AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-as
March 26, 2002 - April 05, 2002
> 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: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| 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?
I wasn't including the Unison system. I don't think it's
very POPULAR with the amateur built airplane industry.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob, Limiter for 50 Amp Alt/ OV |
protection
>
>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?
Use the ANL 60 . . . and those are in stock.
>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 have no idea. Without seeing detail specifications and/or
schematics of the system, I have no way to deduce the accuracy
of the claim.
>I will be using your separate over voltage module for the B&C SD-8
>installation.
That will cover that system okay. Does the Skytronics
system have any STC'd installations? If so, it probably
has adequate ov protection. . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John P. Clarke" <ocdhelp4me(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | I have OCD and need help |
I've read books, done therapy, and consulted with many for over 16 years without
any substantial progress. Among other problems, I need to deal with a mental
compulsion to break apart words and phrases into symmetrical groups, the continual
counting and sorting of everything I see, and the uncontrollable parade
of ideas in my head competing for attention. This interferes with concentration,
impairs decision-making, and leads to frustration and depression.
I would welcome suggestions, possible solutions, reference materials, referrals,
anything you might recommend. Please email me at ocdhelp4me(at)earthlink.net
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
John P. Clarke
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Skytronics is STC'd |
| From: | Don Boardman <dboardm3(at)twcny.rr.com> |
>> 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 ........
> I have no idea. Without seeing detail specifications and/or
> schematics of the system, I have no way to deduce the accuracy
> of the claim.
> Does the Skytronics
> system have any STC'd installations? If so, it probably
> has adequate ov protection. . .
> Bob . . .
Bob, yes the system is STC'd.
Thanks for your response,
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
Aren't there also power supplies that can be "slaved" to another, allowing
one to put the power supplies close to the light and still be synchronized?
What do the airliners use? They seem to be synchronized.
Gary Casey
ES project
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
>
> 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
Mark,
Thanks again for the URL.
By the way, it appears in this system the builer used only 2 limit switches
and 2 diodes.
Questions for Bob and all :
Is it the way to go, or are relays mandatory ? I've seen in catalogs that
some limit switches are rated at 5 amps.
Further, can we safely dispense with limit switches ? In that case the
system is simple indeed.
Cheers
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
> >
> > 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
>
>Mark,
>
>Thanks again for the URL.
>
>By the way, it appears in this system the builer used only 2 limit switches
>and 2 diodes.
>Questions for Bob and all :
>Is it the way to go, or are relays mandatory ? I've seen in catalogs that
>some limit switches are rated at 5 amps.
Recommend the Microswitch V3 or V5 series switches. These are small
and relatively rugged compared to smaller devices. You'll find that
they're easier to work with and will last longer than the smaller
switches irrespective of their "ratings" . . . As I recall, the
Cessna system uses the v3/v5 style devices.
>Further, can we safely dispense with limit switches ? In that case the
Depends on your actuator and how much trust you place in the
followup system to stop the motor in the right place EVERY TIME.
Actuators we were putting in the airplane when I was at Cessna
had free-running followers at the ball screw limits. As long
as the flaps are rigged so that full-stroke operation of the
actuator doesn't put anything into a bind, one pair of switches
will suffice. If your actuator doesn't have this non-binding
mechanical limit, then leaving limit switches out runs the risk
of driving the system into mechanical limits. Can your system
tolerate this condition? Will something bend, break or bind
in a manner that puts the flight at risk?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>< 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.>>
>
>Aren't there also power supplies that can be "slaved" to another, allowing
>one to put the power supplies close to the light and still be synchronized?
>What do the airliners use? They seem to be synchronized.
Yes, many strobe systems have a "sync" connection that
can be daisy-chained to multiple power supplies. The
result is that all supplies in the system run at a
rate determined by the power supply with the fastest
flash rate.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
>
> Recommend the Microswitch V3 or V5 series switches. These are small
> and relatively rugged compared to smaller devices. You'll find that
> they're easier to work with and will last longer than the smaller
> switches irrespective of their "ratings" . . . As I recall, the
> Cessna system uses the v3/v5 style devices.
>
> >Further, can we safely dispense with limit switches ? In that case the
>
> Depends on your actuator and how much trust you place in the
> followup system to stop the motor in the right place EVERY TIME.
> Actuators we were putting in the airplane when I was at Cessna
> had free-running followers at the ball screw limits. As long
> as the flaps are rigged so that full-stroke operation of the
> actuator doesn't put anything into a bind, one pair of switches
> will suffice. If your actuator doesn't have this non-binding
> mechanical limit, then leaving limit switches out runs the risk
> of driving the system into mechanical limits. Can your system
> tolerate this condition? Will something bend, break or bind
> in a manner that puts the flight at risk?
>
Bob
Thank you once again.
I'm not quite sure I clearly understand what those free-running followers
are. Does that mean things are arranged in such a manner they stop or
disengage when reaching full stroke, even if the motor is still turning the
screw ? Thus there is no stress put on the system in case the motor doesn't
stop.
In that case, as our screw assembly is less sophisticated, we'll have to add
limit switches at the appropriate position near the screw. One additional
advantage in doing so is we precisely define the full down and full up
positions.
Correct ?
Thank you,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
The Cessna flap actuator currently uses limit switches in addition to
the switches in the control assembly. I'm not aware that the actuator
uses a free-running follower. One thing I've wondered about is how
great the mechanical stresses would be if one relied on the circuit
protection to stop the motor if the assy ever ran to the stops. How
much greater is the stall current than the normal operating current?
Blowing the fuse and losing your flaps may not be an acceptable failure
mode to some. If so, one could put a polyfuse (rated at a lower value
than whatever circuit protection device was used for the circuit), in
both ground paths, (for the two directions). If you hit the stop in one
direction and tripped the polyfuse, you could simply command the flaps
in the opposite direction, they would respond, and the tripped polyfuse
would reset itself. This all assumes that the actuator assy is not
going to jam when it hits the stops. I haven't actually tried it to see
how well it would work.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
> >Mark,
> >
> >Thanks again for the URL.
> >
> >By the way, it appears in this system the builder used only 2 limit
> >switches and 2 diodes. Questions for Bob and all :
> >Is it the way to go, or are relays mandatory ? I've seen in
> catalogs that
> >some limit switches are rated at 5 amps.
>
> Recommend the Microswitch V3 or V5 series switches. These
> are small
> and relatively rugged compared to smaller devices. You'll
> find that
> they're easier to work with and will last longer than the smaller
> switches irrespective of their "ratings" . . . As I recall, the
> Cessna system uses the v3/v5 style devices.
>
> >Further, can we safely dispense with limit switches ? In
> that case the
>
> Depends on your actuator and how much trust you place in the
> followup system to stop the motor in the right place EVERY TIME.
> Actuators we were putting in the airplane when I was at Cessna
> had free-running followers at the ball screw limits. As long
> as the flaps are rigged so that full-stroke operation of the
> actuator doesn't put anything into a bind, one pair of switches
> will suffice. If your actuator doesn't have this non-binding
> mechanical limit, then leaving limit switches out runs the risk
> of driving the system into mechanical limits. Can your system
> tolerate this condition? Will something bend, break or bind
> in a manner that puts the flight at risk?
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bruce.gray(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
What Bob it talking about are flap actuator systems like
http:\\www.motionsystems.com that freewheel at the end of their up and down
limits.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | SportAV8R(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | source for HV dope? |
I recently fried the circuit board in my Narco transponder by allowing
rainwater to ingress and accumulate between the fiberglass board and the
insulating paper that covers the HV power supply components. (Interestingly,
a very gradual failure mode which took hours of flying over several months to
lead to failure, attended by a smell of hot fiberglass resin that I
mistakenly attributed to some cowl reinforcement work I had done near the
exhaust pipes.)
A pilot friend who is in the electronics repair business found the roasted
spot on the board and has ground out the charred areas, reconstructed the
foil traces, and re-soldered the components that unsoldered themselves from
the heat and fell out ( ! ). Surprisingly, they all tested okay save for one
diode that fried. He says that the board is not ready for smoke-testing
until he can find some high-voltage dope to paint over the repaired area.
This substance was apparently plentiful in the old days of discrete-component
televisions, but has become hard to find in the surface-mount, modular,
works-in-a-drawer era. In fact, he has had no luck finding any. Anyone know
of a source?
I know this is not the proper way to repair avionics, but I can't beat the
price, even if the repair is not successful.
Hoping I don't have to shell out another $900 for a piece of electronics that
looks inside like it should retail for $129, tops...
Bill B
RV-6A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dfmorrow(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Virtues of sucking systems |
I found the following in a Lightspeed Engineering installation manual for
their electronic ignition system:
"LSE PLASMA CDI Systems are designed using discrete logic in place of
programmable memory or micro processors, to avoid any potential problems from
static discharges, minor lightning strikes or single event upsets (SEU)."
This shows they have at least thought about lightning strike problems. What
would happen in the case of a "major" lightning strike is anybody's guess.
Even magnetos must have their limits I suppose.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: source for HV dope? |
SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> diode that fried. He says that the board is not ready for smoke-testing
> until he can find some high-voltage dope to paint over the repaired area.
> This substance was apparently plentiful in the old days of discrete-component
> televisions, but has become hard to find in the surface-mount, modular,
> works-in-a-drawer era. In fact, he has had no luck finding any. Anyone know
> of a source?
>
*** I got it off the shelf at San Mateo Electronics last year. It's out
there. Try to find a "real" electronics shop ( not a Radio Shack ) that
caters to TV repair technicians.
If the HV dope is not findable, there is a clear Krylon spray, meant
for sealing ignition systems, that should work.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems |
Dfmorrow(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> I found the following in a Lightspeed Engineering installation manual for
> their electronic ignition system:
>
> "LSE PLASMA CDI Systems are designed using discrete logic in place of
> programmable memory or micro processors, to avoid any potential problems from
> static discharges, minor lightning strikes or single event upsets (SEU)."
>
> This shows they have at least thought about lightning strike problems. What
> would happen in the case of a "major" lightning strike is anybody's guess.
> Even magnetos must have their limits I suppose.
>
>
*** I used to work for a company that made railroad electronics. It seems
that lightning strikes are common on the rails - often, they are the only
metal objects for many miles around. Our equipment was required to
withstand some level of "direct" lightning. Every digital input had a
network of large resistors, capacitors, and a special "suppressor" diode.
It was all rather space-consuming.
Southern Pacific had a "lightning box" they would put our boards in.
Survival of the lightning box was a condition of sale....
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: source for HV dope? |
In a message dated 3/26/2002 12:28:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,
SportAV8R(at)aol.com writes:
>
Hey Bill , I saw that Newark has the stuff :
>00Z311 10-5002 GC ELECTRONICS Red X Corona Dope, Red Enamel
>$9.01 Each 180
The "00Z311" is the "Newark" P/N . Good luck , Chris ( I probably beat BOB
to it by 5 whole minutes )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: source for HV dope? |
>
>SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > diode that fried. He says that the board is not ready for smoke-testing
> > until he can find some high-voltage dope to paint over the repaired area.
> > This substance was apparently plentiful in the old days of
> discrete-component
> > televisions, but has become hard to find in the surface-mount, modular,
> > works-in-a-drawer era. In fact, he has had no luck finding
> any. Anyone know
> > of a source?
> >
>*** I got it off the shelf at San Mateo Electronics last year. It's out
>there. Try to find a "real" electronics shop ( not a Radio Shack ) that
>caters to TV repair technicians.
>
> If the HV dope is not findable, there is a clear Krylon spray, meant
>for sealing ignition systems, that should work.
I've not had very good luck with Krylon. A small can
of polyurethane varnish from the paint department of
any store is MUCH better stuff. I haven't seen
that good ol' glyptal varnish on the shelves for
years. I suppose someone like GC may still make it
but unless they've changed the formulation (it was
an organic varnish) I think I'd stay with a more
modern polyurethane.
If push comes to shove, I've used a paint brush
to apply 5
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: source for HV dope - Continued |
>
>SportAV8R(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > diode that fried. He says that the board is not ready for smoke-testing
> > until he can find some high-voltage dope to paint over the repaired area.
> > This substance was apparently plentiful in the old days of
> discrete-component
> > televisions, but has become hard to find in the surface-mount, modular,
> > works-in-a-drawer era. In fact, he has had no luck finding
> any. Anyone know
> > of a source?
> >
>*** I got it off the shelf at San Mateo Electronics last year. It's out
>there. Try to find a "real" electronics shop ( not a Radio Shack ) that
>caters to TV repair technicians.
>
> If the HV dope is not findable, there is a clear Krylon spray, meant
>for sealing ignition systems, that should work.
Got too wild on the keyboard and stroked a Ctrl-E which
sent the thing before I was finished with it.
I've not had very good luck with Krylon. A small can
of polyurethane varnish from the paint department of
any store is MUCH better stuff. I haven't seen
that good ol' glyptal varnish on the shelves for
years. I suppose someone like GC may still make it
but unless they've changed the formulation (it was
an organic varnish) I think I'd stay with a more
modern polyurethane.
If push comes to shove, I've used a paint brush
to apply a thin coating of 5 minute epoxy to cover
the damaged area. This has been really helpful when
I had to carve out a charred area of etched circuit
board and make sure it was REALLY covered up.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems |
>
>I found the following in a Lightspeed Engineering installation manual for
>their electronic ignition system:
>
>"LSE PLASMA CDI Systems are designed using discrete logic in place of
>programmable memory or micro processors, to avoid any potential problems from
>static discharges, minor lightning strikes or single event upsets (SEU)."
Hmmm . . . wonder what a "minor" lighting strike is . . .
>This shows they have at least thought about lightning strike problems. What
>would happen in the case of a "major" lightning strike is anybody's guess.
>Even magnetos must have their limits I suppose.
Mags are pretty well protected. Their electrics reside inside
a totally shielded environment that is well bonded to the
engine. The most vulnerable port of entry are the p-leads
and if you "float" the shield at the panel and ground only
at the mag housing like our diagrams show, I think I'd expect
magnetos to take the worst that nature can throw at it . . .
now, if OTHER essential goodies are equally robust . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
>
>
>The Cessna flap actuator currently uses limit switches in addition to
>the switches in the control assembly. I'm not aware that the actuator
>uses a free-running follower. One thing I've wondered about is how
>great the mechanical stresses would be if one relied on the circuit
>protection to stop the motor if the assy ever ran to the stops. How
>much greater is the stall current than the normal operating current?
>Blowing the fuse and losing your flaps may not be an acceptable failure
>mode to some. If so, one could put a polyfuse (rated at a lower value
>than whatever circuit protection device was used for the circuit), in
>both ground paths, (for the two directions). If you hit the stop in one
>direction and tripped the polyfuse, you could simply command the flaps
>in the opposite direction, they would respond, and the tripped polyfuse
>would reset itself. This all assumes that the actuator assy is not
>going to jam when it hits the stops. I haven't actually tried it to see
>how well it would work.
>
>David Swartzendruber
>Wichita
Hey, Dave. You may have identified a GOOD use for
polyswitches in airplanes. The window lift motors
in my GMC van use polyswitches . . . no limit switches.
You just let them bang into the stops and if you keep
a finger on the button too long, it just relaxes.
I did a design for active current limiters in the
landing gear system of a Lancair IVP a few years
ago. The builder wanted to use one electric actuator
for each landing gear and didn't trust limit switches.
I designed constant current drivers for his gear motors
that would establish a motor current limit equal to normal
running values - even if the motor actuator was jammed.
The circuit would allow constant current running for
just 5 seconds and then it would relax . . . this
was a precision equivalent to the polyswitch. He didn't
need limit switches . . . he'd just drive the mechanisms
into their stops and allow the timers to keep things from
getting too hot.
Haven't heard from him in several years. Wonder how
he likes the system by now.
It might be more problematical with ball screw actuators.
They are so damned efficient that the end-of-travel
forces can build up to very high values and do it
quickly. A flap system that deliberately drives to
mechanical stops with ball screws would require
careful study and design to make sure things don't
get stressed too hard for repetitive operations.
Something to think about.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna-type flap switch diagram |
>
>
>Thank you once again.
>I'm not quite sure I clearly understand what those free-running followers
>are. Does that mean things are arranged in such a manner they stop or
>disengage when reaching full stroke, even if the motor is still turning the
>screw ? Thus there is no stress put on the system in case the motor doesn't
>stop.
You can purchase ball-screw nuts that go into a free-wheeling
mode at the extreme travel limits of the actuator. Hospital
beds use them. Holding the button after the actuator
reaches either limit simply results in a free spinning motor.
The flap mechanism would have to be calibrated to function
using fixed stroke limits of the ball screw mechanism.
>In that case, as our screw assembly is less sophisticated, we'll have to add
>limit switches at the appropriate position near the screw. One additional
>advantage in doing so is we precisely define the full down and full up
>positions.
>Correct ?
You got it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I have OCD and need help |
>
>
>
>I've read books, done therapy, and consulted with many for over 16 years
>without any substantial progress. Among other problems, I need to deal
>with a mental compulsion to break apart words and phrases into symmetrical
>groups, the continual counting and sorting of everything I see, and the
>uncontrollable parade of ideas in my head competing for attention. This
>interferes with concentration, impairs decision-making, and leads to
>frustration and depression.
>
>I would welcome suggestions, possible solutions, reference materials,
>referrals, anything you might recommend. Please email me at
>ocdhelp4me(at)earthlink.net
>
>Thank you for your help.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>John P. Clarke
It's a tad outside the range of expertise for this list. I've
forwarded a copy of your note to my wife who will ask around
the psychology department at Wichita State. She's doing her
graduate studies out there and has good access to most of
the department's resources and talent. You never know.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 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?
The little relay used with the SD-8 is not a strong
antagonist . . . adding the diode will probably not
result in any demonstrable benefits. However, it
sure doesn't hurt to put one on. If it were my
airplane, I'd probably install the diode.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob W M Shipley" <Rob(at)RobsGlass.com> |
Scot Stambaugh
wrote
(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?
I too have considered this type of installation with the power supply in
the cabin. I intend to run conduit in the wings to carry antenna and
light wires. Do I need to use shielded line for the strobes and can I
anticipate interference with the anyennas if sited at the wing tip?
Rob
Rob W M Shipley rob(at)robsglass.com
RV9A fuse. N919RV resvd
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabriel A Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | P Lead Shielding |
Bob:
I have a conventional "key" ignition switch. The switch installation
instructions recommend that the P Lead shields be grounded to the "nearest
structure".
Your book says to ground the shield only at the magneto. But that's using
toggle switches.
What do you recommend and why?
