AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ar

March 13, 2002 - March 26, 2002



       using Fast-Ons to join thermocouple wires with the wires going into 
       my EIS 4000.  Now Bob is talking about switches.  The EIS 4000 
       doesn't use any switches, as all thermocouple wires go into the unit, 
       and it can display data from all cylinders at once.
      
       The wires from the Fast-Ons to the EIS 4000 are thermocouple wires, 
       i.e. type J or K as appropriate.  Looking at one wire, I see the 
       following interfaces in order:
      
       Type J wire from thermocouple to male Fast-On tab;
       male Fast-On tab to female Fast-On tab;
       female Fast-On tab to Type J wire;
       Type J wire to male D-sub pin;
       male D-sub pin to female D-sub pin (connector attached to the back of 
       the EIS).  I can't tell what kind of wire is used from here on in.
      
       The parts I'm worried about are those associated with the Fast-On 
       tabs.  Everytime we have an interface with dissimilar metals, we'll 
       create a voltage.  The voltages at the two interfaces between the 
       Type J wire and the Fast-On tabs will cancel each other out, assuming 
       both interfaces are the same temperature.  So I don't see how using 
       Fast-On tabs creates a problem, but I'm certainly no expert, so I 
       could have this all messed up. Kevin Horton >>
      
      3/10/2002
      
      Hello Kevin (and Bob), I think that Bob has now responded and sorted out any 
      switch confusion, but I'd like to pursue this subject a bit further. What I'm 
      going to describe is how Vision Microsystems Inc. handles their thermocouple 
      inputs. It might give some confidence to what you are doing or uncover some 
      subtle aspect of this subject that is of value.
      
      With the VMS system I got 4 EGT and 4 CHT thermocouples already lead wired 
      with appropriate K and J wires that terminated in 1/4 inch wide male / female 
      push-ons. (I'm using the generic term "push-on" here because Fast On is a 
      proprietory AMP name and the distinction may be important to some people).
      
      VMS provides more J and K wire for transition and some Thomas and Betts fully 
      insulated push-ons that just get crimped onto the transition wire for 
      connecting to the push-on on the end of the lead wire coming from the 
      thermocouple. (I declined to use the provided T&B push-ons and purchased 
      fully insulated Molex Avi Krimp push-ons because the Avi Krimp push-ons have 
      the additional metal wire insulation crimping support and the T&B's did not).
      
      The J and K transition wires then go to a 25 pin D sub connector (in the 
      newer version of the VMS DPU (Data Processing Unit) which plugs into the DPU. 
      The D sub connector has stamped pins and the the transition wires are both 
      crimped and soldered to these pins. 
      
      VMS makes a big deal of the fact that one must use the special soldering flux 
      that they supply. I quote: "Apply NOKORODE flux to these leads, otherwise the 
      solder will not bond to the wire properly. NOTE:Read caution statements and 
      direction on container before use)". NOKORODE Regular Paste Flux is made by 
      Rectorseal in Houston TX. It contains zinc chloride, but no lead. It is 
      described as "Not for electronics use.....". It needs to be washed off with 
      water after soldering.
      
      It is a little puzzling to me as to why the wires must be soldered to the D 
      sub pins, but just crimping them to the push-ons on the other end is OK. It 
      would not be possible to solder to the push ons that VMS provided or the ones 
      that I used because of the insulation. Also I believe that the push-ons on 
      the end of the thermocouple lead wires were soldered on by the factory that 
      produced the thermocouples and the leads. (I can't easily check because the 
      leads are now all covered up in wire looms.) 
      
      This crimp only versus crimp plus soldering at the push-on junction would 
      seem to create an asymmetry and generate some erroneous signal. Maybe some 
      expert reading this can explain away my concern.
      
      The output from the DPU to the LCD VMS guages is via ribbon cable.
      
      So, with the exception of the soldering bit, it looks like you are doing what 
      VMS considers good practice. You might want to call VMS up (ask for Dave) and 
      discuss the pin soldering issue. Their number is 360-714-8203. Yes, I know 
      that you are not using their product, but they have always been very generous 
      in educating me.
      
      Good luck.
      
