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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>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 |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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: | "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 |
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 |
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: | 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 . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps |
?
> >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
.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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> |
Thanks Bob
That was my feeling also. It's nice to have it confirmed, however.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Bench prefab' electrical systems |
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? |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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: | "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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
> 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
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 ? |
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 ? |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Power source |
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 )
________________________________________________________________________________
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/
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps |
?
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ? |
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 ? |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 ? |
> 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ? |
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 ? |
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 |
>
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | 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 )
________________________________________________________________________________
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...
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Paul Messinger" <paulm(at)tenforward.com> |
Subject: | Re: Instrument Manuals |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: electric flaps |
>
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 03/19/02 |
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Guitar switch suitable for electric flaps ? |
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? |
> >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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
> > 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz) |
>
>
>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> |
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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz) |
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?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Steven Eberhart <newtech(at)newtech.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz) |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
>
>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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | mitchf(at)netscape.com (Mitchell Faatz) |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
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 |
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? |
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: | 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> |
> 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> |
> 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?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
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> |
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 |
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 |
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? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Electric flaps : has Cessna found the Holy Grail ? |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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? |
> >
> > 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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,
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Has Cessna found the Holy Grail ? |
> >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> |
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tom Brusehaver <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
> 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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Cessna found the Holy Grail ? |
>
> 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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: connectors for telephone cord? |
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? |
----- 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> |
----- 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 |
> > *** 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> |
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Charles Brame <charleyb(at)earthlink.net> |
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 |
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 |
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 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
>
>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> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Scot Stambaugh <sstambaugh(at)qualcomm.com> |
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: | "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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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> |
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 |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Liming <gary(at)liming.org> |
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
><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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 |
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 |
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> |
> 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
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
"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.
________________________________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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> |
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> |
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 . . . |
> 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 |
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 . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
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