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
One thing that Cessna does is place the limit switches in the wing at the
actuator and the "follower" switches at the flap switch. Besides the safety
aspects of having a redundant shut-off at the travel limit the
actuator-mounted switches are more accurate. You don't really care whether
a 20-degree setting results in 19 or 22 degrees, but you do care that "up"
is very accurate. The follower switches control intermediate positions and
the limit switches control the end points. At least I think that's what
they had in mind.
Gary Casey
C177RG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
> 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.
>
Bob,
I have to disagree. That the pilot PURPOSELY flew into clouds is, in my
opinion, not relevant in the least. Is a lightning strike from clouds I
flew into on purpose any different from a lightning strike from clouds I
inadvertently flew into?
Are electronics designed to protect against inadvertent lightning strikes
but not purposeful ones?
What DIFFERENCE does it make whether the pilot purposefully flew into clouds
or not? The original poster had a very valid point that, in your prejudice
against vacuum systems, you ignored using this rather flimsy argument. A
lightning strike is much more likely to affect electrical systems than
vacuum systems. We all know your prejudice, Bob, and you have given a
series of consistent and well thought out arguments for your favor of
electrical systems over vacuum systems.
But you can't completely dismiss the benefits of a vacuum system, and your
attempts to do so with arguments like this simply undermine your
credibility. I wonder: if someone comes up with a REAL good argument in
favor of vacuum systems, are you going to be grown up enough to admit
someone else might have a better idea than you?
Bob, you're a tremendously valuable resource to the homebuilder community.
I've leared a lot here that will find its way into my aircraft. But your
overt bias leads me to question everything you say is a bad idea, becuase
I'm never sure if it's a bad idea for logical reasons, or because you don't
like it and are trying to justify your bias to us with meaningless argument.
In this instance, I think that purposely flying into clouds is a meaningless
argument. (The rest of your post might have contained factual information,
but none of it addressed the original issue: "With all the drawbacks of
vacuum systems... it still kept working when all the electron powered stuff
quit.")
-Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bernard Despins <bdespins(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
In my mind it comes down to mean time between failure. Electric systems are
probably an order of magnitude more reliable than vacuum systems (if not more).
Being struck by lightning is not a common thing. Having a vacuum pump go (or
other such mechanical failures) is MUCH more common.
So which is safer?
Bernard Despins
Matthew Mucker wrote:
> In this instance, I think that purposely flying into clouds is a meaningless
> argument. (The rest of your post might have contained factual information,
> but none of it addressed the original issue: "With all the drawbacks of
> vacuum systems... it still kept working when all the electron powered stuff
> quit.")
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: P Lead Shielding |
>
>
>Bob:
>
>I have a conventional "key" ignition switch. The switch installation
>instructions recommend that the P Lead shields be grounded to the "nearest
>structure".
>Your book says to ground the shield only at the magneto. But that's using
>toggle switches.
>What do you recommend and why?
Shielding works to mitigate coupling of magneto
noise in two ways: (1) the presence of a grounded
conductor between the antagonist (p-lead) and potential
victims (other wires in the wire bundle). This
breaks the electrostatic coupling of fast rise-time
voltages across insulators. (2) any current flowing in
a wire creates a magnetic field which can couple
noised to adjacent conductors - UNLESS a companion
current flow of the same magnitude flows in the opposite
direction in close proximity to the noisy wire . .
in this case we use the shield as the return path
for the offending signal.
IF you tie the p-lead shield down at both ends, you
kill the effectiveness of the shielding in controlling
magnetic coupling of p-lead noises and at the same
time to turn the shield into it's own version of
a magnetic noise radiator because it shares some
of the alternator grounding duties with the bond
strap that should be the ONLY path that attaches
a crankcase to the airframe.
It doesn't matter what kind of switch you use.
I've seen several noise problems go away in airplanes
when the ground jumper on the cabin end of the
p-lead shield was removed.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Swartzendruber" <dswartzendruber(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
Matt,
Obviously, vacuum systems have some advantages over all electric
systems. Bob recognizes and admits that. I believe his comment about
purposely flying into clouds is very relevant. Not because the lighting
strike cares, but because the probability of being struck by lighting is
very different in the two situations. We all have to make a decision
about how rare an event has to be in order for us to not protect against
it. It appears that Bob believes that a lightning strike for us normal
Joe's that don't fly deliberately into clouds is rare enough to not
worry about. Our disagreement with Bob could be about one of two
things; his judgement on what the probability is could be incorrect, or
his standard for what kind of a reliability number he is going to worry
about could be different than ours. His credibility is certainly not
the issue.
David Swartzendruber
Wichita
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Bob,
>
> I have to disagree. That the pilot PURPOSELY flew into
> clouds is, in my opinion, not relevant in the least. Is a
> lightning strike from clouds I flew into on purpose any
> different from a lightning strike from clouds I inadvertently
> flew into?
>
> Are electronics designed to protect against inadvertent
> lightning strikes but not purposeful ones?
>
> What DIFFERENCE does it make whether the pilot purposefully
> flew into clouds or not? The original poster had a very
> valid point that, in your prejudice against vacuum systems,
> you ignored using this rather flimsy argument. A lightning
> strike is much more likely to affect electrical systems than
> vacuum systems. We all know your prejudice, Bob, and you
> have given a series of consistent and well thought out
> arguments for your favor of electrical systems over vacuum systems.
>
> But you can't completely dismiss the benefits of a vacuum
> system, and your attempts to do so with arguments like this
> simply undermine your credibility. I wonder: if someone
> comes up with a REAL good argument in favor of vacuum
> systems, are you going to be grown up enough to admit someone
> else might have a better idea than you?
>
> Bob, you're a tremendously valuable resource to the
> homebuilder community. I've learned a lot here that will find
> its way into my aircraft. But your overt bias leads me to
> question everything you say is a bad idea, because I'm never
> sure if it's a bad idea for logical reasons, or because you
> don't like it and are trying to justify your bias to us with
> meaningless argument.
>
> In this instance, I think that purposely flying into clouds
> is a meaningless argument. (The rest of your post might have
> contained factual information, but none of it addressed the
> original issue: "With all the drawbacks of vacuum systems...
> it still kept working when all the electron powered stuff
> quit.")
>
> -Matt
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>Bob,
>
>I have to disagree. That the pilot PURPOSELY flew into clouds is, in my
>opinion, not relevant in the least. Is a lightning strike from clouds I
>flew into on purpose any different from a lightning strike from clouds I
>inadvertently flew into?
How is it not relevant? When I write up a plan to do
anything out of the ordinary in the way of flight testing,
lots of people take an intense interest in what I'm asking
both pilot and airplane to do. Just a few months ago, I wanted
to mount a new laser altimeter in a flight test Bonanza and
get performance at 15-100 feet off the water over some large, local
lakes. Got shot down because the safety folks didn't want to
take an airplane that close to the water and a long way off
shore . . . now, if I'd consider moving the experiment to
a twin turboprop . . . my test budget wouldn't accommodate
the change of machines.
I think anyone that chooses to go into convective conditions
(I presume he was on an IFR flight plan and got weather
briefings) is multiplying his risk by several orders of
magnitude if the airplane is not equipped to deal well with
conditions that are KNOWN to reside there. In the case
cited, he DID have vacuum gyros and the day ended on a
happy note. I presume his safety committee deemed the
action to be relatively low risk and his experiences
bore out that assessment . . . I am truly happy for
him . . . I don't think my safety committee would
have bought into it. How is his experience in that situation
relevant to our discussion? How do we know that if he
had a modern electrical system with multiple power
sources for electric gyros that his day would have
ended any differently? Bowing at the alter of vacuum
systems based on anecdotal information is not good
engineering.
I have never found it difficult to avoid flying into
convective activity and I don't plan on needing that
protection in the future. If there are builders who
embrace that modus-operandi for their airplane,
my assertion is that there's no reason for them
to enjoy "benefits" of vacuum systems while being
deprived of the benefits of all-electric systems.
>Are electronics designed to protect against inadvertent lightning strikes
>but not purposeful ones?
Of course not . . .
>What DIFFERENCE does it make whether the pilot purposefully flew into clouds
>or not? The original poster had a very valid point that, in your prejudice
>against vacuum systems, you ignored using this rather flimsy argument. A
>lightning strike is much more likely to affect electrical systems than
>vacuum systems.
The difference was he wanted to be there and took pains to make
it happen. He took the hit and survived. For myself and I believe
for most builders, we take pains not to be there and probability
of taking the hit is very close to zero.
> We all know your prejudice, Bob, and you have given a
>series of consistent and well thought out arguments for your favor of
>electrical systems over vacuum systems.
Prejudice . . . ???? Really? Let's see. Webster says:
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another
in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights
or claims
Nope. Nothing here.
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or
leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b :
an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of
hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their
supposed characteristics
Preconceived? No, post-conceived base on an analysis and observations
of 50+ years of field history of a technology that has not moved
forward materially over 5 decades while the alternative technologies
have and continue to advance steadily.
" . . . without just ground or before sufficient knowledge."
Again, I don't think so . . .been doing this stuff successfully
for too many years to have ignored the facts and physics of
the two technologies.
>But you can't completely dismiss the benefits of a vacuum system, and your
>attempts to do so with arguments like this simply undermine your
>credibility. I wonder: if someone comes up with a REAL good argument in
>favor of vacuum systems, are you going to be grown up enough to admit
>someone else might have a better idea than you?
Never have dismissed the benefits of a vacuum system. They were
absolutely fantastic in 1950 . . . they allowed us to go off
and do things in weather with reasonable confidence that the
flight would not end badly. But, the technology is static
and electronics continues to improve. As I mentioned in the
post, none of our big airplanes have vacuum systems and they
get struck regularly. If one is truly concerned about
lightning susceptibility, then by all means, have a vacuum
system. But if one has reasonable and considered confidence
that he can maintain separation from conditions where
lightning is a hazard, then why suffer the premiums for
an insurance policy that isn't needed?
>Bob, you're a tremendously valuable resource to the homebuilder community.
>I've leared a lot here that will find its way into my aircraft. But your
>overt bias leads me to question everything you say is a bad idea, becuase
>I'm never sure if it's a bad idea for logical reasons, or because you don't
>like it and are trying to justify your bias to us with meaningless argument.
Bias? I admit to being ENTHUSIASTIC about electrical/electronic
solutions to problems but I object to being labeled
as "biased" . . . just a few days ago I worked hard
to talk a guy out of doing an elaborate electronic
flap control system in favor of a more ELEGANT, failure
resistant mechanical system.
Which of my assertions is meaningless? The thing I don't like
about vacuum systems is the cost of ownership. They're bulky,
heavy, and require a lot of maintenance compared to their
electrical counterparts. Every time I've had to pull a panel
down loaded with vacuum instruments, I've had to take the time
and extra ordinary care to make sure the open hoses didn't
take a contaminant . . . I then had to worry about getting
everything tight when it went back in while trying to swing
a wrench in a space dominated with a bunch of hoses.
>In this instance, I think that purposely flying into clouds is a meaningless
>argument. (The rest of your post might have contained factual information,
>but none of it addressed the original issue: "With all the drawbacks of
>vacuum systems... it still kept working when all the electron powered stuff
>quit.")
I'd hopped that the line of reasoning was founded
on lighting avoidance thereby making the argument mute.
For example: do you plan to have de-icing
on your airplane? Hot prop? Boots? Wet wing? If not, why
not? Do you plan to have radar? How about a ballistic
recovery parachute? I wonder if anyone has considered
adding air-bags to their cockpit equipment installations?
These questions (and others like them) require answers by
the guy building the airplane with consideration
as to how HE and the AIRPLANE are going to operate.
Only then can one deduce what equipment configuration
makes sense for convenience of operation AND risk
mitigation when things are not going well.
I've often decried the reverence with which
we repeat the dark-and-stormy-nights stories and then
run off to arm ourselves against the same scenario
without understanding how the event came to pass (so
that we can avoid it) and knowing what tools are available
to help us out (instead of reacting in classic and perhaps
ill-considered ways).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>Scot Stambaugh
>wrote
>
>(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?
>
>I too have considered this type of installation with the power supply in
>the cabin. I intend to run conduit in the wings to carry antenna and
>light wires. Do I need to use shielded line for the strobes and can I
>anticipate interference with the anyennas if sited at the wing tip?
>Rob
>Rob W M Shipley rob(at)robsglass.com
>RV9A fuse. N919RV resvd
Wire the system using following the instructions. Every
strobe system with remotely mounted power supplies shows
a shielded trio of wires between the lamp fixtures and
the power supply. If you have an antenna in close
proximity to the flash tube, probability of pops
in received audio is pretty high. Most wing tip antennas
are for VOR which is not monitored for long periods of
time . . .the noise is difficult to get rid of but
may not be a big issue to ignore it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hartmann <hartmann(at)sound.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
>
>>I have to disagree. That the pilot PURPOSELY flew into clouds is, in my
>>opinion, not relevant in the least. Is a lightning strike from clouds I
>>flew into on purpose any different from a lightning strike from clouds I
>>inadvertently flew into?
Bob has done a superb job of defending his position, and doesn't need my
help. Nevertheless... If I may share a lesson learned from over 25 years
as an air traffic controller, there may have once been a time when
"inadvertent" flight into IMC (clouds) or an "inadvertent" encounter with
embedded convective activity (lightning, etc) COULD have occurred. In the
dark, almost forgotten past.
I know it is outside the interest of this list, but out of respect for the
handful of friends I've lost due to their own stupidity, and remembering
the dozens of morons, yes MORONS, I've helped out of "inadvertent"
encounters with weather as a controller, I'll say it one more time. There
is NO SUCH THING as an inadvertent weather encounter.
Staying alive, rule number one:
IF YOU ARE INADEQUATELY PREPARED, TRAINED, OR EQUIPPED TO FLY IN INSTRUMENT
CONDITIONS, JUST DON'T. IF YOU ARE NOT EQUIPPED FOR FLIGHT IN ICING
CONDITIONS, DON'T FLY WHERE ICING IS A POSSIBILITY. IF YOU ARE
INADEQUATELY
PREPARED, TRAINED, OR EQUIPPED TO AVOID EMBEDDED CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY WHILE
FLYING ON INSTRUMENTS, JUST DON'T FLY IN INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS WHEN
CONVECTIVE
ACTIVITY IS PRESENT.
Get a briefing, get frequent updates, and if the weather isn't suitable for
your equipment, training, and proficiency, don't fly.
As homebuilders, we are allowed choices and may make compromises when
choosing equipment for our aircraft. As pilots, we make choices too. Lets
not make dumb choices.
End of sermon.
- Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | testwest(at)qnet.com |
| Subject: | The old Vacuum vs. All-Electric Argument |
Hi everyone
Great discussion on vacuum vs. electric systems. Probably been hashed a bit,
but there's always gonna be someone who remains unconvinced about a new idea,
especially in aviation. There are a great deal of things we learn while gaining
experience flying, and a lot of those things are passed on as dogma. There are
several reasons for this (military influence, consequences of failing to heed
mistakes of those who have gone - literally - before, etc), and the
consequence of a dogmatically trained population is that it (the population) is
VERY slow to accept new ideas. This can be frustrating to those who attempt to
educate us and ask us to think critically. We had one guy on the Canard
Aviators list even make the declarative statement "Electrical instruments crap
out all the time" amid a windy and emotional diatribe against anyone who would
dare think a vacuum system was unnecessary.
You can probably guess what side I'm on. Yep, all-electric all the way! No one
yet has come up with a convincing argument for me personally to go back to
vacuum systems. My Berkut will have a dual LSE ignition 540 engine and be wired
as per figure Z-13 in the 'Connection (60 amp main 'cause I have one, SD-8 aux,
e-bus architecture). I haven't been struck by lightning yet, but have changed
more *expletive* busted vacuum pumps, magnetos, and vacuum powered gyros on my
previous Long EZ and our Mooney 201 than I care to remember.
I won't attempt to refute the lightning argument other than to say a strike is
very unlikely when not in clouds, and with all the wx information available on
line and via data-link, there simply is no reason for anyone to be caught in
convective activity unawares. I'll even give you my flip little saying for
this...."Never fly into clouds that are internally lit."
Cost? Nope, not even close when you look at life cycle - in 2000 hours you buy
4 or 5 vacuum pumps, 3 or 4 vacuum attitude gyros and heading indicators, and
EIGHT mags!!! This is versus one SD-8 standby alternator (the main alt is a
sunk cost with either system), one electric attitude gyro and (maybe) one
heading gyro, and two electronic ignition systems.
I have explained my choice for systems to several local EAAers and
others...most are thoughtful, the (IMHO) smart ones have said "By Jove, that's
it!" and a few have mumbled about redundancy (not reliability) whilst thinking
of their carbon-pile voltage regulators, ancient generators, and harrowing
tales of electrical failure in certified light planes without any positive
warning of low voltage.
I don't give the latter group much interaction any more! :-)
Norm Howell
Experimental Test Pilot
The Boeing Company
norman.e.howell(at)boeing.com
building: Berkut 540, Z-13, Dual LSE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter S. Fellows" <fellowsw(at)mondexkorea.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
I would like to add my 2 cents worth. I am a 1000 hour pilot, most of
which is in a Cessna 210. If you fly a high performance airplane cross
country, you should have an instrument rating and be current. If you are
a careful person, you will not willingly fly into severe thunderstorms,
heavy icing conditions or on a trip where large sections of the flight
path are at 0/0 conditions. If you follow the FAA sanctioned weather
forecasts to avoid tstms and icing you will almost never fly since they
almost always throw in the chance for these to occur to cover
themselves. Net result, in a high performance airplane you will most
likely inadvertently encounter heavy icing and lightning at some point
in your flying career. With a suitable aircraft, back up plans, a cool
head and some experience, these will not be life threatening situations.
It is inconceivable to me to build a state of the art high performance
cross country airplane without lightning protection, on-board weather
detection and deicing equipment. Martin Hollman has written a piece in
one his books with a sketch of lightning protection for a Lancair. It
seems like this will also help reduce the static electricity buildup
that seems to trouble a lot of plastic airplanes.
We need to address lighting protection as an issue rather than just put
our heads in the sand with the advice avoid it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-
> aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hartmann
> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 8:40 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . .
>
>
>
>
> >
> >>I have to disagree. That the pilot PURPOSELY flew into clouds is,
in my
> >>opinion, not relevant in the least. Is a lightning strike from
clouds I
> >>flew into on purpose any different from a lightning strike from
clouds I
> >>inadvertently flew into?
>
> Bob has done a superb job of defending his position, and doesn't need
my
> help. Nevertheless... If I may share a lesson learned from over 25
years
> as an air traffic controller, there may have once been a time when
> "inadvertent" flight into IMC (clouds) or an "inadvertent" encounter
with
> embedded convective activity (lightning, etc) COULD have occurred. In
the
> dark, almost forgotten past.