      'OC' Baker,  Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
      
      PS: The thermocouple leads in the Westach (800-400-7024) catalog are 
      terminated with push-on connectors. They make the statement that thermocouple 
      leads (which are offered in a variety of lengths) should not be cut. But they 
      also show patch (transition) cables leading to the instruments which may be 
      shortened or lengthened. The catalog doesn't say anything specific about 
      connecting patch cables to the instruments. Maybe a phone call to them would 
      be educational. Please share what you learn with the rest of us. Thanks.
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 13, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Cessna Split Master Switch
> > > > > By-in-large, the switches shouldn't be used > > for loads exceeding 10A, 100W landing lights > > and pitot heaters are only 8A . . . > >Bob, > >I was just about to hookup my two 55W landing lights to a relay coming off >off a 2-10 switch. > >Am I safe to assume from the above statement, that I could wire the 9.2A >(@12v) load directly to a switch and be okay (likewise for my 7.4A nav and >8A pitot tube loads)? I'd like to reduce parts count as much as possible >without affecting safety. > >Thanks, Rob (RV-6). You bet! In fact, if you had a 15A load you wanted to run through one of these switches, I'd have no problem with it as long as YOU have no problem with it. The issue is not whether any part is "rated" to the task. My article on switch ratings speaks to the issues of operating life. You're NEVER going to wear out a switch in an pleasure airplane that flies perhaps 100 hours and 50-75 flight cycles per year. Soooo . . . if you beat up on your switches and cut their rated lives by 90%, you're still in good shape with respect to electrically induced wear. The issue is HOW you view whatever that switch controls. If it's something critical to your comfortable completion of any given flight, then you need to have some sort of plan-B should the system associated with that switch become unavailable to you . . . There are LOTS of things that can bring a system down and switch wear is not high on the list of probabilities. Once you've placed all these considerations into perspective, then switch "worries" are off the radar screen. So what if you have to put a new switch in every 1000 hours or so? It costs a few dollars and takes 10 minutes. Try to sell THAT concept on to some certified bird! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gabriel A Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: ExpBus
Date: Mar 13, 2002
Bob: Some of us builders find redeeming value in the ExpBus product. I, personally, was willing to trade cost for time. I enjoy building, but I want to get my plane flying. If you offered a product similar to the ExpBus I would have bought it from you. The fact is that there is a market for this type of product. I'm sure that you could design a better and less expensive unit. Don't fight the market. Respectfully Gabe A Ferrer (RV6, working on installing electrical system) Cell: 561 758 8894 Voice or Fax: 561 622 0960 Email: ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 13, 2002
Subject: Re: Cessna Split Master Switch
From: <racker(at)rmci.net>
> > You bet! In fact, if you had a 15A load you wanted to run > through one of these switches, I'd have no problem with it > as long as YOU have no problem with it. Excellent, just wanted to make sure before wiring it up. Goodbye relays. Thanks again, Rob Acker (RV-6, final wiring following wing installation). ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Cessna Split Master Switch
Date: Mar 13, 2002
I've had some experience with a rocker switch that was used to control an avionics bus. It was the same as the "Cessna style" split master switch, but without the interlocking tabs. This rocker switch had problems with the contacts sticking shut because of huge inrush currents that some of the avionics had. These inrush currents were in the neighborhood of 300A even though the switch was fed with a 15A circuit breaker. The failure mode did nothing to prevent comfortable completion of the flight, but paying the warranty to replace them, downtime of the aircraft, and customer satisfaction WERE real issues. A homebuilder has much more freedom to decide to either put up with maintenance required, or change things. Changing anything on a certified bird is expensive. David Swartzendruber Wichita > -----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 > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:28 AM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cessna Split Master Switch > > > --> > > > > > > > > > By-in-large, the switches shouldn't be used > > > for loads exceeding 10A, 100W landing lights > > > and pitot heaters are only 8A . . . > > > >Bob, > > > >I was just about to hookup my two 55W landing lights to a > relay coming > >off off a 2-10 switch. > > > >Am I safe to assume from the above statement, that I could wire the > >9.2A > >(@12v) load directly to a switch and be okay (likewise for > my 7.4A nav and > >8A pitot tube loads)? I'd like to reduce parts count as > much as possible > >without affecting safety. > > > >Thanks, Rob (RV-6). > > > You bet! In fact, if you had a 15A load you wanted to run > through one of these switches, I'd have no problem with it > as long as YOU have no problem with it. The issue is not > whether any part is "rated" to the task. My article on > switch ratings speaks to the issues of operating life. > You're NEVER going to wear out a switch in an pleasure > airplane that flies perhaps 100 hours and 50-75 flight > cycles per year. Soooo . . . if you beat up on your > switches and cut their rated lives by 90%, you're > still in good shape with respect to electrically > induced wear. > > The issue is HOW you view whatever that switch controls. > If it's something critical to your comfortable completion > of any given flight, then you need to have some sort > of plan-B should the system associated with that switch > become unavailable to you . . . There are LOTS of things > that can bring a system down and switch wear is not > high on the list of probabilities. > > Once you've placed all these considerations into > perspective, then switch "worries" are off the radar > screen. So what if you have to put a new switch in > every 1000 hours or so? It costs a few dollars and > takes 10 minutes. Try to sell THAT concept on to > some certified bird! > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 13, 2002
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: New Adobe Acrobat reader
I just wanted to report that there is a new version of Adobe Acrobat Reader (v 5.0.5) out there, and that it appears to clean up some of the problems it had launching while downloading a .pdf file. It used to be that it was better to save the pdf to your local disk and view it that way, but this version apparently fixes that, at least for my machine. I know this was a problem for some of Bob's files at the aeroelectric connection website. Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 13, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: ExpBus
> > >Bob: >Some of us builders find redeeming value in the ExpBus product. I, >personally, was willing to trade cost for time. I enjoy building, but I >want to get my plane flying. > >If you offered a product similar to the ExpBus I would have bought it >from you. The fact is that there is a market for this type of product. > >I'm sure that you could design a better and less expensive unit. > >Don't fight the market. > >Respectfully The only thing the EXP bus offers the MIGHT save some time is the labeled switch panel. I've done the beat-n-bash analysis for this and similar products several times. You can't do any better than mounting generic switches, using fuseblocks and wiring per one of the published diagrams on our website. I'm not fighting the market, just explaining it. Most builders THINK they're saving time because they look at what appears to be a complex assembly that they would never want to take on themselves. Being their first project, they have no basis upon which to judge the trade off between an assembly that costs hundreds of $ against less than $100 worth of switches, fuseblocks and some wire. And for me, the most important feature of roll-yer-own switch panels and system architecture is your range of choices and options for future expansion or modification. The pre-fab assembly is a throwback to cookie-cutter airplanes like they push out the door down in Independence. If you're pleased with your purchase, I'm pleased for you. But as someone who has been there, done that, and don' wanna do it again . . . I'll have to continue to advise against such products. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: mprather(at)spro.net
Subject: Re: ExpBus
Date: Mar 13, 2002
One effect that I don't think is being communicated is that the ready-made panel (EXP bus) offers a place to start. Its a structure into which the non-electrician can start plugging . I believe that the idea of just starting with a breaker strip and nothing else may seem daunting to someone who can't visualize how the whole system works, and how its simplicity is elegant. The fuse block is a well engineered short cut, in a way. It does most everything that needs to be done and nothing else, from the standpoint of circuit protection. Matt Varieze N34RD ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 1:41 pm Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ExpBus > > > > > > >Bob: > >Some of us builders find redeeming value in the ExpBus product. I, > >personally, was willing to trade cost for time. I enjoy building, > but I > >want to get my plane flying. > > > >If you offered a product similar to the ExpBus I would have bought it > >from you. The fact is that there is a market for this type of > product.> > >I'm sure that you could design a better and less expensive unit. > > > >Don't fight the market. > > > >Respectfully > > > The only thing the EXP bus offers the MIGHT save some time > is the labeled switch panel. I've done the beat-n-bash > analysis for this and similar products several times. > You can't do any better than mounting generic switches, > using fuseblocks and wiring per one of the published > diagrams on our website. > > I'm not fighting the market, just explaining it. Most > builders THINK they're saving time because they look > at what appears to be a complex assembly that they > would never want to take on themselves. Being their > first project, they have no basis upon which to judge > the trade off between an assembly that costs hundreds > of $ against less than $100 worth of switches, fuseblocks > and some wire. > > And for me, the most important feature of roll-yer-own > switch panels and system architecture is your > range of choices and options for future expansion > or modification. The pre-fab assembly is a throwback > to cookie-cutter airplanes like they push out the door > down in Independence. > > If you're pleased with your purchase, I'm pleased for > you. But as someone who has been there, done that, and > don' wanna do it again . . . I'll have to continue > to advise against such products. > > Bob . . . > > > _- > - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - > _- > !! NEW !! > _- > List Related Information > _- > ======================================================================= > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gretz aero" <warrengretz(at)gretzaero.com>
"Tailwind-List" , "RV-List" , "Rocket-List" , "Lancair-List" , "Glasair-List" , "EZ-List" , "Avionics-List" , "AeroElectric-List"
Subject: Gretz Aero website
Date: Mar 13, 2002
Hello Listers, I would like to invite you to visit my website for many aircraft items you may be very interested in for your homebuilt. The address is, http://www.gretzaero.com I hope you find my products and the information there of interest to you. Warren Gretz Gretz Aero 303-770-3811 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2002
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Wig-Wag - FOLLOW-UP
Bob, I wonder if you have come to any conclusions about the Galls 039 flasher unit that I sent you? Can that model be made to behave or do I need to buy the 033 model? Regards, RHDudley Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > > >Bob, > >Earlier, I removed the yellow-brown combination from the switch and it > >had no effect. > >I joined the yellow-brow combination with the red wire and the logic > >table remains the same. > > When I developed the wiring diagrams posted > on my website, I had examples of the Galls products > to test on the bench and make sure that it > would work as advertised. If you'll send me your > flasher, I'll figure out what needs to be done > to make it work in your airplane. > > Ship it to 6936 Bainbridge Road, Wichita, KS > 67226-1008 > > Bob . . . > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 14, 2002
Bob, I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when they are talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase this in a very blunt fashion. We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft electrical systems. We constantly hear about little "gotchas". For instance, there's been a recent discussion regarding accuracy in temperature probe leads -- where you have to use the right kind of parts or stuff doesn't work right. One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your book, your website and other materials, and your very appreciated time on this mailing list... I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell you what I have in my airplane, give you a credit card number, and have a box appear on my doorstep a week later with everything I need in kit form with clear enough instructions I can go ahead. Wire for temperature probes in one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, etc. An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as you can make them without actually being in front of the airplane. (Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you could get from a list of items.) And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one smiling man from Kansas ready to install everything. Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references for where to get things. However, I personally really like one-stop shopping. I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. But when I started this project, I sorta thought the electrical system would be the easy part. You know, run a few cables from the battery, install some breakers or fuses and some switches, and I'm all set. But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of connectors to use, and whether you should solder them or not. The type of wire to use. Everything associated with temperature and pressure probes. The size and type of wires going to my strobe lights.... And I realize that my previous knowledge would be sufficient to wire the aircraft, by my ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my electrical system goes belly up. What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On the other hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder just what ELSE I don't know. The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't really make the project any faster and adds money. I really bet you can do a lot better for us than that. --- Note that it might be possible to create a web page that would ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I can do the programming, but don't have a clue about the questions or answers. Again, something to think about. -Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Prefab electrical systems
> >Bob, > >I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when they are >talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase this in a very blunt >fashion. > >We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft electrical >systems. We constantly hear about little "gotchas". For instance, >there's been a recent discussion regarding accuracy in temperature >probe leads -- where you have to use the right kind of parts or stuff >doesn't work right. > >One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your book, >your website and other materials, and your very appreciated time >on this mailing list... > >I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell you what >I have in my airplane, give you a credit card number, and have a >box appear on my doorstep a week later with everything I need >in kit form with clear enough instructions I can go ahead. Wire for >temperature probes in one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, >etc. > >An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as you >can make them without actually being in front of the airplane. >(Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you could get >from a list of items.) I've looked at this . . . many times and lots of hours of thought. I do have a concept for a line of products but here's the problem: The fastest way to stop the evolution of a system is to start stamping it out with a cookie cutter . . . that's what you get with certified ships. The time and expense of developing the cookie cutter is not trivial. Once the design is debugged and product is rolling out the door, how eager will the manufacturer be to evolve his product? Experimental aircraft were the first to take advantage of products like the micro-encoder, micro-monitor, etc. But those products have not seen major changes since their debut in spite of the fact that new devices available ten years later make it smaller, faster and perhaps less expensive. Initial investment in that "cookie cutter" is hard to write off . . . The ultra flexible approach is to work from the box of "tinker-toys" and allow the system to evolve in small ways as new products are identified. This has another advantage: The system can be configured in a manner that best meets your vision of the airplane's mission. Look at all the variations on the them in Appendix Z of the book . . . how many choices would you have if I sent you a box of goodies stamped out with my cookie-cutter? >And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one smiling >man from Kansas ready to install everything. > >Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. >Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references for >where to get things. However, I personally really like one-stop >shopping. With respect to the electrical system, you should be able to get the vast majority of what's needed at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html >I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. >Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. But when I >started this project, I sorta thought the electrical system would be >the easy part. You know, run a few cables from the battery, >install some breakers or fuses and some switches, and I'm all set. I'm betting it going to be just that simple. . . >But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of connectors >to use, and whether you should solder them or not. The type of >wire to use. Everything associated with temperature and pressure >probes. The size and type of wires going to my strobe lights.... >And I realize that my previous knowledge would be sufficient >to wire the aircraft, by my ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. The first question to resolve is whether or not you NEED any connectors. Except for airplanes that are trailered and need to dismount the wings between flights, I've never found a justification for the use of ANY connector in the electrical system other than those needed to interface with a product. In these cases, the connector style is already dictated and you have few decisions . . . solder or crimp. Either is capable of doing a really good job. It's up to you as what you're willing/able to learn or how much you can spend for special tools. >I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my electrical >system goes belly up. You've been reading too many "dark and stormy night" stories in the flying journals. The ulimate purpose of this list-server is to eliminate the term "emergency" from all discussions about the electrical system. It's not hard to do as long as government isn't "helping." >What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On the other >hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder just what ELSE >I don't know. The next time you hear about ANY problem, let's talk about it right here. Let's understand the physics and philosophy that precipitated the problem and then deduce a means for avoiding that problem in your airplane. >The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't >really make the project any faster and adds money. I really bet >you can do a lot better for us than that. Already have my friend. If I were building an airplane today, I'd be very comfortable with selecting parts from the catalog cited above with confidence that the end result will be light, easy to put in, low maintenance, failure tolerant, and a whole lot less expensive than any pre-fab products in the current marketplace. >Note that it might be possible to create a web page that would >ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I can do the >programming, but don't have a clue about the questions or answers. >Again, something to think about. You've illuminated every teacher's greatest challenge. I'd give my left arm for an ability to do the "Vulcan mind meld" on students and instantly share everything I know. (Hmmmm . . . I think the mind meld is a two-handed exercise, maybe I'd better offer my left foot). Given the current state of technology, that's not possible (but who knows about 50 years from now?). So, we're stuck with doing it the hard way. There are a lot of technological tools to help (like this List-Server). Until the next evolution in the exchange of information comes along, we'll just have to do the best we can with what we have. If you have concerns about how your electrical system should go together, you're in the right place. There are folks on this list that have been there, done that, and will have suggestions to address your concerns. It won't be as easy as checking a box on an order form but trust me, you ARE going to be confident about and pleased with the results. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Foerster" <jfoerst(at)jps.net>
Subject: Where to get tefzel wire strippers
Date: Mar 14, 2002
Bob, I appreciate the latest article on wire strippers. Could you give us the brand and possible source for the 'dull' machined die stripper in the illustration of the good one? Sometimes its best just to pay the freight and get something that does it right for your lifetime. Jim Foerster Jabiru J400 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com>
Subject: flag type faston terminals
Date: Mar 14, 2002
I'm looking for flag style .25" faston terminals for a location with tight clearance. Digi-Key has some (Molex #19006-0001; Digi-Key #WM18242-ND for 22-18 ga.) but according to their catalog, it requires a special $368 crimp tool! Does anyone know of an alternative terminal that doesn't require a special crimper or a reliable method of attaching the Molex terminals without the expensive crimper? Chris Heitman Dousman WI RV-9A N94ME (reserved) http://www.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2002
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle(at)mail.utexas.edu>
Subject: Re: Prefab electrical systems
Paul, I trust that you're taking your digital camera along. I've been curious to hear how Tom's project is coming along. Mark Lancair ES/20b > > > > > >Bob, > > > >I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when they are > >talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase this in a very blunt > >fashion. > > > >We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft electrical > >systems. We constantly hear about little "gotchas". For instance, > >there's been a recent discussion regarding accuracy in temperature > >probe leads -- where you have to use the right kind of parts or stuff > >doesn't work right. > > > >One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your book, > >your website and other materials, and your very appreciated time > >on this mailing list... > > > >I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell you what > >I have in my airplane, give you a credit card number, and have a > >box appear on my doorstep a week later with everything I need > >in kit form with clear enough instructions I can go ahead. Wire for > >temperature probes in one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, > >etc. > > > >An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as you > >can make them without actually being in front of the airplane. > >(Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you could get > >from a list of items.) > > I've looked at this . . . many times and lots of hours > of thought. I do have a concept for a line of products > but here's the problem: The fastest way to stop the > evolution of a system is to start stamping it out with > a cookie cutter . . . that's what you get with certified > ships. The time and expense of developing the cookie > cutter is not trivial. Once the design is debugged and > product is rolling out the door, how eager will the > manufacturer be to evolve his product? > > Experimental aircraft were the first to take advantage > of products like the micro-encoder, micro-monitor, etc. > But those products have not seen major changes since > their debut in spite of the fact that new devices > available ten years later make it smaller, faster and > perhaps less expensive. Initial investment in that > "cookie cutter" is hard to write off . . . > > The ultra flexible approach is to work from the box > of "tinker-toys" and allow the system to evolve in > small ways as new products are identified. This has > another advantage: The system can be configured in > a manner that best meets your vision of the airplane's > mission. Look at all the variations on the them in > Appendix Z of the book . . . how many choices would > you have if I sent you a box of goodies stamped out > with my cookie-cutter? > > >And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one smiling > >man from Kansas ready to install everything. > > > >Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. > >Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references for > >where to get things. However, I personally really like one-stop > >shopping. > > With respect to the electrical system, you should be able > to get the vast majority of what's needed at: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html > > > >I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. > >Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. But when I > >started this project, I sorta thought the electrical system would be > >the easy part. You know, run a few cables from the battery, > >install some breakers or fuses and some switches, and I'm all set. > > I'm betting it going to be just that simple. . . > > > >But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of connectors > >to use, and whether you should solder them or not. The type of > >wire to use. Everything associated with temperature and pressure > >probes. The size and type of wires going to my strobe lights.... > >And I realize that my previous knowledge would be sufficient > >to wire the aircraft, by my ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. > > The first question to resolve is whether or not you NEED > any connectors. Except for airplanes that are trailered > and need to dismount the wings between flights, I've > never found a justification for the use of ANY connector > in the electrical system other than those needed to > interface with a product. > > In these cases, the connector style is already dictated > and you have few decisions . . . solder or crimp. Either > is capable of doing a really good job. It's up to you as > what you're willing/able to learn or how much you can > spend for special tools. > > >I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my electrical > >system goes belly up. > > You've been reading too many "dark and stormy night" stories > in the flying journals. The ulimate purpose of this > list-server is to eliminate the term "emergency" from > all discussions about the electrical system. It's > not hard to do as long as government isn't "helping." > > >What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On the other > >hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder just what ELSE > >I don't know. > > The next time you hear about ANY problem, let's talk > about it right here. Let's understand the physics and > philosophy that precipitated the problem and then > deduce a means for avoiding that problem in your > airplane. > > >The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't > >really make the project any faster and adds money. I really bet > >you can do a lot better for us than that. > > Already have my friend. If I were building an airplane > today, I'd be very comfortable with selecting parts > from the catalog cited above with confidence that the > end result will be light, easy to put in, low maintenance, > failure tolerant, and a whole lot less expensive than > any pre-fab products in the current marketplace. > > > >Note that it might be possible to create a web page that would > >ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I can do the > >programming, but don't have a clue about the questions or answers. > >Again, something to think about. > > You've illuminated every teacher's greatest challenge. > I'd give my left arm for an ability to do the "Vulcan mind > meld" on students and instantly share everything I know. > (Hmmmm . . . I think the mind meld is a two-handed exercise, > maybe I'd better offer my left foot). > > Given the current state of technology, that's not possible > (but who knows about 50 years from now?). So, we're stuck > with doing it the hard way. There are a lot of technological > tools to help (like this List-Server). Until the next > evolution in the exchange of information comes along, we'll > just have to do the best we can with what we have. > > If you have concerns about how your electrical system > should go together, you're in the right place. There are > folks on this list that have been there, done that, and > will have suggestions to address your concerns. It won't > be as easy as checking a box on an order form but trust > me, you ARE going to be confident about and pleased with > the results. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2002
From: Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com>
Subject: Re: flag type faston terminals
Check Terminaltown at : http://terminaltown.com/ > >I'm looking for flag style .25" faston terminals for a location with tight >clearance. Digi-Key has some (Molex #19006-0001; Digi-Key #WM18242-ND for >22-18 ga.) but according to their catalog, it requires a special $368 crimp >tool! Does anyone know of an alternative terminal that doesn't require a >special crimper or a reliable method of attaching the Molex terminals >without the expensive crimper? > >Chris Heitman >Dousman WI >RV-9A N94ME (reserved) >http://www.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 14, 2002
Bob, When I started my project, I didn't know much about aircraft electrical systems. I read various books and eventually found Bob's Web site and got hold of his book. Wow. I've learned so much, and had fun doing it. I bought almost all of my electrical wiring items from his catalog. Very affordable. I have breadboarded up and experimented with at least 2 different electrical systems for my aircraft, and have tried many variations and simulated various types of failures. Very comforting to know whats going on behind the panel. Neither of my systems is exactly like any one of his drawings, but borrows parts from many with a few of my own. Over time you really start to appreciate Bob's approach. The 20 amp, 12 volt power supply I bought to power all of this stuff on my bench was well worth it. I have a fully functioning prototype instrument panel with which to work out all the various details, before I commit to a final design. Talk about confidence building. This is the way ! to learn about electrical systems and fault tolerant designs. Its also a nice way to show off all those cool instruments and goodies before you get them in the airplane. Fire up the power supply, Flip the master switch, turn on the instrument lights. Turn off the shop lights. Real nice. THE ONLY WAY TO GO! Thanks Bob. John -----Original Message----- From: Joe Larson [mailto:jpl(at)showpage.org] Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems Bob, I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when they are talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase this in a very blunt fashion. We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft electrical systems. We constantly hear about little "gotchas". For instance, there's been a recent discussion regarding accuracy in temperature probe leads -- where you have to use the right kind of parts or stuff doesn't work right. One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your book, your website and other materials, and your very appreciated time on this mailing list... I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell you what I have in my airplane, give you a credit card number, and have a box appear on my doorstep a week later with everything I need in kit form with clear enough instructions I can go ahead. Wire for temperature probes in one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, etc. An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as you can make them without actually being in front of the airplane. (Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you could get from a list of items.) And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one smiling man from Kansas ready to install everything. Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references for where to get things. However, I personally really like one-stop shopping. I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its arrival. Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. But when I started this project, I sorta thought the electrical system would be the easy part. You know, run a few cables from the battery, install some breakers or fuses and some switches, and I'm all set. But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of connectors to use, and whether you should solder them or not. The type of wire to use. Everything associated with temperature and pressure probes. The size and type of wires going to my strobe lights.... And I realize that my previous knowledge would be sufficient to wire the aircraft, by my ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my electrical system goes belly up. What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On the other hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder just what ELSE I don't know. The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't really make the project any faster and adds money. I really bet you can do a lot better for us than that. --- Note that it might be possible to create a web page that would ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I can do the programming, but don't have a clue about the questions or answers. Again, something to think about. -Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps
?
Date: Mar 14, 2002
> >Bob and Piers, > > > >Thank you for your messages. > >Now I realize I have to dig deeper into that servo system before making > >decisions. > >We'll call the kit manufacturer to get thir schematics. > > > >thanks again, > > > >Gilles > > Could you ask them to fax a copy to me too? 316.685.8617 > > If we're all looking at the same piece of paper, we're in > a better position to evaluate the design. > > Bob . . . Hi Bob, For reasons unknown to us (maybe liability), Dyn'aero wasn't willing to divulge their flaps electrical diagram. But in a conversation over the phone with their electrician, my builing buddy was able to get some information : The system seems rather straightforward, including a rotary switch ( our projected guitar switch), a small control box containing screwdriver adjustable pots to define the different flaps positions, and a bulky linear pot driven by the flaps motor screw to "follow" the flaps actual position. There are also 2 limit switches to prevent mechanical damage at either end of the drive nut travel. There are 4 positions : full up, takeoff, normal landing, full down (short landing). The rotary switch seems to be of the "break before make" family. Do you think this layout is a known standard ? Are there any drawbacks, or is it prone to dangerous failure modes ? We have the notion we are able to understand electrical diagrams, but not skilled enough to produce one by ourselves. So, last but not least, do you think you could suggest some schematics using those components, but nonetheless in accordance with your principles ? Thanks for your help, Gilles . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Where to get tefzel wire strippers
> >Bob, > I appreciate the latest article on wire strippers. Could you give >us the brand and possible source for the 'dull' machined die stripper in >the illustration of the good one? Sometimes its best just to pay the >freight and get something that does it right for your lifetime. > >Jim Foerster Jabiru J400 > Sure. Go to http://www.newark.com/find/searchResults.jsp?action=0&First=0&QText=58f551 click the "buy" box and take it from there . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 14, 2002
Sounds nice. I'll soon be starting my panel, and have been wondering if anyone wires their whole plane on the bench, and then installs it. And what's the advantage of doing that? Any pictures of your "breadboard"? - Larry Bowen RV-8 fuse Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:33 PM > To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com' > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > > Civ ASC/ENFD > --> > > Bob, > > When I started my project, I didn't know much about > aircraft electrical systems. I read various books and > eventually found Bob's Web site and got hold of his book. > Wow. I've learned so much, and had fun doing it. I bought > almost all of my electrical wiring items from his catalog. > Very affordable. I have breadboarded up and experimented with > at least 2 different electrical systems for my aircraft, and > have tried many variations and simulated various types of > failures. Very comforting to know whats going on behind the > panel. Neither of my systems is exactly like any one of his > drawings, but borrows parts from many with a few of my own. > Over time you really start to appreciate Bob's approach. The > 20 amp, 12 volt power supply I bought to power all of this > stuff on my bench was well worth it. I have a fully > functioning prototype instrument panel with which to work out > all the various details, before I commit to a final design. > Talk about confidence building. This is the way ! to learn > about electrical systems and fault tolerant designs. Its also > a nice way to show off all those cool instruments and goodies > before you get them in the airplane. Fire up the power > supply, Flip the master switch, turn on the instrument > lights. Turn off the shop lights. Real nice. THE ONLY WAY TO > GO! Thanks Bob. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Larson [mailto:jpl(at)showpage.org] > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > > > > Bob, > > I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when > they are talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase > this in a very blunt fashion. > > We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft > electrical systems. We constantly hear about little > "gotchas". For instance, there's been a recent discussion > regarding accuracy in temperature probe leads -- where you > have to use the right kind of parts or stuff doesn't work right. > > One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your > book, your website and other materials, and your very > appreciated time on this mailing list... > > I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell > you what I have in my airplane, give you a credit card > number, and have a box appear on my doorstep a week later > with everything I need in kit form with clear enough > instructions I can go ahead. Wire for temperature probes in > one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, etc. > > An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as > you can make them without actually being in front of the > airplane. (Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you > could get from a list of items.) > > And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one > smiling man from Kansas ready to install everything. > > Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. > Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references > for where to get things. However, I personally really like > one-stop shopping. > > I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its > arrival. Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. > But when I started this project, I sorta thought the > electrical system would be the easy part. You know, run a > few cables from the battery, install some breakers or fuses > and some switches, and I'm all set. > > But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of > connectors to use, and whether you should solder them or not. > The type of wire to use. Everything associated with > temperature and pressure probes. The size and type of wires > going to my strobe lights.... And I realize that my previous > knowledge would be sufficient to wire the aircraft, by my > ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. > > I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my > electrical system goes belly up. > > What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On > the other hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder > just what ELSE I don't know. > > The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't > really make the project any faster and adds money. I really > bet you can do a lot better for us than that. > > --- > > Note that it might be possible to create a web page that > would ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I > can do the programming, but don't have a clue about the > questions or answers. Again, something to think about. > > -Joe > > > =========== > =========== > =========== > Search Engine: > http://www.matronics.com/search > =========== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Mar 14, 2002
Subject: Re: email
Bob I sent a battery question to your personal email by mistake. Did you receive it? Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 14, 2002
On 3/14 Joe wrote among other things: > Bob, > I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell you what > I have in my airplane, give you a credit card number, and have a > box appear on my doorstep a week later with everything I need > in kit form with clear enough instructions I can go ahead. Wire for > temperature probes in one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, > etc. > > -Joe Joe: If money is no object there are several companies offering completed, wired, and tested panels for RVs and other aircraft. Some of them offer choices of a few "standard" configurations from basic to all the bells and whistles; or they will build one to your specifications. See the ads in the magazines. As Bob has pointed out, if you elect this approach you will, for a pile of money get a conventional looking panel that you will no doubt see in other airplanes unless you opt for a completely customized one for really big bucks. Another approach, one I used, was to buy the boxes i.e. transponder, radios, intercom etc from a single avionics shop. I had them also make up the interconnecting cables and wire bundles. This simplified the installation and saved lots of time for a reasonalble expense. I am also confident that if you were to fabricate some or all of the panel itself, many avionics shops would be happy to fill it with gear and wire it for you. As for another poster wondering if panels are built and tested "on the bench" first. This is common practice for avionics suppliers, aircraft manufacturers, completion centers and naturally the custom shops mentioned above. Dick Sipp RV4-250DS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rodney Smith <rsmith(at)ak.net>
Date: Mar 14, 2002
Subject: Re: Prefab electrical systems
Sounds like a great way to go, where did you find the power supply? Thanks, Rod Smith > > Bob, > > When I started my project, I didn't know much about aircraft > electrical systems. I read various books and eventually found > Bob's Web site and got hold of his book. Wow. I've learned so > much, and had fun doing it. I bought almost all of my electrical > wiring items from his catalog. Very affordable. I have > breadboarded up and experimented with at least 2 different > electrical systems for my aircraft, and have tried many variations > and simulated various types of failures. Very comforting to know > whats going on behind the panel. Neither of my systems is exactly > like any one of his drawings, but borrows parts from many with a > few of my own. Over time you really start to appreciate Bob's > approach. The 20 amp, 12 volt power supply I bought to power all > of this stuff on my bench was well worth it. I have a fully > functioning prototype instrument panel with which to work out all > the various details, before I commit to a final design. Talk > about confidence building. This is the way ! > to learn about electrical systems and fault tolerant designs. Its > also a nice way to show off all those cool instruments and goodies > before you get them in the airplane. Fire up the power supply, > Flip the master switch, turn on the instrument lights. Turn off > the shop lights. Real nice. THE ONLY WAY TO GO! Thanks Bob. > > John > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 14, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca>
Subject: 16 AWG fusible link?
