web site interruption |
Due to mandated renumbering of our network some of you will experience a
lapse in connectivity to the numerous web sites we host including:
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/>
The numerical updates will take up to 38 hours from the time stamp of this
message to propagate across the Internet.
** L I N U X ** .~. Paul A. Franz, P.E. Engineering Software
The Choice /V\ Blackdog Software Network Consulting and Sales
of the GNU /( )\ <http://blackdog.bellevue.wa.us/> Custom Web Services
Generation
-
(425) 641-8202, (425) 641-1773 FAX Internet FAX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 10/18/01 |
>> Soldered and crimped terminations are functionally
equivalent. See:
http://209.134.106.21/articles/rules/review.html
If you have the tools and talent to solder then
have at it. The rules for insulation support adjacent
to crimped/soldered joints are the same.<<
Thanks for the review in the link above. I read the article and intuitively
had some of the same reactions you expressed. One can look at the auto
industry to see some of the better techniques, as they spend a lot of
engineering time on low cost reliability. We basically solder no joints
that are exposed to vibration as the solder makes the wire rigid out to
where the solder wicked and that point is hard to control. One thing is
that virtually all the joints are "clinched" instead of squashed (poor
choice of words there, but I don't know how to explain it. The terminal is
open and the edges of the terminal are curled into the joint with the
crimper. Also, with the fully closed barrel there are crimpers that dimple
the "back" side of the barrel instead of just smashing it - I've found that
these give a more robust joint. Comment?
Gary Casey
C177RG, Lancair ES, no wires yet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Battery/Alternator Master |
<4.3.2.7.2.20011010104211.052a9b40(at)pop.webcom.com>
>Bob,
>
>I notice in your diagrams you always have a Battery/Alternator Master Switch,
and inline with the Alternator leg is a 5A breaker. Why not omit the Alternator
portion of the Master switch and just use a push/pull breaker, and pull the
breaker if you want to disconnect the alternator?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Dave Morris
Back in the "good 'ol days" when airplanes were getting
their first generators, batteries and a few lights, the
battery master and generator control switches could be and
were separate switches. This is because a generator will
start and run by itself whether or not a battery was on
line to go with it.
When alternators came along, they needed (and still do need)
a battery to get them to come up reliably. Further, alternators
do not run well without a battery on line. None the less, it
was desirable to have some degree of independent control of
the battery and alternator insofar as system performance
requirements would permit.
This is when the split-rocker master switch was conceived.
This switch has acquired almost magical attributes . . .
I've seen the red-rocker enshrined in prominent locations
on the panels of many homebuilts even when all other switches
were a different style.
A little study of the split rocker shows us that the battery
can be on by itself, but the alternator cannot. The same
functionality is provided by our DP3T, on-on-on toggle
switch (S700-2-10). Lower position is ALL OFF, mid position
is BAT ONLY, upper position is BAT+ALT.
It's true that you could replace the S700-2-10 with an
S700-2-3 and turn on BOTH devices with a single throw
of the DC master switch. It's a rare in-flight condition
that the alternator NEEDS to be off. If you're doing
some battery-only ground maintenance, then you could pull
the breaker.
We recommend the S700-2-10 as an alternative to the
split-rocker switch to provide equivalent functionality.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 10/18/01 |
Gary Casey wrote:
>
> Thanks for the review in the link above. I read the article and intuitively
> had some of the same reactions you expressed. One can look at the auto
> industry to see some of the better techniques, as they spend a lot of
> engineering time on low cost reliability. We basically solder no joints
> that are exposed to vibration as the solder makes the wire rigid out to
> where the solder wicked
*** I have worked and played in electronics for thirty years. Five of
those years were spent as a technician in a production environment where I
got a good feel for what works and what doesn't.
In all that time, I have NEVER, repeat, NEVER, seen a solder joint
fail from "solder wicking into a wire and turning it into a solid wire that
then cracks or breaks from vibration". If the wire breaks, it breaks
right where it enters the connector - just like with a crimped connector.
About a year ago, I had a conversation with an FAA FSDO inspector - who
had had a career in avionics prior to joining th feds. He had never seen
such a failure either.