>
> I know it is outside the interest of this list, but out of respect for
the
> handful of friends I've lost due to their own stupidity, and
remembering
> the dozens of morons, yes MORONS, I've helped out of "inadvertent"
> encounters with weather as a controller, I'll say it one more time.
There
> is NO SUCH THING as an inadvertent weather encounter.
>
> Staying alive, rule number one:
>
> IF YOU ARE INADEQUATELY PREPARED, TRAINED, OR EQUIPPED TO FLY IN
> INSTRUMENT
> CONDITIONS, JUST DON'T. IF YOU ARE NOT EQUIPPED FOR FLIGHT IN
ICING
> CONDITIONS, DON'T FLY WHERE ICING IS A POSSIBILITY. IF YOU ARE
> INADEQUATELY
> PREPARED, TRAINED, OR EQUIPPED TO AVOID EMBEDDED CONVECTIVE
ACTIVITY
> WHILE
> FLYING ON INSTRUMENTS, JUST DON'T FLY IN INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS WHEN
> CONVECTIVE
> ACTIVITY IS PRESENT.
>
> Get a briefing, get frequent updates, and if the weather isn't
suitable
> for
> your equipment, training, and proficiency, don't fly.
>
> As homebuilders, we are allowed choices and may make compromises when
> choosing equipment for our aircraft. As pilots, we make choices too.
> Lets
> not make dumb choices.
>
> End of sermon.
>
> - Mike
>
>
>
=
>
=
>
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-
> list
>
=
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
Bob
I have two pieces of equipment that have no on/off switch. What is
the best way to wire these from a panel switch? I have micro
switch 34AMLFBA4AC01 switches. DPDT . 1 switch can handle
2 inputs. Also for info sake what if there were more than 2 devices?
Jim Robinson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
Yes, and a fine sermon it is, Michael. Too many people have the "who shit
my pants?" syndrome.
Sam Chambers
Glasgow, KY
Long-EZ N775AM with most of Bob's stuff!
Michael Hartmann wrote:
> Staying alive, rule number one:
>
> IF YOU ARE INADEQUATELY PREPARED, TRAINED, OR EQUIPPED TO FLY IN
INSTRUMENT
> CONDITIONS, JUST DON'T. IF YOU ARE NOT EQUIPPED FOR FLIGHT IN ICING
> CONDITIONS, DON'T FLY WHERE ICING IS A POSSIBILITY. IF YOU ARE
> INADEQUATELY
> PREPARED, TRAINED, OR EQUIPPED TO AVOID EMBEDDED CONVECTIVE ACTIVITY
WHILE
> FLYING ON INSTRUMENTS, JUST DON'T FLY IN INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS WHEN
> CONVECTIVE
> ACTIVITY IS PRESENT.
> Get a briefing, get frequent updates, and if the weather isn't suitable
for
> your equipment, training, and proficiency, don't fly.
>
> As homebuilders, we are allowed choices and may make compromises when
> choosing equipment for our aircraft. As pilots, we make choices too.
Lets
> not make dumb choices.
>
> End of sermon.
>
> - Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Robertson" <res0rlvx(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Polyfuses and flap actuators |
Snip>>>
Hey, Dave. You may have identified a GOOD use for
polyswitches in airplanes.
The other similar use is for the pesky dual stick elevator trim actuators.
If you use Polyswitches, then if the pilot selects up and the passenger
selects down simultaneously, the polyswitch will prevent things from
shorting out. Of course, it does not help to trim the aircraft.....
Snip>>>
It might be more problematical with ball screw actuators.
They are so damned efficient that the end-of-travel
forces can build up to very high values and do it
quickly.
In my RV8 flap actuator, there is a sort of over-run clutch at each end.
Motor keeps turning, but the actuator stops moving.
Gordon Robertson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Curt Reimer" <cgreimer(at)mb.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: The old Vacuum vs. All-Electric Argument |
> Cost? Nope, not even close when you look at life cycle - in 2000 hours you
buy
> 4 or 5 vacuum pumps, 3 or 4 vacuum attitude gyros and heading indicators,
and
> EIGHT mags!!! This is versus one SD-8 standby alternator (the main alt is
a
> sunk cost with either system), one electric attitude gyro and (maybe) one
> heading gyro, and two electronic ignition systems.
While I'm mostly on the all-electric side of this issue, I have to disagree
about total cost. Here is how the numbers stack up:
price, ea. qty total
non impulse mag 347 4 1388
impulse mag 394 4 1576
vacuum AH 360 2 720
vacuum DG 300 2 600
vacuum pump 189 4 756
5040
electronic ignition 1000 2 2000
Electric Ah 1450 1 1450
electric DG 1450 1 1450
B&C SD-8 alternator 430 1 430
5330
And that is being pretty unkind to the legacy systems in terms of MTBF.
If I had a spare five grand at this point in my project, I'd go with
electric gyros for sure. But I don't. I can set myself up with vacuum gyros
and magnetoes for less than $1600 first-time cost. In fact, I am leaning
towards no gyros at all and just flying day vfr for now.
Electrics are nice, but price still makes a difference to some of us. Heck,
as long as we're talking about enhancing reliability and longevity, I'd like
like a turbine engine too .
Curt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The old Vacuum vs. All-Electric Argument |
>
>Hi everyone
>
>Great discussion on vacuum vs. electric systems. Probably been hashed a bit,
>but there's always gonna be someone who remains unconvinced about a new idea,
>especially in aviation. There are a great deal of things we learn while
>gaining
>experience flying, and a lot of those things are passed on as dogma. There
>are
>several reasons for this (military influence, consequences of failing to heed
>mistakes of those who have gone - literally - before, etc), and the
>Norm Howell
>Experimental Test Pilot
>The Boeing Company
>norman.e.howell(at)boeing.com
>building: Berkut 540, Z-13, Dual LSE
Norm my old friend. I didn't know you were hanging out here
on the List. I don't even remember the last time we
bumped into each other (Lancaster? Mojave?). Pleased
to know you're still hanging around those little
buzzy things us light-iron drivers like to call airplanes.
Please to have the benefit of your experience and insight
here in the land of po' man's flying machines!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
>It is inconceivable to me to build a state of the art high performance
>cross country airplane without lightning protection, on-board weather
>detection and deicing equipment. Martin Hollman has written a piece in
>one his books with a sketch of lightning protection for a Lancair. It
>seems like this will also help reduce the static electricity buildup
>that seems to trouble a lot of plastic airplanes.
>
>We need to address lighting protection as an issue rather than just put
>our heads in the sand with the advice avoid it.
I don't think we're going to find many RV's or Cozy's that
will even come close to state-of-the-art. I work on those kinds
of airplanes at RAC. I suspect that anyone who can afford to
own one of those machines wouldn't spend much time on this
list server trying to craft his own brand of pleasure.
Here we have to figure out ways to advance the leading edge
of value . . . getting the most from the dollars and hours we have
to invest. It's a totally different venue and a whole lot more
fun . . . but we're not going to bore holes in nature's
worst with these machines . . . it quits being pleasure
in a hurry.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Walter S. Fellows" <fellowsw(at)mondexkorea.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
From the Martin Hollman piece, it seemed like about $6,000 in materials
for LIV. Doesn't seem like much compared to the cost of new TSIO-550.
Probably not of much interest to a cozy builder, but for a LIVP or a
stallion builder, not out of the question. Aluminum aircraft already
have a big advantage for lightning protection. A lot of work has been
done in this area for composite aircraft and I hope we can hear from
some of the people in the know.
When you fly in the clouds with a stormscope, you begin to realize just
how much lightning is around even in situations without severe
convective weather. Or out west in the late afternoon with fairly mild,
scattered cells with lots of lighting forming beyond the cells
themselves.
> -----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: Thursday, March 28, 2002 12:31 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Virtues of sucking systems . . .
>
>
>
>
> >It is inconceivable to me to build a state of the art high
performance
> >cross country airplane without lightning protection, on-board weather
> >detection and deicing equipment. Martin Hollman has written a piece
in
> >one his books with a sketch of lightning protection for a Lancair. It
> >seems like this will also help reduce the static electricity buildup
> >that seems to trouble a lot of plastic airplanes.
> >
> >We need to address lighting protection as an issue rather than just
put
> >our heads in the sand with the advice avoid it.
>
> I don't think we're going to find many RV's or Cozy's that
> will even come close to state-of-the-art. I work on those kinds
> of airplanes at RAC. I suspect that anyone who can afford to
> own one of those machines wouldn't spend much time on this
> list server trying to craft his own brand of pleasure.
>
> Here we have to figure out ways to advance the leading edge
> of value . . . getting the most from the dollars and hours we have
> to invest. It's a totally different venue and a whole lot more
> fun . . . but we're not going to bore holes in nature's
> worst with these machines . . . it quits being pleasure
> in a hurry.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
=
>
=
>
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-
> list
>
=
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
Glasair built a lightning protected (?) Glasair by bonding a metal
mesh just under the gel coat and tying the whole structure
together. They did this with a grant from ? (someone) to test
lightning protection on composite aircrafts. They offered this as an
option in the Glasair lll's and as I understand to one ever bought
one. It increased the weight and cost, and there was still some
question as to the safety. Most composite pilots stay away from
lightning. I know that I do. I guess I don't have to get there that
bad.
Jim Robinson
Glasair 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
Hi Bob,
I am building an RV3 with the Z11 electrical architecture modified for a
permanent magnet starter and dual E.I., a B&C 40A alternator and voltage
regulator, and a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 engine monitor.
With a low voltage light, I would lose my voltmeter when I need it most
because the engine monitor is wired to the main bus in Z11. Therefore,
I'm thinking your VLM-14 would be a good addition rather than just a
plain voltmeter.
My question is: Could the EIS voltmeter be made useful if wired for
some purpose or would it always just be either redundant (alternator ok)
or useless (alternator bad)? I could use the space on the EIS display
for some other purpose if the voltmeter were not useful.
Concerning the VLM-14, does the load meter measure 1) the current load
placed on the alternator as a % of its rated capacity or 2) the current
capability of the alternator as a % of it rated capacity?
Thanks,
Rick Fogerson
RV3 fuselage
Boise, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com> |
Rick,
I'm not Bob, but why not wire the EIS to the E-bus? I asked Greg at GRT what
the EIS current draw was and he reported: 0.15 amp + 0.1 amp for warning
light for a total of 0.25 max amps. This seems like a small load considering
its usefulness.
Chris Heitman
Dousman WI
RV-9A N94ME (reserved)
airbox
http://www.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html
-----Original Message-----
With a low voltage light, I would lose my voltmeter when I need it most
because the engine monitor is wired to the main bus in Z11.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Faulty Altitude reporting |
Message text written by INTERNET:MJKTuck(at)cs.com
>except for my Terra transponder which last year had me at 14,500 ft when I
was at 3,500 ft. Someone on the Forum suggested I just turn it off then on
again. I tried it and it worked.<
Please, please if you get incorrect height readouts get it fixed asap. The
reason is that these height readouts are used by aircraft fitted with TCAS.
In effect aircraft so fitted will be given pitch demands to avoid any risk
of collision based on position and height given by height encoding
transponders. This is the one time when aircraft will disregard ATC until no
further conflict exists. It is easy to see from this that an aircraft is
sending out an incorrect height readout can cause another aircraft to depart
from its cleared altitude and even worse may even cause a midair collision.
Better to have mode C turned off rather than on at an incorrect height.
Nigel Charles
Nigel:
Good point! When I left airline work, the newer TCAS instruments
were just coming in, but control tie-in was not there........
That begs the next question for us loners - how does one
discover a fault in altitude reporting figures? No one wants to be part of a
false flight diversion - so how can we avoid the onset? After all, most
modern detectors are ever-vigilant and lightning-quick.
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Lookin' fer Lightnin' |
The discussion about lightning strikes bears watching. In the airlines, we
were advised and concurred that ten miles from an isolated Cb was the
minimum, increasing to the worst case - freezing level - twenty-five miles.
Having haunted the Toronto-LAZ route for twenty years, I can happily agree
with that. Often embedded Cbs are the hardest - airborne radar in big-iron
makes it easy, but warmfront obscuration dictates a solid weather briefing -
and specific questioning - to avoid the thunderbumpers.
There is a magnificent lightning-strike event recorded with the
UK accident investigation unit which illustrates the violent results of
distant Cb strikes. A glider in souther UK on an exam flight (I think) was
struck by a serious bolt. This followed the inside iron (rod-operated flight
controls) and blew the glider into pieces. Both pilots wore parachutes
although one chap was burnt in the shoulder, and both survived. The
assessment is amazingly detailed if you like reading two pages from 1/10th
second event. I'll look it up if prompted.
Ferg
diesel Europa A064
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: VML-14 in RV3 |
>
>Rick,
>
>I'm not Bob, but why not wire the EIS to the E-bus? I asked Greg at GRT what
>the EIS current draw was and he reported: 0.15 amp + 0.1 amp for warning
>light for a total of 0.25 max amps. This seems like a small load considering
>its usefulness.
>
>Chris Heitman
>Dousman WI
Excellent suggestion. I was just going to ask Ferg
how much current the monitor system needed.
Given your offer of that data, I think I would
run the monitor system from the e-bus being mindful
of the fact that in normal flight, the bus voltage
reading is 0.6 volts lower than main bus
. . . no big deal. Alternatively, one could
arrange a relay that switches monitor power to
the main bus when the main bus is hot and reverts
to the e-bus when the main bus shuts down. This is
a feature built into our VLM-14 voltmeter/loadmeter
product.
You're right on Chris.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Altitude reporting |
>
>Message text written by INTERNET:MJKTuck(at)cs.com
> >except for my Terra transponder which last year had me at 14,500 ft when I
>was at 3,500 ft. Someone on the Forum suggested I just turn it off then on
>again. I tried it and it worked.<
>Please, please if you get incorrect height readouts get it fixed asap. The
>reason is that these height readouts are used by aircraft fitted with TCAS.
>In effect aircraft so fitted will be given pitch demands to avoid any risk
>of collision based on position and height given by height encoding
>transponders. This is the one time when aircraft will disregard ATC until no
>further conflict exists. It is easy to see from this that an aircraft is
>sending out an incorrect height readout can cause another aircraft to depart
>from its cleared altitude and even worse may even cause a midair collision.
>Better to have mode C turned off rather than on at an incorrect height.
>Nigel Charles
Just for grins, take a peek at:
http://www.airsport-corp.com/ifrvfdinfo.html
This is a product offered by some friends of ours that
contains a receiver to listen to the output from your
transponder. It echos your squawk code, reported altitude,
and (depending on the model of Alerter) offers some
useful warning and flight management functions based
on readings produced by your altitude encoder.
They used to make a version that connected directly
into the signal lines between the encoder and transponder
so that the pilot could SEE what the encoder ouputs
were saying . . . problem was that there could be
a failure in the transponder to make it mis-interpret
a good encoder signal . . . the BEST way to watch the
system was to see exactly what the transponder was
telling ATC.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: VML-14 in RV3 |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>I am building an RV3 with the Z11 electrical architecture modified for a
>permanent magnet starter and dual E.I., a B&C 40A alternator and voltage
>regulator, and a Grand Rapids EIS 4000 engine monitor.
>
>With a low voltage light, I would lose my voltmeter when I need it most
>because the engine monitor is wired to the main bus in Z11. Therefore,
>I'm thinking your VLM-14 would be a good addition rather than just a
>plain voltmeter.
Not sure you need it. See my other post in response to Chris
Heitman . . .
>My question is: Could the EIS voltmeter be made useful if wired for
>some purpose or would it always just be either redundant (alternator ok)
>or useless (alternator bad)? I could use the space on the EIS display
>for some other purpose if the voltmeter were not useful.
If you WANT to use the display for other purposes, then
the VLM-14 is an option to consider - this becomes a matter
of personal choices.
>Concerning the VLM-14, does the load meter measure 1) the current load
>placed on the alternator as a % of its rated capacity or 2) the current
>capability of the alternator as a % of it rated capacity?
The VLM-14 is simply a remote shunted ammeter designed
to work effectively with ANY size alternator by calling
out present alternator load in terms of percent of alternator
rating. This way, a single instrument can be used with
ANY size alternator. It can also be used with multiple
alternators by simply switching the instrument to the
appropriate shunt.
Does the EIS-4000 look at current? Does it use a shunt
or hall-effect transducer? If it uses a shunt, you can
switch it between two alternators also. If it uses a
hall effect transducer, you can run BOTH alternator
output leads through the same transducer and let it
measure either alternator output.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Altitude reporting |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> >
> >Message text written by INTERNET:MJKTuck(at)cs.com
> > >except for my Terra transponder which last year had me at 14,500 ft when I
> >was at 3,500 ft. Someone on the Forum suggested I just turn it off then on
> >again. I tried it and it worked.<
> >Please, please if you get incorrect height readouts get it fixed asap. The
> >reason is that these height readouts are used by aircraft fitted with TCAS.
> >In effect aircraft so fitted will be given pitch demands to avoid any risk
> >of collision based on position and height given by height encoding
> >transponders. This is the one time when aircraft will disregard ATC until no
> >further conflict exists. It is easy to see from this that an aircraft is
> >sending out an incorrect height readout can cause another aircraft to depart
> >from its cleared altitude and even worse may even cause a midair collision.
> >Better to have mode C turned off rather than on at an incorrect height.
> >Nigel Charles
>
> Just for grins, take a peek at:
>
> http://www.airsport-corp.com/ifrvfdinfo.html
>
> This is a product offered by some friends of ours that
> contains a receiver to listen to the output from your
> transponder. It echos your squawk code, reported altitude,
> and (depending on the model of Alerter) offers some
> useful warning and flight management functions based
> on readings produced by your altitude encoder.
>
> They used to make a version that connected directly
> into the signal lines between the encoder and transponder
> so that the pilot could SEE what the encoder ouputs
> were saying . . . problem was that there could be
> a failure in the transponder to make it mis-interpret
> a good encoder signal . . . the BEST way to watch the
> system was to see exactly what the transponder was
> telling ATC.
>
> Bob . . .
Ok, Bob. Can you point me to IC data sheets (receiver/demodulator) that would make
it easy to
"roll your own"? Once I have a demodulated signal, it shouldn't be hard to catch,
decode the
gray codes and display the result.
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
A few days ago, I believe Bob said something about
not liking the traditional key switches we're all used to
from spam cans. (I tried searching the archives for
the exact comments, but I seem to have failed
in ArchiveSearch101.)
I believe Bob said that he doesn't like what they do
from an electrical standpoint, and they don't do much
to prevent theft. I believe he wanted us to use standard
switches instead.
Did I get this right, Bob?
And don't the insurance companies want to see us make
at least a token effort to prevent theft? Don't we get
into legal trouble if we make it too easy to steal our
airplanes?