Bob, I need to fabricate a 16 AWG fusible link to protect the 12 AWG line between the battery and the SD-8 Standby Alternator control relay. This is as shown on your "All Electric Airplane on a Budget" drawing. The "comic book" on your web site that deals with fusible links specifically says that the instructions only apply to 22 or 24 AWG fusible links, and to contact you if a larger one is needed. So, what do I need to know to make a 16 AWG fusible link? Thanks, -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics) Ottawa, Canada http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2002
From: Kevin Kinney <kkinney(at)fuse.net>
Subject: Avionics for Dummies?
I've been on this list for a year and have learned tons about specific instrument applications. I'm embarrassed to admit I'm still vague on the overall options when it comes to instruments & avionics. My knowledge of instruments is restricted to those in the flight schools' 172. Is there a consumers guide for aircraft instrumentation? What should I know before I consider buying my first instruments. Any & all tips would be appreciated. My apologies if this is too global a question, but I'm trying to become an informed consumer. Regards, Kevin Kinney Zodiac 601XL Tail, ailerons & elevators complete Working on main wing body ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Don Eaves" <doneaves(at)midsouth.rr.com>
Subject: Re: ExpBus
Date: Mar 15, 2002
I have the EXP - It is a OK Product BUT >>> Thanks to the RV List & Finding Bob through it - If I had it to do over again I would of saved the money and went with Bob's Ideas and plans. When something in the panel fails - you have only 1 place to get the thing fixed. While you are grounded someplace. If I had installed Bob's automotive setup all I would have to do to fix 99% of the problems than may occur - Is go to your nearest AutoZone etc. Take his advice and save TIME, MONEY and increase reliability. If mine goes out I am ready to rip out the EXP and install Bob's System. Don Eaves Technical Counselor - A&P RV6 Flying 100 + Hours ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ExpBus > > > > > > >Bob: > >Some of us builders find redeeming value in the ExpBus product. I, > >personally, was willing to trade cost for time. I enjoy building, but I > >want to get my plane flying. > > > >If you offered a product similar to the ExpBus I would have bought it > >from you. The fact is that there is a market for this type of product. > > > >I'm sure that you could design a better and less expensive unit. > > > >Don't fight the market. > > > >Respectfully > > > The only thing the EXP bus offers the MIGHT save some time > is the labeled switch panel. I've done the beat-n-bash > analysis for this and similar products several times. > You can't do any better than mounting generic switches, > using fuseblocks and wiring per one of the published > diagrams on our website. > > I'm not fighting the market, just explaining it. Most > builders THINK they're saving time because they look > at what appears to be a complex assembly that they > would never want to take on themselves. Being their > first project, they have no basis upon which to judge > the trade off between an assembly that costs hundreds > of $ against less than $100 worth of switches, fuseblocks > and some wire. > > And for me, the most important feature of roll-yer-own > switch panels and system architecture is your > range of choices and options for future expansion > or modification. The pre-fab assembly is a throwback > to cookie-cutter airplanes like they push out the door > down in Independence. > > If you're pleased with your purchase, I'm pleased for > you. But as someone who has been there, done that, and > don' wanna do it again . . . I'll have to continue > to advise against such products. > > Bob . . . > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com>
Subject: Where to get tefzel wire strippers
Date: Mar 15, 2002
You can get the same stripper cheaper here: http://www.alliedelec.com Search for Mfg. part no.: 45-187. Cost is $147.31 ($19.77 less than Newark). I discovered this after ordering one from Newark :<( The stripper works great - never a nicked strand! It's a joy to use a tool that works exactly as it should. Chris Heitman Dousman WI RV-9A N94ME (reserved) plumbing engine http://www.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html -----Original Message----- Go to http://www.newark.com/find/searchResults.jsp?action=0&First=0&QText=58f551 click the "buy" box and take it from there . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Subject: Where to get tefzel wire strippers
I purchased the Ideal wire strippers with tefzel blades from Graybar Electric for $139 in may of last year. I think they are a nation wide company. That was the bill on my credit card so it must have included shipping. Hope this helps Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: email
> > >Bob > >I sent a battery question to your personal email by mistake. Did >you receive it? > >Jim Not that I've seen yet? Was it to aeroelectric.com or kscable.com? Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: email
> > >Bob > >I sent a battery question to your personal email by mistake. Did >you receive it? > >Jim Yep, found it: ------------------------ To: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: batteries Bob, There seems to be a great variance in price on the seal lead acid batteries. How can you tell what you are getting? Digikey sell a Panasonic lc-rd1217p for $37 ea. The battery store sells a Odesey(sp) 17ah PC-680 for $98. B&C's are even more. If I change one each year in a two battery system is there some compelling reason to pay top dollar? Jim Not that I can see. That's one of the advantage of yearly change-out philosophy . . . I think the lowest cost battery you can find would do the job at a minimum cost. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 15, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: 16 AWG fusible link?
> >Bob, > >I need to fabricate a 16 AWG fusible link to protect the 12 AWG line >between the battery and the SD-8 Standby Alternator control relay. >This is as shown on your "All Electric Airplane on a Budget" drawing. >The "comic book" on your web site that deals with fusible links >specifically says that the instructions only apply to 22 or 24 AWG >fusible links, and to contact you if a larger one is needed. > >So, what do I need to know to make a 16 AWG fusible link? Opps! You caught me with one foot in a bucket and the other one in the mud. That's supposed to be a 20AWG fuse link. Rational: Many RV-8 builders are putting the battery in the back which necessitates a long run from the SD-8 to the battery. I wanted to give the SD-8's regulator the best practical chance to take advantage of the battery's low internal resistance and to have a good notion of what the battery voltage was at the far end of the feeder. Soooo . . . the 12AWG feeder, while oversized for the alternator's output, supplied an electrically rigid connection of the SD-8 regulator to a tail mounted battery. In an airplane with a front battery (SD-8 feeder a couple of feet long) you can drop the SD-8 feeder to 16AWG and protect with 20AWG fusible link. If you have a long SD-8 feeder, go 12AWG feeder and stay with 20AWG fuse link. Use a yellow butt splice to grab the 12AWG . . . strip the 20AWG about an inch and fold it triple where it enters the wire grip. I'll put an explanation to this effect in the Revision 11 Z-notes . . . thank's for the head's up! Bob . . . >Thanks, >-- >Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics) >Ottawa, Canada >http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html > > Bob . . . -------------------------- TEMPORARY WEBSITE ADDRESS: http://209.134.106.21 -------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Bench prefab' electrical systems
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Larry, In my case there were several advantages: - I am building a welded tube aircraft (Tailwind with fuel in wing) and am concurrently working on the airframe and instrument panel. Welding, sandblasting and painting don't mix well with wiring and instruments. When it is too cold to go to the barn (I mean aircraft factory), I work in my house on the instruments and wiring. - I new I had a lot of learning to do and that I wanted to try some different things out, The prototype approach allows you to try things quickly and get a feel for the work and your tools. I have changed from a vacuum system to an all electric with backup SD8 alternator. Your not racked with angst if you screw something up. - I welded up a dummy portion of the front cabin using conduit to hold the instrument panel, fuse blocks, grounding wiring etc. This allowed me to work out almost all of the placement, attachment, and wiring details without interfering with the continuing construction of the aircraft fuselage. As soon as I get my digital camera installed I'll send some pictures. John -----Original Message----- From: Larry Bowen [mailto:Larry(at)BowenAero.com] Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems Sounds nice. I'll soon be starting my panel, and have been wondering if anyone wires their whole plane on the bench, and then installs it. And what's the advantage of doing that? Any pictures of your "breadboard"? - Larry Bowen RV-8 fuse Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:33 PM > To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com' > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > > Civ ASC/ENFD > --> > > Bob, > > When I started my project, I didn't know much about > aircraft electrical systems. I read various books and > eventually found Bob's Web site and got hold of his book. > Wow. I've learned so much, and had fun doing it. I bought > almost all of my electrical wiring items from his catalog. > Very affordable. I have breadboarded up and experimented with > at least 2 different electrical systems for my aircraft, and > have tried many variations and simulated various types of > failures. Very comforting to know whats going on behind the > panel. Neither of my systems is exactly like any one of his > drawings, but borrows parts from many with a few of my own. > Over time you really start to appreciate Bob's approach. The > 20 amp, 12 volt power supply I bought to power all of this > stuff on my bench was well worth it. I have a fully > functioning prototype instrument panel with which to work out > all the various details, before I commit to a final design. > Talk about confidence building. This is the way ! to learn > about electrical systems and fault tolerant designs. Its also > a nice way to show off all those cool instruments and goodies > before you get them in the airplane. Fire up the power > supply, Flip the master switch, turn on the instrument > lights. Turn off the shop lights. Real nice. THE ONLY WAY TO > GO! Thanks Bob. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Larson [mailto:jpl(at)showpage.org] > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > > > > Bob, > > I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when > they are talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase > this in a very blunt fashion. > > We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft > electrical systems. We constantly hear about little > "gotchas". For instance, there's been a recent discussion > regarding accuracy in temperature probe leads -- where you > have to use the right kind of parts or stuff doesn't work right. > > One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your > book, your website and other materials, and your very > appreciated time on this mailing list... > > I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell > you what I have in my airplane, give you a credit card > number, and have a box appear on my doorstep a week later > with everything I need in kit form with clear enough > instructions I can go ahead. Wire for temperature probes in > one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, etc. > > An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as > you can make them without actually being in front of the > airplane. (Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you > could get from a list of items.) > > And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one > smiling man from Kansas ready to install everything. > > Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. > Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references > for where to get things. However, I personally really like > one-stop shopping. > > I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its > arrival. Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. > But when I started this project, I sorta thought the > electrical system would be the easy part. You know, run a > few cables from the battery, install some breakers or fuses > and some switches, and I'm all set. > > But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of > connectors to use, and whether you should solder them or not. > The type of wire to use. Everything associated with > temperature and pressure probes. The size and type of wires > going to my strobe lights.... And I realize that my previous > knowledge would be sufficient to wire the aircraft, by my > ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. > > I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my > electrical system goes belly up. > > What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On > the other hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder > just what ELSE I don't know. > > The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't > really make the project any faster and adds money. I really > bet you can do a lot better for us than that. > > --- > > Note that it might be possible to create a web page that > would ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I > can do the programming, but don't have a clue about the > questions or answers. Again, something to think about. > > -Joe > > > =========== > =========== > =========== > Search Engine: > http://www.matronics.com/search > =========== > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Any of the electronics supply houses carry them. -----Original Message----- From: Rodney Smith [mailto:rsmith(at)ak.net] Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems Sounds like a great way to go, where did you find the power supply? Thanks, Rod Smith > > Bob, > > When I started my project, I didn't know much about aircraft > electrical systems. I read various books and eventually found > Bob's Web site and got hold of his book. Wow. I've learned so > much, and had fun doing it. I bought almost all of my electrical > wiring items from his catalog. Very affordable. I have > breadboarded up and experimented with at least 2 different > electrical systems for my aircraft, and have tried many variations > and simulated various types of failures. Very comforting to know > whats going on behind the panel. Neither of my systems is exactly > like any one of his drawings, but borrows parts from many with a > few of my own. Over time you really start to appreciate Bob's > approach. The 20 amp, 12 volt power supply I bought to power all > of this stuff on my bench was well worth it. I have a fully > functioning prototype instrument panel with which to work out all > the various details, before I commit to a final design. Talk > about confidence building. This is the way ! > to learn about electrical systems and fault tolerant designs. Its > also a nice way to show off all those cool instruments and goodies > before you get them in the airplane. Fire up the power supply, > Flip the master switch, turn on the instrument lights. Turn off > the shop lights. Real nice. THE ONLY WAY TO GO! Thanks Bob. > > John > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Subject: Re: email
Thanks Bob That was my feeling also. It's nice to have it confirmed, however. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Bench prefab' electrical systems
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Even if you don't hook up power, I heartily concur with the idea of using a mock-up. When I wired my RV-6 I did part of the radio stack on the dining room table...er avionics bench and the rest of the stack, panel and hook-up in the plane. When I finished I realized I could have saved my back and otherwise saved time and frustration by creating a mock-up of the panel, sub-panel and firewall and working out the routing, bundles and support on the bench. For a first-timer it would have been sooo much easier to just lay wires on a loom rather than snaking them one at a time thru tie-wraps and adel clamps. Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY ...Rebuilding! searching for Navion to fly > - I welded up a dummy portion of the front cabin using > conduit to hold the instrument panel, fuse blocks, grounding > wiring etc. This allowed me to work out almost all of the > placement, attachment, and wiring details without interfering > with the continuing construction of the aircraft fuselage. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: Avionics for Dummies?
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Hi Kevin, Don't feel bad! I just finished wiring my whole IFR panel for my RV6 and still don't understand everythin. The best thing you can do is purchase 'lectric Bob's book, the Aeroelectric Connection. It is simply the best book for anyone who is even thinking of wiring their own plane. Cheers, Stein Bruch RV6, Minneapolis, Finishing. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Kinney Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics for Dummies? I've been on this list for a year and have learned tons about specific instrument applications. I'm embarrassed to admit I'm still vague on the overall options when it comes to instruments & avionics. My knowledge of instruments is restricted to those in the flight schools' 172. Is there a consumers guide for aircraft instrumentation? What should I know before I consider buying my first instruments. Any & all tips would be appreciated. My apologies if this is too global a question, but I'm trying to become an informed consumer. Regards, Kevin Kinney Zodiac 601XL Tail, ailerons & elevators complete Working on main wing body http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Cameron" <toucan(at)78055.com>
Subject: Pull-up for B&C regulator
Date: Mar 15, 2002
Bob, Took me a while to get around to it, but I did finally get around to hanging a 200-ohm pull-up resistor between terminals 3 & 5 of the B&C regulator. It worked like a charm. With the Master on and battery voltage showing about 12.2, my Lo Volts alarm now blinks like crazy. Your diagnosis and my guess were obviously correct -- there was simply too much residual current flowing in the high (off) state to turn off my optoisolator. Thanks for the help. All seems to be working fine now. Jim Cameron Lancair Super ES, N143ES ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2002
From: John Lawson <jwlawson(at)hargray.com>
Subject: Turning off avionics during a hot mag check
This question (bottom of message) and a reply (just below) were posted on rec.aviation.homebuilt. Would be interested in getting an answer for me to post there. Bob, I already know your feelings about master switches and the effects from starting an engine on the avionics. So...for all...any comments on the question, and the answer? Semper Fi John RV-6 (left wing...a looooooong way from the panel) Turning them off for a mag check sounds like advice from an avionics shop that makes it's living replacing the swirches you wear out with all that cycling. The mags are an isolated system with no connection to the electrical system other than airframe ground and even if the mag drop is severe it's still no worse than changing the throttle or prop cycling for testing the voltage regulator. It is good practice to have them off during engine starting as voltage varies widely. It is also good to switch them off before the master on shut down because when the master is shut down the alternator can put out very high voltages this is called load dump in the automotive world. If the aircraft can be started with the master off (some can) AND there is a switch labeled alternator AND that switch (which controls the alternator's field exitation) is turned off before the master on shutdown then all the avionics will live longer if their switches are simply left on. Regards Jerry Ed Wischmeyer wrote: > Question came up tonight at an instructors' meeting -- should you turn > the avionics off to protect them when doing a hot mag check? I was > taught that you turn the avionics off to protect them from transients > from the master and starter solenoids, but hot mag checks were never mentioned. > > Similarly, what avionics (and what kinds of power supplies) are > susceptible to damage from solenoid-induced transients? Are, say, > switching power supplies robust or dainty? > > thanks > > Ed Wischmeyer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
Subject: DIY ATC antenna
Date: Mar 16, 2002
Cheers, Is there, do you suppose, an excuse for producing your own robust ATC Transponder antenna? I have installed several on WW II rebuilds and admire the simple elegance of a hundred-dollar item by the time it feels metal against its skin. Any thoughts out there? Thompson? Anyone? Ferg A064 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Pull-up for B&C regulator
> >Bob, > > Took me a while to get around to it, but I did finally get around to >hanging a 200-ohm pull-up resistor between terminals 3 & 5 of the B&C >regulator. It worked like a charm. With the Master on and battery voltage >showing about 12.2, my Lo Volts alarm now blinks like crazy. Your diagnosis >and my guess were obviously correct -- there was simply too much residual >current flowing in the high (off) state to turn off my optoisolator. > > Thanks for the help. All seems to be working fine now. > >Jim Cameron >Lancair Super ES, N143ES Pleased to get the feedback and equally pleased to hear that it's working as desired. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Prefab electrical systems
> > >Any of the electronics supply houses carry them. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rodney Smith [mailto:rsmith(at)ak.net] >To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > >Sounds like a great way to go, where did you find the power supply? Radio Shack's website at http://www.radioshack.com now sells the Samlex SEC1223 for less that I used to buy it wholesale. Go to their website and enter 910-3916 as a search term. I think the description is in error. It's really a 13.8 volt, 23A switchmode power supply. I sold about two dozen of them from our website catalog a coupld of years ago and gave a few away at weekend seminars. 23A will run EVERYTHING in your airplane as long as you don't turn pitot heat on too . . . It's on sale right now for $89.00 . . . Snap 'em up guys, this is a good price for that much snort in a power supply. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 16, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Turning off avionics during a hot mag check
> >Turning them off for a mag check sounds like advice from an avionics shop that >makes it's living replacing the swirches you wear out with all that cycling. Most switches die of old age and/or get corroded for lack of use. Every switch made is rated in the tens of thousands of cycles at full load . . . none of them ever make it that far in a single engine airplane and it's not because they were cycled too much . . . > The >mags are an isolated system with no connection to the electrical system >other than >airframe ground and even if the mag drop is severe it's still no worse than >changing the throttle or prop cycling for testing the voltage regulator. True . . . > It is >good practice to have them off during engine starting as voltage varies >widely. What are the physics that makes this a "good practice?" > It >is also good to switch them off before the master on shut down because >when the >master is shut down the alternator can put out very high voltages this is >called >load dump in the automotive world. In the automotive world, "load dump" is a battery disconnect while the alternator is working hard to recharge a discharged battery. See: bottom of first column on page 4 of http://209.134.106.21/articles/spike.pdf Load dump in the aircraft world is a situation where a load or combination of loads are simultaneously removed from the bus. In bizjets we see "load dump" when 200A air conditioner compressors or 100A de-ice heaters are shut off . . . the biggest load dump I've been able to deliberately generate in a Bonanza was to shut off landing, taxi, a/c and pitot heat switches all at once. With the current voltage regulators I measured a "bump" of less than 1.5 volts on the 28v bus that lasted for about 10 milliseconds before the regulator recovered. When you shut the alternator off, it quietly goes to sleep. No muss, no fuss and certainly no spikes. Now, there are some folks who have experienced unstable alternator operations during shutdown because they have separate battery and alternator switches . . . if the battery goes off first, then the alternator looses the benefit of electrical inertia offered by the battery. SOME alternator/regulator combinations don't like this and bus voltage may become erratic . . . until the alternator is also shut down . . . but it's still not hazardous to electro-goodies. This is why all of our power distribution diagrams call for either a 2-5 or 2-10 switch to control battery and alternator in the SAME switch. > If the aircraft can be started with the master >off (some can) AND there is a switch labeled alternator AND that switch (which >controls the alternator's field exitation) is turned off before the master on >shutdown then all the avionics will live longer if their switches are >simply left >on. Again, I am not aware of any transient condition that justifies these assertions. I've had all kinds of test equipment on airplanes over the years looking for gremlins and dragons . . . so have the folk who crafted DO-160 qualification testing. As always, if anyone has identified, measured and documented a hazard as yet undiscovered, I'd sure like to hear about it and I know a bunch of guys on the DO-160 committee that would like to know about it too . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: Graham Singleton <grasingleton(at)avnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: DIY ATC antenna
> >Cheers, > Is there, do you suppose, an excuse for producing your own >robust ATC Transponder antenna? I have installed several on WW II rebuilds >and admire the simple elegance of a hundred-dollar item by the time it feels >metal against its skin. > Any thoughts out there? Thompson? Anyone? >Ferg A064 Yes, in a plastic aeroplane a printed circuit dipole like the Jim Weir one works well. Wouldn't be difficult to make one. Graham ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: DIY ATC antenna
> > > > > >Cheers, > > Is there, do you suppose, an excuse for producing your own > >robust ATC Transponder antenna? I have installed several on WW II rebuilds > >and admire the simple elegance of a hundred-dollar item by the time it feels > >metal against its skin. > > Any thoughts out there? Thompson? Anyone? > >Ferg A064 > >Yes, in a plastic aeroplane a printed circuit dipole like the Jim Weir one >works well. Wouldn't be difficult to make one. > >Graham It's certainly not difficult to build an antenna that's heftier than the skinny-monopole antennas found on most small airplanes. The bizjets use "shark fin" style antennas that are indeed more robust . . . their price is equally more robust. Here's the "top dog" of transponder anntennas: http://www.comant.com/ci100.html This guy retails for about $225 depending on the connector you want. If anyone wants a puppy like this, I can order it for you. The underdogs on the totem pole are like our ANT-1: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#ant-1 Which we sell for about as low as anyone in the industry. I've seen this critter in several catalogs at $99. That's what prompted me to add them to my catalog. I talk about hand-crafted transponder antennas in the 'Connection. The goal is to get 2.8" of radiator outside the skin connected to the center conductor of your feedline with a minimum of exposed conductor in terms of both surface and length inside the skin. Intuitively the antennas illustrated above have ZERO exposed conductor inside the skin. I have a design for a transponder antenna that is carved out of a solid chunk of brass . . . antenna, radiator and feedpoint network are all one piece of material. A coax connector would thread into a hole in the base and solder to a small capacitor that in turn solders to a notch in the base section of the radiator. Okay, so it's EASY to build a very robust antenna IF you have access to the tools. Bottom line is that there are few ways an amateur builder (or even a professional) could go about it that would yield a good return on investment for the effort. $225 for "top dog" seems like a lot of money but would you be willing/able to put an hour or two of precision machining time into a do-it-yerself effort? I've been to factories that do this kind of thing and indeed, their out-the-door-cost of antenna like "top dog" are something on the order of $10-20. But they have to make the initial investment in tools and skills that can only be recovered by building thousands of antennas. They also have to endure the assistance of government in looking out for the best interests of their customers. Bob Archer's efforts in low tech labor approach to "protected" antennas is a good example of how some tomato-juice can materials and some knowledge can pay off. Once you stick the critters out in the air stream and weather, it's another task on top of the first. I've got some ideas I'm fiddling with and will probably publish some articles on them. But for now, if it were my airplane, I'd stick an ANT-1 on the belly and write off occasional replacement as dues paid to have the "pleasure" of owning the airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 17, 2002
Subject: soldering thermocouple wire
3/17/2002 Thanks. OC ______________ From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering thermocouple wire In a message dated 03/13/2002 2:52:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, nuckolls(at)kscable.com writes: << Don't know where "solder" was even mentioned much less recommended. You can't soft-solder thermocouple wires. You can silver-solder them but this is useful only for joining wires or making a thermocouple out of bulk wire.......skip..... >> 3/13/2002 Hello Again Bob, Soldering thermocouple wires was brought up in my responding posting to Kevin Horton (repeated below) wherein I quoted instructions from Vision Microsystems about soldering type J and K wires to stamped pins for their engine instrumentation system. You are now confirming that even this soldering has no value or effect? Also it would appear that push-on connectors when properly crimped and polarized would function the same as the connectors shown in Figure 14-13 of The Aeroelectric Connection. Thanks. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? Subj: fast ons for thermocouple wiring In a message dated 03/10/2002 2:53:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, khorton(at)cyberus.ca writes: << ....skip..... Hmm. I getting very confused. My original question was in regard to using Fast-Ons to join thermocouple wires with the wires going into my EIS 4000. Now Bob is talking about switches. The EIS 4000 doesn't use any switches, as all thermocouple wires go into the unit, and it can display data from all cylinders at once. The wires from the Fast-Ons to the EIS 4000 are thermocouple wires, i.e. type J or K as appropriate. Looking at one wire, I see the following interfaces in order: Type J wire from thermocouple to male Fast-On tab; male Fast-On tab to female Fast-On tab; female Fast-On tab to Type J wire; Type J wire to male D-sub pin; male D-sub pin to female D-sub pin (connector attached to the back of the EIS). I can't tell what kind of wire is used from here on in. The parts I'm worried about are those associated with the Fast-On tabs. Everytime we have an interface with dissimilar metals, we'll create a voltage. The voltages at the two interfaces between the Type J wire and the Fast-On tabs will cancel each other out, assuming both interfaces are the same temperature. So I don't see how using Fast-On tabs creates a problem, but I'm certainly no expert, so I could have this all messed up. Kevin Horton >> 3/10/2002 Hello Kevin (and Bob), I think that Bob has now responded and sorted out any switch confusion, but I'd like to pursue this subject a bit further. What I'm going to describe is how Vision Microsystems Inc. handles their thermocouple inputs. It might give some confidence to what you are doing or uncover some subtle aspect of this subject that is of value. With the VMS system I got 4 EGT and 4 CHT thermocouples already lead wired with appropriate K and J wires that terminated in 1/4 inch wide male / female push-ons. (I'm using the generic term "push-on" here because Fast On is a proprietory AMP name and the distinction may be important to some people). VMS provides more J and K wire for transition and some Thomas and Betts fully insulated push-ons that just get crimped onto the transition wire for connecting to the push-on on the end of the lead wire coming from the thermocouple. (I declined to use the provided T&B push-ons and purchased fully insulated Molex Avi Krimp push-ons because the Avi Krimp push-ons have the additional metal wire insulation crimping support and the T&B's did not). The J and K transition wires then go to a 25 pin D sub connector (in the newer version of the VMS DPU (Data Processing Unit) which plugs into the DPU. The D sub connector has stamped pins and the the transition wires are both crimped and soldered to these pins. VMS makes a big deal of the fact that one must use the special soldering flux that they supply. I quote: "Apply NOKORODE flux to these leads, otherwise the solder will not bond to the wire properly. NOTE:Read caution statements and direction on container before use)". NOKORODE Regular Paste Flux is made by Rectorseal in Houston TX. It contains zinc chloride, but no lead. It is described as "Not for electronics use.....". It needs to be washed off with water after soldering. It is a little puzzling to me as to why the wires must be soldered to the D sub pins, but just crimping them to the push-ons on the other end is OK. It would not be possible to solder to the push ons that VMS provided or the ones that I used because of the insulation. Also I believe that the push-ons on the end of the thermocouple lead wires were soldered on by the factory that produced the thermocouples and the leads. (I can't easily check because the leads are now all covered up in wire looms.) This crimp only versus crimp plus soldering at the push-on junction would seem to create an asymmetry and generate some erroneous signal. Maybe some expert reading this can explain away my concern. The output from the DPU to the LCD VMS guages is via ribbon cable. So, with the exception of the soldering bit, it looks like you are doing what VMS considers good practice. You might want to call VMS up (ask for Dave) and discuss the pin soldering issue. Their number is 360-714-8203. Yes, I know that you are not using their product, but they have always been very generous in educating me. Good luck. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? PS: The thermocouple leads in the Westach (800-400-7024) catalog are terminated with push-on connectors. They make the statement that thermocouple leads (which are offered in a variety of lengths) should not be cut. But they also show patch (transition) cables leading to the instruments which may be shortened or lengthened. The catalog doesn't say anything specific about connecting patch cables to the instruments. Maybe a phone call to them would be educational. Please share what you learn with the rest of us. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: soldering thermocouple wire
> > >In a message dated 03/13/2002 2:52:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, >nuckolls(at)kscable.com writes: > ><< Don't know where "solder" was even mentioned much less recommended. > You can't soft-solder thermocouple wires. You can silver-solder them > but this is useful only for joining wires or making a thermocouple > out of bulk wire.......skip..... >> First a bit of history: I think my first attempts to soft-solder thermocouples were carried out more that 30 years ago. I was attempting to terminate one either J or K thermocouple wire into a solder-cup connector at Electro-Mech and was NOT getting good flow of the solder over the wire. The boss came by and showed me how to "tin" the leads with a small torch and silver-solder. After that, soft solder would alloy with the new surface of silver solder and the wires were successfully joined with the connector. Yes, we introduced a number of new variables in the form of potential parasitic thermocouples of different alloys. The boss allowed as how whenever you hose Peter, ya gotta hose Paul the same way to even out the errors. Indeed, tests I ran with precision thermometers compared with slightly hosed thermocouples showed that induced errors were small . . on the order of 0.5 degrees C or less. From that time on, I've been operating under the notion that thermocouples are best silver-soldered or crimped . . . I went to the bench a couple of nights ago and fiddled around a bit with both J and K thermocouple wire. In this experiment, I WAS able to achieve good wetting of the molten solder (63/37) with both types of wire. J type soldered much more readily but K type eventually flowed well too . . . What I noticed was that it helped to push quite a bit excess solder into the melt and either shake off the excess or allow it to drip off the bottom. I'm sure that 63/37 alloy solder of 1972 is the same as today but the fluxes are not. The fact that K type wire alloyed more readily when excess solder was pushed into the joint tends to support the notion that the amount of flux in the operation was a factor for success. Sooooo . . . in light of the above, this ol' dog must acknowledge acquisition of a new "trick". Let us continue from this modified perspective: >3/13/2002 > >Hello Again Bob, Soldering thermocouple wires was brought up in my responding >posting to Kevin Horton (repeated below) wherein I quoted instructions from >Vision Microsystems about soldering type J and K wires to stamped pins for >their engine instrumentation system. You are now confirming that even this >soldering has no value or effect? Soldering any wire always has value IF it will do the things that solders are supposed to do . . . alloy with the base metals and provide both mechanical and electrical joining of the two materials to be mated. Effects of this "foreign" alloy in the thermocouple loop cannot be totally without effect . . . in this case and in the cases cited from my experiences above, the effects are insignificant. >Also it would appear that push-on connectors when properly crimped and >polarized would function the same as the connectors shown in Figure 14-13 of >The Aeroelectric Connection. Thanks. . . . Sorta . . . the connectors I illustrated in the book are fabricated from alloys that optimize thermocouple performance in spite of the connector . . . but again, the effects in this venue are insignificant . . . for example, suppose we knew that all of our hammer-n-saw'n could upset each loop by as much as =/- 5 degrees F. Would you care? > The wires from the Fast-Ons to the EIS 4000 are thermocouple wires, > i.e. type J or K as appropriate. Looking at one wire, I see the > following interfaces in order: > > Type J wire from thermocouple to male Fast-On tab; > male Fast-On tab to female Fast-On tab; > female Fast-On tab to Type J wire; > Type J wire to male D-sub pin; > male D-sub pin to female D-sub pin (connector attached to the back of > the EIS). I can't tell what kind of wire is used from here on in. > > The parts I'm worried about are those associated with the Fast-On > tabs. Everytime we have an interface with dissimilar metals, we'll > create a voltage. The voltages at the two interfaces between the > Type J wire and the Fast-On tabs will cancel each other out, assuming > both interfaces are the same temperature. So I don't see how using > Fast-On tabs creates a problem, but I'm certainly no expert, so I > could have this all messed up. Kevin Horton >> Whatever you've done to hose chromel has to be done to alumel too . . This is a case where a lot of "wrongs" can still add up to be "mostly right." >3/10/2002 > >Hello Kevin (and Bob), I think that Bob has now responded and sorted out any >switch confusion, but I'd like to pursue this subject a bit further. What I'm >going to describe is how Vision Microsystems Inc. handles their thermocouple >inputs. It might give some confidence to what you are doing or uncover some >subtle aspect of this subject that is of value. > >With the VMS system I got 4 EGT and 4 CHT thermocouples already lead wired >with appropriate K and J wires that terminated in 1/4 inch wide male / female >push-ons. (I'm using the generic term "push-on" here because Fast On is a >proprietory AMP name and the distinction may be important to some people). > >VMS provides more J and K wire for transition and some Thomas and Betts fully >insulated push-ons that just get crimped onto the transition wire for >connecting to the push-on on the end of the lead wire coming from the >thermocouple. (I declined to use the provided T&B push-ons and purchased >fully insulated Molex Avi Krimp push-ons because the Avi Krimp push-ons have >the additional metal wire insulation crimping support and the T&B's did not). > >The J and K transition wires then go to a 25 pin D sub connector (in the >newer version of the VMS DPU (Data Processing Unit) which plugs into the DPU. >The D sub connector has stamped pins and the the transition wires are both >crimped and soldered to these pins. > >VMS makes a big deal of the fact that one must use the special soldering flux >that they supply. I quote: "Apply NOKORODE flux to these leads, otherwise the >solder will not bond to the wire properly. NOTE:Read caution statements and >direction on container before use)". NOKORODE Regular Paste Flux is made by >Rectorseal in Houston TX. It contains zinc chloride, but no lead. It is >described as "Not for electronics use.....". It needs to be washed off with >water after soldering. Aha! That's further confirmation of my hypothesis developed on the workbench. NoKorode is a VERY active flux. It seems that the solder on my bench right now (Kester 63/37 Rosin 44 core) seems to get a pretty good grip on the alloys used in J and K thermocouples. Check out this link. http://www.kester.com/products/oem/wire.html I note that under Rosin 44 characteristics, base metals like cadmium and nickel are included . . . these ARE characteristically difficult to solder compared to our user friendly copper wires. I don't recall what the flux was in my first experiences with soft-solder and thermocouples. Get some Kester 63/37/44 solder and see if this doesn't do as well for you. If you have to resort to the paste flux, I suspect you can get it all off finished connector my flushing it off first with carburetor cleaner (lacquer thinner in a spray can - 88 cents at Wallmart), rinse with hot water and then blow dry. Given the very low impedance source represented by a thermocouple, the risk to accuracy due to deposits on the back of the connector is low. The risk is to finish on the pins years hence which may become corroded. A good cleaning as described should minimize this risk. >It is a little puzzling to me as to why the wires must be soldered to the D >sub pins, but just crimping them to the push-ons on the other end is OK. It >would not be possible to solder to the push ons that VMS provided or the ones >that I used because of the insulation. Also I believe that the push-ons on >the end of the thermocouple lead wires were soldered on by the factory that >produced the thermocouples and the leads. (I can't easily check because the >leads are now all covered up in wire looms.) They would only need to be soldered to the D-sub pins if the connector was of the solder type . . . if you substituted a crimp-on connector then you could use the machined crimp on pins . . . my favorite. >This crimp only versus crimp plus soldering at the push-on junction would >seem to create an asymmetry and generate some erroneous signal. Maybe some >expert reading this can explain away my concern. The absence of solder in the joining only serves to eliminate one of the variables introduced by the addition of tin and lead into the mix. But again, if you do the same thing to the other lead, all will be right with the world. >The output from the DPU to the LCD VMS guages is via ribbon cable. > >So, with the exception of the soldering bit, it looks like you are doing what >VMS considers good practice. You might want to call VMS up (ask for Dave) and >discuss the pin soldering issue. Their number is 360-714-8203. Yes, I know >that you are not using their product, but they have always been very generous >in educating me. Ribbon cables are almost always crimped with insulation displacement type connectors. No soldering necessary, all wires get munched into good contact in a single stroke. Kinda neat stuff but not relevant to the thermocouple discussion. >PS: The thermocouple leads in the Westach (800-400-7024) catalog are >terminated with push-on connectors. They make the statement that thermocouple >leads (which are offered in a variety of lengths) should not be cut. But they >also show patch (transition) cables leading to the instruments which may be >shortened or lengthened. The catalog doesn't say anything specific about >connecting patch cables to the instruments. Maybe a phone call to them would >be educational. Please share what you learn with the rest of us. Thanks. > Hmmmm . . . the only thing I can think of here is that their thermocouple probes may be fabricated to calibrate the loop resistance of non-powered instruments that must have a specific loop resistance to maintain calibration. If the thermocouple drives any powered hunk of electronics, it's almost certain that the length of the thermocouple lead-wire can be changed. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > > >Bob and Piers, > > > > > >Thank you for your messages. > > >Now I realize I have to dig deeper into that servo system before making > > >decisions. > > >We'll call the kit manufacturer to get thir schematics. > > > > > >thanks again, > > > > > >Gilles > > > > Could you ask them to fax a copy to me too? 316.685.8617 > > > > If we're all looking at the same piece of paper, we're in > > a better position to evaluate the design. > > > > Bob . . . > > >Hi Bob, > >For reasons unknown to us (maybe liability), Dyn'aero wasn't willing to >divulge their flaps electrical diagram. >But in a conversation over the phone with their electrician, my builing >buddy was able to get some information : >The system seems rather straightforward, including a rotary switch ( our >projected guitar switch), a small control box containing screwdriver >adjustable pots to define the different flaps positions, and a bulky linear >pot driven by the flaps motor screw to "follow" the flaps actual position. >There are also 2 limit switches to prevent mechanical damage at either end >of the drive nut travel. >There are 4 positions : full up, takeoff, normal landing, full down (short >landing). >The rotary switch seems to be of the "break before make" family. > >Do you think this layout is a known standard ? > >Are there any drawbacks, or is it prone to dangerous failure modes ? > >We have the notion we are able to understand electrical diagrams, but not >skilled enough to produce one by ourselves. >So, last but not least, do you think you could suggest some schematics using >those components, but nonetheless in accordance with your principles ? It wouldn't be hard to deduce a circuit that (if not identical) would be equal in performance to the one you described. I still have problems with failure modes producing un-commanded flap motion. I've flown airplanes from C-150 to A-36 Bonanza and I cannot imagine that it would be an uncomfortable situation to NOT have a panel mounted flap position indicator OR precise control over flap position. If it were my airplane, a simple switch spring loaded to center to control the flap motor would be my choice. Probably wouldn't even install and indicator. Bob . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Leonard Garceau" <lhgcpg(at)westriv.com>