On the other hand, I have seen COUNTLESS failures of crimped and other
mechanically fastened connectors - coming loose, breaking, going
high-resistance, whatever. To be fair, I have also seen plenty of
failures of soldered connections - just not the type mentioned above.
Mostly, soldered connections fail by cracking where the two metals come
together - again, same as the mechanical connections.
All this being said, quality crimped connections are OK. That's AMP or
other MIL-spec connectors, crimped with a die-type ratchet crimper. Their
advantage vis-a-vis soldering is that they are fool-proof. If you use the
right size wire, the right connector, the right crimper, your crimp WILL
work. The ratchet will not let you make a "halfway" crimp.
If you're an aircraft manufacturer, this is vital. You can't go hire
people off the street who know how to solder to NASA spec, but you can
teach anybody to crimp in an hour.
not as clear.
In my aircraft work, I use both techniques. For example, audio jacks
are only available with solder lugs. If I have to make a great deal of
connections in a single cable, I prefer solder, because solder connections
with heat shrink covering can be physically much smaller than insulated
crimp splices. One good example is the altitude bus. If you install
an IFR GPS, you need to splice into nine or ten altitude wires. You may
have to install a diode in line with each wire. So that's a diode and
two connetions for each wire, or eighteen or twenty splices in that
single cable. If you use insulated crimp splices for all of this, your
cable grows into a monster. Solder splices are not much larger
than the existing wire.
If, OTOH, I need to get up into the panel and splice into a power lead
somewhere, it's a no-brainer to use a crimper.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
and that point is hard to control. One thing is
> that virtually all the joints are "clinched" instead of squashed (poor
> choice of words there, but I don't know how to explain it. The terminal is
> open and the edges of the terminal are curled into the joint with the
> crimper. Also, with the fully closed barrel there are crimpers that dimple
> the "back" side of the barrel instead of just smashing it - I've found that
> these give a more robust joint. Comment?
>
> Gary Casey
> C177RG, Lancair ES, no wires yet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
>>In all that time, I have NEVER, repeat, NEVER, seen a solder joint
fail from "solder wicking into a wire and turning it into a solid wire that
then cracks or breaks from vibration".<<
You should've been here last week - you could've helped me fix one on my
plane. It was a soldered joint that broke right at the end of the "wicked"
portion of the wire. Otherwise I agree with all your comments.
>>Mostly, soldered connections fail by cracking where the two metals come
together - again, same as the mechanical connections.<<
I'm not sure where you mean. On our sensors we have made more than 100
million (no exaggeration) manual solder joints over the last 10 years and I
have yet to see a correctly made solder joint that failed in the joint
itself. They either fail because of a cold solder joint or fatigue right at
the edge of the solder (not really a joint failure). Admittedly, these are
not the same type joint as you would have between a multi-strand wire and a
terminal (those are always only crimped whether for an automotive,
industrial or aerospace customer - except for Mil-spec connector terminals
designed for soldering).
>>For example, audio jacks are only available with solder lugs.<<
By the way, are there audio jacks that are "better" than the ones normally
seen? I have had numerous problems with these corroding and with the solder
lugs, there being no good way to strain-relieve the wires.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Good <chrisjgood(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More music in intercom questions |
>
>Here's a lower cost solution...
>www.boostaroo.com
>Vlad's Audio Unit is $119, the Boostaroo is $20, 20-20k +/1 2 db, high s/n
>ratio. I just ordered one for me and another for my buddy and will put a
>review on my web site once I've run it through the paces.
>
>Randy Lervold
>www.rv-8.com
Randy,
How is the Boostaroo working out for you? I have a similar low volume
problem with the music input to my RST Engineering audio panel intercom.
Regards,
Chris Good, http://www.rv.supermatrix.com
West Bend, WI
RV-6A N86CG, 295 hrs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: solder joints |
>
>>>In all that time, I have NEVER, repeat, NEVER, seen a solder joint
>fail from "solder wicking into a wire and turning it into a solid wire that
>then cracks or breaks from vibration".<<
>
>You should've been here last week - you could've helped me fix one on my
>plane. It was a soldered joint that broke right at the end of the "wicked"
>portion of the wire. Otherwise I agree with all your comments.
Was this a solder joint for a wire that was just waving
'round in the breeze or did the connection have insulation
support in addition to the solder joint?