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C J Heitman" <cjh(at)execpc.com> |
| Subject: | measuring current with EIS-4000 |
Bob wrote:
Does the EIS-4000 look at current? Does it use a shunt
or hall-effect transducer? If it uses a shunt, you can
switch it between two alternators also. If it uses a
hall effect transducer, you can run BOTH alternator
output leads through the same transducer and let it
measure either alternator output.
Bob,
Funny you should ask. Just yesterday, I finally received the hall effect
current sensor that I ordered from Greg at Oshkosh last year. Apparently it
took Greg a while to find one that was immune to the noise of the ignition
system. He said that the one he is now shipping works properly even when
placed next to a spark plug or plug wire. It will work with one of the
auxiliary inputs up to +50 amps with existing firmware. To measure up to 100
amps or to measure +/- battery current will require a software upgrade.
Bob, thanks for the suggestion to run B leads from both the 40 amp and SD-8
alternators thru the hall effect sensor. I hadn't thought of that.
Chris Heitman
Dousman WI
RV-9A N94ME (reserved)
http://www.execpc.com/~cjh/rv9a.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>
>Bob
>
>I have two pieces of equipment that have no on/off switch. What is
>the best way to wire these from a panel switch? I have micro
>switch 34AMLFBA4AC01 switches. DPDT . 1 switch can handle
>2 inputs. Also for info sake what if there were more than 2 devices?
>Jim Robinson
What devices are these? Is there any pressing need to
have pilot control? Most airplanes have one or more
appliances on the main but that are on any time the
bus is hot. I don't care much for that series
of switches (34AML) on a panel. They're kinda
cheesy . . . Just a not so humble opinion.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 03/27/02 |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <grantC(at)total.net> |
on 3/28/02 02:51, AeroElectric-List Digest Server at
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote:
> I've often decried the reverence with which
> we repeat the dark-and-stormy-nights stories and then
> run off to arm ourselves against the same scenario
> without understanding how the event came to pass (so
> that we can avoid it) and knowing what tools are available
> to help us out (instead of reacting in classic and perhaps
> ill-considered ways).
"My other airplane" has no vacuum system, but a whole suite of the latest
and 'greatest' micro-chip technology, and is regularly flown into places
where lightning strikes are inevitable. (A319/20/21 Airbusi). No 'dark
night' stories have yet surfaced about a total loss of electrics or
electronics, but of course the regulatory authorities did make sure that the
system was hardened against such things.
So, if we decide to go all electric too, it only makes sense that we would
likewise design a reasonable level of safeguards into our systems, IN
PROPORTION to the likelihood of a strike, and with an eye to the
consequenses. i.e. a strike while operating vfr, with a loss of electrics,
is still a relatively benign event due to the availability of visual
references. IFR is more demanding and should be designed accordingly -- all
as Bob 'preaches'! ;-)
I installed air-driven gyros in my Zodiac because of 1/ Cost, 2/ commonality
with existing aircraft for the sake of my wife's training plans...
In my experience with certified aircraft (as in instructor), the air-driven
systems are much less reliable than the electrical systems. I will happily
update my Zodiac to an all-electric system if the costs become more
'competitive'. I'm thrilled to see glass cockpit systems being released for
general aviation aircraft. Here I think that the quality of the glass
screens and their 'viewability' in bright sunshine, is the biggest problem
to solve. (There's a reason that the airliner 'glass' costs multiple
thousands -- the CRTs are driven differently than your average computer
screen so that we can see them in all sorts of lighting conditions.).
As a matter of interest, and because it illustrates the human limitations of
accepting change (NOT necessarily a bad thing!)... the 'standy' instruments
on the 'Bus' are physical instruments with a familiar look and feel as the
'good ole 727' panel. But they too are electrically driven. Now, they
could have been electronic displays on a separate, smaller CRT screen, with
the appropriately-guarded power supplies, etc. BUT the designers/engineers
decided, that making them physical would provide a 'friendlier' security
blanket for pilots transitioning for the first time to glass cockpits.
Always remember that the carbon-based unit (with all it's capabilities and
limitations!) must always be in control of any silicon-based items onboard!
;-)
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
www.theWingStayedON.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Shield Termination |
Subject: Thanks, and a question
Hi, First of all, thanks for a GREAT site!
You're welcome sir. I'm pleased that you find
the work useful . . .
I'm getting ready to install a 4-place intercom and
the info on how to terminate the cable shields is a
real help. Also read the article on wire stripping,
but I still have a challenge I'm trying to work through.
With 2 and 3 conductor 22 gauge shielded Tefzel cable:
(1) is there an efficient way to remove the outer
(very thin) insulation jacket without nicking the braid,
and similarly (2) is there a clean and quick way to trim
the shield braid to the 1/4" or so needed to attach a
pigtail without damaging the insulation of the multiple
inner conductors? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
THANKS!
Regards, John Hall (Anchorage, AK)
Sure, I'll show you how I do it when I have a
couple dozen radio harnesses to build. But hold
your nose for this one when I say "neat doesn't
count for much." I know this goes against the
grain of builders who think in terms of building
furniture but here goes. . .
Download these pictures:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Shield1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Shield2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Shield3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Shield4.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/Shield5.jpg
Here I show that it's not necessary to gather all
those pesky strands neatly and "undamaged"
into the fold before soldering.
If you can "rip" off the outer jacket even
if it tears off most of the shielding, you can
see from the pictures how the remaining strands
can be wound around the inner conductors
in preparation for attaching the shield's
leadwire.
After the heatshrink cools off, nobody but
you will know how horribly you treated those
poor, itty-bitty wires. A little heatshrink
hides a lot of "sins" . . .
John, how about joining us on the Aero-Electric
List? You can join up at:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
I think you'll find the activity most useful
in the construction of your project.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <racker(at)rmci.net> |
Archive search keyword "security" yields a few threads on this subject.
My opinion regarding the standard key switch, it is so standard *any* thief
will know how to jumper it MUCH more quickly than trying to figure out your
mag toggle switch arrangement (wired so the starter will only engage with a
very specific switch sequence).
Add a hidden kill switch to further delay a thief, and he *will* move on to
the plane parked next to yours with the standard keyswitch and be flying in
no time.
Rob Acker (padlocked throttle lock as well).
> And don't the insurance companies want to see us make
> at least a token effort to prevent theft? Don't we get
> into legal trouble if we make it too easy to steal our
> airplanes?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lookin' fer Lightnin' |
> There is a magnificent lightning-strike event recorded with the
>UK accident investigation unit which illustrates the violent results of
>distant Cb strikes. A glider in souther UK on an exam flight (I think) was
>struck by a serious bolt. This followed the inside iron (rod-operated flight
>controls) and blew the glider into pieces. Both pilots wore parachutes
>although one chap was burnt in the shoulder, and both survived. The
>assessment is amazingly detailed if you like reading two pages from 1/10th
>second event. I'll look it up if prompted.
Here's a series of movie-gif shots someone sent me a few
years ago:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/5.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/plane_fast.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/plane_slow.gif
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike.weed(at)acterna.com |
| Subject: | Landing gear sequencer |
Does anyone have any links to landing gear sequencer designs?
Thanks,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Virtues of sucking systems . . . |
> >In this instance, I think that purposely flying into clouds is a
> meaningless
> >argument. (The rest of your post might have contained factual
> information,
> >but none of it addressed the original issue: "With all the drawbacks of
> >vacuum systems... it still kept working when all the electron
> powered stuff
> >quit.")
>
> I'd hopped that the line of reasoning was founded
> on lighting avoidance thereby making the argument mute.
>
Okay... I think that I took away the wrong message here. I got out of the
post, "electrical is better than vacuum, and deliberatly flying into clouds
makes the positive attributes of vacuum systems irrelevant." (Which I
couldn't come to grips with, obviously.)
I think that the argument you were trying to make was, that an assessment of
the kinds of flying we're going to do should influence the equipment in the
aircraft. That I can completely agree with.
-Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miles McCallum" <milesm(at)avnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Lookin' fer Lightnin' |
>
> > There is a magnificent lightning-strike event recorded with
the
> >UK accident investigation unit which illustrates the violent results of
> >distant Cb strikes. A glider in souther UK on an exam flight (I think)
was
> >struck by a serious bolt. This followed the inside iron (rod-operated
flight
> >controls) and blew the glider into pieces. Both pilots wore parachutes
> >although one chap was burnt in the shoulder, and both survived.
I've seen the remains (at least the cockpit area) and I don't think that
there was any problem clearing the aircraft! - it was a trail/pleasure
flight - passenger's first time up - and fortunately the instructor gave him
an excellent briefing on using his parachute - which he obviously listened
to! they gave him another free flight a few days later...
Miles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>A few days ago, I believe Bob said something about
>not liking the traditional key switches we're all used to
>from spam cans. (I tried searching the archives for
>the exact comments, but I seem to have failed
>in ArchiveSearch101.)
>
>I believe Bob said that he doesn't like what they do
>from an electrical standpoint, and they don't do much
>to prevent theft. I believe he wanted us to use standard
>switches instead.
Keyed magneto switches are big, fat, ugly and expensive.
They require a key to operate which you may find is still
in your pocket AFTER you're all strapped in.
With the faster cranking speeds of lightweight starters,
there is a greater potential for kickback if the right
mag becomes hot while the prop is still turning after
you stopped cranking the engine. This can't happen
with properly wired toggle switches.
>Did I get this right, Bob?
>
>And don't the insurance companies want to see us make
>at least a token effort to prevent theft? Don't we get
>into legal trouble if we make it too easy to steal our
>airplanes?
How many things will the thief break through BEFORE he
gets to your magneto switches? I used to have tenant
in one of the hangars on our airport that
left the doors unlocked on his airplane. This was to
make sure the thief didn't do many hundreds of dollars
damage to his door -AND- get the radios to boot.
Recall that twin engine airplanes don't have TWO
keyswitches . . . if you get inside a King-Air
or a C-310 . . . you own the airplane.
In my not so humble opinion, there is no better
security against airplane theft that a prop chain.
You can buy nearly indestructible chain and locks
that you can cover with a non-scratching sleeve to
protect finish on prop and spinner. Looped around
the blades in a figure 8 pattern and locked, the
thief will see long before he even gets close to
your airplane. Internal security blankets can't
go to work for you until after he's broken into
the cockpit.
I lost the key on a rental airplane 200 miles
from home about 9 years ago. I reached behind the
panel and with about 5-10 wiggles of the p-leads,
I was able to break the terminals off so that
the mags were hot. I propped the airplane
and brought it home. 20 minutes with a crimp
tool and new terminals fixed the damage.
Good thing the cabin doors weren't locked.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Altitude reporting |
>
> > Bob . . .
>
>Ok, Bob. Can you point me to IC data sheets (receiver/demodulator) that
>would make it easy to
>"roll your own"? Once I have a demodulated signal, it shouldn't be hard to
>catch, decode the
>gray codes and display the result.
>
>Finn
I'm not aware of any easy receiver chips although there
may be some. The Airsport uses transmission line filters
driving a discrete detector driving some gain. The
"demodulator" is a 68HC705 microcontroller programmed
to recognize and decode the transponder's reply stream
in addition to managing all the GUI features.
Here's a breakdown on the decoding task for
the microprocessor:
http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm
http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt
I think you'd find it MUCH less expensive to
buy the gizmo already built . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear sequencer |
>
>
>Does anyone have any links to landing gear sequencer designs?
>
>Thanks,
>Mike
Not sure of your question Mike, what kind of airplane
and what kind of gear system? If this is a plans or kit-
built airplane, didn't the designer offer some suggestions
as to management of landing gear?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Polyfuses and flap actuators |
>
>
> Snip>>>
>Hey, Dave. You may have identified a GOOD use for
> polyswitches in airplanes.
>
>The other similar use is for the pesky dual stick elevator trim actuators.
>If you use Polyswitches, then if the pilot selects up and the passenger
>selects down simultaneously, the polyswitch will prevent things from
>shorting out. Of course, it does not help to trim the aircraft.....
There are ways to wire the system so that contradictory
commands don't result in hard faults . . . the motor simply
stops . . . or you can go further to implement pilot-priority
circuitry so that what ever the pilot puts in gets operated
on irrespective of what the copilot does.
>In my RV8 flap actuator, there is a sort of over-run clutch at each end.
>Motor keeps turning, but the actuator stops moving.
Yup . . . that's the critter. If one uses this feature to
full advantage, rigging of flaps for full-up and full down
becomes a purely mechanical exercise. It's got some elegant
attributes . . . you'll never jam or bend something due
to failure of limit or control systems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| 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
Nice work sir. I'm working on major changes to my website
and adding links to visual aids is under consideration. Does
anyone else on the list know where more useful pictures
are available on the net?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brucem(at)olypen.com |
| Subject: | The old Vacuum vs. All-Electric Argument |
Bob,
While I favor a dual alternator, single-battery, all-electric gyros
system for my GlaStar, cost is an issue. The RC Allen electric AI
and DG run about $1700 each, almost three times the price of the
pneumatic versions. Aircraft Spruce carries "import" elctric gyros
for about $1100. Any idea of the quality and serviceability of
these lower cost models?
On a technical note, the RC Allens use an inverter and AC motor to
power the rotor. Why this method rather than the DC (brushless?)
motors used in turn coordinators. Does the AC choice cause the high
price?
Thanks,
Bruce
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using OlyPen's WebMail.
http://www.olypen.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Werner Schneider" <WernerSchneider(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prefab electrical systems |
Hello Bob,
Charlie has also very nice photos on the Web:
http://communities.msn.com/Whatsnewonthemountain/panel.msnw
http://communities.msn.com/Whatsnewonthemountain/electrical.msnw
Kind regards
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
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
>
> Nice work sir. I'm working on major changes to my website
> and adding links to visual aids is under consideration. Does
> anyone else on the list know where more useful pictures
> are available on the net?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I have two pieces of equipment that have no on/off switch. What is
> >the best way to wire these from a panel switch? I have micro
> >switch 34AMLFBA4AC01 switches. DPDT . 1 switch can handle
> >2 inputs. Also for info sake what if there were more than 2 devices? Jim
> >Robinson
>
> What devices are these? Is there any pressing need to
> have pilot control? Most airplanes have one or more
> appliances on the main but that are on any time the
> bus is hot. I don't care much for that series
> of switches (34AML) on a panel. They're kinda
> cheesy . . . Just a not so humble opinion.
>
> Bob . . .
Hi Bob
I have the switches because they were specified in the Vision
Micro Panel in my Glasair. They fit nicely in a switch panel into a
nice metal brackets. Are there any that would fit in the same
holders and be better quality?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: All electric panel . . . |
>
>Bob,
>
>While I favor a dual alternator, single-battery, all-electric gyros
>system for my GlaStar, cost is an issue. The RC Allen electric AI
>and DG run about $1700 each, almost three times the price of the
>pneumatic versions. Aircraft Spruce carries "import" elctric gyros
>for about $1100. Any idea of the quality and serviceability of
>these lower cost models?
I've not heard anything about them at all . . . which is
a positive thing. Generally the only time I hear about
any product is when it doesn't perform well for the user
(doctors may get a distorted view of the world cuz MOST
of the people in their daily lives are sick). So to say
that the marketplace is silent on an issue is more a good
thing than a bad thing . . . of course, it's possible
that people who are having problems are making it known
out of ear/eye shot of my venue.
Does anyone out there have first hand -OR- anecdotal information
on the low cost gyros?
As an aside on this topic, I've suggested to several builders
that they punch a hole in the panel for the DG and then
put a cover plate over the hole. Get the airplane up and
running and see if the DG is really all that necessary.
You get EXCELLENT, stable, ground track info from GPS
and except for shooting approaches, I wonder if you couldn't
do very nicely without it. I'm sure I could.
In any case, if you decide to add it 100 hours or so into
your airplane's life cycle, I'll suggest that it's much
easier to spend a $grand$ or so on an airplane that's FLYING
than to spend the same amount of money on one that's still
in pieces around the workshop. This orchestrated delay-of-
expenditure may make the decision to go all-electric
a bit easier to take if you ultimately do install the DG
and a LOT easier to take if you decide you can do without
it.
>On a technical note, the RC Allens use an inverter and AC motor to
>power the rotor. Why this method rather than the DC (brushless?)
>motors used in turn coordinators. Does the AC choice cause the high
>price?
Brushless DC motors use inverters too . . . just a little
different than for a polyphase AC motor found in most
gyros. The classic AC gyro motor is an induction motor
that runs slightly slower than the synchronous speed of
applied AC. Ever notice how AC motors for your saws and
furnace fans run at speeds like 3550 and 1750 rpm when
the synchronous speed of the magnetic field within is
3600 or 1800? Brushless DC motors are really synchronous
AC motors wherein the rotor mounts permanent magnets. Here
the rotor runs in lock step with the applied AC voltage
instead of being a few percent slower like an induction
motor.
Both motor technologies require transistors and other
goodies to turn DC into something that the motor likes.
Early turn coordinators used brush type DC motors
and later went to induction motors with built in
inverters. Most attitude and directional gyros
use 400 cycle AC induction motors . . . sometimes
3-phase. Single phase motors use simple inverters
that are usually built into the gyro . . . inverters
for 3-phase power tend to be bulkier and are mounted
external to the gyro.
Obviously, a 3-phase gyro with an external inverter
will take up more room in the airplane and probably
be more expensive than a gyro designed to run from
an internal, single phase inverter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AML Switches on Vision Micro- |
> > >I have two pieces of equipment that have no on/off switch. What is
> > >the best way to wire these from a panel switch? I have micro
> > >switch 34AMLFBA4AC01 switches. DPDT . 1 switch can handle
> > >2 inputs. Also for info sake what if there were more than 2 devices? Jim
> > >Robinson
> >
> > What devices are these? Is there any pressing need to
> > have pilot control? Most airplanes have one or more
> > appliances on the main but that are on any time the
> > bus is hot. I don't care much for that series
> > of switches (34AML) on a panel. They're kinda
> > cheesy . . . Just a not so humble opinion.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Hi Bob
>I have the switches because they were specified in the Vision
>Micro Panel in my Glasair. They fit nicely in a switch panel into a
>nice metal brackets. Are there any that would fit in the same
>holders and be better quality?
>Jim
Hmmmm . . . what do these switches do? I looked over the
information on their website and didn't see anything
in their published photos that looked like the AML
switches. Are these used to control some system functions?
I think I recall that your original query was about
using them to control power . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | magnetic shielding of instruments |
>Bob,
>Do you know of a source for mu-metal for shielding the turn coordinator.
>Magnetic Shield Corp has a $100 minimum order. I have also asked the
>same ques to B&C Spec Prod.
>
>Thank You,
>
>Dan Krueger
Mu metal is neat stuff . . . very high permeability for
it's mass and cross section . . . but it's not magic.