Subject: Fw: Ignition trigger
Date: Mar 17, 2002
> I need some help on my backup ignition. I'm using a haltech computer for > fuel and ignition as my primary system. My backup ignition is a haltech > that is ignition only. My secondary backup for fuel is a nossle in the > intake. > > Question is: the coils (coil over plug) are tripped with a ground wire from > the computer. Can I attach a second computer to this trip wire without > causing problems? I would then have a manual switch to pick up the backup > computer if needed. Does this Work? > > Thanks, > > Leonard Garceau > Bismarck, ND > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net>
Subject: FW: RV-List: Aircraft Batteries.
--> RV-List message posted by: "Pete Bodie" Has anybody tried the "BatteryMINDer $39.95 at www.batterymart.com ? With up to 85% of the 70 million (Battery Council International, January 98, 12 months - Nov. 95 - Oct. 96) new 12 volt storage batteries made each year, destined to die before they should, a new U. S. patent pending product has come to the rescue. BatteryMINDer Charger/Maintainer/Conditioner is the first of a new generation of "Computer-On-A-Chip" technology. It conditions "sulphated" batteries as well as automatically charging any type 12 volt storage battery without ever over-charging. Dubbed the "charger with a brain", it is believed to be the first charger of its kind to reverse the primary cause of early battery failure known as "sulphation". "Sulphation" batteries that were once considered beyond recovery can now be brought back to long-term useful condition. How BatteryMINDer solves battery problems A simple press of the button starts the fully automatic de-sulphation process. Unique patent pending PulseMode circuitry (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office assigned Patent Pending Serial #60/083,473) creates high-frequency pulses that break down the sulphated crystals. The battery is then able to reach its full level of charge, without excessive heat generation. Any 12-volt Maintenance or Maintenance-free type battery, including Gel and Deep cycle, can be left on charge for months at a time without fear of damage. Water never needs to be replaced while batteries are being maintained with BatteryMINDer as the unit never "boils out" the electrolyte. The unit plugs directly into a standard wall outlet (or extension cord) eliminating the need to disconnect the battery from its normal use location. The Underwriters Lab (UL) and CSA LISTED BatteryMINDer has both Charge/ Power On as well as Battery Condition / Polarity indicators. The unit will reject a "shorted cell" battery while ensuring a full charge to all others, including deep cycle marine, gel and maintenance free automotive. Unit comes complete with a simple to use hydrometer type battery tester, quick connect terminal assemblies and a five (5) year "no exclusions" warranty. = = = = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 17, 2002
Subject: soldering thermocouple wire
3/17/2002 Thanks. OC ______________ From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: soldering thermocouple wire In a message dated 03/13/2002 2:52:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, nuckolls(at)kscable.com writes: << Don't know where "solder" was even mentioned much less recommended. You can't soft-solder thermocouple wires. You can silver-solder them but this is useful only for joining wires or making a thermocouple out of bulk wire.......skip..... >> 3/13/2002 Hello Again Bob, Soldering thermocouple wires was brought up in my responding posting to Kevin Horton (repeated below) wherein I quoted instructions from Vision Microsystems about soldering type J and K wires to stamped pins for their engine instrumentation system. You are now confirming that even this soldering has no value or effect? Also it would appear that push-on connectors when properly crimped and polarized would function the same as the connectors shown in Figure 14-13 of The Aeroelectric Connection. Thanks. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? Subj: fast ons for thermocouple wiring In a message dated 03/10/2002 2:53:27 AM Eastern Standard Time, khorton(at)cyberus.ca writes: << ....skip..... Hmm. I getting very confused. My original question was in regard to using Fast-Ons to join thermocouple wires with the wires going into my EIS 4000. Now Bob is talking about switches. The EIS 4000 doesn't use any switches, as all thermocouple wires go into the unit, and it can display data from all cylinders at once. The wires from the Fast-Ons to the EIS 4000 are thermocouple wires, i.e. type J or K as appropriate. Looking at one wire, I see the following interfaces in order: Type J wire from thermocouple to male Fast-On tab; male Fast-On tab to female Fast-On tab; female Fast-On tab to Type J wire; Type J wire to male D-sub pin; male D-sub pin to female D-sub pin (connector attached to the back of the EIS). I can't tell what kind of wire is used from here on in. The parts I'm worried about are those associated with the Fast-On tabs. Everytime we have an interface with dissimilar metals, we'll create a voltage. The voltages at the two interfaces between the Type J wire and the Fast-On tabs will cancel each other out, assuming both interfaces are the same temperature. So I don't see how using Fast-On tabs creates a problem, but I'm certainly no expert, so I could have this all messed up. Kevin Horton >> 3/10/2002 Hello Kevin (and Bob), I think that Bob has now responded and sorted out any switch confusion, but I'd like to pursue this subject a bit further. What I'm going to describe is how Vision Microsystems Inc. handles their thermocouple inputs. It might give some confidence to what you are doing or uncover some subtle aspect of this subject that is of value. With the VMS system I got 4 EGT and 4 CHT thermocouples already lead wired with appropriate K and J wires that terminated in 1/4 inch wide male / female push-ons. (I'm using the generic term "push-on" here because Fast On is a proprietory AMP name and the distinction may be important to some people). VMS provides more J and K wire for transition and some Thomas and Betts fully insulated push-ons that just get crimped onto the transition wire for connecting to the push-on on the end of the lead wire coming from the thermocouple. (I declined to use the provided T&B push-ons and purchased fully insulated Molex Avi Krimp push-ons because the Avi Krimp push-ons have the additional metal wire insulation crimping support and the T&B's did not). The J and K transition wires then go to a 25 pin D sub connector (in the newer version of the VMS DPU (Data Processing Unit) which plugs into the DPU. The D sub connector has stamped pins and the the transition wires are both crimped and soldered to these pins. VMS makes a big deal of the fact that one must use the special soldering flux that they supply. I quote: "Apply NOKORODE flux to these leads, otherwise the solder will not bond to the wire properly. NOTE:Read caution statements and direction on container before use)". NOKORODE Regular Paste Flux is made by Rectorseal in Houston TX. It contains zinc chloride, but no lead. It is described as "Not for electronics use.....". It needs to be washed off with water after soldering. It is a little puzzling to me as to why the wires must be soldered to the D sub pins, but just crimping them to the push-ons on the other end is OK. It would not be possible to solder to the push ons that VMS provided or the ones that I used because of the insulation. Also I believe that the push-ons on the end of the thermocouple lead wires were soldered on by the factory that produced the thermocouples and the leads. (I can't easily check because the leads are now all covered up in wire looms.) This crimp only versus crimp plus soldering at the push-on junction would seem to create an asymmetry and generate some erroneous signal. Maybe some expert reading this can explain away my concern. The output from the DPU to the LCD VMS guages is via ribbon cable. So, with the exception of the soldering bit, it looks like you are doing what VMS considers good practice. You might want to call VMS up (ask for Dave) and discuss the pin soldering issue. Their number is 360-714-8203. Yes, I know that you are not using their product, but they have always been very generous in educating me. Good luck. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? PS: The thermocouple leads in the Westach (800-400-7024) catalog are terminated with push-on connectors. They make the statement that thermocouple leads (which are offered in a variety of lengths) should not be cut. But they also show patch (transition) cables leading to the instruments which may be shortened or lengthened. The catalog doesn't say anything specific about connecting patch cables to the instruments. Maybe a phone call to them would be educational. Please share what you learn with the rest of us. Thanks. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Richard" <steve(at)oasissolutions.com>
Subject: Power source
Date: Mar 17, 2002
I'm looking for a 28 v DC power supply (110 v AC to DC)to use during ground testing of my Lancair ES. Any thoughts? Steve Richard steve(at)oasissolutions.com Lancair ES ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David A. Leonard" <dleonar1(at)maine.rr.com>
Subject: Off topic thermocouple ?
Date: Mar 17, 2002
Hello all.. just a little brain teaser. I was at a ski house this weekend, and on the woodstove was a fan, driven by the stove's heat. It had a base, about 2" by 6", and about a 4" tall web straight up off of this, with a flat plate about 4" up on this web. There was a device with wires coming out of it to the fan motor. It was sandwiched between the plate, and a top plate that connected to a web and a large (like 2" wide with 8 fins) heat sink that radiated out above it. The device was about 2" square by 3/16" tall. The fan was rated at 100 cfm, and it got buzzing along at a few hundred rpms. the blade was about 8" long, un shielded, without a lot of pitch. The motor was about 2" in diameter. On the bottom base which sits on the woodstove top, is a bi-metal strip, that will lift the base up/off if it overheats. So anyway, what is this device called.. is it a fancy thermocouple? How does this thing work? Do these thermocouples? have any applications for us? Wondering, Dave Leonard ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net>
Subject: Off topic thermocouple ?
Date: Mar 17, 2002
I have no idea if it was a thermocouple (probably was), but the theory of operation is pretty straightforward. Take two dissimilar metals. Connect them at one end. Stick that end in a really cold place. Connect the two metals at the other end. Stick that end in a really hot place. You get a current flowing. Insert thingy to be powered in this closed loop and the current flows through your thingy, thus powering it. The current is a function of the temperature differential between the cold end and hot end. OR... Take two dissimlar metals. Connect 'em at two places, say, on opposite sides of a heat insulator. Cause a current to flow (say, from a battery or a cigarette lighter). You get one side of the insulator hot, the other side gets cold. Thus, lunch coolers that you can plug into the cigarette lighter. This is usually called a "Peltier junction." The problem with thermocouples is that they aren't all that terribly efficient. In fact, they're pretty darned ineffecient. However, when you've already got a heat source such as a woodstove, and you've got excess heat that would otherwise be wasted, why not put it to good use, even if it's innefficient? Dry academic explanation: http://www.industrysearch.com.au/features/thermocouple.asp More amusing explanation: http://www.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator6.htm -Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of David > A. Leonard > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 10:30 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Off topic thermocouple ? > > > > > Hello all.. > just a little brain teaser. > > I was at a ski house this weekend, and on the woodstove was a > fan, driven by > the stove's heat. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Off topic thermocouple ?
> > >Hello all.. >just a little brain teaser. > >I was at a ski house this weekend, and on the woodstove was a fan, driven by >the stove's heat. > >It had a base, about 2" by 6", and about a 4" tall web straight up off of >this, with a flat plate about 4" up on this web. There was a device with >wires coming out of it to the fan motor. It was sandwiched between the >plate, and a top plate that connected to a web and a large (like 2" wide >with 8 fins) heat sink that radiated out above it. The device was about 2" >square by 3/16" tall. The fan was rated at 100 cfm, and it got buzzing >along at a few hundred rpms. the blade was about 8" long, un shielded, >without a lot of pitch. The motor was about 2" in diameter. > >On the bottom base which sits on the woodstove top, is a bi-metal strip, >that will lift the base up/off if it overheats. > >So anyway, what is this device called.. is it a fancy thermocouple?\ Maybe a THERMOPILE . . . each pair of hot/cold junctions in a thermocouple voltage generator are capable of about 15 millivolts of output if you can maintain about 500 degrees F between the pairs. Put about 100 of these junctions in series and you've got 1.5 volts at perhaps several amps. Modern brushless DC designs can be made to run from this kind of power. During WWII, there was a radio popular with folks who live in the boonies (or had to keep radios hidden in buildings without electricity) that ran from the heat of a kerosene lantern. You take the standard glass chimney off, put the thermopile on and light the lamp. When I was in highschool, some friends of mine did a science project that proposed a large array of very low resistance thermocouple pairs supported above an interleaved (zig zag shaped) reflector. Couples on top were heated by sun, couples on bottom cooled with water. The proposed an array that came out to about one acre that would produce several killowatts of electrical power but at still very low voltages. Nowadays, there are probably ways to take advantage of that kind of technique. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Power source
> > >I'm looking for a 28 v DC power supply (110 v AC to DC)to use during ground >testing of my Lancair ES. Any thoughts? > >Steve Richard >steve(at)oasissolutions.com >Lancair ES Here's a repost of an item I put up a couple days ago: Prefab electrical systems Any of the electronics supply houses carry them. -----Original Message----- From: Rodney Smith [mailto:rsmith(at)ak.net] Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems Sounds like a great way to go, where did you find the power supply? Radio Shack's website at http://www.radioshack.com now sells the Samlex SEC1223 for less that I used to buy it wholesale. Go to their website and enter 910-3916 as a search term. I think the description is in error. It's really a 13.8 volt, 23A switchmode power supply. I sold about two dozen of them from our website catalog a coupld of years ago and gave a few away at weekend seminars. 23A will run EVERYTHING in your airplane as long as you don't turn pitot heat on too . . . It's on sale right now for $89.00 . . . Snap 'em up guys, this is a good price for that much snort in a power supply. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 17, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: soldering thermocouple wire
> >3/17/2002 > >Thanks. OC Posted it about 6 p.m. today. It should be in your mailbox by now. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)att.net>
Subject: Battery Solenoid Question
Date: Mar 17, 2002
Should the battery solenoid be isolated from the aircraft frame/ground when it is installed? I installed the solenoid next to my battery directly to the airframe. When I hook a OHM meter to the center post of the solenoid it shows it is grounded. I thought the battery solenoid should only be grounded once the battery side of the master switch is ON. What am I doing wrong? Can't get any power to my panel. Jack Lockamy www.jacklockamy.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)att.net>
Subject: Re: Battery Solenoid Question
Date: Mar 17, 2002
To clarify..... I attached my battery solenoid directly to the airframe using the two slots in the metal bracket. OHM meter shows continuity between the aircraft frame and the center post of the battery solenoid. Seems to me the center post on the solenoid should only be grounded when the battery side of the master switch is ON. Wire to battery side of master switch checked good..... battery switch OFF.... no continuity between wire and aircraft ground....battery switch on.... good continuity between wire and aircraft ground. Attached ground wire to center post of battery solenoid and still no current out the other side of the solenoid. Therefore, I'm not getting any power to the panel. This is my second battery solenoid. I must be doing something wrong.... ???? Suggestions and comments welcomed. I am Baffled.... Jack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Lockamy" <jacklockamy(at)att.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery Solenoid Question > > Should the battery solenoid be isolated from the aircraft frame/ground when it is installed? I installed the solenoid next to my battery directly to the airframe. When I hook a OHM meter to the center post of the solenoid it shows it is grounded. I thought the battery solenoid should only be grounded once the battery side of the master switch is ON. > > What am I doing wrong? Can't get any power to my panel. > > Jack Lockamy > www.jacklockamy.com > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Richard" <steve(at)oasissolutions.com>
Subject: Power source
Date: Mar 17, 2002
Thanks for the reply. All the Samlex's listed on their site are 12v. My system is 28v. Any other locations come to mind? Thanks Steve Richard steve(at)oasissolutions.com Lancair ES -----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: Re: AeroElectric-List: Power source > > >I'm looking for a 28 v DC power supply (110 v AC to DC)to use during ground >testing of my Lancair ES. Any thoughts? > >Steve Richard >steve(at)oasissolutions.com >Lancair ES Here's a repost of an item I put up a couple days ago: Prefab electrical systems Any of the electronics supply houses carry them. -----Original Message----- From: Rodney Smith [mailto:rsmith(at)ak.net] Subject: Re: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems Sounds like a great way to go, where did you find the power supply? Radio Shack's website at http://www.radioshack.com now sells the Samlex SEC1223 for less that I used to buy it wholesale. Go to their website and enter 910-3916 as a search term. I think the description is in error. It's really a 13.8 volt, 23A switchmode power supply. I sold about two dozen of them from our website catalog a coupld of years ago and gave a few away at weekend seminars. 23A will run EVERYTHING in your airplane as long as you don't turn pitot heat on too . . . It's on sale right now for $89.00 . . . Snap 'em up guys, this is a good price for that much snort in a power supply. Bob . . . http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 18, 2002
Subject: AAE transponder antenna
Bob or others, Looking for any feedback on experiences with the Advanced Aircraft Electronics L-2 transponder antenna. This is a ribbon type dipole looking antenna secured to the inside of a fiberglass shell with no ground plane needed. Doug Windhorn ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: Power source
Date: Mar 18, 2002
Steve Richard wrote: > > > Thanks for the reply. All the Samlex's listed on their site are 12v. My > system is 28v. Any other locations come to mind? > *** How about this? Not exactly a power supply, but... A local outfit in Santa Clara called "Software And Stuff" ( www.softwareandstuff.com ) has plastic battery boxes. These have a handle on top, and a pair of jumper cables, and a built-in charger. Such things are common nowadays, but these particular ones are 24V! ( nominal 24V, nominal 28V - the same thing. Twelve lead-acid cells in series. ) - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2002
From: Bill Irvine <wgirvine(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 28v power supply
>message posted by: "Steve Richard" >steve(at)oasissolutions.com >I'm looking for a 28 v DC power supply (110 v AC to >DC)to use during ground testing of my Lancair ES. >Any thoughts? Sure. Go to Wal-Mart and buy two cheap 12 volt car batteries. Hook them up in series and test away. When they get run down, hook them up in parallel and connect to a cheap 1 amp battery charger overnight. Might be cheaper than a fancy electronic power supply. Bill Irvine Lancaster, CA Building "the world's first homebuilt C-310." http://sports.yahoo.com/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Battery Solenoid Question
> >To clarify..... > >I attached my battery solenoid directly to the airframe using the two >slots in the metal bracket. OHM meter shows continuity between the >aircraft frame and the center post of the battery solenoid. Seems to me >the center post on the solenoid should only be grounded when the battery >side of the master switch is ON. Wire to battery side of master switch >checked good..... battery switch OFF.... no continuity between wire and >aircraft ground....battery switch on.... good continuity between wire and >aircraft ground. Attached ground wire to center post of battery solenoid >and still no current out the other side of the solenoid. Therefore, I'm >not getting any power to the panel. > >This is my second battery solenoid. I must be doing something wrong.... ???? > >Suggestions and comments welcomed. > >I am Baffled.... Just talked to Jack on the phone. It may be that his "fat" terminals are reversed on the contactor. 3-terminal contactors use one of the fat terminals as one of coil connections . . . ya gotta have battery power to the right one or you get symptoms like those described above. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: soldering thermocouple wire - FOLLOWUP
> Get some Kester 63/37/44 solder and see if this doesn't do > as well for you. If you have to resort to the paste flux, > I suspect you can get it all off finished connector > my flushing it off first with carburetor cleaner (lacquer > thinner in a spray can - 88 cents at Wallmart), rinse > with hot water and then blow dry. Given the very low > impedance source represented by a thermocouple, the > risk to accuracy due to deposits on the back of the > connector is low. The risk is to finish on the pins > years hence which may become corroded. A good cleaning > as described should minimize this risk. Let's think a little bit about what we're really trying to make happen . . . once the hard-to-solder thermocouple wire is coated with solder (i.e. "tinned") it's then ready to attach to other things using the same solder with NO ADDITIONAL flux. You can minimize the effects of gawdawful flux by preparing your thermocouple wires for termination, dipping exposed wires in flux, dip end of your solder in flux and then "tin" the ends of the wires. NOW, clean the wires well before you take them into the solder cups of the connector. This avoids getting a lot of flux everywhere. Further, if the connector that comes with your electro- whizzy uses D-sub connectors, then consider pitching the solder cup connector and substituting a crimp type connector with machined pins. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps
?
Date: Mar 18, 2002
Bob, Thank you for responding. > >......... > >Are there any drawbacks, or is it prone to dangerous failure modes ? > > ........ > >So, last but not least, do you think you could suggest some schematics using > >those components, but nonetheless in accordance with your principles ? > > > It wouldn't be hard to deduce a circuit that (if not identical) > would be equal in performance to the one you described. I still > have problems with failure modes producing un-commanded flap motion. That is one of our concerns. I figured the big pot along the drive screw was a means of providing some feedback for the servo control 'box. Could multiple limit switches along the drive nut travel eliminate the risk of runaway or undesired retraction/deployment ? > > I've flown airplanes from C-150 to A-36 Bonanza and I cannot > imagine that it would be an uncomfortable situation to NOT > have a panel mounted flap position indicator OR precise control > over flap position. If it were my airplane, a simple switch > spring loaded to center to control the flap motor would be my > choice. Probably wouldn't even install and indicator. Understand. We'll dispense with the position indicator, as it is particularly easy to tell the flaps position visually : some marks on the flap leading edge will do the trick. Nevertheless, we find it nice to have preselected positions, especially with such a marked change between the 30 and 40 degrees down positions. No switch fumbling, no waiting and watching the flaps to ensure the desired position. A little less workload while in the pattern. Nice when getting into tight places. After all, aren't we building a best than standard aircraft, with -hopefully- much more ergonomics in it ? ;-) Thanks again, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Stone" <jandkstone(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Van's Aircraft wireing harness
Date: Mar 18, 2002
I'm getting ready to wire my Harmon Rocket and was thinking of starting with Van's RV-8 (battery aft) wiring kit. Has anyone found this kit to be a good way to start the wiring process? Any comments or opinions would be appreciated. Jim Stone HRII Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 18, 2002
From: John Top <jjtop1(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: AAE transponder antenna
> >Bob or others, > >Looking for any feedback on experiences with the Advanced Aircraft >Electronics L-2 transponder antenna. This is a ribbon type dipole looking >antenna secured to the inside of a fiberglass shell with no ground plane >needed. Doug: Bill Jones put one in his Glastar behind Bulhead A. Worked okay until he painted. He had to put in an external. I have installed one of Bob Archer's back by bulkhead B. All of his stuff works. -- John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 17, 2002
One approach is to leave skin above the instrument panel clecoed and removable until the panel wiring is completed. For me, that didn't fit the order I wanted to purchase and install things. I wanted to finish the airframe before starting on the systems. What worked for me (RV-6 slider) was to make the panel removable so I could wire it up on the bench. A side benefit of this is that with the panel removed, I was able to build up most of the wiring harness on the subpanel while sitting comfortably in the pilot's seat. There is some crawling underneath to run wires from the subpanel to the firewall but but with most of the harness attached to the front of the subpanel, I was able to do 90% of the work either seated in the airplane or sitting at the workbench. The panel was wired up with its own harness. Most of the connections between the panel and the subpanel harnesses are made thorugh three 15 pin Molex connectors. A few connections such as the magnetoes and essential bus alternate feed are connected directly to the panel to maximize reliability. The radio trays are wired to the subpanel harness and have to be screwed to the panel once installed. Even so, the complete populated panel can be completely removed or installed in about 30 minutes, even with Van's glovebox riveted to it. I do have a removable subpanel for the 6 primary flight instruments. This gives me access to hook up the panel connections once it is in place. All removal or installation work can be done sitting in the pilot's seat. None of this required much extra time or engineering compared to wiring the panel permanently in place. Yes, I do have the additional connectors that give me additional failure points but I can live with this compromise. I would use the same method in my next plane. One other thing - I have built the plane for Day/night VFR but I wanted to have to option of going IFR someday. With the removable panel it should be easy to mount the additional instruments and radios if I decide to. cheers, Curt RV-6A Overhauling Engine (the last "big" expense before the I finish, hopefully this summer) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > Sounds nice. I'll soon be starting my panel, and have been wondering if > anyone wires their whole plane on the bench, and then installs it. And > what's the advantage of doing that? Any pictures of your "breadboard"? > > - > Larry Bowen > RV-8 fuse > Larry(at)BowenAero.com > http://BowenAero.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > > Behalf Of Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 2:33 PM > > To: 'aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com' > > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > > > > > Civ ASC/ENFD > > --> > > > > Bob, > > > > When I started my project, I didn't know much about > > aircraft electrical systems. I read various books and > > eventually found Bob's Web site and got hold of his book. > > Wow. I've learned so much, and had fun doing it. I bought > > almost all of my electrical wiring items from his catalog. > > Very affordable. I have breadboarded up and experimented with > > at least 2 different electrical systems for my aircraft, and > > have tried many variations and simulated various types of > > failures. Very comforting to know whats going on behind the > > panel. Neither of my systems is exactly like any one of his > > drawings, but borrows parts from many with a few of my own. > > Over time you really start to appreciate Bob's approach. The > > 20 amp, 12 volt power supply I bought to power all of this > > stuff on my bench was well worth it. I have a fully > > functioning prototype instrument panel with which to work out > > all the various details, before I commit to a final design. > > Talk about confidence building. This is the way ! to learn > > about electrical systems and fault tolerant designs. Its also > > a nice way to show off all those cool instruments and goodies > > before you get them in the airplane. Fire up the power > > supply, Flip the master switch, turn on the instrument > > lights. Turn off the shop lights. Real nice. THE ONLY WAY TO > > GO! Thanks Bob. > > > > John > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Joe Larson [mailto:jpl(at)showpage.org] > > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Prefab electrical systems > > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > I hope you can see what is underlying the posters here when > > they are talking about the EXP bus. I'm going to rephrase > > this in a very blunt fashion. > > > > We don't really know all the issues involved in our aircraft > > electrical systems. We constantly hear about little > > "gotchas". For instance, there's been a recent discussion > > regarding accuracy in temperature probe leads -- where you > > have to use the right kind of parts or stuff doesn't work right. > > > > One approach is what you're doing -- educating us. Your > > book, your website and other materials, and your very > > appreciated time on this mailing list... > > > > I know what *I* would like is to be able to call you, tell > > you what I have in my airplane, give you a credit card > > number, and have a box appear on my doorstep a week later > > with everything I need in kit form with clear enough > > instructions I can go ahead. Wire for temperature probes in > > one ziplock clearly labeled what it's for, etc. > > > > An option would be complete harnesses -- or as complete as > > you can make them without actually being in front of the > > airplane. (Ignorance here on my part -- no clue how close you > > could get from a list of items.) > > > > And the extra-special option: the box arrives with one > > smiling man from Kansas ready to install everything. > > > > Another option: a customized plan based on our discussions. > > Basically you'd just produce a shopping list with references > > for where to get things. However, I personally really like > > one-stop shopping. > > > > I ordered your book last week, and am eagerly awaiting its > > arrival. Maybe I'll have more confidence after reading it. > > But when I started this project, I sorta thought the > > electrical system would be the easy part. You know, run a > > few cables from the battery, install some breakers or fuses > > and some switches, and I'm all set. > > > > But then I hear there's actually debate on the types of > > connectors to use, and whether you should solder them or not. > > The type of wire to use. Everything associated with > > temperature and pressure probes. The size and type of wires > > going to my strobe lights.... And I realize that my previous > > knowledge would be sufficient to wire the aircraft, by my > > ignorance means stuff WILL BREAK. > > > > I don't wanna be in the clouds over nasty terrain when my > > electrical system goes belly up. > > > > What you're doing in this list is greatly appreciated. On > > the other hand, every time I hear about a problem, I wonder > > just what ELSE I don't know. > > > > The EXP bus offers people some confidence, even if it doesn't > > really make the project any faster and adds money. I really > > bet you can do a lot better for us than that. > > > > --- > > > > Note that it might be possible to create a web page that > > would ask all the right questions and spit out answers. I > > can do the programming, but don't have a clue about the > > questions or answers. Again, something to think about. > > > > -Joe > > > > > > =========== > > =========== > > =========== > > Search Engine: > > http://www.matronics.com/search > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: PVC insulation - EIS 4000
Date: Mar 18, 2002
Yes I was disappointed to discover this too. The EIS is a pretty good value for the money but I wish they would have spent a few dollars more for proper wire. For the benefit of non-EIS owners: the unit has two wiring harnesses each terminating in a D-sub 25 connector. One harness is exclusively CHT and EGT thermocouple wires and the other is for everything else. Both harnesses are supplied with PVC insulated wire. I compromised by keeping the PVC harness for the CHT/EGT sensors and building a new tefzel harness for the other functions. I reckon the likelihood of a CHT short causing the insulation to burn is zilch, but if the insulation should be charred for some other reason I suppose I am going to have a fume problem. As for outgassing causing corrosion, I hadn't heard of that one before. The only reason I kept the EGT/CHT harness is that I figured it was special wire that the instument was calibrated to work with and I didn't want to have to find a replacement. It certainly looks special although I haven't called the factory on this. I was thinking a 1/2" bundle of low-current PVC wires over a 3 foot run was not a serious safety problem. Maybe I should reconsider. I've tried to be conservative on safety issues as I built the plane - why compromise now? Mind you, there are plenty of other materials in the cockpit that will produce noxious gases if you direct a flame on them. Like upholstery (fire-rated or not) and anything made of plastic or rubber. Curt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PVC insulation - EIS 4000 > > I've just started the installation of a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 engine > monitor in my RV-8. I had assumed that all the wiring would have > aircraft quality tefzel installation, but I just learned that the > harness going into the unit have PVC insulation. > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
> > > > I've flown airplanes from C-150 to A-36 Bonanza and I cannot > > imagine that it would be an uncomfortable situation to NOT > > have a panel mounted flap position indicator OR precise control > > over flap position. If it were my airplane, a simple switch > > spring loaded to center to control the flap motor would be my > > choice. Probably wouldn't even install and indicator. > >Understand. We'll dispense with the position indicator, as it is >particularly easy to tell the flaps position visually : some marks on the >flap leading edge will do the trick. >Nevertheless, we find it nice to have preselected positions, especially with >such a marked change between the 30 and 40 degrees down positions. No switch >fumbling, no waiting and watching the flaps to ensure the desired position. >A little less workload while in the pattern. Nice when getting into tight >places. >After all, aren't we building a best than standard aircraft, >with -hopefully- much more ergonomics in it ? ;-) > >Thanks again, > >Gilles Sure . . . but that doesn't mean we should give up "resistance to hazard" for "nice." Nothing gets everybody straight up in their chairs faster than attaching any kind of motor to a flight control surface. I've been involved in design and certification efforts on perhaps two dozen such programs such as pitch trim, spoiler control, flap control and roll trim control on several biz-jets. In virtually every case, the electronics to do control is easy . . . the electronics to be the watch-dog over control functions invariably doubled or tripled the amount of electronics in the system. In the case of pitch trim for the Lears (circa 1980-82) the majority field returns for repairs involve monitor circuits . . . the control circuitry was very simple and robust; the monitor circuitry more complex and prone to failure. The words you use as motivation for a "nice" flap control system don't match well with my experience. I've flown airplanes with and without flaps. While convenient in most situations, it's not a show stopper if they failed to deploy . . . and except for the Cessnas back in the 40 degrees of barn-door flaps days, failure to retract wasn't especially hazardous either. I have trouble relating to your words "fumbling", "waiting and watching", "workload" and "tight places" . . . My concentration in the pattern is to the airspace around me. I'll wait until on short final before putting flaps out and it's usually all the flaps in one operation. It takes a little practice on pitch control to smooth out pitching moments in some airplanes. Whether the flaps deploy or not would not change the outcome of the approach in the vast majority of landings (how often do YOU plan to put your airplane down on 1000' of runway? Those are the only times I have full flaps out earlier in a stabilize approach and then I KNOW the flaps are working before descending very low). Keep in mind that your resources for stored energy on the airframe comes in two forms, fuel and altitude above the ground. As soon as you throw out ANY flaps, you're squandering stored energy. If all goes well (as it does in the vast majority of cases) it doesn't matter. But I personally object to the notion of milking out 10 degrees of flap at a time beginning on the downwind leg. I don't want to throw away any energy resources in the form of altitude until my comfortable arrival is assured whether or not the engine is running. I'd suggest you concentrate on getting your project airworthy with the simplest systems that will do the necessary tasks. IF you find shortcomings based on your experience with the airplane, add whatever remedies are called for later. Without proper monitoring for fail safe operation, the flap control system you've described should cause a profound INCREASE in workload . . . for flight conditions at airspeeds above the white arc and for operations below 200' AGL, I would have to flip another switch in my head to watch for and be ready to react to failure in the flap system. I couldn't certify this system in a factory built airplane without a LOT of work to accommodate all failure modes (which admits that not EVERYTHING a bureaucrat makes you do is useless). Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: PVC insulation - EIS 4000
> > >Yes I was disappointed to discover this too. The EIS is a pretty good value >for the money but I wish they would have spent a few dollars more for proper >wire. Have you called them up and told them so? Might not help you NOW but it might help others LATER . . . >For the benefit of non-EIS owners: the unit has two wiring harnesses each >terminating in a D-sub 25 connector. One harness is exclusively CHT and EGT >thermocouple wires and the other is for everything else. Both harnesses are >supplied with PVC insulated wire. I compromised by keeping the PVC harness >for the CHT/EGT sensors and building a new tefzel harness for the other >functions. I reckon the likelihood of a CHT short causing the insulation to >burn is zilch, but if the insulation should be charred for some other reason >I suppose I am going to have a fume problem. As for outgassing causing >corrosion, I hadn't heard of that one before. > >The only reason I kept the EGT/CHT harness is that I figured it was special >wire that the instument was calibrated to work with and I didn't want to >have to find a replacement. It certainly looks special although I haven't >called the factory on this. I was thinking a 1/2" bundle of low-current PVC >wires over a 3 foot run was not a serious safety problem. Maybe I should >reconsider. I've tried to be conservative on safety issues as I built the >plane - why compromise now? Mind you, there are plenty of other materials in >the cockpit that will produce noxious gases if you direct a flame on them. >Like upholstery (fire-rated or not) and anything made of plastic or rubber. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot . . . If any of the PVC wires are involved in a generated fumes situation, the products of combustion for PVC versus Tefzel are a toss-up. It matters not which chemicals are irritating your lungs when you're trying to deal competently with the airplane. A smoke in the cockpit situation calls for immediate power-down of the whole electrical system whereupon the smoking should stop. The biggest factor for choosing Tefzel over PVC are issues of service life - like 20-30 years versus 30-50 years (except under the cowl). Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Andy Karmy" <andy(at)karmy.com>
Subject: Essential items?
So, while considering the placement of various components on the basic 3 bus system, where have others placed the Electric trims & flaps? Are these a main bus thing, or an essential bus thing? It seems that with them on the main bus you could use the dc power master to shutdown runaway without having to resort ot pullable breakers. Thoughts? - Andy Karmy RV9A - dreaming of wires, contactors, switches, and fuses... andy(at)karmy.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 19, 2002