>>>Mostly, soldered connections fail by cracking where the two metals come
>together - again, same as the mechanical connections.<<
>
>I'm not sure where you mean.
Both solder -and- crimping turns stranded wire into solid wire.
There's no difference in the way strands are stressed under
vibration immediately adjacent to the joint. Hence the evolution
of the two-crimp styles offered by most manufacturers of insulated
terminals. You'll note also that solder sleeves have gripped the
joint in three places . . . at each end for mechanical support
of the joint and in the center for electrical connection and
tension support of the joint.
Wires that are simply retained by their strands are both subject
to stress cracking and failure due to flexing.
>>>For example, audio jacks are only available with solder lugs.<<
>
>By the way, are there audio jacks that are "better" than the ones normally
>seen? I have had numerous problems with these corroding and with the solder
>lugs, there being no good way to strain-relieve the wires.
Use heat shrink on the joints. Heat shrink that will fit
over the jack's wiring terminal may not shrink down enough
to grip the wire too . . . put a couple of short pieces of
smaller shrink over the wires adjacent to the joint just
to build its diameter a tad before you shrink down the bigger
one.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
>Lectric Bob,
>A few weeks ago I ordered your manual and I see it is on backorder for the new
edition. I have borrowed a friends copy and I am wiring an RV-4. Hope you have
time to answer a question or two. I am putting in the wiring to the wings.
I will have a nav. light, landing light and a strobe (with the power supply
in each wing-tip). I plan to ground everything together in the wing-tip and
additionally use the ground wire in the Power supply cable to connect the wingtip
ground to the firewall grounding block (B&C's version).
Don't run extra "ground" wires from one place in the airplane
to other places in the airplane. In metal airplanes, devices
such as pitot heaters, lamps, strobe power supplies, little
trim motors, etc may be grounded to airframe locally with no
risk of becoming either victim or antagonist with respect to
noise.
> In reading chapter 16 it appears I should also use shielded cable from the power
supply to the lamp and,
> since I have fiberglass wingtips, I will ground the shield to the lamp housing.
Unless the installation instructions tell you something
different, I would ground the power supply to strobe shields
at both ends . . . to the strobe mounting screws and to the
metal fixture under the strobe lamp assembly.
> What about the shield from the power supply to the switch? Do I ground it at
both
>ends or just one and, if so, does it matter which?
Shielding this wire is of no particular benefit.
>
>Finally, I had planned to run all these wires through the same conduit as my mike
and earphone
>cables. They would run together for about three feet. Separating them will be
difficult but I can
>do it if necessary. I am not sure if I need to because it is the "switch to strobe
power supply"
>wire, not the "power supply to strobe lamp" wire. Any help you could offer would
be appreciated.
>If it would be better for me to call you, please let me know that and give me
the best time to do so.
>Learning a lot from your manual, thanks.
They may run together in bundles or conduits without risk of
coupling noises between systems. Make sure you microphone and
headset jacks are insulated from the airframe by means of
non-conductive mounting bracket or insulating washers like:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/wiring/wiring.html#s890-1
I am pleased that you find the work useful! Holler if we
can be of further assistance . . .
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Bob,
In trying to get to your website, using www.aeroelectric.com, I get some
other website with the "Apache" name on it. I cannot seem to reach your
website. Has something changed?
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: More music in intercom questions |
> >Here's a lower cost solution...
> >www.boostaroo.com
> >Vlad's Audio Unit is $119, the Boostaroo is $20, 20-20k +/1 2 db, high
s/n
> >ratio. I just ordered one for me and another for my buddy and will put a
> >review on my web site once I've run it through the paces.
> >
> >Randy Lervold
> >www.rv-8.com
>
> Randy,
>
> How is the Boostaroo working out for you? I have a similar low volume
> problem with the music input to my RST Engineering audio panel intercom.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris Good, http://www.rv.supermatrix.com
> West Bend, WI
> RV-6A N86CG, 295 hrs
Chris, it's working fine. After a whole season of flying though I'm leaning
toward a more permanent solution. Some time in the future when I remodel my
panel I plan to install a PS Engineering PCD7100 intercom & CD player. In
addition to not having to fool with cords and stuff laying around the
cockpit, this unit feeds the CD signal into the line AFTER the intercom
volume control, thus there should be no volume problems. The PM3000 I have
now i wired like most other intercoms where the CD signal is fed into the
stream before the volume control and thus is attenuated and not controllable
separately, or relative to the voice loudness.