Go to a lumber yard and by some galvanized flashing metal.
The thinner the better. Cut a strip with a width equal to
the depth of the instrument behind the panel. Make it
long enough to wrap around the instrument 3 times (or
more if you're willing to wrestle with it a bit).
Coil the strip up and fasten it around the outside of
the instrument and hold in place with tye-wraps, lacing
cord or glass-fiber packing tape. The sleeve doesn't have
to fit tight . . . you can prefab the sleeve outside
the airplane and then slip it over the installed instrument
as a sort of iron slip-cover.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
| People are far more willing to pay |
| for being amused than for anything else. |
| -Thomas Edison- |
--------------------------------------------
Bob . . .
--------------------------
TEMPORARY WEBSITE ADDRESS:
http://209.134.106.21
--------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mbragg02(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bluemountainavionics.com |
Has any one heard of Blue Mountain avionics.com?
A full ifis system with full IFR panel. All you have to add is a com and
transponder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harley, Ageless Wings" <Harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AML Switches on Vision Micro- |
Mornin', Bob...
This has nothing to do with electronics (or at least very little) but I
thought a good laugh might be had by all. My son sent me these this
morning...he got them from a friend in Atlanta. Who knows, you might see
someone you've dealt with in the bunch!
Enjoy...
Harley
============================================================================
========
Airplane maintenance humor...
Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humor. Here are some
actual logged maintenance problems, and the solution recorded by maintenance
crews.
Problem: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.
Solution: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
Problem: Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.
Solution: Autoland not installed on this aircraft.
Problem: No. 2 propeller seeping prop fluid.
Solution: No. 2 propeller seepage normal. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 propellers lack
normal seepage.
Problem: Something loose in cockpit.
Solution: Something tightened in cockpit.
Problem: Dead bugs on windshield.
Solution: Live bugs on backorder.
Problem: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces 200-fpm descent.
Solution: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Problem: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear.
Solution: Evidence removed.
Problem: DME volume unbelievably loud.
Solution: DME volume set to more believable level.
Problem: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Solution: That's what they're there for!
Problem: IFF inoperative.
Solution: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
Problem: Suspected crack in windscreen.
Solution: Suspect you're right.
Problem: Number 3 engine missing.
Solution: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Problem: Aircraft handles funny.
Solution: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
Problem: Target radar hums.
Solution: Reprogrammed target radar with words.
Problem: Mouse in cockpit.
Solution: Cat installed.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Speaking of AC power . . . |
This arrived in my mailbox from one of my consulting
clients . . . very clever. Couldn't resist posting
it on the List . . .
220 Volt Wiring as Explained by Tom Gauldin
I think its time for me to explain about 220 current
and why it is so different from 110-volt service. First
of all, it's twice as big. Secondly, it'll shock you
more. Outside of that, 220 is really two 110 volt
lines coming to your house from different parts of the globe.
The up and down 110 comes from the northern hemisphere,
and the down and up version comes from below the equator.
Without trying to get technical, it all boils down to the
direction water flows when it goes down the drain. In
the top of the earth, it goes clockwise, while on the
bottom of the earth it goes counter clockwise. Since
most electricity is made from hydro dams, the clockwise
flow gives you an up and down sine wave, while the
counterclockwise version gives you a down and up sine
wave. Between the two, you have 220 volts, while either
individual side only gives you 110 volts.
This is particularly important to know when buying power
toolswhich side of the globe did they come from? If you
get an Australian saw, for instance, it will turn backwards
if connected to a U.S.-generated 110-volt source. Sure,
you can buy backwards blades for it, but that is an
unnecessary burden. Other appliances, like toasters,
cannot be converted from Australian electricity to
American electricity, without horrible results. I knew
one person who bought an Australian toaster by mistake
and it froze the slices of bread she put in it.
If you wire your shop with 220 and accidentally get two
U.S.-generated 110-volt lines run in by accident, you can
get 220 by using a trick I learned from an old electrician.
Just put each source into its own fuse box and then turn one
of the boxes upside down. That'll invert one of the two up and
down sine waves to down and up, giving you 220. DO NOT just
turn the box sideways, since that'll give you 165 volts and
you'll be limited to just using Canadian tools with it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <bruce.gray(at)snet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: All electric panel . . . |
One word of caution. The other lists (RV, Lancair, and Glasair) have stories
of poor quality, lack of customer response, and unrepairability of the made
in China gyros. Spend the extra money and buy the USA brand.
Bruce
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Whelen Strobe power pack wiring |
Listers,
I am in the process of wiring my strobes/power packs/position lights.
Here's what I have:
I'm building a RV6A.
Two A490A, TS, CF aka HTS,CF mounted in the top of the forward outermost
bay on the wing sparcap (4 #8 nutplates/screws). This mounting
provides the shortest "high-power" wiring run that I could figure out
and provides maintenance accessability via the leading edge Duckworks
landing light cutouts..
A600PR and PG light sets (red/green, white, and strobe) mounted in the
wingtip tank.
Here's part of the plan that I'm fairly certain is correct:
14 ga wire providing power to the red/green and white lights - single
run each side split at the light assy.
The red/green and white lights will be locally grounded to the sparcap
as it runs all the way to the center of the fuselage. 14 ga single run
gathered at the light assy.
14 ga wire providing power to the + lead of the powerpack - single run
each side.
The - lead of the power side of the power pack will also be locally
grounded to the sparcap.
The shield lead of the "high-power" interconnecting cable from the
output side of the power pack will also be locally grounded at the
sparcap only.
If any of the previous part is incorrect or could be made better -
please let me know!
Here's the part where I need some guidance:
Is the black wire (marked flash tube ground / cathode) on the output
side of the power pack supposed to be grounded or is that simply a
return (yes - I know it really flows the other direction) path for the
high current to the power pack?
Thanks for your help,
Ralph E. Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AML Switches on Vision Micro- |
>
>
>
> > > >I have two pieces of equipment that have no on/off switch. What is
> > > >the best way to wire these from a panel switch? I have micro switch
> > > >34AMLFBA4AC01 switches. DPDT . 1 switch can handle 2 inputs. Also
> > > >for info sake what if there were more than 2 devices? Jim Robinson
> > >
> > > What devices are these? Is there any pressing need to
> > > have pilot control? Most airplanes have one or more
> > > appliances on the main but that are on any time the
> > > bus is hot. I don't care much for that series
> > > of switches (34AML) on a panel. They're kinda
> > > cheesy . . . Just a not so humble opinion.
> > >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> >Hi Bob
> >I have the switches because they were specified in the Vision
> >Micro Panel in my Glasair. They fit nicely in a switch panel into a nice
> >metal brackets. Are there any that would fit in the same holders and be
> >better quality? Jim
>
> Hmmmm . . . what do these switches do? I looked over the
> information on their website and didn't see anything
> in their published photos that looked like the AML
> switches. Are these used to control some system functions?
> I think I recall that your original query was about
> using them to control power . . .
>
> Bob . . .
Bob
These are used in a premoulded panel that has a recess made for
the switches. I got the switch number from previous builders that
have used them. I intended to use them for master, lights etc.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 03/28/02 |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <grantC(at)total.net> |
on 3/29/02 02:51, AeroElectric-List Digest Server at
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote:
> From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lookin' fer Lightnin'
>
>
> The discussion about lightning strikes bears watching...
This discussion thread got me interested in how the dual electronic ignition
system in my CAM100 might react/survive.... I got the following response
from Bob Masters, at Firewall Forward Aero Engines and pass it along fyi...
Grant Corriveau
-----------------
Good day Grant,
Your question was passed on to our electronics designer for comment. He
brought up several interesting points to think about regarding lightning
strikes. He has built into the design a number of safety features to
protect the Camputer from high energy jolts. There is no fixed pattern to
lightning especially regarding the strength of the field. It would depend
on whether it was a direct strike or induction from the field created in
the vicinity of the unit.The controller was subjected to high voltage
surges which were survived without trouble. The one point you mentioned was
that with a magneto there would be no danger of lightning strike damage. It
is an electrical devise using induction in it's functioning and is
therefore every bit as vulnerable as your ignition controller.
So I guess the only real guarantee is to flight plan well clear of CB
activity. Another point to ponder is how well a composite airframe would
fair in the first place.
That's the view that we have held. When the design was first up graded
to
the controller case now in use every care was taken to minimize external
voltage surges from affecting the circuitry.
Best regards, Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 03/28/02 |
| From: | Grant Corriveau <grantC(at)total.net> |
on 3/29/02 02:51, AeroElectric-List Digest Server at
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com wrote:
> That begs the next question for us loners - how does one
> discover a fault in altitude reporting figures? No one wants to be part of a
> false flight diversion - so how can we avoid the onset? After all, most
> modern detectors are ever-vigilant and lightning-quick.
> Cheers, Ferg
Ferg, I suppose the only way is to 'log in' with an ATC facility and confirm
your readout with them.
--
Grant Corriveau
Montreal
Zodiac 601hds/CAM100
C-GHTF
www.theWingStayedON.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: All electric panel . . . |
>
>One word of caution. The other lists (RV, Lancair, and Glasair) have stories
>of poor quality, lack of customer response, and unrepairability of the made
>in China gyros. Spend the extra money and buy the USA brand.
>
>Bruce
Good data point. Thanks for forwarding . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: magnetic shielding of instruments |
I've not heard of the "magnetic shielding" issue before. What is the basic
issue here?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: magnetic shielding of instruments
>
> >Bob,
> >Do you know of a source for mu-metal for shielding the turn coordinator.
> >Magnetic Shield Corp has a $100 minimum order. I have also asked the
> >same ques to B&C Spec Prod.
> >
> >Thank You,
> >
> >Dan Krueger
>
>
> Mu metal is neat stuff . . . very high permeability for
> it's mass and cross section . . . but it's not magic.
> Go to a lumber yard and by some galvanized flashing metal.
> The thinner the better. Cut a strip with a width equal to
> the depth of the instrument behind the panel. Make it
> long enough to wrap around the instrument 3 times (or
> more if you're willing to wrestle with it a bit).
>
> Coil the strip up and fasten it around the outside of
> the instrument and hold in place with tye-wraps, lacing
> cord or glass-fiber packing tape. The sleeve doesn't have
> to fit tight . . . you can prefab the sleeve outside
> the airplane and then slip it over the installed instrument
> as a sort of iron slip-cover.
>
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Piers Herbert" <piers.herbert(at)ntlworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluemountainavionics.com |
> Has any one heard of Blue Mountain avionics.com?
> A full ifis system with full IFR panel. All you have to add is a com and
> transponder.
There was a discussion about their operating system on this list last week.
But then not everyone is a computer nerd, so you're forgiven for not
noticing.
Piers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Altitude reporting |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Faulty Altitude reporting
>
>
> >
> > > Bob . . .
> >
> >Ok, Bob. Can you point me to IC data sheets (receiver/demodulator) that
> >would make it easy to
> >"roll your own"? Once I have a demodulated signal, it shouldn't be hard
to
> >catch, decode the
> >gray codes and display the result.
> >
> >Finn
>
> I'm not aware of any easy receiver chips although there
> may be some. The Airsport uses transmission line filters
> driving a discrete detector driving some gain. The
> "demodulator" is a 68HC705 microcontroller programmed
> to recognize and decode the transponder's reply stream
> in addition to managing all the GUI features.
>
> Here's a breakdown on the decoding task for
> the microprocessor:
>
> http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm
> http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt
>
> I think you'd find it MUCH less expensive to
> buy the gizmo already built . . .
>
> Bob . . .
Bob and all,
I thought someone else would have brought this up - See April 1998
Kitplanes, pp 20-23, "Aero 'Lectrics" "Here's how to check altitude encoders
via the Karmic connection." by Jim Weir.
Partial quotes: "What I needed was a practical way to test the encoder. If
that ... proved to be within tolerance, then by process of elimination it
would be the altimeter that was out of tolerance. I needed a way to read
the digital code that the encoder was transmitting and compare it to a known
good altimeter. . . . three problems [to solve]. One, how do I simulate
changes of altitude without actually flying the little rascal? Two, how do
I read the code and compare it to a known good code? Three, how do I
connect it all together so that I only have to make this setup once for my
encoder and then can use it for anybody's encoder."
He then procedes to design and illustrate a nice test box. Gives Table1,
Altitudes of 100 & 400 feet and corresponding codes for A B C data lines A1
A2 A4 B1 B2 B4 C1 C2 C4 and Table 2, Altitudes of 2800-3200 and codes for
A1 A2 A4 B1 B2 B4.
Final info in article: "Finally, As the nine three-colored LEDs that Weir
used to make it easy to distinguish the A, B and C data lines are not
generally available in the Radio Shack catalog, RST (Weir's company) offers
a "Sorta-Kit" arrangement, where RST supplies the LEDs and lenses, the
switch, the wire, the Karmic connector set, and the front panel artwork.
The builder supplies the Radio Shack specified case and does the drilling of
the case. RST's catalog number is RST-7301, and the parts sell for $25 plus
shipping. Call RST Engineering at 530/272-2203 or sales@rst-eng.com"
David Carter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: PS Engineering Intercom |
Bob:
I have the 1000II and when I play the CD player through it the volume is
extremely low. Is there any way to boost the volume?
E. Len Leggette, RV-8A
Greensboro, N.C. N910LL (res)
Hanger #23 INT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AML Switches on Vision Micro- |
> > Hmmmm . . . what do these switches do? I looked over the
> > information on their website and didn't see anything
> > in their published photos that looked like the AML
> > switches. Are these used to control some system functions?
> > I think I recall that your original query was about
> > using them to control power . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob
>These are used in a premoulded panel that has a recess made for
>the switches. I got the switch number from previous builders that
>have used them. I intended to use them for master, lights etc.
Oh . . . okay. They're certainly more attractive
than switches found in most airplanes. Be sure
to use the "power" rated versions (10A contacts) . . .
We'll be interested in hearing about your
experience with them.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ross Mickey" <rmickey(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: PS Engineering Intercom |
Check the archives of the RV-List on this. It was discussed a lot. I don't
think anyone came up with a real good solution.
Ross Mickey
> Bob:
>
> I have the 1000II and when I play the CD player through it the volume is
> extremely low. Is there any way to boost the volume?
>
> E. Len Leggette, RV-8A
> Greensboro, N.C. N910LL (res)
> Hanger #23 INT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
Bob:
"Just for grins, take a peek at:
http://www.airsport-corp.com/ifrvfdinfo.html"
My grin disappeared quickly. I was about to say how extremely
useful this system is, when the URL shot my computor down - 3 times - (Slow
learner). Nevertheless, thank you for the lead. Will pursue.
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AML Switches - Followup |
>
>Bob
>These are used in a premoulded panel that has a recess made for
>the switches. I got the switch number from previous builders that
>have used them. I intended to use them for master, lights etc.
>
>Jim
Jim, I dug out the catalog and checked the part number
you cited. It should be AML34FBA4AC01. According
to my catalog, this gets you the Power Duty Rocker
in rectangular form factor, black bezel, no lamp installed
(means you have to install your own lamp), .187 faston
tabs, double pole, single throw 15A contacts and
a maintained operating action (no spring loading from
any position).
This switch seems electrically adequate to most tasks.
I suspect Werner Berry has engraved quite a few of these
switches for folks . . and he may have some personal
experience with them. Are you planning to have them
engraved? Get in touch with Werner. Aside from limited
switching functions available, I don't see why these
won't work for you.
Going back to your original question:
>I have two pieces of equipment that have no on/off switch. What is
>the best way to wire these from a panel switch? I have micro switch
>34AMLFBA4AC01 switches. DPDT . 1 switch can handle 2 inputs. Also
>for info sake what if there were more than 2 devices? Jim Robinson
You didn't say what items have no switches nor did you
offer a reason for being able to turn them off. If these
are main-bus powered equipment items that are used 100%
of the time, it may be that there is no good reason to
run them through switches.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: magnetic shielding of instruments |
>
>
> > >Bob,
> > >Do you know of a source for mu-metal for shielding the turn coordinator.
> > >Magnetic Shield Corp has a $100 minimum order. I have also asked the
> > >same ques to B&C Spec Prod.
> > >
> > >Thank You,
> > >
> > >Dan Krueger
> >
> >
> > Mu metal is neat stuff . . . very high permeability for
> > it's mass and cross section . . . but it's not magic.
> > Go to a lumber yard and by some galvanized flashing metal.
> > The thinner the better. Cut a strip with a width equal to
> > the depth of the instrument behind the panel. Make it
> > long enough to wrap around the instrument 3 times (or
> > more if you're willing to wrestle with it a bit).
> >
> > Coil the strip up and fasten it around the outside of
> > the instrument and hold in place with tye-wraps, lacing
> > cord or glass-fiber packing tape. The sleeve doesn't have
> > to fit tight . . . you can prefab the sleeve outside
> > the airplane and then slip it over the installed instrument
> > as a sort of iron slip-cover.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
I've not heard of the "magnetic shielding" issue before. What is the basic
issue here?
David Carter
Some devices bolted to the panel have strong, external magnetic
fields that can couple noise into adjacent victims. Turn coordinators
with built in inverters are common antagonists. In this case,
"shielding" is not the Faraday shielding offered by putting
braided conductor over the outside of a wire. We need magnetic
shielding which provides a way to capture stray fields at
the outside surface of the instrument and cause lines of
flux to flow in a material with higher permeability (iron)
than air. DO-160 has a magnetic effects test
for STATIC fields (does it hose a compass?) . . . but I don't
believe there is a radiated emissions test for magnetic
fields . . . Somebody will probably get this added to the
next revision of DO-160. There ARE tests for this phenomenon
in the Mil-Specs (Mil-STD-461/462).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lighting Strike vs. CAM100 |
>
>
>This discussion thread got me interested in how the dual electronic ignition
>system in my CAM100 might react/survive.... I got the following response
>from Bob Masters, at Firewall Forward Aero Engines and pass it along fyi...
>
>Grant Corriveau
>-----------------
>
>Good day Grant,
> Your question was passed on to our electronics designer for comment. He
>brought up several interesting points to think about regarding lightning
>strikes. He has built into the design a number of safety features to
>protect the Camputer from high energy jolts. There is no fixed pattern to
>lightning especially regarding the strength of the field. It would depend
>on whether it was a direct strike or induction from the field created in
>the vicinity of the unit. The controller was subjected to high voltage
>surges which were survived without trouble.
He didn't mention levels for the "high voltage surges" . . . it's
impossible to gage the validity of the test results.
> The one point you mentioned was
>that with a magneto there would be no danger of lightning strike damage. It
>is an electrical devise using induction in it's functioning and is
>therefore every bit as vulnerable as your ignition controller.