Bob, Thanks again for responding. > Sure . . . but that doesn't mean we should give up "resistance > to hazard" for "nice." Agreed. That is the reason for my previous posts. > circuits . . . the control circuitry was very simple and robust; > the monitor circuitry more complex and prone to failure. > In this country, lots of light aircraft do have electric flaps. Including all the Cessnas I know of. Even the Cap 10 (aerobatic 2-seater) recently converted to powered flaps. I must say many female pilots couldn't even lower them farther than takeoff position. . . . and except > for the Cessnas back in the 40 degrees of barn-door flaps > days, failure to retract wasn't especially hazardous either. The MCRs are good performers, and this is achieved by reducing wetted surace and wing area. To keep aproach speed at 60 kt, they have very powerful double slotted Fowler flaps. That is the flaps have leading edge teardrop slats. So if they failed to retract during a go around, it woulld really matter. Very different from those slab type piano hinged things found on many birds either side of the Atlantic. But I won't argue about flap design : I'm just the builder, not the designer. > I have trouble relating to your words "fumbling", "waiting > and watching", "workload" and "tight places" . . . My concentration > in the pattern is to the airspace around me. I'll wait until > on short final before putting flaps out and it's usually all > the flaps in one operation. Since my early days in aviation I've always found the "depress, wait, control, adjust if needed" system very disturbing, and so have most of my students. Especially when going around. And all the flaps at once really makes a difference. Whether the flaps deploy or not would not change > the outcome of the approach in the vast majority of landings > (how often do YOU plan to put your airplane down on 1000' > of runway? > One of my friends runs a 1000' private field 40 minutes from here. OK with full flaps, but a no go wihout them in an MCR. And we live in the French Alps, with several paved one mile high 1000' fields. I agree you land uphill, so 1000' isn't that short, but... > Keep in mind that your resources for stored energy on the > airframe comes in two forms, fuel and altitude above the > ground. As soon as you throw out ANY flaps, you're squandering > stored energy. If all goes well (as it does in the vast > majority of cases) it doesn't matter. But I personally > object to the notion of milking out 10 degrees of flap > at a time beginning on the downwind leg. I don't want to > throw away any energy resources in the form of altitude > until my comfortable arrival is assured whether or not > the engine is running. Agreed. Nevertheless, we most of the time must teach and fly those 5% approaches and published patterns. And you won't make the runway if the engine quits on downwind or final... Now, I must say I'm a bit embarassed our thread about flaps control has drifted into flight philosophy (though I could exchange messages for days on that subject ;-). We are two building partners, and I'm not always the leader when it comes to making decisions. I told my buddy " that guy across the sea, 'lectric Bob, he's got lots of experience and great ideas to improve the wiring, why not ask him how to improve or redesign our flap control ?". Do you really think there is no other safe way than one spring loaded switch ? If it were my airplane, I'd opt for some clone of the 172 system. But it is a kit, the construction is well under way, and we'd like to improve upon the existing system, if such a thing is possible. Thank you again for your advice, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 19, 2002
I was concerned about a runaway motor or accidentally actuated switch on my flaps so I'm adding an "enable" switch. This is just a toggle switch controlling power to the flap control circuit. It would be off in cruise and enabled in the pattern. I plan on doing the same for the electric trim after I heard about a runaway trim incident. It sounds like added complexity but I don't see a whole lot of risk or complexity. They are both in a convenient location near the throttle so it should be a simple operation to think "flaps down - enable" or "flaps up - disable". The way I have it set up is so the flap position will track the flap lever if it is enabled. So, I could actually set the flap lever to the desired position then hit the enable switch to bring them to that position or vice versa. The current position, selected position and enable status will be displayed on the panel (color graphic) with an audio warning if they don't track correctly. Same with the trim. Ok - so the last part sounds overly complicated but that's kindof a freebee for me. I have a PC in the panel with a bunch of extra I/O and audio. I have a linear potentiometer hooked up to the flaps and flap lever so it's easy to read the position of both. The matter of adding the enable switch is pretty simple and gives total pilot control over the circuit. I suppose the PC could disable the flaps above Vfe or if the postion isn't tracking the lever but I'll save that for version 2. Does this sound like a reasonable approach? (the switches not the PC) Gary K. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Gary > I was concerned about a runaway motor or accidentally actuated switch on > my flaps so I'm adding an "enable" switch. I was thinking about a switch guard to prevent accidental switch actuation. >This is just a toggle switch > controlling power to the flap control circuit. It would be off in cruise > and enabled in the pattern. Wouldn't the master switch, or a circuit breaker play a more or less equivalent role ? Pull the breaker in case of runaway ? The way > I have it set up is so the flap position will track the flap lever if it is > enabled. So, I could actually set the flap lever to the desired position > then hit the enable switch to bring them to that position or vice versa. How did you rig your tracking device? Full electronic or mechanical+electric ? I'd like to have more details. > The matter of adding the enable > switch is pretty simple and gives total pilot control over the circuit. I > suppose the PC could disable the flaps above Vfe or if the postion isn't > tracking the lever but I'll save that for version 2. > I suppose you have a bulletproof OS running your PC ? Hopefully not the one running on mine (you know, where Ctrl Alt &Del are the most used keys...) Cheers, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Instrument Manuals
Where/How does one come into acquisition of a manual for a particular instrument or radio. I recently picked up an ARC/Sperry IN-381A convertor indicator. Will this work on anything but an ARC radio? How does one find out? Thanks for any info ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric
flaps ? ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > >> I was concerned about a runaway motor or accidentally actuated switch on >> my flaps so I'm adding an "enable" switch. > >I was thinking about a switch guard to prevent accidental switch actuation. > >>This is just a toggle switch >> controlling power to the flap control circuit. It would be off in cruise >> and enabled in the pattern. > >Wouldn't the master switch, or a circuit breaker play a more or less >equivalent role ? >Pull the breaker in case of runaway ? What happens if the flaps do an uncommanded extension when you are at VNE? The flaps on most aircraft are not designed to handle such air loads, and they could be damaged, or could even be ripped off. You described very effective fowler flaps on the MCR, which give a large reduction in stall speed. What happens if the flaps do an uncommanded retraction when you are on short final to a 1000 ft strip? You might be lucky to avoid an accident. Personally, I share Bob's concerns about a failure mode that gives uncommanded flap motion. That is why I designed my flap system with a standard spring loaded DPDT toggle switch. You need at least two failures to give uncommanded motion with this system (both contacts must fail in the ON position), and you confirm the absence of those failures every time you have moved the flaps in both directions (i.e. on each flight). But, this is your aircraft, and it does not have to meet any design standards in this area. So you are free to ignore the lessons of the past if you wish. An extra "flap enable" switch could protect against these types of failure modes, as long as there is a way to confirm that the enable switch hasn't failed in the "enable" position. It would be smart to occasionally select the flaps with the "flap enable" switch in the "disable" position to confirm that the switch hasn't failed in the "enable" position. Dormant failures are the bane of monitoring or protection systems. -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics) Ottawa, Canada http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Contactors, Current Limiters on Z22
> > >Hi Bob, >If you reduce the current limiter from 60 to 40 to match the 40amp >alternator, would you also reduce the AWG from 6 to say 8 or more? > >Thanks, >Rick Fogerson >RV3 fuselage >Boise, ID Sure . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: electric flaps
> > >An extra "flap enable" switch could protect against these types of >failure modes, as long as there is a way to confirm that the enable >switch hasn't failed in the "enable" position. It would be smart to >occasionally select the flaps with the "flap enable" switch in the >"disable" position to confirm that the switch hasn't failed in the >"enable" position. Dormant failures are the bane of monitoring or >protection systems. I'm unaware of any cases (nor can I deduce the scenario) where any mechanical failure of the (on)-off-(on) switch would produce un-commanded motion. Failures in this system are pretty much limited to failure to halt or failure to move where you hand is already on the switch and you're expecting the flaps to do something - low order risk. A second "enable" feature won't improve much on this already low risk. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary K" <flyink(at)efortress.com>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 19, 2002
> The way I have it set up is so the flap position will track the flap lever if it is > > enabled. So, I could actually set the flap lever to the desired position > > then hit the enable switch to bring them to that position or vice versa. > > How did you rig your tracking device? Full electronic or mechanical+electric > ? I'd like to have more details. I have a linear potentiometer for the flap lever and for the flap motor. They will be mechanically tied to them with a small wire. Each pot will go into an A/D channel on the PC with a pull-up resistor and get measured and compared to each other. The PC will control "up" and "down" relays with a couple digital I/O bits. > I suppose you have a bulletproof OS running your PC ? Hopefully not the one > running on mine (you know, where Ctrl Alt &Del are the most used keys...) Yes, old reliable DOS on a 300Mhz Pentium programmed in C with Borland Graphics Library. I gave up on a Linux system and Windows CE (the airplane building learning curve is plenty for now). It's pretty simple but working well so far. Gary K. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: electric flaps
> >Do you really think there is no other safe way than one spring loaded switch? >If it were my airplane, I'd opt for some clone of the 172 system. But it is >a kit, the construction is well under way, and we'd like to improve upon the >existing system, if such a thing is possible. I could design a system that is "certifiable" . . . i.e. unabated and un-commanded motion probability is one per million flight hours. What you'd probably do for a small airplane is have two position feedback potentiometers, two controllers that communicate with each other. Each controller commands one lead of the motor. The two controllers must agree on response to command and interpretation of resultant motion in order for the motor to run. Probably dual command input systems as well. The simplest approach would be to use a dual potentiometer on the panel with a knob to input commands. You could provide mechanical detents at any desired number of flap positions. The pots would drive analog to digital converters on separate micro-controllers to deduce and confirm pilot inputs. The same a/d converters would watch two potentiometers in the flap system that tells us where the flaps are. One controller would command bus power while the other controls ground side of the motor. Both controllers have to be in agreement as to required action before the motor gets power. Any disagreement of commands, flap position pots or failure to respond to commands would shut the system down (I like to crowbar open a breaker) and light a light. This type of control system is "fail passive" meaning that any disagreement of pairs results in simple shutdown. Failure of any single component can be easily detected. Compound failures in things like potentiometer excitation can be detected through reasonablness checks in software. Bill of materials for such a system is modest. Perhaps $50-75 for all the parts. The expensive part is software and laying out boards for ruggedize construction. It would be about a 40-hour engineering task. Time to assemble and test each controller is about a 4-5 hour task. Not an outrageous task for a "luxury" lightplane but not something I'd probably do for my own airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Essential items?
> >So, while considering the placement of various components on the basic 3 >bus system, where have others placed the Electric trims & flaps? Are these >a main bus thing, or an essential bus thing? > >It seems that with them on the main bus you could use the dc power master >to shutdown runaway without having to resort ot pullable breakers. > >Thoughts? The e-bus is for things you need to run en route with a minimum drain on battery so that you have the best possible battery reserves when airport of intended destination is in sight. I'd everything NOT on the list on the main bus which includes stuff that may need to be shut down because it's mis-behaving. After all, that's what the e-bus is for . . . comfortable termination of flight using only that small list of equipment items. You might want to shut the main bus down for a variety of reasons. Alternator failure, smoke in cockpit, battery contactor failure, runaway gizmo, etc. The e-bus/main-bus concept provides a convenient way to quickly deal with a variety of possible situations and get into a mode for comfortable continued flight where you can sort out the options without constraints of having to make important decisions quickly while under stress. Once you're close to the airport, bringing the main bus back up may indeed allow the misbehaving system to do its own thing but what ever condition that presents, it should be manageable for the last few minutes of flight. See chapter 17 of the 'Connection. If you don't have the book, you can download this chapter at: http://209.134.106.21/articles/Rev9/ch17-9.pdf Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 19, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Instrument Manuals
> > >Where/How does one come into acquisition of a manual for >a particular instrument or radio. > >I recently picked up an ARC/Sperry IN-381A convertor >indicator. Will this work on anything but an ARC radio? >How does one find out? > >Thanks for any info Check around your local radio shops. I have access to the libraries in several shops locally. Sometimes I'll leave a nice box of cashews or a jar of mini Hershey bars on the counter when I leave . . . I'd like for them to look forward to my next visit. Often, for the price of a cheeseburger basket and a shake, one of their techs would help you sort out integration issues for mixing and matching OBS/CDI/GS heads with various radios. A really complete library has manuals for LOTS of radios and accessories that go back a lot of years. Not something one wants to own but it's sure nice to have access to one. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 12, 2002
Subject: PVC vs. Tefzel
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
Ok guys, I'm planning to use an EIS 4000 in my RV so I have a keen interest in this PVC vs. Tefzel wiring subject. I wrote to Greg at Grand Rapids Technologies yesterday (manufacturer of the EIS) and asked him about it. I've copied his response below. It sounds like I have the option of getting Tefzel wiring but I lose the color-coding and it'll probly cost more. Does anyone know what UL 1006 and 1016 are? Is this a more advanced form of PVC wiring than the stuff some of you are telling horror stories about? Just trying to sort fact from fiction here so I can make an INFORMED decision. If the PVC is going to break down and cause problems 100 years from now I couldn't care less...if it's going to cause problems in 5 years, or make smoke that's more toxic than Tefzel, I have cause for concern.... Thanks, --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A finish kit stuff... --------------------------------------------- Mark, The EIS does use PVC wiring. The main reason is the availability of 25 different color wires, so the wiring is color coded. We can build you cable from Tefzel wire if you prefer (we have done this before). Of course, all the wires are white! We can use wire you supply, or we can supply it for you. I'll check on the cost. Tefzel is great wire, but PVC is very good also. It does not support a flame, has excellent abrasion resistance, etc, and comes in lots of colors so our customers can easily wire the EIS (unless they are color-blind!). The purists insist on Tefzel, and there is nothing wrong with that, but PVC is perfectly safe. (We use PVC that meets UL 1006 and UL 1016? also. I think its made by Belden.) Thanks! Greg Toman From: Graham Singleton <grasingleton(at)avnet.co.uk> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PVC insulation - EIS 4000 >I'm sorry but PVC just isn't acceptable in aircraft period. The amount of >money you might save is insignificant when you consider the PVC will crack >and possible shortout. This will overheat it. Not only that, with ageing it will release hydrogen chloride vapour which causes corrosion. Graham ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Kevin, > >Pull the breaker in case of runaway ? > > What happens if the flaps do an uncommanded extension when you are at > VNE? The flaps on most aircraft are not designed to handle such air > loads, and they could be damaged, or could even be ripped off. I confess I did not consider a flap motor starting without command. But isn't such a probability rather remote ? We could have the same problem with starter motor engaging from its own will, fuel pumps, etc....? Isn't the motor failing to stop or to start a more probable situation ? In case of self deploying at cruise speed, I have the feeling the motors aren't strong enough to overcome the more substantial airstream resistance. And I have confirmation the flaps have been designed strong enough to withstand partial deployment at cruise speed. > > You described very effective fowler flaps on the MCR, which give a > large reduction in stall speed. What happens if the flaps do an > uncommanded retraction when you are on short final to a 1000 ft > strip? You might be lucky to avoid an accident. Same problem. I'll dig into it. But the flaps won't retract instantaneously, and at 1.3 Vs0, you still have a speed margin during retraction, so advance trottle and go around, even if very low. Well on a moutain field, you don't go around, so we could get into trouble. But we still have the master switch/ flap breaker. Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Hello Gilles, even when a bit off topic, I would NEVER try to fly into a mountain airfield (high, short only one way in, same way out) with a MCR01, for sure not the ones I know around Grenoble. As the MCR is very sensitive and fragile on slow flight. Werner ----- Original Message ----- From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ? <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > > Kevin, > > > >Pull the breaker in case of runaway ? > > > > What happens if the flaps do an uncommanded extension when you are at > > VNE? The flaps on most aircraft are not designed to handle such air > > loads, and they could be damaged, or could even be ripped off. > > I confess I did not consider a flap motor starting without command. But > isn't such a probability rather remote ? We could have the same problem with > starter motor engaging from its own will, fuel pumps, etc....? > Isn't the motor failing to stop or to start a more probable situation ? > In case of self deploying at cruise speed, I have the feeling the motors > aren't strong enough to overcome the more substantial airstream resistance. > And I have confirmation the flaps have been designed strong enough to > withstand partial deployment at cruise speed. > > > > You described very effective fowler flaps on the MCR, which give a > > large reduction in stall speed. What happens if the flaps do an > > uncommanded retraction when you are on short final to a 1000 ft > > strip? You might be lucky to avoid an accident. > > Same problem. I'll dig into it. > But the flaps won't retract instantaneously, and at 1.3 Vs0, you still have > a speed margin during retraction, so advance trottle and go around, even if > very low. > Well on a moutain field, you don't go around, so we could get into trouble. > But we still have the master switch/ flap breaker. > > Gilles > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02
Date: Mar 20, 2002
> > I could design a system that is "certifiable" . . . i.e. > ... > Bill of materials for such a system is modest. Perhaps > $50-75 for all the parts. The expensive part is > software and laying out boards for ruggedize > construction. It would be about a 40-hour > engineering task. Time to assemble and test > each controller is about a 4-5 hour task. I'm not a high time pilot. I have about 300 hours, mostly in these aircraft: -C-152, C-172, a little C-182. -Mooney M20J -Beech Sundowner Everyone knows how Cessna does their flap mechanism -- a lever with indents at the appropriate places. The Mooney has an up/down lever with an indicator -- you're expected to hold the lever in the appropriate direction until the indicator tells you the flaps are right. The Sundowner had manual flaps with indents. When making decisions on my RV, I really wanted the manual flaps. I LIKE them. It's simple, basically can't fail, you can feel how much force you're putting on your flaps when you extend 'em, you can power 'em with no electrical... The only downside: I'm not a small guy, I have friends who aren't small, and I just didn't want that lever between us. So I'm doing electrical flaps. And I HATE the mechanism on the Mooney. Okay, Cessna spoiled me. I like being able to operate the flaps without looking at anything. The paddle shape is quite distinctive, and it's one control that's in the EXACT same place on all the planes I rent. You can reach down and move it where you need it while keeping your eyes outside the cockpit where they belong. And it takes just a tiny moment before your hand can be back on the throttle -- where IT belongs. Okay, enough background... Suffice it to say, I have a STRONG preference for a Cessna-style system over the Mooney-style. Bob -- could you make a flap control kit? What would you want per kit, and what would be involved on our end to make it work? How many pre-orders would you want before you'd be willing to invest the time? I think you'd get sales -- this issue comes up often enough. There are a lot of us who learned to fly on Cessnas, and we like their flap system. -Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Joe Larson wrote: > The Sundowner had manual flaps with indents. > *** Johnson Bar flaps. Way cool. I used to have a Cessna 140. To do a short field takeoff, you'd pull the yoke AND the flaps at the same time. That airplane would jump off the field like a rabbit! Now I have a Sundowner - same deal, only the POH doesn't say anything about using them short field takeoffs.... - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: electric flaps
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > for a small airplane is have two position feedback > potentiometers, two controllers that communicate with > each other. *** Wow, that's complicated. How about something pneumatic instead? "Power flaps" - you could use a automotive power brake booster aiding a small Johnson bar... - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com>
Subject: Re: Instrument Manuals
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Manuals for many older avionics incl autopilots, some acft parts manuals etc etc are available from: ESSCO Inc 330-644-7724 (in Ohio) and 310-450-6138 (in CA). Info 2 years old but service was great for me then. Paul K6QMI -----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: Instrument Manuals > > >Where/How does one come into acquisition of a manual for >a particular instrument or radio. > >I recently picked up an ARC/Sperry IN-381A convertor >indicator. Will this work on anything but an ARC radio? >How does one find out? > >Thanks for any info Check around your local radio shops. I have access to the libraries in several shops locally. Sometimes I'll leave a nice box of cashews or a jar of mini Hershey bars on the counter when I leave . . . I'd like for them to look forward to my next visit. Often, for the price of a cheeseburger basket and a shake, one of their techs would help you sort out integration issues for mixing and matching OBS/CDI/GS heads with various radios. A really complete library has manuals for LOTS of radios and accessories that go back a lot of years. Not something one wants to own but it's sure nice to have access to one. Bob . . . http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2002
From: Tony Cann <tony.cann(at)sun.com>
Subject: Data Acquisition Module packaging
Bob's example of the data acquisition module has me fired up about building my own engine instrumentation. I am thinking about using PC/104 modules for the acquisition hardware and CAN-bus for communication. Display would be separate. I have some questions about packaging: 1) In previous posts, Bob showed a copper-clad custom enclosure at http://209.134.106.21/temp/MVC-036X.JPG - Is copper clad really required for interference problems, and would it be required in operational instrumentation? - There are some aluminum extrusion 'cans' commercially available for PC/104 that are completely enclosed. Is that overkill. Would an open cage be better for cooling and adequate for EMI? They are awfully large also. Tony Cann HRII N28HR reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: electric flaps
Date: Mar 20, 2002
> > Bill of materials for such a system is modest. Perhaps > $50-75 for all the parts. The expensive part is > software and laying out boards for ruggedize > construction. It would be about a 40-hour > engineering task. Time to assemble and test > each controller is about a 4-5 hour task. > > Not an outrageous task for a "luxury" lightplane > but not something I'd probably do for my own > airplane. Bob, Thanks again. This seems far beyond my abilities, but I'll ask some instructors in electronics classes. Maybe they'll be interested in studying such a project with their students. Cheers, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02
Date: Mar 20, 2002
> And I HATE the mechanism on the Mooney. Okay, Cessna spoiled me. I > like being able to operate the flaps without looking at anything. The paddle > shape is quite distinctive, and it's one control that's in the EXACT same place > on all the planes I rent. You can reach down and move it where you need it > while keeping your eyes outside the cockpit where they belong. And it > takes just a tiny moment before your hand can be back on the throttle -- > where IT belongs. > > Okay, enough background... Suffice it to say, I have a STRONG preference for > a Cessna-style system over the Mooney-style. Joe, You just said exactly what I was trying to convey. > > Bob -- could you make a flap control kit? What would you want per kit, and > what would be involved on our end to make it work? How many pre-orders > would you want before you'd be willing to invest the time? > > I think you'd get sales -- this issue comes up often enough. There are a lot of > us who learned to fly on Cessnas, and we like their flap system. Bob, You've already sold one ! And there are about 100 MCRs I know of under construction, and 100 more already flying... Joe's idea is simply GREAT ! Cheers, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ?
Date: Mar 20, 2002
Werner, Thank you for your message > even when a bit off topic, I would NEVER try to fly into a > mountain airfield (high, short only one way in, same way out) > with a MCR01, for sure not the ones I know around Grenoble. Of course I was thinking of moutain airfields with paved runways, like l'Alpe d'Huez, Meribel, Courchevel, Megeve, not what we call "altisurfaces", with rough unprepared strips, and requiring ultra robust bushplanes ! You can land and take off at l'Alpe d'Huez with any light plane, Cessna, Piper PA 28, Mooney, Robin, provided MTO is OK, no snow on runway, AND you are a qualified pilot. I know several MCR 01 pilots who do that regularly. The first version had only a small front wheel, and therefore was not well suited to operate from rough fields. But you can opt for a normal size front wheel, and get full grass strip capability. Many pilots, including myself have flown into and from grass fields, without any problems. One month ago I saw in Dijon an MCR 01 that had just logged 140 hours towing gliders in a club, with no particular problem. > > As the MCR is very sensitive and fragile on slow flight. Sorry I can't concur about this point. The controls are light, but the aircraft is very stable at any operating speed. I logged 20 hours on the prototype, and explored many corners of the flight envelope. The flight qualities at slow speed are excellent and the stall is very mild. The students or pilots I flew with invariably performed kiss landings after less than three patterns. The Club version and MCR 4 S with separate ailerons and flaps are rock solid on approach. In my opinion the only drawback, common to all the MCR I flew is a lack of harmony of the rudder response. Of course, the airplane lacks the rugged and tractorlike robustness of a Cessna 152 or a Rallye, but I can tell you the airframe can resist very very brutal handling from ham fisted pilots. Like pushing on the stick at the top of a 50' bounce on landing... No sir, I wasn't on board ! Funny results, and just one month to repair the damages. Did you really encounter difficulties in slow flight ? In that case the airplane should be thoroughly examined for incorrecrt rigging or construction errors ? Just my thoughts Cheers Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Essential items?
Date: Mar 20, 2002
> >So, while considering the placement of various components on the basic 3 > >bus system, where have others placed the Electric trims & flaps? Are these > >a main bus thing, or an essential bus thing? > > > >It seems that with them on the main bus you could use the dc power master > >to shutdown runaway without having to resort ot pullable breakers. > > > >Thoughts? Flaps are definitely main bus. If your destination is a very short strip, there must always be a planned alternate where you could land flapless. Electric pitch trim where there is no mechanical back up? More debateable. It must be possible to land the plane with the trim stuck in any position (else a mechanical backup would be required). However as prolonged out of trim flight would be very tireing I would want to keep the chance of trim failure to the absolute minimum. As the MAC trim servos use very little current I think I would put the pitch trim on the e bus. To cover the runaway case this does require a pullable breaker or isolate switch or a dual (split) trim switch. Does anybody know of a source for a dual (split) pitch trim switch that would fit a stick grip? Piers ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02
Date: Mar 20, 2002
An RV needs only three flap positions. This can be done with four microswitches on a cam track, two dual pole relays and a 2-10 switch (no electronics and no runaway failure modes caused by any wire open circuit or grounded). I think this is what I will go for. An alternative that still requires the two dual pole relays but only one microswitch might go like this: You use a single pole (ON) OFF (ON) switch for the control. To select the flaps you hold the switch for about a second in the desired direction of travel, the relevant relay then latches until the microswitch hits the next notch in the cam track. At this point the latch circuit is broken and the flaps stop. With this you can have as many positions as you put notches in the cam track. The worst failure mode is that the flaps might not stop at the notched position, but there need be no open circuit or grounded wires that would cause spontaneous uncommanded travel. Piers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2002
From: emrath(at)comcast.net
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02
Did this same thing with an instructor in a C-150 off a short strip in Maryland (electric flaps). Marty in Brentwood TN ----- Original Message ----- From: <jerry(at)tr2.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02 > > Joe Larson wrote: > > The Sundowner had manual flaps with indents. > > > *** Johnson Bar flaps. Way cool. I used to have a Cessna 140. To do a > short field takeoff, you'd pull the yoke AND the flaps at the same time. > That airplane would jump off the field like a rabbit! > > Now I have a Sundowner - same deal, only the POH doesn't say anything > about using them short field takeoffs.... > > - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 20, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Data Acquisition Module packaging
> >Bob's example of the data acquisition module has me fired up about >building my own engine instrumentation. I am thinking about using >PC/104 modules for the acquisition hardware and CAN-bus for >communication. Display would be separate. I have some questions about >packaging: >1) In previous posts, Bob showed a copper-clad custom enclosure at >http://209.134.106.21/temp/MVC-036X.JPG > - Is copper clad really required for interference problems, and would >it be required in operational instrumentation? I use a LOT of copper clad for fixtures and enclosures. I've got a shear and a nice pile of copper clad. I can throw an enclosure together of ANY size in about the same time as it takes to order an off-the-shelf box . . . an my custom box is EXACTLY the right size. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: electric flaps
> >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > for a small airplane is have two position feedback > > potentiometers, two controllers that communicate with > > each other. > >*** Wow, that's complicated. How about something pneumatic instead? "Power >flaps" - you could use a automotive power brake booster aiding a small Johnson >bar... The Beechjet uses hydraulics for both flaps and spoilers. Premier and Horizon used hydraulics for spoilers. You wouldn't believe how much hassle that is. Leaks in the system have to be carefully evaluated for potential to allow surfaces to retract under air loads . . . what's even worse is the potential for unbalanced surface movement. I think I'll stick with electric . . . Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
"aeroelectric-list"
Subject: Electrical shop tools - good price on solder gun &
heat gun
Date: Mar 21, 2002
Just burned out my 2nd Archer (Radio Shack) 100 watt solder gun. Wasn't heating 16 gage wire very fast (would melt solder but not heat the wires very fast) - kept it on way too long and eventuall something inside went "poof" and smoked. Did search on internet and found Weller brand, Model 8200 100/150 watt solder gun for $27.50 ($32.50 in kit with extra parts) at www.elexp.com (Electronics Express), 1-800-972-2225, 8:30-5 Eastern. Also ordered their Taiwanese RD7346B 600/1000 watt heat gun for heat shrink for $34.50. - Shipping will be $10 or less. Other web site prices for the Weller 8200 were $31.50 ($36.77 for kit) at www.unionel.com; ($39.99 for kit at Tools Plus www.tools-plus.com in CT); $38.38 ($44.70 for kit) at action-electronics.com in Santa Ana, CA. David Carter RV-6 QB Tail lights ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 21, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: PVC insulation - EIS 4000
>> >> >> > >> >I've just started the installation of a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 engine >> >monitor in my RV-8. I had assumed that all the wiring would have >> >aircraft quality tefzel installation, but I just learned that the >> >harness going into the unit have PVC insulation. >> > >> >So now I have some thinking to do. First I must decide how much of >> >the wiring I will replace, and then I must convince the Canadian >> >inspector of the correctness of my plan. I'll contact the inspector >> >as soon as I have done my thinking and have a convincing story. If >> >he is going to insist on a major rewiring I would rather know now >> >before I get too deep into this. >> > >> >I need to acquire some knowledge on PVC insulation. I assume there >> >are three potential issues: >> > >> >1. Noxious fumes if the insulation is overheated (yes, I agree that >> >no wires in a properly designed and installed electrical system >> >should ever overheat. However, we still read about the occasional >> >electrical smoke or fire incident, even on type certificated >> >aircraft); >> > >> >2. Abrasion resistance not as good as tefzel insulation; and >> > >> >3. Shorter life than tefzel insulation. >> > >> >Tackling these issues in order: >> > >> >1. I assume that PVC insulation on some wires is OK, as not all wires >> >are at risk of getting hot. I could use PVC insulation as long as >> >the wires in question are routed well clear of the exhaust system, >> >handle low voltage/low power signals (i.e. CHT and EGT extension >> >wires) and are not in the same bundle as wires with power sources. >> >Are these criteria reasonable? >> > >> >2. Assuming the wires in question are well secured and cannot chafe >> >against anything, are there any other abrasion issues to worry about? >> > >> >3. How does the life of PVC insulation compare to tefzel? What >> >failure modes should I expect as the wire ages? What warning signs >> >should I look for? >> >> These questions generally produce lots of response . . . >> >> Had we been building airplanes in 1890, wires would be >> insulated with tar and hemp. Then cotton covered rubber >> could have come along and everyone with new wire to sell >> would pour forth with all the evils of the past and >> extoll virtues of the present. >> >> In 1960 we were wiring airplanes with nylon jacketed >> PVC . . . the best we knew how to do then. Pretty soon, >> here comes Teflon . . MUCH better in many respects but >> not without it's own evils . . . very toxic out-gassing >> when overheated. Then comes Tefzel . . . lower temps >> than Teflon, more rugged and not quite so toxic. Then >> comes Kynar . . . I had to beat vendors off with clubs >> while working the GP-180 project at Learjet in 1983 . . . >> my airplane was going to be "hundreds of pounds overweight" >> if I didn't champion the new latest and greatest. >> >> Looking back, many of the airplanes I rent are wired >> with nylon over PVC wires. They're 30+ years old >> and the wires are still flexible and insulations are >> intact. Wires under the cowl are in pretty good shape >> too . . . because they've probably been replaced a number >> of times over the years . . . >> >> Further, we've read where the very thin, very tough >> Kynar insulation has a degradation mode that may have >> precipitated the cabin fire in an airplane over the >> North Atlantic a few years back. >> >> Here are some brief tech data sheets on PVC >> and Tefzel. >> >> http://www.endura.com/material1.htm#7 >> http://www.endura.com/material1.htm#37 >> >> Bottom line is that I wouldn't loose any sleep over >> PVC instrumentation wires in the cockpit. Probability >> of future difficulties with the wire any time in the >> next 30 years is remote. Further, the outcome of some >> problem being markedly influenced by the the fact that >> the wire is covered in Tefzel as opposed to PVC >> is even more remote. >> >> PVC under the cowl is easy to observe and apply >> maintenance as required. Probability of an >> uncomfortable situation arising out of an >> instrumentation loss is remote. >> >> So, your real problem is how to deal with a >> bureaucrat primed to pay homage to the latest >> approved mantra. You're on your own there my >> friend. My advice has to be based on an understanding >> of physics and observations of history. Bureaucrats >> are not renowned for their ability to exercise >> those skills. >> >> None the less, I would lean on EIS with great >> enthusiasm to upgrade their product. It's >> not an expensive thing to do . . . they've >> just been lazy. >> >> Bob . . . >> > >Bob, > >Thanks for the info and advice. > >I've decided I will replace the power input wire, and the one that >provides 5v output to one of my senders. I'm comfortable leaving >the other PVC stuff alone. > >I'll contact the folks who run the organization that does the >official inspections up here to see what their policy is. Then I'll >contact the local inspector. If I can't convince them to allow PVC >on instrumentation wires, I'll redo the rest of the harnesses. > >I contacted Grand Rapids, and Greg offered to redo the harness with >the wire of my choice if I want. I may still go down that road, >which would leave PVC on only the thermocouple wires. I haven't >managed to find a supplier of tefzel insulated thermocouple wires >yet. > >Take care, > >Kevin Well, it sure took a while to sort this out. I talked to the MD-RA folks who run the official inspections up here, but they told me there was no official policy on PVC wire, other than a generic policy to require aircraft quality materials and practices as much as practical. They left it up to the individual inspectors how to interpret that requirement. So, I played phone tag with the local inspector. I finally managed to talk with him tonight. He was quite familiar with the EIS, and was satisfied that it had a good track record. He was comfortable with PVC insulation on the instrumentation wires. Apparently some other inspectors have taken a different approach, and won't accept any PVC insulation at all. So, I plan to replace the 12 volt power-in line, and the 5 volt power-out line, as I'd rather those wires stay well insulated once the insulation starts to degrade in 20 - 30 years. If one of the instrumentation lines eventually shorts out and I lose a parametre, well, that is no safety issue. I'll replace the wiring at that time, if I still have the aircraft. Some folks have expressed concerns about what PVC insulation does if it gets overheated. A couple of nights ago I conducted a little experiment. I took samples of wire with different types of insulation - PVC, tefzel, and something else (teflon I suspect). I used a match to apply a flame to each type of insulation and observed the results. The PVC insulation burned, producing great quanitities of thick, black smoke. The smoke stopped as soon as the flame was removed from the wire - i.e. the fire was not self-supporting. The tefzel wire did exactly the same thing - lots of thick black smoke. The other stuff (teflon?) didn't smoke at all, but the insulation retreated from the flame at an amazing speed. So, if I get an electrical fire, I'll be shutting down the electrics. The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it will still run even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the aircraft right side up if I am IMC. I'll crack the canopy as required to vent the smoke, which should stop as soon as the power is removed. If I have a fuel fed fire in the cockpit, well I've got problems that tefzel wire wouldn't have solved. Take care, -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics) Ottawa, Canada http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Mar 21, 2002
Subject: Re: Alternators
Bob I am getting ready to order some part from B&C and I need some clarification. 1. With a 2 alternator system, 20A pad mount and 40A primary and using the dual alternator Z-4 diagram what ANL current limiters should I use? 2. Could you see a reason to go with a 60A primary alt. instead of the 40A. I don't need the extra output. The weight and cost would be more. Jim Robinson ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com>
Subject: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
> > I suppose you have a bulletproof OS running your PC ? Hopefully not the > one > > running on mine (you know, where Ctrl Alt &Del are the most used keys...) > > Yes, old reliable DOS on a 300Mhz Pentium programmed in C with Borland > Graphics Library. I gave up on a Linux system and Windows CE... I expect an application written on Windows CE would never meet the reliability / tracability requirements for avionics. I have heard that the best OS for instrumentaion graphics is something called QNX. Does anybody know about QNX? How good would it be for EFIS/ EICAS applications? Could QNX applications meet DO-178, at least for the lower criticality levels? Piers. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Subject: Master Caution/Warn Light source?
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
I'm installing the EIS-4000 in my RV-8A and would like to find a nicer looking warning light to put on the panel (as an avionics engineer the gnarly big red "bottle cap" light that comes with the EIS offends my sense of good taste on a modern instrument panel). I'd like to find a more flush, preferrably square, red or orange light with "Warn" or "Caution" written on it......somewhat like the Master Caution/Warn PBA's found on the glareshields of all modern bizjets and airliners. I could probably get one but I don't need the PBA function (push to cancel) and besides the price would probably break my piggy bank, so I'm wonderin' if anybody knows of a cheaper source for an elegant-looking warning light.....or a way to make one that looks professional.....? I'm thinking it might be possible to use a red LED behind an engraved lense of some sort to let the light shine through only where the lettering is....I think some panels can be engraved this way, but does anyone know of a source/process? Thanks, --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A finish kit stuff.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Master Caution/Warn Light source?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Most trophy/awards stores can engrave the back side of label material to provide the effect you are looking for. I too have an EIS4000 and have built a 2 high x 5 wide alarm panel using LED's behind an engraved label. My panel includes the EIS master, door open, alternator failure, low fuel level, etc. Ronnie Brown Velocity 173 Elite RG under construction ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