In the mean time though the Boostaroo is a good solution, especially for
only $20!
Regards,
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Noise in Audio Circuit |
Bob and others with higher knowledge...
I am finalizing the wiring of an all metal, IFR, all electric plane...
Everything electrical works and tests out fine EXCEPT noise in the audio
system. I used shielded wires (Tefzel purchased from Spruce)
for the magnetos, for the audio (mikes and phones) circuits, for all the
engine sensors, and for harnessing of
the radios to the audio panel and to the VOR/ILS/GS indicator. All other
wire is unshielded Tefzel.
The mike and phone jacks are isolated from the airframe using B&C's
insulating
washers. The audio panel is an RST 565 panel w/ a VOX 4-place intercom.
The unit was calibrated by J. Weir (RTS Eng'g.) and declared "within
specs".
This plane has mountains of wiring. Aside from the usual IFR getup (RC
Allen AI & DG), and dual
radios, it has dual alternators, electric flaps, electric trim, an S-Tec
System 20 Autopilot and Rocky Mountain Instruments
uMonitor and uEncoder, with remote compass, carb temp sensor, OAT sensor,
4 each CHT & EGT sensors, etc....
The noise seems to come from the following sources in decreasing order of
magnitude
(I can tell since these are all individually switched and noise occurs
when they are put online):
uMonitor Backlight
RC Allen AI
RC Allen DG
Ice-box cooling fan
uEncoder Backlight
S-Tec TurnCoordinator
Garmin GNS-430
S-Tec Servo motor (when A/P is engaged and moving the ailerons)
The AeroElectric/ B&C light dimming control when near the mid position
(it sounds like a windshield wiper
arm scraping softly on glass in the headsets - not very loud but very
unpleasant). This control powers a
dozen lights/instruments. BTW I twisted the leads from the dimmer control
to the unit as specified.
Some Clues:
All grounds (except the taillight , wingmounted landing light, pitot
heat, nav lights, and strobes which
are locally grounded to the structure) are terminated at Bob's forest of
tabs on the panel. This includes
the audio grounds (low connections).
I have done limited testing of the radios with a hand held transceiver,
but so far the noise does not seem to
be caused by the radios, rather it sounds like it is in the audio
(intercom/ phone amplifier) circuit.
The RST audio panel had three ground inputs. I understand (from Bob
Weir) that they all end up at the
same place inside the unit and can be used to ground the unit to the A/C
and to ground the mike and phone
audio circuits interchangeably.
The wiring had not been neatened up yet nor tied into bundles as I wish
to finalize testing (and get rid of this noise)
before completing this step. Obviously with this many wires and 30
circuits (all to ATO fuses except the fat alternator
fuse in the engine compartment and two alternator breakers/switches)
there is a wild web of wiring behind the panel at this
time.
I understand that the backlights for the LCD's (RMI instruments) use
inverters to convert
12 vDC to AC current and the noise I hear is quite high pitched (and
annoying) from these backlights.
Note that aside from the backlight induced noise the RMI units are very
quiet (do not induce noise in the audio circuit).
Engine is not ready to run, so I don't know if alternators are (will be)
creating noise.
Wings are not on so I don't know if strobes are (will be) creating noise.
Some Questions:
Should I use shielded wires to feed power to and ground the gyros and the
fan?
Should I run mike and phone audio grounds to the audio panel (instead to
the panel's forest of tabs) and only run
one ground wire from the audio panel to the main grounding point (forest
of tabs)?
The avionics shop that harnessed the radios for me left the audio wire
shields unconnected to the audio panel.
These are wires that are soldered to the shields of the wires from the
radios, beyond the connectors they transition to non-shielded
wires about 6-inches long to the audio panel. Is this OK?
Any help is most appreciated.
Sorry this post had to be this long, but with this many potential
culprits I seemed best to provide details.