No so. A magneto has only three electronic components in its makeup,
a capacitor, a specialized transformer, and two switches (points
and distributor). All of these components are inherently more robust
than integrated circuits, transistors, diodes, etc. Further, pathways
by which lightning induced stresses might be coupled to the magneto's
innards is very restricted . . . a properly installed p-lead is as
poor an antenna for taking energy INTO the magneto as it is for
taking energy OUT of the magneto.
> So I guess the only real guarantee is to flight plan well clear of CB
>activity. Another point to ponder is how well a composite airframe would
>fair in the first place.
> That's the view that we have held. When the design was first up graded
>to the controller case now in use every care was taken to minimize external
>voltage surges from affecting the circuitry.
Comforting to hear but not quantified. There's a tremendous
range of what might be construed as "upgrading" . . . I'm not trying
to minimize improvements they've put into their product . . . the
fact that they applied ANY effort in means they're cognizant
of the threat. What we don't know is whether your standing in the
path of an oncoming grass fire with a big hose . . . or a teacup.
Risk? Fly AWAY from the smoke and you're gonna be just fine.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Alternator "Diode" and Nav lights |
>I have 2 questions, and I haven't been able to post them to the list
>because my ISP changed the mail host name... Now the posts aren't
>accepted on matronics. :(
Try to un-subscribe and then re-subscribe.
>What's the diode on the back of b&c alternator commonly used on
>small lycomings (belt driven). My buddy has one that broke. Where
>can I get a replacement, and what effects will I see if I run without
>it?
B&C dosen't ship their alternator with any diodes on the
back, nor do they recommend any. There was an kit (the name
escapes me) that used to ship an alternator with a zener
tied from b-lead to ground on the back of their alternator
and called it "over voltage protection" . . . totally out
in left field. Gordon? Are you listening? Tell them what
happened to your diode . . .
If the diode is missing from your friend's installation,
tell him he doesn't need it. If he really WANTS one, he
can install a 1N4745 zener . . . but it will disappear again
when a surge from the alternator exceeds 16 volts.
Many folk have seen those diodes and added them. It's the
Cessna shielded alternator wire syndrome . . . many builders
have wired their airplanes like a 172 and shielded alternator
wires because 100,000 Cessnas did it. Shielding alternator wires
is of no value.
>Also, what's a typical current draw from a complete set of nav lights?
>My buddy went with breakers on the panel (?) and only has a 5A unit
>dedicated for it. That's only 60+W which doesn't seem like enough. The
>breaker pops after about 5min run time. I am guessing that if he really
>had a wiring problem, it would pop immediately.
2A per bulb. If he has two white lights (integrated tip and
"tail" lights on wingtips, then is draw is 8A . . .he needs
a 10A breaker and should wire the system with 16AWG wire.
If he has only one white light, then a 7A breaker and 18AWG
will suffice.
>Please post your reponse to the list if you can.
Will do that. Hope you get your subscription running agiain.
Contact Matt at Matronics if you have any more problems.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whelen Strobe power pack wiring |
>
>
>Listers,
>
>I am in the process of wiring my strobes/power packs/position lights.
>
>Here's what I have:
>
>I'm building a RV6A.
>
>Two A490A, TS, CF aka HTS,CF mounted in the top of the forward outermost
>bay on the wing sparcap (4 #8 nutplates/screws). This mounting
>provides the shortest "high-power" wiring run that I could figure out
>and provides maintenance accessability via the leading edge Duckworks
>landing light cutouts..
>
>A600PR and PG light sets (red/green, white, and strobe) mounted in the
>wingtip tank.
>
>Here's part of the plan that I'm fairly certain is correct:
>
>14 ga wire providing power to the red/green and white lights - single
>run each side split at the light assy.
>
>The red/green and white lights will be locally grounded to the sparcap
>as it runs all the way to the center of the fuselage. 14 ga single run
>gathered at the light assy.
>
>14 ga wire providing power to the + lead of the powerpack - single run
>each side.
14AWG is PLENTY big . . . looks like you have a 4-bulb system
so a 10A fuse/breaker is appropriate.
>The - lead of the power side of the power pack will also be locally
>grounded to the sparcap.
>
>The shield lead of the "high-power" interconnecting cable from the
>output side of the power pack will also be locally grounded at the
>sparcap only.
>
>If any of the previous part is incorrect or could be made better -
>please let me know!
>
>Here's the part where I need some guidance:
>
>Is the black wire (marked flash tube ground / cathode) on the output
>side of the power pack supposed to be grounded or is that simply a
>return (yes - I know it really flows the other direction) path for the
>high current to the power pack?
What do the instructions say? Normally, I would expect
NONE of the strobe system wiring to get airframe grounded
at the fixture . . . all grounding would normally occur at
the power supply end and in accordance with installation
instructions.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PS Engineering Intercom |
>
>Check the archives of the RV-List on this. It was discussed a lot. I don't
>think anyone came up with a real good solution.
>
>Ross Mickey
>
>
> > Bob:
> >
> > I have the 1000II and when I play the CD player through it the volume is
> > extremely low. Is there any way to boost the volume?
> >
> > E. Len Leggette, RV-8A
> > Greensboro, N.C. N910LL (res)
> > Hanger #23 INT
What is the normal function of the audio output wires
from the CD player? Do they normally drive headphones
-OR- or are they a LINE output signal? Does the CD
player HAVE a headphone output?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maybe it's me |
>
>Bob:
> "Just for grins, take a peek at:
> http://www.airsport-corp.com/ifrvfdinfo.html"
> My grin disappeared quickly. I was about to say how extremely
>useful this system is, when the URL shot my computor down - 3 times - (Slow
>learner). Nevertheless, thank you for the lead. Will pursue.
>Ferg
????? how so. Computer locked up? Browser crashed? I tried
hitting on the link and it seems to work okay. Try
entering www.airsport-corp.com directly into the goto
line on your browser and then meander down through the
various links . . . If anyone is interested in what
our next great step will be from the folks who have
a utopian view of what flying should be, check out the
ADS-B discussions on the website as well as their
altitude alerter products.
Bob . ..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Harley, Ageless Wings" <Harley(at)AgelessWings.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Maybe it's me |
Ok, Bob...
If anyone is interested in what
our next great step will be from the folks who have
a utopian view of what flying should be, check out the
ADS-B discussions on the website as well as their
altitude alerter products.
I'll bite (byte? ).
Are you recommending these little jewels? (The altitude devices, not the
ADS-B ) Has anyone on list tried them? Is the company reputable, and
will they be around for awhile, or are these avionics a one time purchase
that can be repaired/calibrated at home?
At first glance, they look like something I "need"...
Harley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Maybe it's me |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > "Just for grins, take a peek at:
> > http://www.airsport-corp.com/ifrvfdinfo.html"
> > My grin disappeared quickly. I was about to say how extremely
> >useful this system is, when the URL shot my computor down - 3 times - (Slow
> >learner). Nevertheless, thank you for the lead. Will pursue.
> >Ferg
>
> ????? how so. Computer locked up? Browser crashed? I tried
> hitting on the link and it seems to work okay.
*** I looked at it too. It's an extremely simple web page, no Javascript,
no nothing, not even frames...
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Whelen Strobe power pack wiring |
Bob,
Thanks for the response.
To clarify, the instructions make no mention of physically grounding any of
the circuits other than grounding the shield at the power supply end only -
which I was planning to do. The instructions do state that the black wire
on the output side is "strobe light ground" but doesn't say that it should
be grounded or whether it serves as a return circuit (if it is to be
grounded - it would be grounded at the power supply as the fixture is
mounted in a fiberglas wingtip). The instructions also state that the black
wire on the power side is "black wire ground" leading me to physically
ground this circuit at the grounding point right next to the power supply.
All of my grounds are at the power supply end (seperate platenut and screw)
as the fixture is attached to a fiberglass wingtip and would not provide a
ground path.
I hope that this clarifies my question.
The answers that I got confirmed my methods so far,
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Airsport Altitude Alerters |
>
>
>Ok, Bob...
>
> If anyone is interested in what
> our next great step will be from the folks who have
> a utopian view of what flying should be, check out the
> ADS-B discussions on the website as well as their
> altitude alerter products.
>
>I'll bite (byte? ).
>
>Are you recommending these little jewels? (The altitude devices, not the
>ADS-B ) Has anyone on list tried them? Is the company reputable, and
>will they be around for awhile, or are these avionics a one time purchase
>that can be repaired/calibrated at home?
>
>At first glance, they look like something I "need"...
I've known Darryl and Pat Phillips for about 15 years.
Darryl is a competent designer and a responsible manufacturer.
Airsport is a small company . . . about 5 -6 folks total including
Darryl and Pat.
They've been displaying at AOPA, Bonnanza Society, Sun-n-Fun,
OSH, etc. every year I've known them and probably for quite
a few years before that.
The company is for sale . . . Darryl wants to spend more time
on his stirling engine program as a "retirement" project. The
products are mature and robust. Except for a little bit of
analog receiver front end, the gizmo is 100% digital and requires
no calibration.
I am a dealer for Airsport and if you want one, I can probably
get you something better than list for one. I owned one for
several months and flew it. It does exactly what it claims
to do. Darryl has avoided PMA/STC issues by not mounting the
thing in the panel. I was considering an aluminum bezel that
could be bonded to the front and allow a really nice mounting
in the panel of an experimental airplane.
If you spend much time dealing with ATC, the altitude
alerter is 100% guarantee that your transponder is working
and providing real time display of what your transponder is
telling ATC. I can sit on my patio and get readings off
airplanes in the pattern for Jabara Airport as they fly
over my house!
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluemountainavionics.com |
Yes, I'm planning to commit to one of their products at SNF. They have
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GA-EFIS/. You'll find more info there.
-
Larry Bowen
RV-8 fuse
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> Has any one heard of Blue Mountain avionics.com?
> A full ifis system with full IFR panel. All you have to add
> is a com and transponder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom..." <tsled(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Music to my ears.... |
Hiya Gents,
I am building a single seat helicopter (Helicycle)
http://www.helicycle.com
and I plan on using the MicroAir 760 radio. I have a small digital MP3
player from which I would like to pump music into my headphones but I
don't
want to miss out on any radio calls. I have been told there is a device
out
called "the Muse" by PS Engineering which will do this and
automatically
mute the music during calls. Has anyone used this and can tell me how
well
it works, and/or does anyone have another solution.
Thanks for your time,
Tom...
http://www.aircamp.com/Bandit/Gyroplane.html
http://home.pacbell.net/tsled
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: PS Engineering Intercom |
Lenleg(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Bob:
>
> I have the 1000II and when I play the CD player through it the volume is
> extremely low. Is there any way to boost the volume?
>
> E. Len Leggette, RV-8A
> Greensboro, N.C. N910LL (res)
> Hanger #23 INT
>
>
As someone else mentioned, you might try the headphone
output if it's a portable. If it's a dash-mount (car) unit,
you can use the speaker outputs if you are very, very
careful. Or, you could try any of several easy-to-assemble
line amp kits that are available.
Email me offline & I'll send you my phone # if you want
descriptions of the various techniques that will work. 10
minutes talking vs. hours of typing.
Charlie
Consumer Electronics Tech in another life
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Bowen" <Larry(at)BowenAero.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bluemountainavionics.com |
Well, that was neat. The first time I posted this, some words were
dropped. Let me try it again:
==============================================================
Yes, I'm planning to commit to one of their products at SNF. They have
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GA-EFIS/. You'll find more info there.
-
Larry Bowen
RV-8 fuse
Larry(at)BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
> -----Original Message-----
> Has any one heard of Blue Mountain avionics.com?
> A full ifis system with full IFR panel. All you have to add
> is a com and transponder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Finn Lassen <finnlassen(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Altitude reporting |
David Carter wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "David Carter"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Faulty Altitude reporting
>
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Bob . . .
> > >
> > >Ok, Bob. Can you point me to IC data sheets (receiver/demodulator) that
> > >would make it easy to
> > >"roll your own"? Once I have a demodulated signal, it shouldn't be hard
> to
> > >catch, decode the
> > >gray codes and display the result.
> > >
> > >Finn
> >
> > I'm not aware of any easy receiver chips although there
> > may be some. The Airsport uses transmission line filters
> > driving a discrete detector driving some gain. The
> > "demodulator" is a 68HC705 microcontroller programmed
> > to recognize and decode the transponder's reply stream
> > in addition to managing all the GUI features.
> >
> > Here's a breakdown on the decoding task for
> > the microprocessor:
> >
> > http://www.airsport-corp.com/modec.htm
> > http://www.airsport-corp.com/modecascii.txt
> >
> > I think you'd find it MUCH less expensive to
> > buy the gizmo already built . . .
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
> Bob and all,
>
> I thought someone else would have brought this up - See April 1998
> Kitplanes, pp 20-23, "Aero 'Lectrics" "Here's how to check altitude encoders
> via the Karmic connection." by Jim Weir.
>
> Partial quotes: "What I needed was a practical way to test the encoder. If
> that ... proved to be within tolerance, then by process of elimination it
> would be the altimeter that was out of tolerance. I needed a way to read
> the digital code that the encoder was transmitting and compare it to a known
> good altimeter. . . . three problems [to solve]. One, how do I simulate
> changes of altitude without actually flying the little rascal? Two, how do
> I read the code and compare it to a known good code? Three, how do I
> connect it all together so that I only have to make this setup once for my
> encoder and then can use it for anybody's encoder."
>
> He then procedes to design and illustrate a nice test box. Gives Table1,
> Altitudes of 100 & 400 feet and corresponding codes for A B C data lines A1
> A2 A4 B1 B2 B4 C1 C2 C4 and Table 2, Altitudes of 2800-3200 and codes for
> A1 A2 A4 B1 B2 B4.
>
> Final info in article: "Finally, As the nine three-colored LEDs that Weir
> used to make it easy to distinguish the A, B and C data lines are not
> generally available in the Radio Shack catalog, RST (Weir's company) offers
> a "Sorta-Kit" arrangement, where RST supplies the LEDs and lenses, the
> switch, the wire, the Karmic connector set, and the front panel artwork.
> The builder supplies the Radio Shack specified case and does the drilling of
> the case. RST's catalog number is RST-7301, and the parts sell for $25 plus
> shipping. Call RST Engineering at 530/272-2203 or sales@rst-eng.com"
>
> David Carter
David,
Looking at the output of the *altitude encoder* is a piece of cake. Looking at
the actual output from the Transponder is something entirely different. You need
to tune into and "demodulate" a 1 GHz signal. Even if the Transponder signal is
amplitude modulated and the signal strength near the transponder antenna may be
quite high -- still it's quite a different challenge than just measuring 0 and
12 Volt DC. I had hoped that the technology (chips - ICs) used in cell phones
might make the job easier.
I really like the idea of being able to monitor the Transponder output.
Finn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | Eliminating the wire from the Battery Contactor to |
the Essential Bus, Z11
Hi Bob,
I know it's dangerous but I've been thinking some more. Lucky for me to
have the list and you.
I propose for my installation to eliminate the wire and diode between
the battery contactor and the essential bus. Here's my reasoning ( RV3
powered by dual E.I.):
1) Wired as in Z11 (with the wire and diode) - Flying along I get a low
voltage warning light. If I first switch on the Essential Bus Alternate
Feed and then switch off the Battery Alternator Master I'm fine.
However, in my haste or forgetfulness I do the opposite, I've created a
worse situation. My engine stops and everything else on my essential
bus is lost, at least for a while.
2) Wired as in Z11 except the wire and the diode are eliminated - Flying
along I get a low voltage light, I switch off the Battery Contactor
Master Switch, end of story.
Basically in 1) I have one switch to turn off and on at start and shut
down but two switches and the correct order to remember in flight during
a minor emergency. In 2) I have two switches to remember on the ground
but only one in flight (along with a slightly simpler wiring situation).
Did I forget something, Thanks,
Rick Fogerson
RV3 fuselage
Boise, ID
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls |
Bob,
Can you or others discuss what the Lancair IV folks are doing (or doing
wrong) with respect to taking wiring harnesses through the carbon fiber
pressure bulkhead which is also a fire wall ?
Are they using MS metal connectors?
Which ones will work on a 3/8 thick bulkhead?
Someone told me today he was using plastic bulkhead connectors on his
Lancair fire wall, and I was a bit stunned.
Regards, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net> |
As far as I remember, you find mu metal in the shields in old
oscilloscopes. Old tube-type oscilloscopes are easy to get for free if
you ask around.
Eric M. Jones
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
David:
"I thought someone else would have brought this up - See April
1998Kitplanes, pp 20-23, "Aero 'Lectrics" "Here's how to check altitude
encoders via the Karmic connection." by Jim Weir."
There you go - just the ticket! - a realtime false reply alarm
in the making. No need to wait till spring (or even next centre PX) to find
out you've created a dogfight overhead.......
Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Brown" <romott(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Music to my ears.... |
Another way to do this is to use a mixer to selectively"fade" the radio
source and the music source. I have the PS1000II and it is a bit annoying
when the muse cuts off the music when I am just monitoring ATC (not using
flight following or IFR). I have a PS4000 in my Velocity and it features an
automute defeat switch.
I'm looking forward to using it so that I can listen to music in the
background while monitoring or using ATC. Using ATC, I would put the music
further in the back ground. Monitoring would have the ATC in the back
ground.
Ronnie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Eliminating the wire from the Battery Contactor to |
the
Essential Bus, Z11
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>I know it's dangerous but I've been thinking some more. Lucky for me to
>have the list and you.
>
>I propose for my installation to eliminate the wire and diode between
>the battery contactor and the essential bus. Here's my reasoning ( RV3
>powered by dual E.I.):
>
>1) Wired as in Z11 (with the wire and diode) - Flying along I get a low
>voltage warning light. If I first switch on the Essential Bus Alternate
>Feed and then switch off the Battery Alternator Master I'm fine.
>However, in my haste or forgetfulness I do the opposite, I've created a
>worse situation. My engine stops and everything else on my essential
>bus is lost, at least for a while.
That's why engine things are NOT wired to the e-bus. In every
word I've published on the e-bus concept, I've tried to emphasize
the support of panel mounted equipment needed to comfortably
sustain en route operations until airport of intended destination
is in sight. THEN, once your arrival is assured, turn the master
back on and use up whatever energy is left in the battery to run
whatever you want.
Engine things are wired to a BATTERY bus. If you have smoke
in the cabin, you can immediately turn off DC master -AND-
e-bus alternate feed and hopefully smoke will abate. Under this
scenario, the e-bus alternate feed comes on and you see if
smoke stays away. If smoke comes back, the turn off the e-bus
switch and get the hand helds out of your flight bag . . . or
fly like I do with hand-helds in 100% duty cycle operation
up on the glare shield. If you have an alternator failure, you
shut down the main bus and go to alternate feed to e-bus
and (if you have it) bring up the standby alternator.