Subject: Master Caution/Warn Light source?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Mark, I ran across a number of nice annunciator lights while I was looking for a GPS/Nav switch or ACU. I didn't get one and can't for the life of me find a reference to them. Check the on-line avionics outfits, I was going to use one with a NAT RS-008 switch. Try a search for annunciator or legend lights. You could also try Digikey or Mouser. I also seem to recall hearing of a push-to-acknowledge caution light for the EIS. Sierra Flight Systems uses/used the EIS behind the scenes and might have used one. Why not just ask Greg Toman at GRT? I'm sure he's sourced lots of parts for the EIS and may have or know of one. Regards, Greg Young RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) - rebuilding Searching for Navion to fly > > I'm installing the EIS-4000 in my RV-8A and would like to find a nicer > looking warning light to put on the panel (as an avionics engineer the > gnarly big red "bottle cap" light that comes with the EIS offends my > sense of good taste on a modern instrument panel). I'd like to find a > more flush, preferrably square, red or orange light with "Warn" or > "Caution" written on it......somewhat like the Master Caution/Warn PBA's > found on the glareshields of all modern bizjets and airliners. I could > probably get one but I don't need the PBA function (push to cancel) and > besides the price would probably break my piggy bank, so I'm wonderin' if > anybody knows of a cheaper source for an elegant-looking warning > light.....or a way to make one that looks professional.....? I'm > thinking it might be possible to use a red LED behind an engraved lense > of some sort to let the light shine through only where the lettering > is....I think some panels can be engraved this way, but does anyone know > of a source/process? > > Thanks, > > --Mark Navratil > Cedar Rapids, Iowa > RV-8A finish kit stuff.... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net>
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Subject: Master Caution/Warn Light source?
> > Mark, > I ran across a number of nice annunciator lights while I was looking for a > GPS/Nav switch or ACU. I didn't get one and can't for the life of me find > a reference to them. Check the on-line avionics outfits, I was going to > use one with a NAT RS-008 switch. Try a search for annunciator or legend > lights. You could also try Digikey or Mouser. I also seem to recall > hearing of a push-to-acknowledge caution light for the EIS. Sierra Flight > Systems uses/used the EIS behind the scenes and might have used one. Why > not just ask Greg Toman at GRT? I'm sure he's sourced lots of parts for > the EIS and may have or know of one. > > Regards, > Greg Young > RV-6 N6GY Houston (DWH) - rebuilding > Searching for Navion to fly > > > > > > I'm installing the EIS-4000 in my RV-8A and would like to find a nicer > > looking warning light to put on the panel (as an avionics engineer the > > gnarly big red "bottle cap" light that comes with the EIS offends my > > sense of good taste on a modern instrument panel). I'd like to find a > > more flush, preferrably square, red or orange light with "Warn" or > > "Caution" written on it......somewhat like the Master Caution/Warn PBA's > > found on the glareshields of all modern bizjets and airliners. I could > > probably get one but I don't need the PBA function (push to cancel) and > > besides the price would probably break my piggy bank, so I'm wonderin' > > if anybody knows of a cheaper source for an elegant-looking warning > > light.....or a way to make one that looks professional.....? I'm > > thinking it might be possible to use a red LED behind an engraved lense > > of some sort to let the light shine through only where the lettering > > is....I think some panels can be engraved this way, but does anyone know > > of a source/process? > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Mark Navratil > > Cedar Rapids, Iowa > > RV-8A finish kit stuff.... > Honeywell makes a small annunciator light with 2 LED and transparent label fronts. I think they are "AML45RKD2RR". Jim Robinson Glll N79R ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: insulation types
Date: Mar 22, 2002
All this talk about wire insulation got me to investigate. As best I can tell the underhood wiring in new cars is "X-linked Polyethylene" rated at 135C continuous. It is generally called "GXL" or "TXL" and that is what I have used for race car work. TXL is apparently "extra-tough," but I have no real data. PVC might be used in the passenger compartment and is typically rated at 80C. Teflon is only used for the Oxygen sensor wire and is rated at 260C. This comes from my Packard Electric catalog. The Alpha Wire catalog lists these properties, among others (hope the mail doesn't distort this table too badly): PVC PE(GXL) PTFE(Teflon) ETFE(Tefzel) Abrasion Good Good Fair Good Heat resistance Good Good Excellent Excellent Flame retardency Excellent Poor Excellent Excellent Weatherability Good Excellent Excellent Good Aliphatic HC Good Poor Excellent Excellent (Oil resistance?) Aromatic HC Poor Poor Excellent Excellent (Fuel resitance?) In summary it looks like Tefzel is the thing to use, but it might not last as long as Polyelthylene. Gary Casey ES project ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Alternators
> > >Bob >I am getting ready to order some part from B&C and I need some >clarification. >1. With a 2 alternator system, 20A pad mount and 40A primary >and using the dual alternator Z-4 diagram what ANL current >limiters should I use? Good morning Jim! Just had a nice chat with Dan . . . I won't repeat any of this stories about you here on the list . . . but man, do I have the goods on you! The smallest ANL is a 30A, this is what's sold with the B&C SD-20 STC'd kit. ANL40 is the one to use with the L-40. >2. Could you see a reason to go with a 60A primary alt. instead of >the 40A. I don't need the extra output. The weight and cost would >be more. Exactly. Unless you have electric toe-warmers your max up IFR load will be less than 30A. I bent Dan's arm a bit about getting both of you to our Camarillo seminar (date to be announced in a few days) . . . I would be great to see both of you and I'm sure I could count on thoughtful audience participation as well. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Master Caution/Warn Light source?
> >I'm installing the EIS-4000 in my RV-8A and would like to find a nicer >looking warning light to put on the panel (as an avionics engineer the >gnarly big red "bottle cap" light that comes with the EIS offends my >sense of good taste on a modern instrument panel). I'd like to find a >more flush, preferrably square, red or orange light with "Warn" or >"Caution" written on it......somewhat like the Master Caution/Warn PBA's >found on the glareshields of all modern bizjets and airliners. I could >probably get one but I don't need the PBA function (push to cancel) and >besides the price would probably break my piggy bank, so I'm wonderin' if >anybody knows of a cheaper source for an elegant-looking warning >light.....or a way to make one that looks professional.....? I'm >thinking it might be possible to use a red LED behind an engraved lense >of some sort to let the light shine through only where the lettering >is....I think some panels can be engraved this way, but does anyone know >of a source/process? Go visit this website: http://sptpanel.com/ and in particular, this page: http://sptpanel.com/other%20engraving%20services.htm Werner Berry runs this outfit. He's done several projects for me and I'm going to send him another one next week. He can probably suggest off the shelf switch and/or lamp assemblies which are most conducive to labeling with his technology. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: PVC insulation -
> > >Well, it sure took a while to sort this out. I talked to the MD-RA >folks who run the official inspections up here, but they told me >there was no official policy on PVC wire, other than a generic policy >to require aircraft quality materials and practices as much as >practical. They left it up to the individual inspectors how to >interpret that requirement. So, I played phone tag with the local >inspector. I finally managed to talk with him tonight. He was quite >familiar with the EIS, and was satisfied that it had a good track >record. He was comfortable with PVC insulation on the >instrumentation wires. Apparently some other inspectors have taken a >different approach, and won't accept any PVC insulation at all. > >So, I plan to replace the 12 volt power-in line, and the 5 volt >power-out line, as I'd rather those wires stay well insulated once >the insulation starts to degrade in 20 - 30 years. If one of the >instrumentation lines eventually shorts out and I lose a parametre, >well, that is no safety issue. I'll replace the wiring at that time, >if I still have the aircraft. > >Some folks have expressed concerns about what PVC insulation does if >it gets overheated. A couple of nights ago I conducted a little >experiment. I took samples of wire with different types of >insulation - PVC, tefzel, and something else (teflon I suspect). I >used a match to apply a flame to each type of insulation and observed >the results. The PVC insulation burned, producing great quanitities >of thick, black smoke. The smoke stopped as soon as the flame was >removed from the wire - i.e. the fire was not self-supporting. The >tefzel wire did exactly the same thing - lots of thick black smoke. >The other stuff (teflon?) didn't smoke at all, but the insulation >retreated from the flame at an amazing speed. > >So, if I get an electrical fire, I'll be shutting down the electrics. >The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it will still run >even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the >aircraft right side up if I am IMC. I'll crack the canopy as >required to vent the smoke, which should stop as soon as the power is >removed. If I have a fuel fed fire in the cockpit, well I've got >problems that tefzel wire wouldn't have solved. > >Take care, > >-- >Kevin Horton Ooohhhhh, it just gets me all a'twitter when someone takes the time to acquire and consider DATA in the practical reduction of hazard while maximizing value for the time and dollars invested. In my utopian dreams, every bureaucrat's job would depend upon a demonstrated capability and willingness to exercise similar skills. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net>
Subject: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Windows NT/2000/XP are available in an embedded version. Don't know where/how to get it, and I'm sure it's expensive, but it oughta be reliable as heck. You get a multitasking, multithreaded OS with all kinds of graphics support built in. All kinds of developer tools and libraries available. Contrary to public opinion, the NT kernel is extremely stable. NT gets its bad reputation mainly because of poorly written third-party device drivers that cause system crashes. -Matt > > > > I suppose you have a bulletproof OS running your PC ? > Hopefully not the > > one > > > running on mine (you know, where Ctrl Alt &Del are the most used > keys...) > > > > Yes, old reliable DOS on a 300Mhz Pentium programmed in C > with Borland > > Graphics Library. I gave up on a Linux system and Windows CE... > > I expect an application written on Windows CE would never meet the > reliability / tracability requirements for avionics. > > I have heard that the best OS for instrumentaion graphics is something > called QNX. > > Does anybody know about QNX? How good would it be for EFIS/ EICAS > applications? > Could QNX applications meet DO-178, at least for the lower criticality > levels? > > Piers. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: "Builder's Bookstore" <winterland(at)rkymtnhi.com>
Subject: Free Thunderbird, Blue Angels videos
Free Thunderbird, Blue Angels videos I've got 5 copies of a Thunderbirds / Blue Angles video which we'll give away for Free to the first 5 people who ask for it along with any other regular order from Builder's Bookstore. It's a 50 minute video, 1/2 on the Thunderbirds, and 1/2 on the Blue Angels. The Thunderbird segment is excellent. The Blue Angels section is not as good. To get one, just write FREE THUNDERBIRDS VIDEO in the special instructions box on the Builder's Bookstore on-line order form, or say so if you prefer to order something by phone. Also, in case you are caller #6 or later, note if your regular order depends on whether there is a free video left to include in your package. Andy Builder's Bookstore http://buildersbooks.com 800 780-4115 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: John Rourke <john@allied-computer.com>
Subject: Re: PVC insulation - EIS 4000
Kevin, That's interesting - I tried the same experiment, and got somewhat different results from you... I used PVC-coated automotive battery cables, welding cables (two types - one black that looked like rubber, and one orange, labeled "VuTron"), and some 4-guage 22759/16 aviation-grade cable (Tefzel - or am I mistaken?) In addition to performing resistance tests (which showed the welding cable slightly better then the 22759, and automotive cable a little worse), I did a 60-second open flame test and a 60-second 500-degree dip test (in a solder pot). My results varied from yours, in that: PVC-coated automotive cable did produce a lot of black smoke,as you reported, but it also *did* continue burning about 20 seconds after the flame was removed.(Perhaps the stuff I got wasn't as good - if you can call either one good!) In the solder pot it bubbled, swelled and started charring and smoking, but didn't quite catch fire. The 22759 (I am pretty sure it's Tefzel) produced a little smoke in the flame test, and a very unpleasant odor... but it definitely did not sustain flame and didn't really make much smoke. In the solder pot, it was basically unaffected, except it did soften just a bit. The welding cable did the best of all. The rubber type emitted a smell that was like hot tar, not all that noxious, but refused to burn, even with 60 seconds of open flame on it... it swelled a bit but did not char or burn at all - this was for both the flame test and the dip test. The orange VuTron cable blackened a bit under the flame test, but did not smoke or char or smell at all.... pretty much impervious. Dipping it in the 500-degree solder pot had absolutely no effect (well it tinned the wire....) The VuTron cable is only available down to 6-ga from McMaster-Carr, it's on page 3098... according to the page the insulation is "chlorinated polyethylene"... all I know is it successfully resisted anything I could throw at it, even better than 22759/16 aviation cable. -John R. > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >I've just started the installation of a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 engine >>> >monitor in my RV-8. I had assumed that all the wiring would have >>> >aircraft quality tefzel installation, but I just learned that the >>> >harness going into the unit have PVC insulation. >>> > >>> >So now I have some thinking to do. First I must decide how much of >>> >the wiring I will replace, and then I must convince the Canadian >>> >inspector of the correctness of my plan. I'll contact the inspector >>> >as soon as I have done my thinking and have a convincing story. If >>> >he is going to insist on a major rewiring I would rather know now >>> >before I get too deep into this. >>> > >>> >I need to acquire some knowledge on PVC insulation. I assume there >>> >are three potential issues: >>> > >>> >1. Noxious fumes if the insulation is overheated (yes, I agree that >>> >no wires in a properly designed and installed electrical system >>> >should ever overheat. However, we still read about the occasional >>> >electrical smoke or fire incident, even on type certificated >>> >aircraft); >>> > >>> >2. Abrasion resistance not as good as tefzel insulation; and >>> > >>> >3. Shorter life than tefzel insulation. >>> > >>> >Tackling these issues in order: >>> > >>> >1. I assume that PVC insulation on some wires is OK, as not all wires >>> >are at risk of getting hot. I could use PVC insulation as long as >>> >the wires in question are routed well clear of the exhaust system, >>> >handle low voltage/low power signals (i.e. CHT and EGT extension >>> >wires) and are not in the same bundle as wires with power sources. >>> >Are these criteria reasonable? >>> > >>> >2. Assuming the wires in question are well secured and cannot chafe >>> >against anything, are there any other abrasion issues to worry about? >>> > >>> >3. How does the life of PVC insulation compare to tefzel? What >>> >failure modes should I expect as the wire ages? What warning signs >>> >should I look for? >>> >>> These questions generally produce lots of response . . . >>> >>> Had we been building airplanes in 1890, wires would be >>> insulated with tar and hemp. Then cotton covered rubber >>> could have come along and everyone with new wire to sell >>> would pour forth with all the evils of the past and >>> extoll virtues of the present. >>> >>> In 1960 we were wiring airplanes with nylon jacketed >>> PVC . . . the best we knew how to do then. Pretty soon, >>> here comes Teflon . . MUCH better in many respects but >>> not without it's own evils . . . very toxic out-gassing >>> when overheated. Then comes Tefzel . . . lower temps >>> than Teflon, more rugged and not quite so toxic. Then >>> comes Kynar . . . I had to beat vendors off with clubs >>> while working the GP-180 project at Learjet in 1983 . . . >>> my airplane was going to be "hundreds of pounds overweight" >>> if I didn't champion the new latest and greatest. >>> >>> Looking back, many of the airplanes I rent are wired >>> with nylon over PVC wires. They're 30+ years old >>> and the wires are still flexible and insulations are >>> intact. Wires under the cowl are in pretty good shape >>> too . . . because they've probably been replaced a number >>> of times over the years . . . >>> >>> Further, we've read where the very thin, very tough >>> Kynar insulation has a degradation mode that may have >>> precipitated the cabin fire in an airplane over the >>> North Atlantic a few years back. >>> >>> Here are some brief tech data sheets on PVC >>> and Tefzel. >>> >>> http://www.endura.com/material1.htm#7 >>> http://www.endura.com/material1.htm#37 >>> >>> Bottom line is that I wouldn't loose any sleep over >>> PVC instrumentation wires in the cockpit. Probability >>> of future difficulties with the wire any time in the >>> next 30 years is remote. Further, the outcome of some >>> problem being markedly influenced by the the fact that >>> the wire is covered in Tefzel as opposed to PVC >>> is even more remote. >>> >>> PVC under the cowl is easy to observe and apply >>> maintenance as required. Probability of an >>> uncomfortable situation arising out of an >>> instrumentation loss is remote. >>> >>> So, your real problem is how to deal with a >>> bureaucrat primed to pay homage to the latest >>> approved mantra. You're on your own there my >>> friend. My advice has to be based on an understanding >>> of physics and observations of history. Bureaucrats >>> are not renowned for their ability to exercise >>> those skills. >>> >>> None the less, I would lean on EIS with great >>> enthusiasm to upgrade their product. It's >>> not an expensive thing to do . . . they've >>> just been lazy. >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>Bob, >> >>Thanks for the info and advice. >> >>I've decided I will replace the power input wire, and the one that >>provides 5v output to one of my senders. I'm comfortable leaving >>the other PVC stuff alone. >> >>I'll contact the folks who run the organization that does the >>official inspections up here to see what their policy is. Then I'll >>contact the local inspector. If I can't convince them to allow PVC >>on instrumentation wires, I'll redo the rest of the harnesses. >> >>I contacted Grand Rapids, and Greg offered to redo the harness with >>the wire of my choice if I want. I may still go down that road, >>which would leave PVC on only the thermocouple wires. I haven't >>managed to find a supplier of tefzel insulated thermocouple wires >>yet. >> >>Take care, >> >>Kevin >> > > >Well, it sure took a while to sort this out. I talked to the MD-RA >folks who run the official inspections up here, but they told me >there was no official policy on PVC wire, other than a generic policy >to require aircraft quality materials and practices as much as >practical. They left it up to the individual inspectors how to >interpret that requirement. So, I played phone tag with the local >inspector. I finally managed to talk with him tonight. He was quite >familiar with the EIS, and was satisfied that it had a good track >record. He was comfortable with PVC insulation on the >instrumentation wires. Apparently some other inspectors have taken a >different approach, and won't accept any PVC insulation at all. > >So, I plan to replace the 12 volt power-in line, and the 5 volt >power-out line, as I'd rather those wires stay well insulated once >the insulation starts to degrade in 20 - 30 years. If one of the >instrumentation lines eventually shorts out and I lose a parametre, >well, that is no safety issue. I'll replace the wiring at that time, >if I still have the aircraft. > >Some folks have expressed concerns about what PVC insulation does if >it gets overheated. A couple of nights ago I conducted a little >experiment. I took samples of wire with different types of >insulation - PVC, tefzel, and something else (teflon I suspect). I >used a match to apply a flame to each type of insulation and observed >the results. The PVC insulation burned, producing great quanitities >of thick, black smoke. The smoke stopped as soon as the flame was >removed from the wire - i.e. the fire was not self-supporting. The >tefzel wire did exactly the same thing - lots of thick black smoke. >The other stuff (teflon?) didn't smoke at all, but the insulation >retreated from the flame at an amazing speed. > >So, if I get an electrical fire, I'll be shutting down the electrics. >The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it will still run >even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the >aircraft right side up if I am IMC. I'll crack the canopy as >required to vent the smoke, which should stop as soon as the power is >removed. If I have a fuel fed fire in the cockpit, well I've got >problems that tefzel wire wouldn't have solved. > >Take care, > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: QNX OS?
> >Windows NT/2000/XP are available in an embedded version. > >Don't know where/how to get it, and I'm sure it's expensive, but it oughta >be reliable as heck. You get a multitasking, multithreaded OS with all >kinds of graphics support built in. All kinds of developer tools and >libraries available. > >Contrary to public opinion, the NT kernel is extremely stable. NT gets its >bad reputation mainly because of poorly written third-party device drivers >that cause system crashes. > >-Matt Matt. Got any experience with local networking with XP? I've got two new machines with XP that refuse to talk to each other or other machines on the network. They "see" the other machines and can identify them by name but won't share resources. The XP machines will log onto my hardware router (D-link) at boot up and properly report their current i.p. address but will wander off and loose contact with the router after a few hours. When I ask XP to repair the i.p. connection, it either says 'repair failed, contact your net administrator' or simply locks up. If I take the router out and run everybody through a hub directly to the cable modem, all the i.p. addressing problems go away. Oh yeah, one of the XP machines is snail-slow when accessing internet operations through the router but runs like blazes when connected directly to the net. The other machines (XP, M.E. and '98) access the net just fine through the router but don't fair any better at talking to each other after running the XP networking wizard on them. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz)
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
> > >I have heard that the best OS for instrumentaion graphics is something >called QNX. > >Does anybody know about QNX? How good would it be for EFIS/ EICAS >applications? >Could QNX applications meet DO-178, at least for the lower criticality >levels? > >Piers. > You'll find that just about any embedded OS is amazingly expensive and will require a good sized team of developers to get all the correct device drivers working for flash, usb, serial, graphics, etc. Not to mention graphics and math libraries. I HATE dealing with those OS companies, I ask for a simple ballpark figure on a single development seat for their OS and it takes about five emails and then a phone call before you get an idea that they are WAY overpriced. Ten's of thousands of dollars for the barebones license. No wonder they are reluctant to tell you. I don't see how any company smaller than a large cap can afford an OS like QNX! That certainly doesn't help small companies bring better products to market. I have to agree NT embedded is more attractive - built in device drivers, easy to produce a subset of the OS for just the parts you need, and just overpriced, not wildly overpriced. True, you won't get DO-178 level A or B on NT, but getting that on QNX won't be a walk in the park either. Here's a question: What OS is Blue Mountain Avionics using for their EFIS? - Mitch ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terrywatson3(at)attbi.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
This is from Bluemountain's frequently asked questions page. I'm not sure if it answers your question, Terry Q: What operating system do you use? Is it Windows / Linux / etc.? The processor is a Transmeta clocking 533 MHz booting up off the metal from FLASH memory. We don't use a desktop operating system since crashes are not acceptable in flight. We use Int 21 support for reading PC -formatted DVDs and reading and writing FLASH, but that's about the extent of it. We have exhaustively tested the system (including a simulated 4 month long flight!) and never a crash. 767 pilots don't reboot their systems -- why should you? Faatz) >> > Here's a question: What OS is Blue Mountain Avionics using for their EFIS? > > - Mitch > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Watsonville Seminar Date Set
Watsonville CA seminar date has been set. We're ready to take your reservations at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Watsonville.html Coming soon: Camarillo, CA Ft. Worth, TX - George and Becki Orndorff's hangar Manassas, VA Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz)
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Yeah, saw that. Doesn't tell us too much. You could call NT embedded and some unix variants "not desktop operating systems", but neither of those come close to booting in 4 seconds! So we still don't know what they are using. Terry Watson wrote: > >This is from Bluemountain's frequently asked questions page. I'm not sure >if it answers your question, > >Terry > >Q: What operating system do you use? Is it Windows / Linux / etc.? >The processor is a Transmeta clocking 533 MHz booting up off the metal from >FLASH memory. We don't use a desktop operating system since crashes are not >acceptable in flight. We use Int 21 support for reading PC -formatted DVDs >and reading and writing FLASH, but that's about the extent of it. We have >exhaustively tested the system (including a simulated 4 month long flight!) >and never a crash. 767 pilots don't reboot their systems -- why should you? > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Mitchell Faatz wrote: [snip] > > Here's a question: What OS is Blue Mountain Avionics using for their EFIS? > > - Mitch Aren't they using the embedded java chip that Linus Torvalds (sp?) helped develop? It may not be Blue Mountain but IIRC I saw that one of the glass panel companies was using the chip. Steve Eberhart RV-7A - just a whole bunch of aluminum, in various states of attachment, filling up my half of the garage. Some of it looks like it might belong on the back end of an airplane. The rest looks like it might, some day, help hold it up in the air.... but what do I know. N14SE reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Terry Watson wrote: > > This is from Bluemountain's frequently asked questions page. I'm not sure > if it answers your question, > > Terry > > Q: What operating system do you use? Is it Windows / Linux / etc.? > The processor is a Transmeta clocking 533 MHz booting up off the metal from > FLASH memory. We don't use a desktop operating system since crashes are not > acceptable in flight. We use Int 21 support for reading PC -formatted DVDs > and reading and writing FLASH, but that's about the extent of it. We have > exhaustively tested the system (including a simulated 4 month long flight!) > and never a crash. 767 pilots don't reboot their systems -- why should you? > That is what I thought. Since they are using the Transmeta chip they obviously are programming the thing in Java. A great decision, IMHO. Steve Eberhart RV-7A - just a whole bunch of aluminum, in various states of attachment, filling up my half of the garage. Some of it looks like it might belong on the back end of an airplane. The rest looks like it might, some day, help hold it up in the air.... but what do I know. N14SE reserved ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz)
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Why is it obvious? The whole point of Transmeta is to run any variant of Windows Linux through code morphing. Why do you say it must be Java? Mitch Faatz > >That is what I thought. Since they are using the Transmeta chip they >obviously are programming the thing in Java. A great decision, IMHO. > >Steve Eberhart > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Subject: Re: electric flaps *a little off topic*
Hmmm, reminds me of the time I did something similar in a C150. Did a T&G at a small field away from home base before instructor authorized me to do so, and forgot to raise the fully deployed flaps on one attempt. Drag was so high that I could barely gain enough speed to get off the ground, but enough lift to reduce tire traction on the pavement to near zero. P-factor took me off the runway and around some tires bordering the runway. Finally got headed backsomewhat parallel to the pavement and lifted off once I started reducing the flaps; just barely cleared the trees at the end of the runway. Went straight back to home base and turned the plane back, still shaking. Never did tell my instructor. A few others have probably done something similar and survived. But those trees were too close for comfort. Regards, Doug Windhorn In a message dated 3/21/2002 6:43:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com writes: > Hey gang , all this talk of controls & trims etc reminded me (I've > never forgotten) of an event that happened to me on my first solo flight for > > my Private Pilots License back in 1989 . Cessna 150 : I did a "touch & go" > on > my third approach (flaps 30) and forgot to retract the flaps (electric&slow ) > > . Naturally when I applied full power the a/c shot into the air , felt like > straight up . Seemed like no horizon , even out the side windows . I must > have been holding over a hundred pounds of force on the yoke to try to keep > from stalling , as I remebered the flaps . Well I'm telling this so I did OK > > (after some explaining to my instructor ) but to this day I still wish I had > > actually tracked down the A&P that did the latest rigging or replacement of > the down elevator cable & pulleys etc ! I would have loved to by him > lunch/dinner or what ever . Tough part is walking into the flying club & not > > let anyone see your hands shaking while you sign the plane back in . > Chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Matthew Mucker wrote: > > > Windows NT/2000/XP are available in an embedded version. > > Don't know where/how to get it, and I'm sure it's expensive, but it oughta > be reliable as heck. You get a multitasking, multithreaded OS with all > kinds of graphics support built in. All kinds of developer tools and > libraries available. > > Contrary to public opinion, the NT kernel is extremely stable. NT gets its > bad reputation mainly because of poorly written third-party device drivers > that cause system crashes. > > -Matt > And third party software designers blame end users for not using their software properly. Properly designed systems (doesn't matter whether you speak of hardware or software) are hardened against any reasonable level of abuse. Pretty much any application can crash on a well-designed system & the other tasks are unaffected. Not so with Windows. When I'm running Netscape at home, Windows crashes & blames the software for 'illegal operations.' Guess What? At work, where I'm forced to use Internet Explorer, Windows crashes & blames the software for 'illegal operations.' Tell me again about Windows reliability.... For the ultimate insult, I've read that to even get XP running you must (at least symbolically) let Bill Gates have a firm grip on your genitals because a direct connection to MS is required to install it. I'm not a programer or systems person, but I must work with QNX, Linux, VMS, & MS Windows (95 to NT) at work. The MS systems are the least stressed & most unstable of the lot. I just bought an iPaq and I'm struggling with whether to invest in some really nice moving map software because I distrust 'Crash' Gates so much. Maybe they'll port it to Linux. Charlie BTW, QNX is relatively stable on our pc's, but nowhere near bulletproof. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
> >Why is it obvious? The whole point of Transmeta is to run any variant >of Windows Linux through code morphing. Why do you say it must be Java? Windows Linux???? That's a contradiction in terms. FWIW, since they mention INT 21 support, it sounds like what Bluemountain uses is some kind of MSDOS variant. Also FWIW, my thoughts for an embedded avionics system centre round DOS plus Borland C & their graphics library, but that's mainly because I've used that combination for years. Incidentally, there's a company called paradigm that sells tools to allow you to embed code written in Borland C -- no DOS required. A more current approach to embedding code would be to use an embedded Linux -- there's a number of products around to help with this, but I don't have any experience with them. And to answer the original question... QNX is an embedded version of Unix -- it has a good reputation for reliability. Frank. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Mitchell Faatz wrote: > > > Yeah, saw that. Doesn't tell us too much. You could call NT embedded > and some unix variants "not desktop operating systems", but neither of > those come close to booting in 4 seconds! > > So we still don't know what they are using. > At a seminar demonstrating the product, the owner told us that they wrote their own operating system to avoid the kind of problems Windows causes. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz)
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Charlie and Tupper England wrote: >Guess What? At work, where I'm forced to use Internet >Explorer, Windows crashes & blames the software for 'illegal >operations.' > >Tell me again about Windows reliability.... > Sorry, I've heard these arguments and I'm not sure they apply too squarely here. I worked at a data warehousing company for four years that used NT servers, and they were getting BASHED all day. They had uptimes on the order of 99.9x percent. How? Fairly "closed" systems, with only known software installed and no end users downloading apps, changing drivers, etc. Just like an avionics package would be. On the down side, you've got to contend with long boot times and it's harder to control the screen during bios POST, NT loader, etc. The moving map companies that use Windows can because 1) they are secondary displays that only need DO-178 level C and D certification and 2) they have proven an availability record and their code and test cases check for information display correctness with much error checking. I know, I've done it. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use an RTOS that can give me level A cert and can boot in a few seconds, but device support is painful, it's very very expensive, and you end up doing a lot more hardware engineering. Mitch Faatz ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Mitchell Faatz wrote: > > > Charlie and Tupper England wrote: > > >Guess What? At work, where I'm forced to use Internet > >Explorer, Windows crashes & blames the software for 'illegal > >operations.' > > > >Tell me again about Windows reliability.... > > > Sorry, I've heard these arguments and I'm not sure they apply too > squarely here. I worked at a data warehousing company for four years > that used NT servers, and they were getting BASHED all day. They had > uptimes on the order of 99.9x percent. How? Fairly "closed" systems, > with only known software installed and no end users downloading apps, > changing drivers, etc. Just like an avionics package would be. > > On the down side, you've got to contend with long boot times and it's > harder to control the screen during bios POST, NT loader, etc. The > moving map companies that use Windows can because 1) they are secondary > displays that only need DO-178 level C and D certification and 2) they > have proven an availability record and their code and test cases check > for information display correctness with much error checking. I know, > I've done it. > > Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use an RTOS that can give me level A > cert and can boot in a few seconds, but device support is painful, it's > very very expensive, and you end up doing a lot more hardware engineering. > > Mitch Faatz > I work on a VERY tightly controlled completely closed government system. No uncertified software allowed at all. Hasn't helped a bit. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Subject: turn coordinator vs turn and bank
From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> <<.......skip.....The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it will still run even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the aircraft right side up if I am IMC......>> 3/22/2002 Hello Kevin, Please allow me to step onto my soap box for a moment here (hopefully without starting some flaming warfare). If the primary purpose of the instrument is to keep one right side up while partial panel (no attitude gyro) in IMC then a turn and bank (or slip) instrument is superior to a turn coordinator. I know that some people for simplistic, or superficial ergonomic, or familiarity reasons like to look at a little airplane rather than a vertical needle, but the instability of that little airplane has two serious deficiencies: A) People don't like to practice partial panel with it because it is too jittery, and B) People can't fly partial panel with it because it is too jittery. On a more general note on the subject of partial panel in IMC, here are some reasons why people don't survive the episode: 1) They don't recognize the failure of their attitude gyro until too late. 2) They are aware that they are partial panel, but they haven't seriously practiced for that condition so they can not control the airplane no matter how it is instrumented. 3) They are aware and reasonably capable, but they don't appreciate how serious the situation is and how quickly they can lose control of the aircraft so they allow themselves to be distracted and try to do too many things at once. (Flying single pilot IFR in IMC is like riding a bicycle. Single pilot partial panel IFR in IMC is like riding a unicycle). 4) They let ATC tell them what to do and then they try to do it instead of declaring an emergency and then doing only the most important things one thing at a time at a pace they are capable of handling. Case in point (without second guessing anybody, or pointing any fingers, or jumping to conclusions about the cause): I bring to your attention the recent Cirrus accident (on today's AOPA posting where the chute was deployed). There were two instrument qualified pilots in this modern sophisticated airplane that took off deliberately in instrument conditions to get some IMC practice (good for them). But despite all the positives they had going for them, some sort of instrument failure resulted in them losing control of the aircraft, attempting to deploy the chute, and landing in some field. They survived. My point again is that single pilot partial panel IMC is truly serious business and one should equip themselves and train themselves as if their life depended upon it -- it does. 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: connectors for telephone cord?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Bob, I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the connector. Can you comment on these connectors? Thanks in advance, Tom Barnes ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
Tom Barnes wrote: > > > Bob, > I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 > ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord > with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like > to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the > connector. Can you comment on these connectors? > Thanks in advance, > Tom Barnes > You can check the cord to be sure it's really a phone type cable & connectors by plugging it in to a phone as an extension. If it's really a standard RJ-11 phone cord you can by an inexpensive installation tool & connectors at Radio Shack or any well stocked electronic/electrical distributor. You won't be able to reinstall the connector you cut off, unless you are willing to splice the wires. The tool is required to properly install the connector, but it's a trivial task if you follow directions & pay attention to wire color codes. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net>
Subject: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
> And third party software designers blame end users for not > using their software properly. > > Properly designed systems (doesn't matter whether you speak > of hardware or software) are hardened against any reasonable > level of abuse. Pretty much any application can crash on a > well-designed system & the other tasks are unaffected. Not > so with Windows. Pardon my language, but bullshit. While true under Win9x/Me, user mode processes are completely isolated from each other under the NT kernel. One app cannot crash another app. (At least, not without the second app's permission. Two apps can have shared memory if they both explicitly allow it.) Under Windows NT/2K/XP, there are only two user mode apps that can crash the machine, and they're both part of the OS. The only time one of 'em really crashes the machine is when PC Anywhere or the Novell client are installed (in practical terms). Windows is far from perfect, but your comments are far from the reality of the situation. > > When I'm running Netscape at home, Windows crashes & blames > the software for 'illegal operations.' Um.... that error message means the application you're running instructed the processor to run an instruction that's not a valid x86 instruction. Happens when an application, for instance, attempts to execute data. And it'll crash the process but not Windows. (At least not NT/W2K/WinXP.) Windows 95, 98, and ME are not, in my opinion, "real" operating systems and NONE of my comments about Windows' stability applies to these variants. (Your comments about Windows' stability would apply to Win9x/ME.) > > Guess What? At work, where I'm forced to use Internet > Explorer, Windows crashes & blames the software for 'illegal > operations.' See above. Usually, however, it really *is* the application's fault. (If the OS goes down too, though, I'm on your side on this one.) > > Tell me again about Windows reliability.... Sure. I have enterprise level customers (Fortune 500 companies, all branches of the federal government and all branches of the U.S. armed forces) who haven't rebooted their NT machines in six months or more. If you factor out scheduled reboots (for OS patches, etc.) and only count unscheduled reboots, the uptime of the NT/W2K/XP kernel can easily be measured in years. For systems that *have* crashed, I've looked at more memory dumps from NT crashes than I can count. The *vast* majority of system crashes are the fault of non-Microsoft device drivers. And I can say that conclusively, because I've dissected the dump in a debugger and found EXACTLY what was happening on customer machines when a crash happens. Of course, MS does have its share of crashes caused by MS code, but these are in the minority and MS is good about getting patches to these problems as they're discovered. > > For the ultimate insult, I've read that to even get XP > running you must (at least symbolically) let Bill Gates have > a firm grip on your genitals because a direct connection to > MS is required to install it. You have obviously been reading less than reputable sources. Posting that "information" here indicates you might not know the difference between a reputable source and one that supports your anti-Microsoft biases. For the record, Windows XP will install just fine on a machine that has no network connection whatsoever, and will continue to run forever without ever being attached to a network ever, as long you as activate the product over the phone. > > I'm not a programer or systems person, but I must work with > QNX, Linux, VMS, & MS Windows (95 to NT) at work. The MS > systems are the least stressed & most unstable of the lot. Without knowing more I cannot comment. Again, however, my comments only apply to the NT kernel as found in Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Windows 95, 98, and ME are pieces of junk and are worthy of your criticisms. > > I just bought an iPaq and I'm struggling with whether to > invest in some really nice moving map software because I > distrust 'Crash' Gates so much. Maybe they'll port it to > Linux. You are free to choose who to trust and distrust. Your distrust in this case, however, may cause you to miss out on some fantastic products. I'll be happy to debate the stability and reliability of the NT kernel and point out what's good and bad about it if anyone cares. I promise that I do know what I'm talking about. -Matt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net>