Ulrich
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
>
>Bob,
>In trying to get to your website, using www.aeroelectric.com, I get some
>other website with the "Apache" name on it. I cannot seem to reach your
>website. Has something changed?
The folks who make bid decisions as to how our data gets
shuffled around the Internet decided that bytes to and from
our website (and others hosted by Paul Franz) were not
shuffling right . . . Sooooooooo they decided to hammer and
saw on some things which caused Paul a lot of work to reconnect
things. The new connectivity addresses were broadcast some
time ago and the site is back up for MOST folk. I've had
several calls this weekend from people who's domain name
servers haven't updated with the new data . . . but it should
all come together soon.
Make sure your browser isn't parking on a cached file . . .
hit reload (Netscape) or refresh (I.E.) to make sure your
browser is really LOOKING for the new routing.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Soldered and crimped terminations |
>
>>> Soldered and crimped terminations are functionally
> equivalent. See:
>
>http://209.134.106.21/articles/rules/review.html
>
>Thanks for the review in the link above. I read the article and intuitively
>had some of the same reactions you expressed. One can look at the auto
>industry to see some of the better techniques, as they spend a lot of
>engineering time on low cost reliability. We basically solder no joints
>that are exposed to vibration as the solder makes the wire rigid out to
>where the solder wicked and that point is hard to control.
Wicking failures are one of those things that
the mil-spec soldering school gurus had to put
in their textbooks . . . just to err on the
side of safety . . . A skillfully soldered joint
doesn't wick, and you gotta be really sloppy to
make it wick.
> One thing is
>that virtually all the joints are "clinched" instead of squashed (poor
>choice of words there, but I don't know how to explain it. The terminal is
>open and the edges of the terminal are curled into the joint with the
>crimper.
These are the open barrel, sheet metal pins. See:
This style of terminal application is standard on Molex/Waldom,
AMP Mate-n-lock, and a variety of connector technologies including
d-sub connectors. We sell a tool to apply those pins at:
Instructions for use can be found at:
> Also, with the fully closed barrel there are crimpers that dimple
>the "back" side of the barrel instead of just smashing it - I've found that
>these give a more robust joint. Comment?
These tools have been used erroneously on PIDG style terminals
to the great detriment of joint quality. The "dimple" tool
is used with un-insulated terminals and more often than not,
the tools and/or technique described on our website, you
probably don't want to do it that way.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
>> Was this a solder joint for a wire that was just waving
'round in the breeze or did the connection have insulation
support in addition to the solder joint?
Wires that are simply retained by their strands are both subject
to stress cracking and failure due to flexing.
>By the way, are there audio jacks that are "better" than the ones normally
>seen? I have had numerous problems with these corroding and with the
solder
>lugs, there being no good way to strain-relieve the wires.
Use heat shrink on the joints. Heat shrink that will fit
over the jack's wiring terminal may not shrink down enough
to grip the wire too . . . put a couple of short pieces of
smaller shrink over the wires adjacent to the joint just
to build its diameter a tad before you shrink down the bigger
one.<<
Bob, you hit the nail on the head both times. The solder joint that failed
was on an audio jack and even though there was heat-shrink on it the wire
diameter was insufficient to hold against vibration. I know what to do next
time. Thanks!
Gary Casey
C177RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Static discharges from plastic airplanes |
I have a question: I am building a Lancair ES, which has an epoxy/glass
structure, but has epoxy/graphite ailerons and elevators. I am tempted to
run a ground wire to the hinge points and put static discharge wicks on
these surfaces. The battery will be in the rear, so the run to the tail
isn't too long to the battery ground post. On the way to the front of the
plane I would connect the main ground to ground wires that will run out
inside the wing trailing edge to the wingtips, doubling as the static
discharge and the ground for the wingtip components (pitot heat, lights). I
have planned to put a ground lug under the hinge bolt on the wing and then
run a flexible strap across each hinge I could ground the landing gear,
which is steel, to this as well. I have heard stories of pilots getting
zapped through the flight controls, which are about the only all-metal
components that lead to the extremities of the aircraft. The plane is
intended for IFR conditions. What do you think?
Gary Casey
Lancair ES, no wires yet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
Bob,
I'm still getting an aeroelectric websiet that has Apache on it and not
yours.