None of this in-flight diddling with an ELECTRICAL problem
should have ANY bearing on the operation of your POWER PLANT.
>2) Wired as in Z11 except the wire and the diode are eliminated - Flying
>along I get a low voltage light, I switch off the Battery Contactor
>Master Switch, end of story.
>
>Basically in 1) I have one switch to turn off and on at start and shut
>down but two switches and the correct order to remember in flight during
>a minor emergency. In 2) I have two switches to remember on the ground
>but only one in flight (along with a slightly simpler wiring situation).
If you have an electrically dependent engine, then you need
either (1) a battery bus and a main alternator supported by
a standby alternator or (2) a pair of battery busses. In situation
(2) main alternator failure says you (a) shut down engine loads on
the main battery, (b) run the e-bus from the main battery, (c) run other
half of engine loads on aux battery. Here again, there are NO
components of the power plant affected by positioning of either
the DC POWER master switch or the E-BUS ALT FEED switch.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RSwanson <rswan19(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mode C alarm |
Jim's website is http://www.rst-engr.com/ . Unfortunately, the article is
not included, but there is an addendum for the article on the website. It
might be of some help?
R
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Can you or others discuss what the Lancair IV folks are doing (or doing
>wrong) with respect to taking wiring harnesses through the carbon fiber
>pressure bulkhead which is also a fire wall ?
>
>Are they using MS metal connectors?
>
>Which ones will work on a 3/8 thick bulkhead?
>
>Someone told me today he was using plastic bulkhead connectors on his
>Lancair fire wall, and I was a bit stunned.
>
>Regards, George
You and me too my friend. Some time ago, one of my builders
cited a connector he said was recommended by Lancair for
firewall penetration that turned out to be an AMP circular
plastic . . .
I had some issues to thrash on the Bonanza a few years
ago that took me over to the production line and I noticed
what I thought was a rather elegant approach to firewall
penetration for wire bundles.
There was an L-shaped piece of stainless tubing . . .
I would guess about 1" in diameter and having
legs just long enough to accommodate the
90" bend allowances. One end of the leg was
welded to a piece of stainless sheet about
2" square that mounted to the firewall with
four bolts (didn't notice if there was a gasket
under the flange . . . might be a good place
to squish a small o-ring of fire-putty).
The other leg of the weldment had a hose-bead
formed into the tube. Wires were brought through
this fitting and through a piece of firesleeve
with the appropriate i.d. to fit the weldment.
The piece of firesleeve was about 6" long. When
all of the wires were routed, the firesleeve
was clamped to the weldment with a stainless
worm-drive hose clamp. Two more clamps closed the
firesleeve down on the wire bundle AFTER the
open volume was injected with fire putty.
I'm pretty sure this hammer-n-tongs approach
to maintaining firewall integrity would have
been tested in Jack Thurman's house of horrors.
Jack had a little pet he called "Puff the
Magic Dragon" . . . a propane fueled burner
that could paint a test article in 2000 degree
flames.
The neat thing about this technique is its
maintainability. It's easy to add, delete
or replace wires.
I considered offering this weldment and kit
of firesleeve and clamps to the amateur built
industry . . . had a couple of houses quote the
weldment here in Wichita . . . I think the
least expensive was about $75. Seems like
I ought to be able to do better but that project
has never worked its way up to the top in a
big list of other projects . . . got any ideas/
sources that could do better. I kind think a
100-lot order of that part should sell for
$20 or less. I COULD consider investing
in the project then.
There are MS connectors made in stainless
steel shells . . . but they typically sell
for 50-150 dollars a mated set.
For folks listening in . . . if you're not
already taking pains to maintain firewall
integrity with your wire, tube and controls
penetrations, then get out Tony B's books
and study up. The low-dollar minimums are
pretty effective. Grommets covered with stainless
shields and then packed with fire-putty work
pretty good. Production airplanes did this
for years. Exposed plastics or rubber that
get painted with flames will quickly
become the way that fire finds its way into
your lap . . . . and it will happen perhaps
two minutes after the fire starts . . . just
about the time you're on short final to the
best choice around for a landing spot and
trying to figure out how to pull off a greaser
among the rocks.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Faulty Altitude reporting |
>
>David,
>Looking at the output of the *altitude encoder* is a piece of cake. Looking at
>the actual output from the Transponder is something entirely different.
>You need
>to tune into and "demodulate" a 1 GHz signal. Even if the Transponder
>signal is
>amplitude modulated and the signal strength near the transponder antenna
>may be
>quite high -- still it's quite a different challenge than just measuring 0 and
>12 Volt DC. I had hoped that the technology (chips - ICs) used in cell phones
>might make the job easier.
>
>I really like the idea of being able to monitor the Transponder output.
>
>Finn
Darryl thought that was a good idea too. That's why his wired
encoder monitor (The Altitude Nag) product was replace with the
RF detection based products you see today.
The signal you're working with is indeed 100% amplitude
modulated . . . "1" is full power output (100-1000 watts
depending on how much money your transponder cost) and "0"
is no power output.
Amateur radio experimenter techniques for the 1296 Mhz ham
band could be utilized in the transponder venue. I can't tell
you about Darryl's techniques without violating a confidence
but if you call him on the phone, I don't know that he wouldn't
give you some guidance.
The signal is very strong. Some nominal gain after a simple
detector that drives a limiter would get you to the 5-volt
c-mos world for digital signals pretty quickly. The dragon
to be slain is coming up with gain stages that have very
fast rise times combined with resistance to overload.
After that, it becomes an asynchronous decoding task like
building a UART in software for serial data. In this case
you grab the first rising edge you find. Turn all the
interim edges or lack thereof into ones and zeros and make
sure you've got an F2=1 . . . if not, then the whole string
is suspect and discarded.
Your next task is to figure out how to decide if you've
just read a mode C (altitude reply) or a mode A (squawk)
reply. There are 4096 squawk codes but only 1280 altitude
codes so you could do some software testing to positively
identify the 2800 odd codes that can only be squawks but
that still leaves you 1280 possible uncertainties to
sort out.
Turns out there's a presently unused "X" pulse in the
data format that the folks who designed the system could
have used to separate mode C and mode A replies . . .
but shucks . . .that would have been TOO simple ($@#$
mumble, mumble #!@$%).
If you're handy in assembler coding . . . one of
the little PIC or Rabbit controllers would be quite
applicable to the task. MOST of your time would be
spent dealing with user interface programming . . .
driving display, recognizing and responding to
user commands etc. I know a LOT about how Darryl
does it and if I were going to add that capability
to may airplane . . . I'd buy Darryl's box anyhow.
Bob . . .
Bob . . .
--------------------------
TEMPORARY WEBSITE ADDRESS:
http://209.134.106.21
--------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PS Engineering Intercom |
> Bob:
> >
> > I have the 1000II and when I play the CD player through it the volume is
> > extremely low. Is there any way to boost the volume?
> >
> > E. Len Leggette, RV-8A
> > Greensboro, N.C. N910LL (res)
> > Hanger #23 INT
> >
> >
>As someone else mentioned, you might try the headphone
>output if it's a portable. If it's a dash-mount (car) unit,
>you can use the speaker outputs if you are very, very
>careful. Or, you could try any of several easy-to-assemble
>line amp kits that are available.
>
>Email me offline & I'll send you my phone # if you want
>descriptions of the various techniques that will work. 10
>minutes talking vs. hours of typing.
>
>Charlie
>
>Consumer Electronics Tech in another life
How about doing an article for publication? I'll post it
on my website . . . or you could consider submission to
Sport Aviation . . . I hear they're paying for material
now.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Whelen Strobe power pack wiring |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the response.
>
>To clarify, the instructions make no mention of physically grounding any of
>the circuits other than grounding the shield at the power supply end only -
>which I was planning to do.
Then that's all you need to do.
> The instructions do state that the black wire
>on the output side is "strobe light ground" but doesn't say that it should
>be grounded or whether it serves as a return circuit (if it is to be
>grounded - it would be grounded at the power supply as the fixture is
>mounted in a fiberglas wingtip). The instructions also state that the black
>wire on the power side is "black wire ground" leading me to physically
>ground this circuit at the grounding point right next to the power supply.
>All of my grounds are at the power supply end (seperate platenut and screw)
>as the fixture is attached to a fiberglass wingtip and would not provide a
>ground path.
If they don't show a ground symbol or other label at the
end of a wire that tells you what to do with the end, then
"ground" labels on a wire as to its function can be ignored.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Request concerning Apr 1998 article in Kitplanes |
Jim &/or webmaster,
We are having a discussion on the aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com about
checking encoders and transponders. I mentioned your Apr 98 article, then
someone asked where it could be viewed. I checked Kitplanes, then another
e-mailer said your website had articles 1999 to now and an "addendum" to the
Apr 98 article.
Will you post the Apr 98 article to your website, also? Maybe, if you don't
want to change the "1999 to now" logic (workload), you could simply put the
link close to the "addendum" link, such as "click here to see the article".
If you do so, could you e-mail me so I can tell the list that it is up for
viewing? Thanks a lot. We really appreciate your support of us
homebuilders of aircraft.
David Carter
Nederland, Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead fittings |
Bob,
Put me on your list of 100 buyers of the new weldment (and some fire putty
to go with it if you "kit" it)
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls
>
>
> You and me too my friend. Some time ago, one of my builders cited a
connector he said was recommended by Lancair
> for firewall penetration that turned out to be an AMP circular
plastic . . .
>
> I had some issues to thrash on the Bonanza a few years ago that took me
over to the production line and I noticed
> what I thought was a rather elegant approach to firewall penetration
for wire bundles.
>
> There was an L-shaped piece of stainless tubing . . . I would guess
about 1" in diameter and having
> legs just long enough to accommodate the 90" bend allowances. One end
of the leg was
> welded to a piece of stainless sheet about 2" square that mounted to
the firewall with
> four bolts (didn't notice if there was a gasket under the flange . . .
might be a good place
> to squish a small o-ring of fire-putty).
>
> The other leg of the weldment had a hose-bead formed into the tube.
Wires were brought through
> this fitting and through a piece of firesleeve with the appropriate
i.d. to fit the weldment.
>
> The piece of firesleeve was about 6" long. When all of the wires were
routed, the firesleeve
> was clamped to the weldment with a stainless worm-drive hose clamp. Two
more clamps closed the
> firesleeve down on the wire bundle AFTER the open volume was injected
with fire putty.
>
> I considered offering this weldment and kit of firesleeve and clamps
to the amateur built
> industry . . . had a couple of houses quote the weldment here in
Wichita . . . I think the
> least expensive was about $75. Seems like I ought to be able to do
better but that project
> has never worked its way up to the top in a big list of other projects
. . . got any ideas/
> sources that could do better. I kind think a 100-lot order of that part
should sell for
> $20 or less. I COULD consider investing in the project then.
>
> There are MS connectors made in stainless steel shells . . . but they
typically sell
> for 50-150 dollars a mated set.
> Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls |
Bob,
We have a rather excellent stainless weld shop here at Tornado Alley Turbo.
( www.taturbo.com )
We weld 321 Stainless tubing for exhaust systems and muffler systems here.
Full PMA shop for those certified parts.
Two full time certified welders that we periodically re-qualify on coupon
tests.
We might be able to jig up and build those. It is an elegant idea for that
sort of thing.
One would order up the right stainless tubing from a bend shop, and then cut
them and weld them to the plate. Maybe instead of a "gasket" use a one step
labyrinth, by welding a 1.5" stainless 3/16" thick washer on the back side
of the 2.5" square plate. Then cutting a 1.5" hole in the fire wall and
setting the washer into the firewall cut out.
this way, you could insert your 1" tube into the center of the assembly of
the 3/16"thick washer and plate assembly, and it would give you some
additional vibration tolerance on the welds cracking.
Given the importance of the issue, I don't think $75 would be too much for
the part, but it can possibly be done less expensively.
When you say "fire putty" - - what, specific product are you referring to,
or do you recommend?
Regards, George
PS For the pressurized Lancair guys, we might do it the other way, and
insert it from the cabin side of the firewall with a 3/8"thick washer.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls(at)kscable.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Can you or others discuss what the Lancair IV folks are doing (or doing
>wrong) with respect to taking wiring harnesses through the carbon fiber
>pressure bulkhead which is also a fire wall ?
>
>Are they using MS metal connectors?
>
>Which ones will work on a 3/8 thick bulkhead?
>
>Someone told me today he was using plastic bulkhead connectors on his
>Lancair fire wall, and I was a bit stunned.
>
>Regards, George
You and me too my friend. Some time ago, one of my builders
cited a connector he said was recommended by Lancair for
firewall penetration that turned out to be an AMP circular
plastic . . .
I had some issues to thrash on the Bonanza a few years
ago that took me over to the production line and I noticed
what I thought was a rather elegant approach to firewall
penetration for wire bundles.
There was an L-shaped piece of stainless tubing . . .
I would guess about 1" in diameter and having
legs just long enough to accommodate the
90" bend allowances. One end of the leg was
welded to a piece of stainless sheet about
2" square that mounted to the firewall with
four bolts (didn't notice if there was a gasket
under the flange . . . might be a good place
to squish a small o-ring of fire-putty).
The other leg of the weldment had a hose-bead
formed into the tube. Wires were brought through
this fitting and through a piece of firesleeve
with the appropriate i.d. to fit the weldment.
The piece of firesleeve was about 6" long. When
all of the wires were routed, the firesleeve
was clamped to the weldment with a stainless
worm-drive hose clamp. Two more clamps closed the
firesleeve down on the wire bundle AFTER the
open volume was injected with fire putty.
I'm pretty sure this hammer-n-tongs approach
to maintaining firewall integrity would have
been tested in Jack Thurman's house of horrors.
Jack had a little pet he called "Puff the
Magic Dragon" . . . a propane fueled burner
that could paint a test article in 2000 degree
flames.
The neat thing about this technique is its
maintainability. It's easy to add, delete
or replace wires.
I considered offering this weldment and kit
of firesleeve and clamps to the amateur built
industry . . . had a couple of houses quote the
weldment here in Wichita . . . I think the
least expensive was about $75. Seems like
I ought to be able to do better but that project
has never worked its way up to the top in a
big list of other projects . . . got any ideas/
sources that could do better. I kind think a
100-lot order of that part should sell for
$20 or less. I COULD consider investing
in the project then.
There are MS connectors made in stainless
steel shells . . . but they typically sell
for 50-150 dollars a mated set.
For folks listening in . . . if you're not
already taking pains to maintain firewall
integrity with your wire, tube and controls
penetrations, then get out Tony B's books
and study up. The low-dollar minimums are
pretty effective. Grommets covered with stainless
shields and then packed with fire-putty work
pretty good. Production airplanes did this
for years. Exposed plastics or rubber that
get painted with flames will quickly
become the way that fire finds its way into
your lap . . . . and it will happen perhaps
two minutes after the fire starts . . . just
about the time you're on short final to the
best choice around for a landing spot and
trying to figure out how to pull off a greaser
among the rocks.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Robinson" <jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls |
I would like to interject another idea as long as we are talking about
firewall flame protection. This is the heater valve unit. Glasair
sells a nice unit, simple but very functional. It is a tube inside a
tube that can rotate opening or closing matching holes. The
problem I have is it is made of aluminum. I don't know how long it
would take to melt that fixture, but it would leave a 1 1/2" hole
when it goes. Any thoughts on this one also?
Jim Robinson
Glll 79R
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nippon Denso alternator mod? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Bob,
Do you know what is involved in modifying the Nippon Denso 40 A
alternator to disable the internal regulator and use an external
regulator? It's my understanding that B&C does this, balances the rotor
a bit better, and then charges a handsome fee for the service. In the
great tradition of "roll yer own" homebuilders I'm wondering if you could
do a 'comic book' on the Aeroelectric website showing how to do it
yourself. Maybe this is a conflict of interest with your relationship
with B&C?? Not sure but I thought I'd ask. Why would I want to do this?
Well I recently purchased a good used B&C voltage regulator with built
in O.V. protection & low voltage warning, so I need an alternator that I
can use it with. I really like the Nippon units for their light weight
and great reputation but I can't afford to pay the premium B&C wants for
it. If anyone is aware of a stock externally regulated 40 A alternator
that is just as LIGHT and as the Nippon units, I would also consider
going with something else. But I believe that Vans unit and Mark
Landoll's unit are bigger and heavier and I'm counting ounces here : )
By the way....just for reference....an RV-6A guy named Tim Lewis has an
example on his website of how to modify a 60 A alternator off a Mazda 323
that he bought used for $40. This is what I'd like to do with the 40 A
Nippon althernator. Go to Tim's homepage at
http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/ and click on the "Alternator
Modification" link on the low left side of the page....
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A finish kit stuff....
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
Why the 90-degree bend? What function does it perform as opposed to just a
straight nipple and flange?
Gary Casey
ES project
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall wiring |
>
>< I would guess about 1" in diameter and having
> legs just long enough to accommodate the
> 90" bend allowances. One end of the leg was
> welded to a piece of stainless sheet about
> 2" square that mounted to the firewall with
> four bolts>>
>
>Why the 90-degree bend? What function does it perform as opposed to just a
>straight nipple and flange?
To bring the wire bundles out parallel to the firewall.
If you had a neat plan for dealing with a perpendicular
exit, I suspect a straight tube would work as well.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead fittings - Carbon Firewalls |
In a message dated 3/30/2002 5:09:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jbr(at)hitechnetworks.net writes:
<< Glasair
sells a nice unit, simple but very functional. It is a tube inside a
tube that can rotate opening or closing matching holes. The
problem I have is it is made of aluminum. I don't know how long it
would take to melt that fixture, but it would leave a 1 1/2" hole
when it goes. Any thoughts on this one also?
Jim Robinson
Glll 79R
>>
Obviously, it would have been better to make it out of stainless steel, but
that material is much more difficult to work with and would have made the
valve more expensive.
Cliff A&P/IA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bulkhead wire bundle fittings |
>
>Bob,
>
>We have a rather excellent stainless weld shop here at Tornado Alley Turbo.
>( www.taturbo.com )
>
>We weld 321 Stainless tubing for exhaust systems and muffler systems here.
>Full PMA shop for those certified parts.
>
>Two full time certified welders that we periodically re-qualify on coupon
>tests.
>
>We might be able to jig up and build those. It is an elegant idea for that
>sort of thing.
>
>One would order up the right stainless tubing from a bend shop, and then cut
>them and weld them to the plate. Maybe instead of a "gasket" use a one step
>labyrinth, by welding a 1.5" stainless 3/16" thick washer on the back side
>of the 2.5" square plate. Then cutting a 1.5" hole in the fire wall and
>setting the washer into the firewall cut out.