Subject: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
> I work on a VERY tightly controlled completely closed > government system. No uncertified software allowed at all. > Hasn't helped a bit. > > Charlie > Doesn't that say something about your system's change control and test processes? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 22, 2002
From: Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
This thread is probably a bit computer geeky for most, but for those so inclined the QNX website at www.qnx.com will explain more. Helps if you know a bit about Unix. Jim Oke Wpg., MB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: QNX OS? > > > > I suppose you have a bulletproof OS running your PC ? Hopefully not the > > one > > > running on mine (you know, where Ctrl Alt &Del are the most used > keys...) > > > > Yes, old reliable DOS on a 300Mhz Pentium programmed in C with Borland > > Graphics Library. I gave up on a Linux system and Windows CE... > > I expect an application written on Windows CE would never meet the > reliability / tracability requirements for avionics. > > I have heard that the best OS for instrumentaion graphics is something > called QNX. > > Does anybody know about QNX? How good would it be for EFIS/ EICAS > applications? > Could QNX applications meet DO-178, at least for the lower criticality > levels? > > Piers. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Vic Moore" <zkc16(at)houston.rr.com>
Subject: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Your language is not pardoned and makes you look like a semi-literate moron---lose it. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Matthew Mucker Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: QNX OS? Pardon my language, but --------. While true under Win9x/Me, user mode... ________________________________________________________________________________
From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 23, 2002
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
Warning! Check the polarity before doing this. The AmeriKing ELT revereses the polarity of the plugs at each end of the cable, unlike a standard telephone extension cord. Substitution of a standard phone wire will wreak havoc on the unit. (Don't ask how I know.) ACK may or may not share this design quirk. Look at each connector end-on and see if the color sequence for the ribbon cable is the same. Compare to a standard phone cord and look for any differences. Proceed with caution. Bill B RV-6A flying > > I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 > ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord > with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like > to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the > connector. Can you comment on these connectors? > Thanks in advance, > Tom Barnes ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net>
Subject: Power supply for bench testing
Date: Mar 22, 2002
What is the ideal voltage for a regulated supply for powering up a panel on the workbench? Russ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Stein Bruch" <stein(at)steinair.com>
Subject: connectors for telephone cord?
Date: Mar 22, 2002
Hi Tom, Just a quick warning, but many of the ELT cables that look like phone cord are NOT. Some may be, but I would take a close look before cutting it apart and trying to splice on a new end. Cheers, Stein Bruch RV6, Minneapolis Bob, I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the connector. Can you comment on these connectors? Thanks in advance, Tom Barnes ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Electric flaps : has Cessna found the Holy Grail ?
Date: Mar 23, 2002
Cessna > did the most practical "servoed" flap control > system for small aircraft. > > They rigged a Bowden control cable between the > flap mechanism and the flap switch assembly. > Microswitches that operate the flap motor are > mounted on a plate that is rotated under a > cam that's operated by the flap control > handle. > > Moving the handle would depress one of the > two switches which causes the flap motor to > run. As the flap moves, the switch plate > is moved to follow the command cam until > the operated switch is released and the flaps > stop. > > This arrangement gives you basically infinite > number of flap positions although the > handle is fitted with a couple or three > detents. Bob and all, After some investigation, it seems the Cessna type system could be THE solution ? Wiring the thing as per your fig 11.7 drawing, and replacing the spring loaded command switch with the two switches on the "following plate" ? At the moment I've no access to a real Cessna or a maintenance manual to see how the lever and switch plate are arranged, but the layout seems rather straightforward. And it'd take only four switches, two relays and one mechanical feedback cable. Any comments ? cheers, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net>
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
Does it really matter? If he can get the correct connector and crimping tool and crimps it back on the way it was (same colors to same "pins"). Finn Stein Bruch wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > Just a quick warning, but many of the ELT cables that look like phone cord > are NOT. Some may be, but I would take a close look before cutting it apart > and trying to splice on a new end. > > Cheers, > Stein Bruch > RV6, Minneapolis > > > Bob, > I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 > ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord > with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like > to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the > connector. Can you comment on these connectors? > Thanks in advance, > Tom Barnes ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
Date: Mar 23, 2002
> > > > Bob, > > I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 > > ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord > > with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like > > to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the > > connector. Can you comment on these connectors? > > Thanks in advance, > > Tom Barnes Tom, I haven't seen anyone give you this suggestion: Cut the connector off of the harness, but not straight across - start about an inch (or more) from back of connector, mark 1 cut line on an outside wire, move down 1" and mark cut line on 2nd/adjacent wire. Continue staggering cut lines every 1 inch until all 4 wires are marked. Carefully cut each single wire on its staggered cut line. Run your connector-less harness/wire wherever it goes, then slide a 3/4" length of small heat shrink on each of the 4 wires, strip 1/4" of insulation from each wire on harness and from each wire stub coming out back of the connector you cut off. Lay/clamp a pair side-by-side and solder - check for continuity: If OK, do next wire, until all 4 are done. Slide the 4 heat shrink tubes into position and shrink. You will have 1/4" between ends of adjacent heat shrink tubes (i.e., not a big fat bundle). This is what I understand Bob to advocate in such a case - solder splices for wires. Thus, there is no need to dis-assemble the pins from the connector, etc. This is what I am currently doing to lengthen the 3 wire harness from my Whelen strobe power supply and feed it thru an aluminum tubing conduit aft to end of fuselage and thru the rudder bottom fairing to other half of factory connector near the light fixture. Got 1 good solder splice and 1 bad, so far - gun not heating "heavy" 16 awg wires enough and finally burned out - new gun on the way. David Carter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net>
Subject: Re: Power supply for bench testing
Date: Mar 23, 2002
Russ, Last week Bob Nuckolls told us about the 13.8 vdc 23 amp "switching" power supply available from Radio Shack. I immediately ordered that plus a 15amp dc ammeter to use in the shop to verify/find out current draw of everything I put into the airplane. I ordered the ammeter primarily to get "free shipping if order is for over $99" (worth about $10) - so the $20 or so ammeter only cost me $10. - I've attached Bob's e-mail for your info. I think the answer to your question is "same as your alternator will put out, i.e., about 13.8 vdc". David Carter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Power supply for bench testing > > What is the ideal voltage for a regulated supply for powering up a panel on > the workbench? > > Russ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Power supply for bench testing
> >What is the ideal voltage for a regulated supply for powering up a panel on >the workbench? You'll want to test everything over the expected operating range in your airplane. Alternator operating voltages may run from 13.8 to 14.6, battery only operations from 10.5 to 12.8 . . . so see how your goodies behave over the range of 10.5 to 14.6 with nominal being 14.0 volts. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca>
Subject: Re: turn coordinator vs turn and bank
> >From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> > ><<.......skip.....The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it will >still run >even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the >aircraft right side up if I am IMC......>> > >3/22/2002 > >Hello Kevin, Please allow me to step onto my soap box for a moment here >(hopefully without starting some flaming warfare). > >If the primary purpose of the instrument is to keep one right side up while >partial panel (no attitude gyro) in IMC then a turn and bank (or slip) >instrument is superior to a turn coordinator. > >I know that some people for simplistic, or superficial ergonomic, or >familiarity reasons like to look at a little airplane rather than a vertical >needle, but the instability of that little airplane has two serious >deficiencies: A) People don't like to practice partial panel with it because >it is too jittery, and B) People can't fly partial panel with it because it >is too jittery. > I haven't made a hard decision yet to go with the TC vs the turn and bank (T&B). My understanding was that the T&B only sensed yaw rate, so if you start to bank the needle won't respond until a yaw rate builds up. In theory, it may actually initially go the wrong way on many aircraft due to adverse yaw. I haven't tried this in practice, as I don't have access to a suitably equipped aircraft. I understood that the rate gyro in the TC was tilted slightly so it also was sensitive to roll rate, making it respond more quickly when a bank was initiated. This is supposed to make the TC a better bet for partial panel. I haven't flown an partial panel on aircraft with a T&B since pilot training, many years ago, and I've never flown partial panel on an aircraft with a TC. All the aircraft I've flown in the past many years have multiple independent attitude indicators, so partial panel is never required. I certainly intend to practice partial panel on my RV-8 before I head off into the clouds. I won't go into said clouds unless I am satisfied with my partial panel proficiency. Take care, ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
> >Bob, > I am running the wiring for the panel display unit of the ACK-E01 >ELT. The wiring looks just like a four wire telephone extension cord >with a male connector on one end and female on the other. I would like >to remove the smaller (male) end, run the wire, then reinstall the >connector. Can you comment on these connectors? > Thanks in advance, >Tom Barnes I've seen those cables but not examined them closely. If you're sure the male connector is identical to the common telephone connector then it should be possible to cut it off and replace it with one from radio shack . . . they have tools that neatly strip the wire and install the connectors too. I've considered that series of connectors for several panel mounted products in airplanes. Again, NOT the latest and greatest insulation on the wire but the connector technology lives well on telephones that suffer some worse environmental conditions than those found inside an airplane. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Electric flaps : has Cessna found the Holy Grail
? ><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > Cessna > > did the most practical "servoed" flap control > > system for small aircraft. > > > > They rigged a Bowden control cable between the > > flap mechanism and the flap switch assembly. > > Microswitches that operate the flap motor are > > mounted on a plate that is rotated under a > > cam that's operated by the flap control > > handle. > > > > Moving the handle would depress one of the > > two switches which causes the flap motor to > > run. As the flap moves, the switch plate > > is moved to follow the command cam until > > the operated switch is released and the flaps > > stop. > > > > This arrangement gives you basically infinite > > number of flap positions although the > > handle is fitted with a couple or three > > detents. > >Bob and all, > >After some investigation, it seems the Cessna type system could be THE >solution ? >Wiring the thing as per your fig 11.7 drawing, and replacing the spring >loaded command switch with the two switches on the "following plate" ? >At the moment I've no access to a real Cessna or a maintenance manual to see >how the lever and switch plate are arranged, but the layout seems rather >straightforward. >And it'd take only four switches, two relays and one mechanical feedback >cable. I like it. It's got some mechanical dragons to slay but they are relatively easy. No electrical dragons to hatch . . . the elegant solution in simple servo systems. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: PVC insulation - EIS 4000
Date: Mar 23, 2002
Bob sez: > The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot . . . If any of the PVC wires > are involved in a generated fumes situation, the products of combustion > for PVC versus Tefzel are a toss-up. It matters not which chemicals are > irritating your lungs when you're trying to deal competently with > the airplane. A smoke in the cockpit situation calls for immediate > power-down of the whole electrical system whereupon the smoking should > stop. The biggest factor for choosing Tefzel over PVC are issues of > service life - like 20-30 years versus 30-50 years (except under the > cowl). Bob, you've made some excellent points, as usual. Thank you. My PVC thermocouple wires will stay in the airplane, at least for now. The only real concern, and the reason this thread was started, is whether the airplane will pass final inspection. One of the rules for Canadian homebuilts is that "aircraft-quality materials shall be used throughout" or something to that effect. Definitely open to interpretation but I'll take my chances that if questioned on it, logic will prevail. Curt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Matthew Mucker wrote: > > > > And third party software designers blame end users for not > > using their software properly. > > > > Properly designed systems (doesn't matter whether you speak > > of hardware or software) are hardened against any reasonable > > level of abuse. Pretty much any application can crash on a > > well-designed system & the other tasks are unaffected. Not > > so with Windows. > > Pardon my language, but bullshit. While true under Win9x/Me, user mode > processes are completely isolated from each other under the NT kernel. One > app cannot crash another app. (At least, not without the second app's > permission. Two apps can have shared memory if they both explicitly allow > it.) Under Windows NT/2K/XP, there are only two user mode apps that can > crash the machine, and they're both part of the OS. The only time one of > 'em really crashes the machine is when PC Anywhere or the Novell client are > installed (in practical terms). > > Windows is far from perfect, but your comments are far from the reality of > the situation. > > > > > When I'm running Netscape at home, Windows crashes & blames > > the software for 'illegal operations.' > > Um.... that error message means the application you're running instructed > the processor to run an instruction that's not a valid x86 instruction. > Happens when an application, for instance, attempts to execute data. And > it'll crash the process but not Windows. (At least not NT/W2K/WinXP.) > > Windows 95, 98, and ME are not, in my opinion, "real" operating systems and > NONE of my comments about Windows' stability applies to these variants. > (Your comments about Windows' stability would apply to Win9x/ME.) > > > > > Guess What? At work, where I'm forced to use Internet > > Explorer, Windows crashes & blames the software for 'illegal > > operations.' > > See above. Usually, however, it really *is* the application's fault. (If > the OS goes down too, though, I'm on your side on this one.) > > > > > Tell me again about Windows reliability.... > > Sure. I have enterprise level customers (Fortune 500 companies, all > branches of the federal government and all branches of the U.S. armed > forces) who haven't rebooted their NT machines in six months or more. If > you factor out scheduled reboots (for OS patches, etc.) and only count > unscheduled reboots, the uptime of the NT/W2K/XP kernel can easily be > measured in years. > > For systems that *have* crashed, I've looked at more memory dumps from NT > crashes than I can count. The *vast* majority of system crashes are the > fault of non-Microsoft device drivers. And I can say that conclusively, > because I've dissected the dump in a debugger and found EXACTLY what was > happening on customer machines when a crash happens. > > Of course, MS does have its share of crashes caused by MS code, but these > are in the minority and MS is good about getting patches to these problems > as they're discovered. > > > > > For the ultimate insult, I've read that to even get XP > > running you must (at least symbolically) let Bill Gates have > > a firm grip on your genitals because a direct connection to > > MS is required to install it. > > You have obviously been reading less than reputable sources. Posting that > "information" here indicates you might not know the difference between a > reputable source and one that supports your anti-Microsoft biases. > > For the record, Windows XP will install just fine on a machine that has no > network connection whatsoever, and will continue to run forever without ever > being attached to a network ever, as long you as activate the product over > the phone. > > > > > I'm not a programer or systems person, but I must work with > > QNX, Linux, VMS, & MS Windows (95 to NT) at work. The MS > > systems are the least stressed & most unstable of the lot. > > Without knowing more I cannot comment. Again, however, my comments only > apply to the NT kernel as found in Windows NT, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. > Windows 95, 98, and ME are pieces of junk and are worthy of your criticisms. > > > > > I just bought an iPaq and I'm struggling with whether to > > invest in some really nice moving map software because I > > distrust 'Crash' Gates so much. Maybe they'll port it to > > Linux. > > You are free to choose who to trust and distrust. Your distrust in this > case, however, may cause you to miss out on some fantastic products. > > I'll be happy to debate the stability and reliability of the NT kernel and > point out what's good and bad about it if anyone cares. I promise that I do > know what I'm talking about. > > -Matt > I agree that NT is more stable than the prior MS junk, and I don't doubt that you know more than I do, since I'm just a 'user.' Perhaps WinCE on the new iPaq will be as stable as NT, but do we know? I agree that my distaste for Mr. Gates will almost certainly cause me to miss out on some great products. I just want to be sure that my misplaced confidence doesn't cause me to miss out on some great life. And quite honestly, Mr. Gates has sold me so much junk in the past, I look at him like I look at Exxon. If there is anything else available that's good enough, I'll try that first. I really would like to hear some opinions from those who know about the stability of WinCE. Win9x & ME are terrible even when running only MS software. I'd like to avoid the Blue Screen of Death frustration at least while I'm flying. What do you say Matt, is CE on a handheld any better than ME on a desktop? Is NT an option on a handheld with 32M of ram & no hard drive? Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Has Cessna found the Holy Grail ?
Date: Mar 23, 2002
> >Bob and all, > > > >After some investigation, it seems the Cessna type system could be THE > >solution ? > >Wiring the thing as per your fig 11.7 drawing, and replacing the spring > >loaded command switch with the two switches on the "following plate" ? > >At the moment I've no access to a real Cessna or a maintenance manual to see > >how the lever and switch plate are arranged, but the layout seems rather > >straightforward. > >And it'd take only four switches, two relays and one mechanical feedback > >cable. > > I like it. It's got some mechanical dragons to slay > but they are relatively easy. No electrical dragons > to hatch . . . the elegant solution in simple servo > systems. > > Bob . . . > Bob, Thank you for your advice. Where are those dragons hidden ? In the cable rigging ? In the adjustment of the two microswitches ? Should the full up/ full down limit switches be placed on the actual worm gear, or can they be installed on the lever plate. But then, what if the Bowden cable gets disconnected ? It'll take some Wichita Merlin to help me through this quest... Cheers, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net>
Subject: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 23, 2002
> What do you say Matt, is CE on a handheld any better than ME > on a desktop? Is NT an option on a handheld with 32M of ram > & no hard drive? > I am a WinCE ignoramus. My personal opinion is that CE was written with very different design goals than the NT based products. CE is designed to be lightweight; NT is written to be secure and stable. I have no experience with CE, but I personally wouldn't trust my life's work in the hands of a CE system. For cockpit instrumentation, CE is probably not a good choice. That's based on gut feeling more than hard fact, though. OTOH, for a moving map display that supplements, rather than replaces, primary flight instruments, WinCE provides a very cost effective platform. -Matt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
> Let me make sure I understand this. You keep buying what you consider junk > from the same supplier (Microsoft) and you keep slamming one of the founders > of the company for selling it to you? If someone was holding you down and > taking the money out of your wallet, and I don't mean that metaphorically, > then you would have a case, but you say you keep going back for more > because it is the only choice available. And you slam the guy that gives > you that choice because you don't think it's a good enough choice but you > admit that it's the best there is otherwise you wouldn't buy it. It ain't the best, they have a monopoly, ask the justice department. They have been convicted of it, it is just a buncha folks negotiating the punishment (stupid waste of time, if you ask me, but no one did). When was the last time you applied for a job and they didn't ask for a resume in Word format (try giving it to 'em in any other format, and you won't get the job, no matter how well you explain the problem to them). How many people do you know that assume you have M$ products, because the attached some Word or Excel file to it? A high percentage, that may include people who send "self extracting" compressed files (Hi Bob). If you explain you have a Mac or a Linux box, they look at you like you are from mars, and you might as well be. Too many people ASSume too much. How about some real life experience. I work professionally for a company that supplies software and hardware to the FAA. It is all custom stuff, hardware and software. We use LynxOS and pSOS, why? It is real time, and very reliable. Expensive too, but it has to do something we need it to everyday, because airplanes don't stop. About a two years ago there was a project to move some of the software to NT to make debugging cheaper. Since it is custom stuff, it doesn't rely on anything special, no browsers, it is mostly C, no Java VB, or anything. it got to the 90% stage, and stopped. The debugging of OS issues took more time than debugging the real software. You leave the software running overnight, and it may or may not be running in the morning. A year ago I started the project to move this same set of software to Linux. Same goal, make debugging cheaper. The full project was just certified by the FAA. We had a lab setup running the software, and I went off to another project, leaving the lab running, 44 days without a crash, and it only got restarted 'cause I loaded a newer version of the software. Apples to Apples comparison, probably not. Linux is more like Lynx pSOS or even QNX since they promise some level of Posix compliance. Was the person doing the NT conversion at the same skill level as I am? I don't know, they appeared so, but they coulda been big talkers. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 23, 2002
From: John & Amy Eckel <eckel1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: turn coordinator vs turn and bank
Hello Kevin, There is a good article in the April "Flying" magazine about partial panel and the accident rate. I think it is worth reading. John, Europa builder ----- Original Message ----- From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com> Subject: AeroElectric-List: turn coordinator vs turn and bank > > From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> > > <<.......skip.....The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it will > still run > even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the > aircraft right side up if I am IMC......>> > > 3/22/2002 > > Hello Kevin, Please allow me to step onto my soap box for a moment here > (hopefully without starting some flaming warfare). > > If the primary purpose of the instrument is to keep one right side up while > partial panel (no attitude gyro) in IMC then a turn and bank (or slip) > instrument is superior to a turn coordinator. > > I know that some people for simplistic, or superficial ergonomic, or > familiarity reasons like to look at a little airplane rather than a vertical > needle, but the instability of that little airplane has two serious > deficiencies: A) People don't like to practice partial panel with it because > it is too jittery, and B) People can't fly partial panel with it because it > is too jittery. > > On a more general note on the subject of partial panel in IMC, here are some > reasons why people don't survive the episode: > > 1) They don't recognize the failure of their attitude gyro until too late. > > 2) They are aware that they are partial panel, but they haven't seriously > practiced for that condition so they can not control the airplane no matter > how it is instrumented. > > 3) They are aware and reasonably capable, but they don't appreciate how > serious the situation is and how quickly they can lose control of the > aircraft so they allow themselves to be distracted and try to do too many > things at once. (Flying single pilot IFR in IMC is like riding a bicycle. > Single pilot partial panel IFR in IMC is like riding a unicycle). > > 4) They let ATC tell them what to do and then they try to do it instead of > declaring an emergency and then doing only the most important things one > thing at a time at a pace they are capable of handling. > > Case in point (without second guessing anybody, or pointing any fingers, or > jumping to conclusions about the cause): I bring to your attention the recent > Cirrus accident (on today's AOPA posting where the chute was deployed). There > were two instrument qualified pilots in this modern sophisticated airplane > that took off deliberately in instrument conditions to get some IMC practice > (good for them). But despite all the positives they had going for them, some > sort of instrument failure resulted in them losing control of the aircraft, > attempting to deploy the chute, and landing in some field. They survived. > > My point again is that single pilot partial panel IMC is truly serious > business and one should equip themselves and train themselves as if their > life depended upon it -- it does. > > 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? > > http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: Dual-alternator, dual-battery, or dual-both
Date: Mar 23, 2002
Okay, Bob... This was sort of discussed, but I'm not sure your final recommendation was clear. If you had your choice, would you go with: A. Dual-batteries with a single alternator B. Dual-alternators and a single battery C. Dual-alternators and dual batteries Furthermore, if dual-alternators, would they be the same size or different sizes? I think I got confused about this because of the discussion a few weeks ago coupled with the discussion in The Connection. AEC talks about dual batteries, but I remember the discussion was about dual alternators and a single battery. -Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 23, 2002
I think you are a little dogmatic. I submit much of my work electronically either as PDF or PageMaker. One can also use Word Perfect. You can even use a spread sheet as a word processor if necessary. What difference does it make if you mail them the hard copy? Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh Editor, EAA Safety Programs cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org Always looking for articles for the Experimenter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: QNX OS? > Let me make sure I understand this. You keep buying what you consider junk > from the same supplier (Microsoft) and you keep slamming one of the founders > of the company for selling it to you? If someone was holding you down and > taking the money out of your wallet, and I don't mean that metaphorically, > then you would have a case, but you say you keep going back for more > because it is the only choice available. And you slam the guy that gives > you that choice because you don't think it's a good enough choice but you > admit that it's the best there is otherwise you wouldn't buy it. It ain't the best, they have a monopoly, ask the justice department. They have been convicted of it, it is just a buncha folks negotiating the punishment (stupid waste of time, if you ask me, but no one did). When was the last time you applied for a job and they didn't ask for a resume in Word format (try giving it to 'em in any other format, and you won't get the job, no matter how well you explain the problem to them). How many people do you know that assume you have M$ products, because the attached some Word or Excel file to it? A high percentage, that may include people who send "self extracting" compressed files (Hi Bob). If you explain you have a Mac or a Linux box, they look at you like you are from mars, and you might as well be. Too many people ASSume too much. How about some real life experience. I work professionally for a company that supplies software and hardware to the FAA. It is all custom stuff, hardware and software. We use LynxOS and pSOS, why? It is real time, and very reliable. Expensive too, but it has to do something we need it to everyday, because airplanes don't stop. About a two years ago there was a project to move some of the software to NT to make debugging cheaper. Since it is custom stuff, it doesn't rely on anything special, no browsers, it is mostly C, no Java VB, or anything. it got to the 90% stage, and stopped. The debugging of OS issues took more time than debugging the real software. You leave the software running overnight, and it may or may not be running in the morning. A year ago I started the project to move this same set of software to Linux. Same goal, make debugging cheaper. The full project was just certified by the FAA. We had a lab setup running the software, and I went off to another project, leaving the lab running, 44 days without a crash, and it only got restarted 'cause I loaded a newer version of the software. Apples to Apples comparison, probably not. Linux is more like Lynx pSOS or even QNX since they promise some level of Posix compliance. Was the person doing the NT conversion at the same skill level as I am? I don't know, they appeared so, but they coulda been big talkers. http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Foerster" <jfoerst(at)jps.net>
Subject: Blue Mountain OS is ROMDOS
Date: Mar 23, 2002
Mitchell Faatz asked "Here's a question: What OS is Blue Mountain Avionics using for their EFIS?" I'm sure that I read on their website that they use ROMDOS, which should be very relable. To get it to multitask, either a round robin polling service could be used with a watchdog timer, or else it could use intrrupts. I don't recall where this is on the site, but I read it recently. Jim Foerster J400/panel design/ probable EFIS One buyer ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com>
Subject: DO-178?
Date: Mar 24, 2002
Well it was me that started the OS thread. I didn't realise I was going to open such a can of worms! The reason for my interest is that I am involved in designing an engine monitor. If we eventually pursue certification we will have to meet the RTCA / EUROCAE standards, though not strictly necessary for homebuilts. Now I am not a software engineer and I am not familiar with DO-178. The software people involved in this project will have to deal with those issues in detail. As I understand it however, DO-178 has different levels depending on the safety criticality of the application. The first question to answer therefore is what level we may need to aim for (this may affect choice of OS from the outset and even who we get to do the software). The intention is to have some backup instrumentation independent of the engine monitor (thermocouple CHT gauge and warning lights for low oil pressure and low coolant quantity). I would argue that these will be sufficient, as a minimum, for safe operation. We would hope to argue therefore that the electronic engine monitor is not safety critical. (Unlike a FADEC for example, the engine functioning is NOT dependant on it) Is there anybody familiar with DO 178 who could suggest which level this application might need to meet? Regards, Piers ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 24, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Has Cessna found the Holy Grail ?
> > > > I like it. It's got some mechanical dragons to slay > > but they are relatively easy. No electrical dragons > > to hatch . . . the elegant solution in simple servo > > systems. > > > > Bob . . . > > > > >Bob, > >Thank you for your advice. >Where are those dragons hidden ? In the cable rigging ? In the adjustment of >the two microswitches ? >Should the full up/ full down limit switches be placed on the actual worm >gear, or can they be installed on the lever plate. But then, what if the >Bowden cable gets disconnected ? >It'll take some Wichita Merlin to help me through this quest... All of the above. Mechanical systems of this type present issues of stiffness and/or friction, resistance to wear, adjustability, getting the ratios set (things that rotate around shafts produce non-linear motion for things attached to tangents) . . . the fortunate thing is that all of the issues are readily observable and yield to hammer-n-tongs. Electronic systems bury their challenges in little pieces of plastic and will often have many of the same physical problems as mechanical systems. Your project would take a big jump forward if you could borrow the panel mounted portion of the flap control mechanism out of a wrecked Cessna for cloning . . . It would also be useful to see how they work the bowden cable connection at the flap end. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 24, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Dual-alternator, dual-battery, or dual-both
> >Okay, Bob... This was sort of discussed, but I'm not sure your final >recommendation was clear. > >If you had your choice, would you go with: > >A. Dual-batteries with a single alternator >B. Dual-alternators and a single battery >C. Dual-alternators and dual batteries > >Furthermore, if dual-alternators, would they be the same size or different >sizes? > >I think I got confused about this because of the discussion a few weeks ago >coupled with the discussion in The Connection. AEC talks about dual >batteries, >but I remember the discussion was about dual alternators and a single battery. It depends on what you want your airplane to do. That's why there are so many choices illustrated in Appendix Z. It's like sizing a computer to a task; you wouldn't try to solve matrix algebra problems on an 8088 machine and it would be a waste of resources to have a 1.5G/Pentium 4 machine control your hot-tub. The goal is to balance hardware for optimizing flight system safety against weight, parts count, time and cost. If you're building a Lancair IVP with dual EFIS, deice systems and electrically dependent engine, then dual, independent, battery/alternator systems are in order. Further, they would be sized based upon what the worst case failure mode wherein you need to get airport in sight while extracting yourself from the worst conditions you expect to fly into. You need to decide what burdens you are going to place on the machine and your flight skills in satisfaction of a desire to get from point A to point B through the intervening environmental conditions. For the flying that the vast majority of us do - day/night vfr with an occasional punch through a cloud layer, the all electric airplane on a budget architecture is a strong contender. With dual engine driven power sources, battery reserves are not an issue. The SD-8 alternator will run EVERYTHING we need to get the airport in sight from any anticipated flight scenario. So the battery can get lighter. The alternator on the vacuum pump pad is much lighter than the vacuum system it replaces. A 40 amp alternator for the main power is quite adequate. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: QNX OS?
Date: Mar 24, 2002
Cy Galley wrote: > > Since it is custom stuff, it doesn't rely on anything special, no > browsers, it is mostly C, no Java VB, or anything. it got to the 90% > stage, and stopped. The debugging of OS issues took more time than > debugging the real software. You leave the software running overnight, > and it may or may not be running in the morning. > > A year ago I started the project to move this same set of software to > Linux. Same goal, make debugging cheaper. The full project was just > certified by the FAA. We had a lab setup running the software, and I > went off to another project, leaving the lab running, 44 days without > a crash, and it only got restarted 'cause I loaded a newer version of > the software. > *** I find Linux to be about an order of magnitude more reliable than any Windows I have experience with ( W3.1, W95, W98, NT4.1 ). I believe that the reason for this is the open source. This has several good effects: * Peer review: If people write crappy code, it's out there for the world to see. So people tend to mind their Ps & Qs. * Bugs do not have to be stoically tolerated by the user community - at least not the programmer contingent. They get fixed, and not necessarily by the original developers. There is a good article out there in netland somewhere called "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" or somesuch, that addresses these exact issues. See http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar. - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com>
Subject: DO-178?
Date: Mar 24, 2002
I have some considerable familiarity with the DO-178 standards and the FAA's attitude towards these issues. For some time, I participated actively on the informal government - industry advisory group that helped to develop the guidance material (AC) for piston engine electronic engine controls. Bob probably has a lot of experience with this, also. The issue for the feds starts with the assumption of the complete failure of the monitor. I can tell you that the software certification level for the TCM FADEC is at level C. You should, therefore, be able to argue that is a ceiling on the issue of criticality for single engine aircraft. Your backup strategy for a set of 'instrument idiot lights' will help to reduce the level, further. The real question is... can you get them to waive level D and just let you do E (no software certification required...) The feds are VERY reluctant to do that, no matter what the backup system is.... if for no other reason than they argue that if the data on the monitor is erroneous, it will conflict with the "idiot lights" and that can cause an increased pilot workload or an unplanned emergency landing. If you would like to discuss this further, feel free to call me. 580 436 4833 Regards, George Braly -----Original Message----- From: Piers Herbert [mailto:piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com] Subject: AeroElectric-List: DO-178? Well it was me that started the OS thread. I didn't realise I was going to open such a can of worms! The reason for my interest is that I am involved in designing an engine monitor. If we eventually pursue certification we will have to meet the RTCA / EUROCAE standards, though not strictly necessary for homebuilts. Now I am not a software engineer and I am not familiar with DO-178. The software people involved in this project will have to deal with those issues in detail. As I understand it however, DO-178 has different levels depending on the safety criticality of the application. The first question to answer therefore is what level we may need to aim for (this may affect choice of OS from the outset and even who we get to do the software). The intention is to have some backup instrumentation independent of the engine monitor (thermocouple CHT gauge and warning lights for low oil pressure and low coolant quantity). I would argue that these will be sufficient, as a minimum, for safe operation. We would hope to argue therefore that the electronic engine monitor is not safety critical. (Unlike a FADEC for example, the engine functioning is NOT dependant on it) Is there anybody familiar with DO 178 who could suggest which level this application might need to meet? Regards, Piers http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 24, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Turn coordinator vs turn and bank
> >Hello Kevin, >There is a good article in the April "Flying" magazine about partial panel >and the accident rate. I think it is worth reading. > >John, Europa builder >----- Original Message ----- >From: <BAKEROCB(at)aol.com> >To: >Subject: AeroElectric-List: turn coordinator vs turn and bank > > > > > > From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> > > > > <<.......skip.....The turn coordinator will be on my battery bus, so it >will > > still run > > even if I shed the other busses, which will allow me to keep the > > aircraft right side up if I am IMC......>> > > > > 3/22/2002 > > > > Hello Kevin, Please allow me to step onto my soap box for a moment here > > (hopefully without starting some flaming warfare). > > > > My point again is that single pilot partial panel IMC is truly serious > > business and one should equip themselves and train themselves as if their > > life depended upon it -- it does. > > > > 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? > > One of the factors that drove development of the turn coordinator was the single axis autopilot. Look-behind electronics (that stuff which can only react to something already in progress) couldn't fly the airplane worth a toot using pure yaw rate as an input. Given that people are only marginally able to look ahead, the turn coordinator turned out to be a good thing for humans too. I used to ride shotgun for a co-worker who liked to keep his instrument rating current. Never saw him shoot an approach to minimums with the gyros uncovered . . he allowed as how having all those gages working was "easy" . . . He did have a vertical card compass in the panel which made it a whole lot easier that using the slosh compass. I've watched him hold plus-or-minus one-dot approach paths in gusty Kansas cross winds . . . he wouldn't have a chance with the original turn-and-bank. Years ago, Mooney installed Brintain wing levelers in their airplanes as STANDARD equipment. This was a 100%-ON system using vacuum servos that could be overridden without damaging things (a push button on wheel would shut it off while holding the button too). They called it "Positive Control" or "PC" for short. This feature was credited with extracting a lot of pilots and airplanes from situations with high pucker-factors. The Britian sensor was an early style turn-coordinator. I gotta believe if I can't teach a handful of transistors to fly the airplane without some roll rate information, that the task for anything but a relaxed, trained and practiced human will be equally difficult. A good friend of mine got to try his hand at it a few years back: See: http://209.134.106.21/articles/All_Electric/allelect.html From the standpoint of delivering useful information for maintaining straight and level, the turn-coordinator has to have it, hands down. If I were planning to spend much time in the clouds I'd certainly have a wing-leveler with GPS ground track coupling . . . in fact, I'm not sure I wouldn't trade the DG for a SECOND wing leveler that could take GPS data from my handheld. Flying for more than a few minutes un-aided with a partial panel is more than this pilot wants to depend on . . . and for my money, dual coupled wing levelers gives me MUCH better odds for survival than one wing leveler and a full compliment of gyros. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Cessna found the Holy Grail ?
Date: Mar 24, 2002