RHDudley
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >In trying to get to your website, using www.aeroelectric.com, I get some
> >other website with the "Apache" name on it. I cannot seem to reach your
> >website. Has something changed?
>
> The folks who make bid decisions as to how our data gets
> shuffled around the Internet decided that bytes to and from
> our website (and others hosted by Paul Franz) were not
> shuffling right . . . Sooooooooo they decided to hammer and
> saw on some things which caused Paul a lot of work to reconnect
> things. The new connectivity addresses were broadcast some
> time ago and the site is back up for MOST folk. I've had
> several calls this weekend from people who's domain name
> servers haven't updated with the new data . . . but it should
> all come together soon.
>
> Make sure your browser isn't parking on a cached file . . .
> hit reload (Netscape) or refresh (I.E.) to make sure your
> browser is really LOOKING for the new routing.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
> ( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
> ( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
> ( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
> ( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
> ( - Epictetus )
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harley, Ageless Wings" <Harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
Bob...
>>Make sure your browser isn't parking on a cached file...to make sure your
browser is really LOOKING for the new routing.<<
Nope...refresh doesn't do it. It's not stored in the cache. I still get
that "Powered by Apache" page that lists weather links around the world, and
11 hosted web sites. Only the "The AeroElectric Connection" and "Data
Structures West" DON'T work, and reload this "Apache" page. All the others
go to the respective pages.
I've never been to Data Structures West, so it couldn't have been in my
cache. Looks like your hosting service has a little more work to do.
Harley
Doing it right is no excuse for
not meeting the schedule
_
Harley Dixon \
------------------------------ \ |
--- www.AgelessWings.com --- I<=====>
------------------------------ / |
_/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING |
A TUNE UP . . .]
Bob,
Me, too - can't get past the host web page with Apache stuff into
Aeroelectric page.
David Carter, Nederland, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Dudley" <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . .
>
> Bob,
> I'm still getting an aeroelectric websiet that has Apache on it and not
> yours.
> RHDudley
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >Bob,
> > >In trying to get to your website, using www.aeroelectric.com, I get
some
> > >other website with the "Apache" name on it. I cannot seem to reach your
> > >website. Has something changed?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com> |
| Subject: | RE: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
>
>Bob...
>
>>>Make sure your browser isn't parking on a cached file...to make sure your
>browser is really LOOKING for the new routing.<<
>
>Nope...refresh doesn't do it. It's not stored in the cache. I still get
>that "Powered by Apache" page that lists weather links around the world, and
>11 hosted web sites. Only the "The AeroElectric Connection" and "Data
>Structures West" DON'T work, and reload this "Apache" page. All the others
>go to the respective pages.
>
>I've never been to Data Structures West, so it couldn't have been in my
>cache. Looks like your hosting service has a little more work to do.
Nope, your domain name server to which your ISP subscribes hasn't updated
yet.
I can access the site via FTP and Browser using both www.aeroelectric.com
and aeroelectric.com domain names.
The new IP addresses are broadcast to everybody at the same time. I'm
mystified why some servers pick up the new data and others don't. Further,
if a particular server misses an update, I'm unclear as to the mechanism
or the time delay for getting it again. You might drop a note to your
ISP's support folk and suggest they "tickle" their DNS update.
Bob . . .
( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
( - Epictetus )
http://www.aeroelectric.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Steitle <msteitle(at)mail.utexas.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . |
. .
Bob,
Just to make things a bit more interesting, I clicked on the Aeroelectric
url in your message, to see what would happen, and it took me to the Apache
website too. I have never been there before. --- Mark
>
>
>
> >
> >Bob...
> >
> >>>Make sure your browser isn't parking on a cached file...to make sure your
> >browser is really LOOKING for the new routing.<<
> >
> >Nope...refresh doesn't do it. It's not stored in the cache. I still get
> >that "Powered by Apache" page that lists weather links around the world, and
> >11 hosted web sites. Only the "The AeroElectric Connection" and "Data
> >Structures West" DON'T work, and reload this "Apache" page. All the others
> >go to the respective pages.
> >
> >I've never been to Data Structures West, so it couldn't have been in my
> >cache. Looks like your hosting service has a little more work to do.