> > Your project would take a big jump forward if > you could borrow the panel mounted portion > of the flap control mechanism out of a wrecked > Cessna for cloning . . . > > It would also be useful to see how they work the > bowden cable connection at the flap end. > Bob, Will do that as soon as I'm able to go to the airfield. In the mean time, anyone happen to have a picture ? Thanks, Gilles ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Prefab electrical systems
Date: Mar 24, 2002
As requested, I have published some photos of my RV-6 removable panel installation at http://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~creimer/photo.htm cheers, Curt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: jerry(at)tr2.com
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
Date: Mar 24, 2002
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > I've seen those cables but not examined them closely. If you're > sure the male connector is identical to the common telephone > connector then it should be possible to cut it off and replace > it with one from radio shack . . . they have tools that neatly > strip the wire and install the connectors too. > *** No stripping necessary, AFAIK. These are IDC ( Insulation Displacement Connectors ). IMHO using these connectors with a "scramble" ( not one-to-one ) cable is idiotic. What could they have been thinking? - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) > I've considered that series of connectors for several > panel mounted products in airplanes. Again, NOT the latest > and greatest insulation on the wire but the connector > technology lives well on telephones that suffer some > worse environmental conditions than those found inside > an airplane. > > Bob . . . > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
Date: Mar 24, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: <jerry(at)tr2.com> > > > *** No stripping necessary, AFAIK. These are IDC ( Insulation Displacement > Connectors ). Just a minor point - to install a standard RJ-11 modular phone plug, you do have to strip off the outer cable sheath, but you don't have to strip the individual wires. The tools just strip the sheath. And yes, you have to wonder what they were thinking to require a *crossover* four conductor cable on the ELT. Not an uncommon thing for the larger RJ-45 connectors used in data applications, which come in straight through and crossover (reversed) configurations. But this is a one-of-a-kind non-standard use of this type of cable and I'll bet a lot of ELT remote controls have been miswired as a result. Gotta go check mine :-) Curt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: ACK ELT
Date: Mar 25, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: <jerry(at)tr2.com> > > > *** No stripping necessary, AFAIK. These are IDC ( Insulation Displacement > Connectors ). Just a minor point - to install a standard RJ-11 modular phone plug, you do have to strip off the outer cable sheath, but you don't have to strip the individual wires. The tools just strip the sheath. And yes, you have to wonder what they were thinking to require a *crossover* four conductor cable on the ELT. Not an uncommon thing for the larger RJ-45 connectors used in data applications, which come in straight through and crossover (reversed) configurations. But this is a one-of-a-kind non-standard use of this type of cable and I'll bet a lot of ELT remote controls have been miswired as a result. Gotta go check mine :-) Curt I bought the ACK ELT because of it's price, using ordinary off the shelf batteries, and the feature of having a panel mount control. The RJ11 cable that came with it was 25' long and to save a little weight I just bought a 10' RJ11 cable. When testing I found that the panel mount control wouldn't work. I called the factory and told them what was happening and what I did and asked for some trouble shooting advice. His answer was to send it in. I asked him if the cable I put in might be causing the problem and his answer was "send the unit in". He refused to give me any help whatsoever. Thinking the cable might be the cause I thanked him for "all his help" and went back to trouble shooting. What I found was that the cable connectors aren't wired the same as a telephone cable. They're opposite. The simple fix was to purchase a $10 crimper, some connectors, and in ten minutes the problem was fixed. I won't be dealing with that company again. Darrel Kitfox Outback ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "dmorisse" <morid(at)northland.lib.mi.us>
Subject: Re: ACK ELT-- oops
Date: Mar 25, 2002
> > *** No stripping necessary, AFAIK. These are IDC ( Insulation > Displacement > > Connectors ). > > Just a minor point - to install a standard RJ-11 modular phone plug, you do > have to strip off the outer cable sheath, but you don't have to strip the > individual wires. The tools just strip the sheath. > > And yes, you have to wonder what they were thinking to require a > *crossover* > four conductor cable on the ELT. Not an uncommon thing for the larger RJ-45 > connectors used in data applications, which come in straight through and > crossover (reversed) configurations. But this is a one-of-a-kind > non-standard use of this type of cable and I'll bet a lot of ELT remote > controls have been miswired as a result. Gotta go check mine :-) > Curt > > I bought the ACK ELT because of it's price, using ordinary off the shelf > batteries, and the feature of having a panel mount control. The RJ11 cable > that came with it was 25' long and to save a little weight I just bought a > 10' RJ11 cable. When testing I found that the panel mount control wouldn't > work. I called the factory and told them what was happening and what I did > and asked for some trouble shooting advice. His answer was to send it in. > I asked him if the cable I put in might be causing the problem and his > answer was "send the unit in". He refused to give me any help whatsoever. > Thinking the cable might be the cause I thanked him for "all his help" and > went back to trouble shooting. What I found was that the cable connectors > aren't wired the same as a telephone cable. They're opposite. The simple > fix was to purchase a $10 crimper, some connectors, and in ten minutes the > problem was fixed. I won't be dealing with that company again. > Darrel > Kitfox Outback Re the above post. I mistakenly said ACK ELT when it should have been AK450 by Ameri-King. Different company. My apologies. Darrel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: DO-178
Date: Mar 25, 2002
A search on google plus a little digging leads to this link: http://av-info.faa.gov/software/Policy%20&%20Guidance/N8110_91.pdf I did more digging, but couldn't find the actual document -- the above is a set of guidelines for applying DO-178B. However, at: http://www.amc.com/news/features/feature3.html I found this: Level A: Software that could cause or contribute to the failure of the system in a catastrophic failure condition. Level B: Software that could cause or contribute to the ssytem resulting in a hazardous or severe failure condition. Level C: Software that could cause or contribute to the system resulting in a major failure condition. Level D: Software that could cause or contribute to the system resulting in a minor failure condition. Level E: Software that could cause or contribute to the ssytem resulting in no effect on the system. This page suggests level E is for entertainment systems, for instance. > > >... > > Now I am not a software engineer and I am not familiar with DO-178. The > software people involved in this project will have to deal with those issues > in detail. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Fuse panel
Thanks for the photos. Looks like a real professional wiring job. Question: How do you lock the fuse panel in the stored position? Charlie Brame RV-6A N11CB (Res) San Antonio -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Curt Reimer" > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Prefab electrical systems > > > As requested, I have published some photos of my RV-6 removable panel > installation at http://www3.mb.sympatico.ca/~creimer/photo.htm > > cheers, > Curt > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Darrah" <rdarrah(at)austin.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/24/02
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Turn needle vs. turn coordinator: " From the standpoint of delivering useful information for maintaining straight and level, the turn-coordinator has to have it, hands down." Oh???? At a quick glance at the AH and turn coordinator while in a turn, they appear to read opposite of each other. Now, if the AH fails, and is off at some ungodly angle, you can't help but see it until you cover it up. Particularly during this time, it is very easy to miss-interoperate the turn coordinator information. It is "almost" impossible to miss interoperate the good old turn needle. I guess it's all in what you are used to. Give me the turn needle any time. Bob Darrah ________________________________________________________________________________
From: BAKEROCB(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: T&B vs TC
In a message dated 03/24/2002 2:53:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton > 3/25/2002 Hello Kevin, Your understanding of the mechanical difference between a T&B and a TC is correct. But the difference wasn't created to make an instrument better for human partial panel flying, it was created to make a better source to feed wing levelers and autopilots. Bob Nuckolls has a nice write up on this subject in his 03/23/02 posting, but I will respectfully disagree with him when it comes to which is the better source for feeding humans versus feeding machines. Obviously familiarity, training, and personal bias enter into this choice and a one size must fit all philosophy doesn't apply. But please let me make a couple of observations: 1) A pilot flying partial panel in IMC with a TC is analogous to a pilot who is flirting with a PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation) in pitch in a pitch sensitive airplane. The pilot doesn't need better visual input to solve his adverse reaction problem he needs to change his physical reaction to what he is seeing. 2) Flying partial panel in IMC is not a precision process and any pilot who becomes obsessed with precision in any one phase of that activity is very likely to overlook some fatal gotcha in some other phase. I don't recall ever hearing of some pilot who crashed and died because he was a few dots off when flying a partial panel ILS, but history is filled with stories of pilots who lost control of their aircraft when well clear of the terrain in either climb, cruise, or descent simply because they could not keep their wings near level and their altitude within a few hundred feet. Roll control (and turning) while partial panel in IMC needs to be a very deliberate and controlled (no pun intended) process. I quote Richard L. Collins on page 80 of the April 2002 issue of Flying magazine "The pilot also needs to understand that a loss of roll control comes first and that once that cat is out of the bag, with the airspeed increasing and the altitude decreasing, it might be too late, especially in a retractable. The drill is to stay in control". A two step philosophy that I try to follow in aviation: A) Try to learn from my betters. B) Everyone is better than me in some areas. Case in point: Look on page 36 of the May 2001 issue of Sport Aviation and read Woody Menear's background. My conclusion after reading that background is that here is one of my betters in several areas, including knowing what might be good to have in front of a pilot during partial panel flying in IMC. Then turn to page 34 and look at the instrument panel of his latest airplane, a SX-300. Note that there is a TC way over on the left side which is used to feed the autopilot. (The airplane is flown from the right seat). Now look at the instrument that is directly below the airspeed indicator over on the right side of the panel. Two questions come to mind: 1) Why would someone go to the expense and effort of installing both a TC and a T&B? 2) Which of these two instruments does Woody want in front of him if he is forced to fly partial panel in IMC? 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: Re: ACK ELT
> >I bought the ACK ELT because of it's price, using ordinary off the shelf >batteries, and the feature of having a panel mount control. The RJ11 cable >that came with it was 25' long and to save a little weight I just bought a >10' RJ11 cable. When testing I found that the panel mount control wouldn't >work. I called the factory and told them what was happening and what I did >and asked for some trouble shooting advice. His answer was to send it in. >I asked him if the cable I put in might be causing the problem and his >answer was "send the unit in". He refused to give me any help whatsoever. >Thinking the cable might be the cause I thanked him for "all his help" and >went back to trouble shooting. What I found was that the cable connectors >aren't wired the same as a telephone cable. They're opposite. The simple >fix was to purchase a $10 crimper, some connectors, and in ten minutes the >problem was fixed. I also bought a used ACK at a salvage yard. It looks in great shape, but it didn't come with the cable, so I have to make one up. Could you tell me which pins are reversed? Normally, I would have thought that pins 1234 would go to 1234. If, looking at the wires from the top of plug with the plug pointing away from you, labeling them 1234, which wires go to which pins on the other end? Thanks, Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bruce Gray" <bruce.gray(at)snet.net>
Subject: T&B vs TC
Date: Mar 25, 2002
A better approach might be to mount the TC on the opposite side of the panel and replace it with an electric Attitude gyro in the pilots scan. Of course that brings up the issue of which one do you follow if they disagree. The airlines have a third attitude gyro in the center panel to cast the deciding vote. Bruce Glasair III (2 HSI's and 1 TC) -----Original Message----- 3/25/2002 Hello Kevin, Your understanding of the mechanical difference between a T&B and a TC is correct. But the difference wasn't created to make an instrument better for human partial panel flying, it was created to make a better source to feed wing levelers and autopilots. Bob Nuckolls has a nice write up on this subject in his 03/23/02 posting, but I will respectfully disagree with him when it comes to which is the better source for feeding humans versus feeding machines. Obviously familiarity, training, and personal bias enter into this choice and a one size must fit all philosophy doesn't apply. But please let me make a couple of observations: 1) A pilot flying partial panel in IMC with a TC is analogous to a pilot who is flirting with a PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation) in pitch in a pitch sensitive airplane. The pilot doesn't need better visual input to solve his adverse reaction problem he needs to change his physical reaction to what he is seeing. 2) Flying partial panel in IMC is not a precision process and any pilot who becomes obsessed with precision in any one phase of that activity is very likely to overlook some fatal gotcha in some other phase. I don't recall ever hearing of some pilot who crashed and died because he was a few dots off when flying a partial panel ILS, but history is filled with stories of pilots who lost control of their aircraft when well clear of the terrain in either climb, cruise, or descent simply because they could not keep their wings near level and their altitude within a few hundred feet. Roll control (and turning) while partial panel in IMC needs to be a very deliberate and controlled (no pun intended) process. I quote Richard L. Collins on page 80 of the April 2002 issue of Flying magazine "The pilot also needs to understand that a loss of roll control comes first and that once that cat is out of the bag, with the airspeed increasing and the altitude decreasing, it might be too late, especially in a retractable. The drill is to stay in control". A two step philosophy that I try to follow in aviation: A) Try to learn from my betters. B) Everyone is better than me in some areas. Case in point: Look on page 36 of the May 2001 issue of Sport Aviation and read Woody Menear's background. My conclusion after reading that background is that here is one of my betters in several areas, including knowing what might be good to have in front of a pilot during partial panel flying in IMC. Then turn to page 34 and look at the instrument panel of his latest airplane, a SX-300. Note that there is a TC way over on the left side which is used to feed the autopilot. (The airplane is flown from the right seat). Now look at the instrument that is directly below the airspeed indicator over on the right side of the panel. Two questions come to mind: 1) Why would someone go to the expense and effort of installing both a TC and a T&B? 2) Which of these two instruments does Woody want in front of him if he is forced to fly partial panel in IMC? 'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/? http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com>
Subject:
I was thinking about strobes for the Rocket today when a E-mail on the RV list pointed me toward the Strobeguy website (http://strobeguy.safeshopper.com/70/2043.htm?359). I was planning on separate power units mounted in the wing tips and tail, thus allowing the high-voltage lines to be as short as possible and as far away from the avionics and radios as possible. The Strobeguy only sells the single, centrally mounted power units. Is my phobia about high-voltage noise unfounded or should I stick with my plan for remote mounted power units and just pay the cost and weight penalty? One other penalty of the separate power units is that the strobes will not be synchronized to each other. Not sure if this is a concern but looking for opinions and god knows these lists are great place to gather opinions;~) Scot ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: remote vs. local strobe supply?
> > >I was thinking about strobes for the Rocket today when a E-mail on the RV >list pointed me toward the Strobeguy website >(http://strobeguy.safeshopper.com/70/2043.htm?359). > >I was planning on separate power units mounted in the wing tips and tail, >thus allowing the high-voltage lines to be as short as possible and as far >away from the avionics and radios as possible. The Strobeguy only sells >the single, centrally mounted power units. Is my phobia about high-voltage >noise unfounded or should I stick with my plan for remote mounted power >units and just pay the cost and weight penalty? >One other penalty of the separate power units is that the strobes will not >be synchronized to each other. Not sure if this is a concern but looking >for opinions and god knows these lists are great place to gather opinions;~) There are tens of thousands of airplanes flying with single power supplies driving multiple, remote lamp fixtures that are giving excellent service. People who do have noise problems generally don't follow good installation practices with respect to the use of shielded wiring. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com>
Subject: Re: connectors for telephone cord?
jerry(at)tr2.com wrote: > > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > > I've seen those cables but not examined them closely. If you're > > sure the male connector is identical to the common telephone > > connector then it should be possible to cut it off and replace > > it with one from radio shack . . . they have tools that neatly > > strip the wire and install the connectors too. > > > *** No stripping necessary, AFAIK. These are IDC ( Insulation Displacement > Connectors ). > > IMHO using these connectors with a "scramble" ( not one-to-one ) cable is > idiotic. What could they have been thinking? > > - Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com ) > One minor point: if the cable is the 'standard' wire that you typically see from your phone to the wall jack, there will be either 2 or 4 parallel insulated conductors covered by an outer sheath. The tool has a built-in stripper that removes the correct amount of this sheath so that the IDC portion can get to the conductors (through the individual insulators) and the back portion of the connector can still grip the sheath. One obvious motivation to scramble the wire is to 'encourage' you to buy their FAA blessed wire. Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Location for phone jacks
Date: Mar 25, 2002
List, I want to pass along a heads-up regarding the placement of the headset phone jacks. I have flown with my buddy for more than two years and didn't know where the jacks were located. One day, I placed my camera on the arm rest and scooted it back as far as it would go. When we began the return trip, my headset was dead. It was later discovered that the camera had pushed on the plugs going into the jacks and caused the problem. I would suggest that if anyone mounts the jacks at the rear of the arm rest, that they include a safeguard of some sort to prevent accidental damage. Okay, now I've confessed. Tom Barnes ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Tom Barnes" <skytop(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: ACK ELT
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Gary, Here are the facts to which I can attest: 1) Looking at the short harness with a male plug coming out of the ACK box, the colors are (l-r) yellow, green, red & blue. 2) The colors going into the remote display are the same. 3) I can not see the wires inside the female connector that connects at the ACK box. If any switching is taking place, it would be done here. Tom Barnes -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary Liming Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ACK ELT > >I bought the ACK ELT because of it's price, using ordinary off the shelf >batteries, and the feature of having a panel mount control. The RJ11 cable >that came with it was 25' long and to save a little weight I just bought a >10' RJ11 cable. When testing I found that the panel mount control wouldn't >work. I called the factory and told them what was happening and what I did >and asked for some trouble shooting advice. His answer was to send it in. >I asked him if the cable I put in might be causing the problem and his >answer was "send the unit in". He refused to give me any help whatsoever. >Thinking the cable might be the cause I thanked him for "all his help" and >went back to trouble shooting. What I found was that the cable connectors >aren't wired the same as a telephone cable. They're opposite. The simple >fix was to purchase a $10 crimper, some connectors, and in ten minutes the >problem was fixed. I also bought a used ACK at a salvage yard. It looks in great shape, but it didn't come with the cable, so I have to make one up. Could you tell me which pins are reversed? Normally, I would have thought that pins 1234 would go to 1234. If, looking at the wires from the top of plug with the plug pointing away from you, labeling them 1234, which wires go to which pins on the other end? Thanks, Gary Liming = = = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: SportAV8R(at)aol.com
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: Re: ACK ELT
In a message dated 03/25/2002 12:02:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, gary(at)liming.org writes: > I also bought a used ACK at a salvage yard. It looks in great shape, but > it didn't come with the cable, so I have to make one up. Could you tell me > > which pins are reversed? Normally, I would have thought that pins 1234 > would go to 1234. If, looking at the wires from the top of plug with the > plug pointing away from you, labeling them 1234, which wires go to which > pins on the other end? > > Caution: it's the AmeriKing that reverses the wires. Check to be sure the ACK does also. They are different companies. I have owned both at various times. ACK's antenna didn't last 3 months in the elements before the chrome began falling off the loading coil. The AmeriKing has a nice SS whip antenna, but the unit itself locked up in the "on" position every time I tried to test it..2 trips back for customer "service." Now I just don't test it anymore; I know it will turn on, and if I ever really need it, I won't care whether I can turn it off :-) Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 10 Msgs - 03/24/02
From: Grant Corriveau <grantC(at)total.net>
on 3/25/02 02:51, AeroElectric-List Digest Server at aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote: > One of the factors that drove development of the turn > coordinator was the single axis autopilot. Look-behind > electronics (that stuff which can only react to something > already in progress) couldn't fly the airplane worth a > toot using pure yaw rate as an input. In my experience as a Flight Instructor with both instruments, my preference would be for a 'turn coordinator' with respect to how the internal gyro is designed (i.e. at an angle to make it sensitive to roll inputs), BUT I strongly prefer the vertical needle display as opposed to the 'little wings' display. The reason? Because in fact, it is the yaw rate information that is critical to 'we the pilots'. The little wings give the illusion that they have something to say about the aircraft's bank attitude, which of course is misleading. (To say nothing of the 'no pitch information' placard that the manufacturer adds to the face of the gauge). So, for accuracy AND clarity, I prefer a Turn Coordinator with a vertical needle display. (I couldn't find such a beast had to go with the 'little wings' instrument...) -- Grant Corriveau Montreal Zodiac 601hds/CAM100 C-GHTF www.theWingStayedON.ca ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Subject: Q: SEC 1223
At Bob's suggestion, I ordered the Samlex SEC 1223 power supply from Radio Shack. The first one I recieved the fan blade was broken off and bouncing around inside the case. I took it back and they ordered me another one. I just recived it and pluged it in to test, but the fan doesn't run. Is the fan thermostaticly controled? According to my meter there is about 0.62 Volts AC on the fan connector. Regards, Dennis -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org>
Subject: ACK ELT
I've just taken a look at the manual for the ACK E-01 ELT, and it says "The RCPI unit is connected to the ELT unit via means of RJ-11 standard type modular connectors...the interconnecting cable may be shortened or a longer cable of up to 150 feet may be used if required." No details about how you do this, even though there is a great amount of detail on many other areas of installation. I take this to mean that the wires are straight through, and that it must be the AmeriKing unit that has the crossover pinouts. Gary Liming ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: ACK ELT
From: Daniel H Kight <kightd@basf-corp.com>
Date: Mar 25, 2002
03/25/2002 04:17:36 PM Bill B. wrote: ACK's antenna didn't last 3 months in the elements before the chrome began falling off the loading coil. The AmeriKing has a nice SS whip antenna, but the unit itself locked up in the "on" position every time I tried to test it..2 trips back for customer "service." Now I just don't test it anymore; I know it will turn on, and if I ever really need it, I won't care whether I can turn it off :-) I have also had experience with both the ACK and AmeriKing ELTs, and I echo your comments. MY ACK antenna is still rusty, but after many frustrating hours of troubleshooting, I found a fix for the locked "ON" remote head on the AmeriKing. Apparently the little wires inside the female "phone" connector don't stick up enough to provide consistent contact with the male part of the connector. This lets you turn it on from the remote head, but not back off. The fix is to take a pair of fine tweezers, reach into the female connector on the head, and bend the wires up higher. When the male end is inserted, the wires make positive contact and you can turn it on and off at will. I also had to cut the extension wire and put a new end on it. The wire has a little ridge on one side. I used the ridge to keep the polarity straight and crimped a new end on with the special tool (borrowed from a friend). Good luck, Danny Kight Sonerai IILT (with rusty ELT antenna) RV-6 (FLYING since Feb. 2!!!!!!! 24.7 hours and counting) See you at Sun-n-Fun! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Q: SEC 1223
><dgolden@golden-consulting.com> > >At Bob's suggestion, I ordered the Samlex SEC 1223 power supply from >Radio Shack. The first one I recieved the fan blade was broken off and >bouncing around inside the case. I took it back and they ordered me >another one. I just recived it and pluged it in to test, but the fan >doesn't run. > >Is the fan thermostaticly controled? According to my meter there is >about 0.62 Volts AC on the fan connector. The fan is indeed thermostatically controlled. It won't run until the power supply is loaded rather heavily for a few minutes . . . otherwise, it is off. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: Strobe power supplies. One or two:
From: Denis Walsh <deniswalsh(at)earthlink.net>
My logic went like this: The fire danger comparison between a 12V power line, and the "high voltage" line, was not great, IMHO. As to the potential interference risk, I was willing to give it a shot. Been working fine for me for 4.84 years, and 970 hours. No RF interference, and still not too worried about any fire risk. My wires are encased in a scat tube conduit, and are also enclosed in the shielded bundle supplied by whelen.. They are routed about mid aft rib in the wing. If I were doing it over I would go ahead and put it on the front side of the main spar for convenience. One builder's opinion. D Walsh > From: Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com> > Reply-To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:24:39 -0800 > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: > > > > I was thinking about strobes for the Rocket today when a E-mail on the RV > list pointed me toward the Strobeguy website > (http://strobeguy.safeshopper.com/70/2043.htm?359). > > I was planning on separate power units mounted in the wing tips and tail, > thus allowing the high-voltage lines to be as short as possible and as far > away from the avionics and radios as possible. The Strobeguy only sells > the single, centrally mounted power units. Is my phobia about high-voltage > noise unfounded or should I stick with my plan for remote mounted power > units and just pay the cost and weight penalty? > One other penalty of the separate power units is that the strobes will not > be synchronized to each other. Not sure if this is a concern but looking > for opinions and god knows these lists are great place to gather opinions;~) > > > Scot > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: Flap control assembly
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Okay, I did some checking -- I contacted Wentworth aircraft salvage to see if I could get a Cessna flap assembly cheap. I didn't think I could just use it in my RV, but thought I'd be able to see exactly how it worked and maybe fabricate something for us all to use. Without the flap motor, Wentworth still wants $175 for the assembly. That seems like a lot of money for a lever, a few switches, and a feedback cable. I think I'm going to buddy-buddy with my FBO's A+P and get him to show me how it works in one of their Cessna's. -Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Flap control assembly
Date: Mar 25, 2002
We had one of those Cessna flap control assemblies lying around on our shelf or in a cupboard at my last place of employment. I'll ask my buddies over there if I can borrow it. If so, I can post some pictures for everyone. David Swartzendruber Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Fuse panel
Date: Mar 25, 2002
> Question: How do you lock the fuse panel in the stored position? The fuse panel is hinged at the back and locks in place at the front with a couple of camlocks. The female parts of the camlocks are mounted on two aluminum brackets about two inches long that are rivited to the bottom of the instrument panel, pointing aft. that moved the camlocks away from my switch mounting area. I used the camlocks that are supplied for the oil filler door, so I'm afraid I don't know the part number. (I used a hartwell latch on the oil door) Curt ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca>
Subject: SD-8 Alternator disconnect relay diode?
Bob, Your appendix Z wiring diagrams for the SD-8 permenant magnet alternator show the S704-1 relay used to disconnect the alternator. They don't show any diodes across the relay. However, there is a comic book on your web site which shows a diode. See: http://209.134.106.21/articles/s704inst.jpg So, do I need a diode across the relay or not? Thanks, -- Kevin Horton RV-8 (installing engine & electrics) Ottawa, Canada http://members.rogers.com/khorton/rv8.html http://eccentrix.com/misc/rv8/rv8.html ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Location for phone jacks
> >List, > I want to pass along a heads-up regarding the placement of >the headset phone jacks. I have flown with my buddy for more than two >years and didn't know where the jacks were located. One day, I placed >my camera on the arm rest and scooted it back as far as it would go. >When we began the return trip, my headset was dead. It was later >discovered that the camera had pushed on the plugs going into the jacks >and caused the problem. > I would suggest that if anyone mounts the jacks at the rear >of the arm rest, that they include a safeguard of some sort to prevent >accidental damage. My favorite place to put the headset jacks is outboard and above the user. In a high wing airplane, the jacks wound up being just above the window frames . . . the cord hung down from the headset behind the user and just outboard of the seat back. In a canopy airplane, the jacks would obviously be lower. The nice thing about having jacks behind you is that the cords stay out of the way. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: Dennis Golden <dgolden@golden-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: Q: SEC 1223
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote: > > > ><dgolden@golden-consulting.com> > > > >At Bob's suggestion, I ordered the Samlex SEC 1223 power supply from > >Radio Shack. The first one I recieved the fan blade was broken off and > >bouncing around inside the case. I took it back and they ordered me > >another one. I just recived it and pluged it in to test, but the fan > >doesn't run. > > > >Is the fan thermostaticly controled? According to my meter there is > >about 0.62 Volts AC on the fan connector. > > The fan is indeed thermostatically controlled. It won't > run until the power supply is loaded rather heavily > for a few minutes . . . otherwise, it is off. > > Bob . . . As always, thanks Bob for your time and knowledge. I thought that was the case, but didn't know for sure. Regards, Dennis -- Dennis Golden Golden Consulting Services, Inc. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: Re: Q: SEC 1223
From: Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com>
> At Bob's suggestion, I ordered the Samlex SEC 1223 power supply from > Radio Shack. I just recived it and pluged it in to test, but the fan > doesn't run. > Is the fan thermostaticly controled? According to my meter there is > about 0.62 Volts AC on the fan connector. > Dennis Hi Dennis, I just took my SEC 1223 out of the box fan seems to be intact and fine. Plugged her in ... no load ... no fan running. I would conclude that the fan only runs when cooling is necessary. Regards, Don Boardman & Partner Randy Bowers SR3500#130 "The Muskie" M-14PF Aerocet 3400 amphibs, Rome, NY ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Virtues of sucking systems . . .
Received this note from a reader: About a month ago, I was extolling the virtues of lightness and reliability of solid state electronic sensors and displays when a pilot stopped me cold with an incident. He has purposely flown for the past several summers into developing vertical clouds as a part of R & D. This event did not happen to him, but another pilot flying the same mission in, I think, a Baron (it was a twin Beech of some sort). The pilot of the Baron experienced total electrical and electronic failure. None of his avionics worked. None of his handhelds worked. He had dual batteries, dual alternators, and electrical redundancy up the ying-yang. What got him down? What I usually call "unreliable" vacuum instruments and mag compass. He was lucky. Now, what caused this massive failure? A lightning strike did it. Now, I know this is an extreme case, but it sure made me pause. He was lucky he was not flying a plastic airplane without lighting protection, since a strike like that could have started de-laminating parts. He was also lucky he was flying in the Midwest where it's flat. With all the drawbacks of vacuum systems - unreliability & heavy weight among the greatest, it still kept working when all the electron powered stuff I like quit. The key phrase here was in the second paragraph: " . . . PURPOSELY flown for the past several summers into developing vertical clouds as a part of R & D." Why anyone would do that in this kind of airplane is beyond my comprehension. We've all seen the 4-engine, turbo-prop airplanes they fly into hurricanes on the Weather Channel. I've seen numerous programs on aircraft versus nature studies where pilots went into thunder storms WANTING to take a strike. In every case the aircraft and equipment it carried was designed for the task. One chapter of DO-160 deals with various levels of lightning protection that is now a standard part of certifying electronics for all biz-jets and even some of the light prop-jobs . . . By the way, there's not a biz jet flying that carries a vacuum system . . . those turbo- props on the Weather Channel don't have them either. I, for one, tend stay out of convective AND icing conditions. It's pretty easy to do. If one has dual electronic ignition from ANY of the popular suppliers to the amateur built industry, the likelihood of the engine stopping after a strike is VERY high. But I suppose one could reason that if the prop is wind-milling on the way down, especially with a constant speed prop, the vacuum system will be working quite well . . . even if your rate of descent is 1000 FPM. The airplanes we're building are simply not configured to deal effectively with that kind of stress so we're very much encouraged not to do thunderstorm research with them. Flying these things is supposed to be fun . . . so when pursing the area forecasts, sequence reports and sigmets the way to keep it fun is, "when in doubt, don't." All your electronic gizmos will thank you for it. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: Flap control assembly
> >Okay, I did some checking -- I contacted Wentworth aircraft salvage to see if >I could get a Cessna flap assembly cheap. I didn't think I could just use it >in my RV, but thought I'd be able to see exactly how it worked and maybe >fabricate something for us all to use. > >Without the flap motor, Wentworth still wants $175 for the assembly. That >seems like a lot of money for a lever, a few switches, and a feedback cable. That's the certified airplane parts business for you. You don't wanna know what a new one costs. Did he have one out of an airplane you could look at and maybe photograph? >I think I'm going to buddy-buddy with my FBO's A+P and get him to show me >how it works in one of their Cessna's. You can get a pretty good look at one installed on a flying airplane and see how it works . . . but getting your hands on a dismounted assembly would be much more instructive. I might be able to put my hands on one here in spam-can-city. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: RE: Flap control assembly
> > >We had one of those Cessna flap control assemblies lying around on our >shelf or in a cupboard at my last place of employment. I'll ask my >buddies over there if I can borrow it. If so, I can post some pictures >for everyone. Hmmm . . . good lick Dave. Is that system still in production? I would suspect that it is. I can't think of any good reason to change it! Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: Bob, Limiter for 50 Amp Alt/ OV protection
From: Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com>
Bob, I want to get an order off and have a couple of quick questions. I am installing a Skytronics 6555T 50 Amp Alternator that came with my M-14PF. I see in your catalog 40 and 60 Amp Current Limiters listed. Do I use a 60 Amp or is a 50 Amp needed and can you supply? The Skytronic Alt. comes with a "Voltage Controller" which has Regulator and Suppressor functions. The literature says: "New voltage regulator incorporates the voltage protector SVP-3 ........ Am I correct to equate this with the over voltage protection you mention in your writings? (am aware it would not have Temp Comp.) I will be using your separate over voltage module for the B&C SD-8 installation. Regards, Don Boardman SR3500#130 "The Muskie" M-14PF Aerocet 3400 amphibs, Rome, NY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: ACK ELT
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Are ACK and AmeriKing the only options? Aren't there a lot more options in the boating world (EPIRBS, etc)? Can they be modified for plane use? I get the impression the ACK and AmeriKing are used because they are relatively cheap and fulfill the requirements, otherwise they are junk. God forbid you really need to rely on one to save your hid... - Larry Bowen RV-8 fuse Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > > Caution: it's the AmeriKing that reverses the wires. Check > to be sure the > ACK does also. They are different companies. I have owned > both at various > times. ACK's antenna didn't last 3 months in the elements > before the chrome > began falling off the loading coil. The AmeriKing has a nice SS whip > antenna, but the unit itself locked up in the "on" position > every time I > tried to test it..2 trips back for customer "service." Now I > just don't test > it anymore; I know it will turn on, and if I ever really need > it, I won't > care whether I can turn it off :-) > > Bill B ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com>
Subject: Q: SEC 1223
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Per Bob, I got one too. My fan doesn't turn either, yet. Haven't powered anything with it yet. Otherwise workmanship seems ok. - Larry Bowen RV-8 fuse Larry(at)BowenAero.com http://BowenAero.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Dennis Golden > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 3:50 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Q: SEC 1223 > > > --> <dgolden@golden-consulting.com> > > At Bob's suggestion, I ordered the Samlex SEC 1223 power > supply from Radio Shack. The first one I recieved the fan > blade was broken off and bouncing around inside the case. I > took it back and they ordered me another one. I just recived > it and pluged it in to test, but the fan doesn't run. > > Is the fan thermostaticly controled? According to my meter > there is about 0.62 Volts AC on the fan connector. > > Regards, > > Dennis > -- > Dennis Golden > Golden Consulting Services, Inc. > > > =========== > =========== > =========== > Search Engine: > http://www.matronics.com/search > =========== > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Sipp" <rsipp(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . .
Date: Mar 25, 2002
> I, for one, tend stay out of convective AND icing conditions. > It's pretty easy to do. If one has dual electronic ignition > from ANY of the popular suppliers to the amateur built industry, > the likelihood of the engine stopping after a strike is VERY > high Bob: I have to take exception to this comment regarding "any" electronic ignitions. The Unison Laser system, when losing electrical power to it's computer controlled timing or ships electrical power, reverts to conventional magneto operation that does not require electrical power. On a few occasions in my aircraft the computer has "dropped off" usually due to rapid power change. The corrective action I have found is to cycle the master switch off and on which (I suppose) reboots the system and it comes back to life. The engine continues to run just fine as it would in a conventional magneto fired engine with the master switch off. Granted, this would not be wise in IFR or other dire straits but the ignition at least is not interrupted by total electrical failure. Would a lightning strike on a Cub kill its magnetos? Dick Sipp RV4250DS Savannah ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Flap control assembly
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Yes, it's still in production. > > > >We had one of those Cessna flap control assemblies lying > around on our > >shelf or in a cupboard at my last place of employment. I'll ask my > >buddies over there if I can borrow it. If so, I can post > some pictures > >for everyone. > > > Hmmm . . . good lick Dave. Is that system still in > production? I would suspect that it is. I can't think > of any good reason to change it! > > Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Mar 25, 2002
Subject: Fw: Cessna-type flap switch diagram
From: czechsix(at)juno.com
Gilles, My boss and RV-6A builder/pilot made a Cessna-type flap switch. Works great, he's been flying for about 4 years now with no problems. I don't have a picture of it in the panel but there's a description with diagram of how it works in our Chapter 33 newsletter from last August. See it at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eaachapter33/files/2001_Newsletters/08_Lipp isch_aug2001.PDF Hope this helps. --Mark Navratil Cedar Rapids, Iowa RV-8A....with simple toggle for flaps in an Infinity stick grip _______ From: "gilles.thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cessna found the Holy Grail ? <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr> > > Your project would take a big jump forward if > you could borrow the panel mounted portion


March 13, 2002 - March 26, 2002

AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-ar