>
> Nope, your domain name server to which your ISP subscribes hasn't updated
> yet.
>
> I can access the site via FTP and Browser using both www.aeroelectric.com
> and aeroelectric.com domain names.
>
> The new IP addresses are broadcast to everybody at the same time. I'm
> mystified why some servers pick up the new data and others don't. Further,
> if a particular server misses an update, I'm unclear as to the mechanism
> or the time delay for getting it again. You might drop a note to your
> ISP's support folk and suggest they "tickle" their DNS update.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ( "If a man opposes evident truths, it is not easy to find arguments )
> ( by which we shall make him change his opinion. But this does not )
> ( arise either from the man's strength or the teacher's weakness; for )
> ( when the man, though he has been confuted, is hardened like a )
> ( stone, how shall we then be able to deal with him by argument? " )
> ( - Epictetus )
> http://www.aeroelectric.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank, Dan" <DFrank(at)dfwairport.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator Wiring |
Bob and others,
I am in the process of the FWF wiring and have a question on the alternator
wiring. I have a Nippondenso 40A internally regulated alternator and am
using OV module and OV relay as detailed by Bob. My question lies in which
wire hooks to what. The alternator has two wires coming from it. A green
wire marked "IG" and a yellow wire marked "L". According to Bob's diagram,
one wire goes to ground the other to the batt/alt master switch. Does
anyone know which wire goes where?
Thanks in advance.
Dan Frank
RV-8 FWF and electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michel Therrien <mtherr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
Can you provide the IP address of your site so we go
direct to it rather than wait for our ISP to sync...?
--- "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > At 10:10 AM 10/22/01
-0400, you wrote:
> Nope, your domain name server to which your ISP
> subscribes hasn't updated
> yet.
=====
----------------------------
Michel Therrien CH601-HD
http://pages.infinit.net/mthobby
http://mthobby.pcperfect.com/ch601
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Mills <courierboy(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
You wrote:
>
>Some internet providers (Time Warner) also caches web pages. And
>some domain name servers are
>real slow in getting updated (weeks!).
>
>Finn
I hope this is the case with earthlink. I fully understand the web
page I find, and most of the sites hosted by Paul are "receptive".
AeroElectric connection just keeps bouncing me right back to the same
start-up page.
Are some of you guys saying this is an Earthlink-related problem?
Neither I.E. or Netscape will work.
> Bob, what is your new IP address?
> Until that propagates throughout all the different domain name
>servers, people can
> reach your website by typing that in directly.
> BTW, I can reach your site just fine with www.aeroelectric.com.
> Finn
Yes, if I can get to your site using the IP address, we can begin
equipping my RANS Courier with "electro-goodies"!
Thank you -
Bill Mills
RANS Courier in progress
SF bay area, Calif.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Froehlich" <carlfro(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Wiring |
IG stands for "ignition". This wire provides the source voltage for the
internal regulator to use as a reference. I connected this to the 5 amp
alternator OV breaker (the one that trips on the OV crowbar sensing a over
voltage, dropping out the alternator output contactor).
The L stands for "light". This provides the ground path for your low
voltage light. Connect the light to +12 volts on one side, to the L
connecting on the other. When the alternator is running, L is at buss
voltage so the light is off as there is no differential voltage across the
light. If the alternator dies, L goes to ground potential, thus the light
comes on as there is 12 volts across the light.
Carl Froehlich
RV8A (glassing the windshield tonight)
Vienna, VA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank, Dan" <DFrank(at)dfwairport.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Alternator Wiring
>
> Bob and others,
>
> I am in the process of the FWF wiring and have a question on the
alternator
> wiring. I have a Nippondenso 40A internally regulated alternator and am
> using OV module and OV relay as detailed by Bob. My question lies in
which
> wire hooks to what. The alternator has two wires coming from it. A green
> wire marked "IG" and a yellow wire marked "L". According to Bob's
diagram,
> one wire goes to ground the other to the batt/alt master switch. Does
> anyone know which wire goes where?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Dan Frank
> RV-8 FWF and electrical
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Nellis" <mnellis(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
Try http://209.134.106.21/
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: OUR WEBSITE WAS GETTING A TUNE UP . . . |
October 08, 2001 - October 22, 2001
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-aj