Hmmm . . . would the flange and washer be punched? Tooling
costs? I'll check into the Bonanza part's design a little
closer . . . I don't know if the tub ends at the firewall
surface of the flange or protrudes through. It might also
be sufficient to have a single layer flange and no gasket
if it had more screws in in it . . . holes are cheap.
>This way, you could insert your 1" tube into the center of the assembly of
>the 3/16"thick washer and plate assembly, and it would give you some
>additional vibration tolerance on the welds cracking.
>
>Given the importance of the issue, I don't think $75 would be too much for
>the part, but it can possibly be done less expensively.
I agree but we're dealing with a rather astute customer
base. They're constantly trading off perceptions of risk
against cost of risk-mitigation. Fuel-feed fires are Waaaaayyyyy
down on the list of things that cause airplanes to crash.
From the certified aircraft perspective (with spoon fed
perceptions of value vs. risk) we never have to hold ourselves
very accountable to customers except in matters of performance
and quality . . . the Bonanza would get that fitting if it
cost $300.
Sooooooo . . . if you an I can put our heads together and
come up with a product that will do the job, have sufficient
margins to justify incorporation into our business models
and cost 1/2 of what we probably pay for the Bonanza
fitting, the market potential goes up quickly.
>When you say "fire putty" - - what, specific product are you referring to,
>or do you recommend?
There are a number of products out there. It's a mix
of components with a high specific heat and a
characteristic that forms a poorly conductive
"crust" when exposed to very high temperatures.
Takes quite awhile to breach the face of an
opening covered with the stuff. I think you
can get commercial versions in hardware stores.
A reader told us here on the list that he saw
some in Home Depot about a year ago.
I'll see what we use at RAC . . . we probably
buy the same stuff under a mil-spec number for
3x the cost.
Would you like to sell the kit?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bulkhead fittings |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Put me on your list of 100 buyers of the new weldment (and some fire putty
>to go with it if you "kit" it)
Work'n on it.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nippon Denso alternator mod? |
>
>Bob,
>
>Do you know what is involved in modifying the Nippon Denso 40 A
>alternator to disable the internal regulator and use an external
>regulator? It's my understanding that B&C does this, balances the rotor
>a bit better, and then charges a handsome fee for the service. In the
>great tradition of "roll yer own" homebuilders I'm wondering if you could
>do a 'comic book' on the Aeroelectric website showing how to do it
>yourself. Maybe this is a conflict of interest with your relationship
>with B&C?? Not sure but I thought I'd ask.
Understand. The general requirement is to isolate the
bush holders from their stock electrical connections
get one grounded while bringing the other out to one or
more of the fast-on terminals on the back.
The tricky part is that the molded brush holders are integral
with the regulator housing and there's more to it than
moving some leadwires around. B&C has to machine a spot
inside the rear endbell and I think they have to drill and
tap a hole too.
The risk is that alignments of some components may
be compromised with the machine work and you reduce
brush performance.
> Why would I want to do this?
> Well I recently purchased a good used B&C voltage regulator with built
>in O.V. protection & low voltage warning, so I need an alternator that I
>can use it with. I really like the Nippon units for their light weight
>and great reputation but I can't afford to pay the premium B&C wants for
>it.
Understand. Keep in mind that the B&C alternators are
factory fresh units and are priced with ALL necessary
installation hardware. So one should expect a big difference
in price compared to a salvage yard alternator.
Balancing the rotor is an important feature for
achieving happy operation at over 10,000 rpm in cruise.
> If anyone is aware of a stock externally regulated 40 A alternator
>that is just as LIGHT and as the Nippon units, I would also consider
>going with something else. But I believe that Vans unit and Mark
>Landoll's unit are bigger and heavier and I'm counting ounces here : )
They don't exist. All modern alternator designs use
built in regulators. Why not run a stock ND alternator
and add external ov protection and lv warning? The
only thing missing here is rotor balance but if you're
working with salvage yard cores, all you need to do
is check the bearing every oil change (Loosen belt,
spin alternator by hand and listen for noise). You could
get the rotor balanced and avoid this inconvenience/
worry.
>By the way....just for reference....an RV-6A guy named Tim Lewis has an
>example on his website of how to modify a 60 A alternator off a Mazda 323
>that he bought used for $40. This is what I'd like to do with the 40 A
>Nippon althernator.
Tim participated in one of the RV-lists I used to
frequent. Haven't seen him over here tho.
No reason why you couldn't modify the ND. But what you're
dealing with is a scenario that forces you into hammering
and sawing on a perfectly good alternator because you
bought half of a B&C system and don't want to buy the
other half. The same functionality can be achieved with
much less expense, only slightly more complexity
by leaving the alternator relatively stock and wiring
per Figure Z-24 in the book.
Why not sell your LR-3 regulator, use the $ to buy
an OVM-14, S701-1, and a soon to be added Ignition
battery management module (LV warn and automatic
aux battery control) and have the rotor balanced in
your salvage yard ND alternator?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bulkhead fittings |
>
>
>I would like to interject another idea as long as we are talking about
>firewall flame protection. This is the heater valve unit. Glasair
>sells a nice unit, simple but very functional. It is a tube inside a
>tube that can rotate opening or closing matching holes. The
>problem I have is it is made of aluminum. I don't know how long it
>would take to melt that fixture, but it would leave a 1 1/2" hole
>when it goes. Any thoughts on this one also?
Aluminum looses half it's strength at about 500 degrees
and disappears in a 2000 degree fire only a little slower
than an ice cube.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Oke <wjoke(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Fw: RV-List: Modifying 40 A Nippon Denso alternator |
for external
voltage regulator??
Hello Bob;
Further to the below, I am planning to use the 40 A ND alternator with
internal regulation from Aerosport power (but apparently supplied by another
company in Eastern Canada). I am intending to leave the internal reg. in
place and include the "crowbar OV protection device" as per your schematic
and construction details.
The question is, what is the valve added for including both crowbar OV
protection and the OV disconnect contactor (recommended p/n S701-1) as per
your dwg. Z-24 ?
Clearly the intent of Z-24 is to remove the "hold closed" current to the
S701-1 when the crowbar opens the field C/B or fuse which will electrically
isolate the alternator, but why is this necessary?
My understanding is that the "crowbar" will, upon sensing an OV condition,
short the alt field circuit breaker (or fuse) and open it quite quickly.
Should this not stop any further current flow in the armature and so kill
any current output through the main diode bridge? The diodes should also
prevent any reverse flow from the battery into the alternator.
I'm thinking mainly simplicity and reduced parts count (by eliminating the
S701-1 or equivalent) but I suppose cost is a concern as well. Perhaps,
modifying the alternator and going with a combined ext. regulator and OV
relay device (as per B&C) might make sense instead.
Jim Oke
Wpg., MB
RV-6A
----- Original Message -----
From: <czechsix(at)juno.com>
Subject: RV-List: Modifying 40 A Nippon Denso alternator for external
voltage regulator??
> --> RV-List message posted by: czechsix(at)juno.com
>
> Guys.
>
> Has anyone tried to modify the Nippon Denso 40 A alternator (like the one
> sold by Bart Lalonde, Niagara, etc.) to disable the internal regulator
> and use an external regulator? It's my understanding that B&C does this,
> balances the rotor a bit better, and then charges a handsome fee for the
> service. In the great homebuilders' tradition of "roll yer own" I'm
> wondering why not do it yourself? I know most people just keep the
> internal regulator and add external O.V. protection, but this adds
> weight/parts count and I'd rather use the external regulator (I recently
> purchased a good used B&C voltage regulator with built in O.V. protection
> & low voltage warning built in). I really like the Nippon units for
> their light weight and great reputation but I'm too cheap to pay the
> premium B&C wants for it. If anyone is aware of a stock externally
> regulated 40 A alternator that is just as LIGHT and as the Nippon units,
> I would also consider going with something else. But I believe that Vans
> unit and Mark Landoll's unit are bigger and heavier and I'm counting
> ounces here : )
>
> By the way....just for reference....Tim Lewis has an example on his
> website of how to modify a 60 A alternator off a Mazda 323 that he bought
> used for $40. This is what I'd like to do with the 40 A Nippon
> alternator. Go to Tim's homepage at http://home.earthlink.net/~timrv6a/
> and click on the "Alternator Modification" link on the low left side of
> the page....
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Mark Navratil
> Cedar Rapids, Iowa
> RV-8A finish kit stuff....
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Bulkhead fittings |
While they may not meet the appearance standards of the Lancair IVP crowd
and are not as flame resistant as stainless, for about a buck each you can
have your choice of all manner of bulkhead fittings from the aviation
electrical department of your local Home Depot. Look for the conduit and
junction box connectors - lots of choices. I used them for the battery
cables and a couple large wire bundles. For the battery cables I slipped
them on before I added the terminals. Simple and cheap but not pretty.
For the heat valve, Van's sells a SS version of the standard flapper valve.
I think they sell to anyone not just RVers.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY - project Phoenix
Navion N5221K bought!
> >
> >
> >I would like to interject another idea as long as we are talking about
> >firewall flame protection. This is the heater valve unit. Glasair
> >sells a nice unit, simple but very functional. It is a tube inside a
> >tube that can rotate opening or closing matching holes. The
> >problem I have is it is made of aluminum. I don't know how long it
> >would take to melt that fixture, but it would leave a 1 1/2" hole
> >when it goes. Any thoughts on this one also?
>
> Aluminum looses half it's strength at about 500 degrees
> and disappears in a 2000 degree fire only a little slower
> than an ice cube.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Russ Werner" <russ(at)maui.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bulkhead fittings |
By the time the bulkhead fitting is melted, so are all the rivets in the
firewall on an RV. You'll have bigger worries than the bulkhead fitting.
Russ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bulkhead fittings
>
> >
> >
> >I would like to interject another idea as long as we are talking about
> >firewall flame protection. This is the heater valve unit. Glasair
> >sells a nice unit, simple but very functional. It is a tube inside a
> >tube that can rotate opening or closing matching holes. The
> >problem I have is it is made of aluminum. I don't know how long it
> >would take to melt that fixture, but it would leave a 1 1/2" hole
> >when it goes. Any thoughts on this one also?
>
> Aluminum looses half it's strength at about 500 degrees
> and disappears in a 2000 degree fire only a little slower
> than an ice cube.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Robertson" <res0rlvx(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Magnetic shielding |
>>>As far as I remember, you find mu metal in the shields in old
oscilloscopes. Old tube-type oscilloscopes are easy to get for free if
you ask around.
I used to do a bit of work with magnetic shielding. Mu metal is only
better than regular iron if it is very fully annealed and demagnetized using
great care. Having done that, if you even drop it on the floor you have to
start over again. Dont think that just because it is mu metal it is better
than soft iron. In your application, and without specialized knowledge, it
is probably not.
I would go with Bob's recommendation and get steel flashing from a lumber
yard. It is not as good as soft iron, but you cannot get the latter.
Gordon Robertson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George McNutt" <gmcnutt(at)intergate.ca> |
| Subject: | Alternator Output |
>Do you know what is involved in modifying the Nippon Denso 35 A
>alternator ----------snip
My questions; -
(1) Is the output rating of a alternator (35 amp) the gross or net power
output?
In other words, - on my Electrical Load Analsys do I need to show a
alternator field current as part of the electrical load ? if yes - then how
much current does the regulator and field field take (I estimate a variable
load from 2 to 4 amps)?
(2) Anyone know how much current Vans gauges and senders use? Tach, Oil
Press/Temp Fuel Pressure and Quantity. And what about a Voltmeter, how much
current does it use to perform it's duty?
Curious in Langley B.C.
George McNutt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie and Tupper England <cengland(at)netdoor.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PS Engineering Intercom |
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> > Bob:
> > >
> > > I have the 1000II and when I play the CD player through it the volume is
> > > extremely low. Is there any way to boost the volume?
> > >
> > > E. Len Leggette, RV-8A
> > > Greensboro, N.C. N910LL (res)
> > > Hanger #23 INT
> > >
> > >
> >As someone else mentioned, you might try the headphone
> >output if it's a portable. If it's a dash-mount (car) unit,
> >you can use the speaker outputs if you are very, very
> >careful. Or, you could try any of several easy-to-assemble
> >line amp kits that are available.
> >
> >Email me offline & I'll send you my phone # if you want
> >descriptions of the various techniques that will work. 10
> >minutes talking vs. hours of typing.
> >
> >Charlie
> >
> >Consumer Electronics Tech in another life
>
> How about doing an article for publication? I'll post it
> on my website . . . or you could consider submission to
> Sport Aviation . . . I hear they're paying for material
> now.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
I'd love to give writing a try, if I could get some help
cleaning up illustrations, etc. I'll try to work something
up after I take care of some family obligations.
Charlie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PS Engineering Intercom |
>
> > >
> > >Charlie
> > >
> > >Consumer Electronics Tech in another life
> >
> > How about doing an article for publication? I'll post it
> > on my website . . . or you could consider submission to
> > Sport Aviation . . . I hear they're paying for material
> > now.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>I'd love to give writing a try, if I could get some help
>cleaning up illustrations, etc. I'll try to work something
>up after I take care of some family obligations.
You bet!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Output |
>
>
>
> >Do you know what is involved in modifying the Nippon Denso 35 A
> >alternator ----------snip
>
>
>My questions; -
>
>(1) Is the output rating of a alternator (35 amp) the gross or net power
>output?
Net . . . most alternators come with internally mounted regulators
and they've already accounted for the field current.
>In other words, - on my Electrical Load Analsys do I need to show a
>alternator field current as part of the electrical load ? if yes - then how
>much current does the regulator and field field take (I estimate a variable
>load from 2 to 4 amps)?
Nope . . . an this current would be realize ONLY under full load
and low rpms . . . Unless you have an energy hungry electrically
dependent engine or electric toe warmers, I doubt your full-up
IFR load will exceed 25 amps or so.
>(2) Anyone know how much current Vans gauges and senders use? Tach, Oil
>Press/Temp Fuel Pressure and Quantity. And what about a Voltmeter, how much
>current does it use to perform it's duty?
Most modern instruments that use remote transducers will be on the
order of 100 ma. Voltmeters should be 20 ma or less, ammeters
are negligible.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Magnetic shielding |
>
>
> >>>As far as I remember, you find mu metal in the shields in old
>oscilloscopes. Old tube-type oscilloscopes are easy to get for free if
>you ask around.
>
>I used to do a bit of work with magnetic shielding. Mu metal is only
>better than regular iron if it is very fully annealed and demagnetized using
>great care. Having done that, if you even drop it on the floor you have to
>start over again. Dont think that just because it is mu metal it is better
>than soft iron. In your application, and without specialized knowledge, it
>is probably not.
>
>I would go with Bob's recommendation and get steel flashing from a lumber
>yard. It is not as good as soft iron, but you cannot get the latter.
Flashing is pretty soft as steels go . . . and by wrapping
the instrument in 3 layers, you'll achieve as good or better
shielding than any single layer of hi-dollar stuff.
Someone mentioned salvaging mu-metal from old 'scopes. Tried
that once. The shields are cone shaped and a bear to get a
flat sheet out of them for re-forming. Further, a number of
'scopes I've scrapped had ordinary steel shields. By-in-large,
not worth the trouble to mess with 'em.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rodney Smith <rsmith(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Electronic Ignitions |
I am planning on using a dual electronic ignition in my IO-540 powered
Bearhawk. I would like any feedback concerning the Lightspeed versus
Electroair setups. Any problems or in flight failures? Has anyone had
the opportunity to try both? The Electroair has the price advantage by
about $1000 but I am more concerned about reliability.
Rod Smith
Wasilla, AK
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bulkhead fittings |
>
>By the time the bulkhead fitting is melted, so are all the rivets in the
>firewall on an RV. You'll have bigger worries than the bulkhead fitting.
>
The firewall is attached with aluminum rivets? Anyone
considering monel rivets? Actually, fittings out on
the surface of the firewall are heated more strongly
than any fasteners hiding in the corners. One of our
failure experts could go on at great length about
flow patterns for the hot gasses, etc.
I'll bet the accident files are full of pictures wherein
relatively small holes in the firewall propagated
lots of misery into the cabin and the airplane hit the
ground with all the firewall attach rivets in excellent shape.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Bulkhead wire bundle fittings |
Robert,
I know of three engine compartment exhaust system failures that resulted in
fires just during the last 3 years, all in turbocharged aircraft. One was
poorly handled by the two doctors in the cockpit and resulted in their not
shutting down the engine and making a go around and it ended badly. The
other two were pretty routine shutdowns/forced landings. Two had smoke in
the cockpit.
I think the Lancair IV folks would like the fittings a lot, and a number of
others, would also.
Keep me posted on what you find out at RAC. I'll check with my stainless
weld guy.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls(at)kscable.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Bulkhead wire bundle fittings
>
>Bob,
>
>We have a rather excellent stainless weld shop here at Tornado Alley Turbo.
>( www.taturbo.com )
>
>We weld 321 Stainless tubing for exhaust systems and muffler systems here.
>Full PMA shop for those certified parts.
>
>Two full time certified welders that we periodically re-qualify on coupon
>tests.
>
>We might be able to jig up and build those. It is an elegant idea for that
>sort of thing.
>
>One would order up the right stainless tubing from a bend shop, and then
cut
>them and weld them to the plate. Maybe instead of a "gasket" use a one step
>labyrinth, by welding a 1.5" stainless 3/16" thick washer on the back side
>of the 2.5" square plate. Then cutting a 1.5" hole in the fire wall and
>setting the washer into the firewall cut out.
Hmmm . . . would the flange and washer be punched? Tooling
costs? I'll check into the Bonanza part's design a little
closer . . . I don't know if the tub ends at the firewall
surface of the flange or protrudes through. It might also
be sufficient to have a single layer flange and no gasket
if it had more screws in in it . . . holes are cheap.
>This way, you could insert your 1" tube into the center of the assembly of
>the 3/16"thick washer and plate assembly, and it would give you some
>additional vibration tolerance on the welds cracking.
>
>Given the importance of the issue, I don't think $75 would be too much for
>the part, but it can possibly be done less expensively.
I agree but we're dealing with a rather astute customer
base. They're constantly trading off perceptions of risk
against cost of risk-mitigation. Fuel-feed fires are Waaaaayyyyy
down on the list of things that cause airplanes to crash.
From the certified aircraft perspective (with spoon fed
perceptions of value vs. risk) we never have to hold ourselves
very accountable to customers except in matters of performance
and quality . . . the Bonanza would get that fitting if it
cost $300.
Sooooooo . . . if you an I can put our heads together and
come up with a product that will do the job, have sufficient
margins to justify incorporation into our business models
and cost 1/2 of what we probably pay for the Bonanza
fitting, the market potential goes up quickly.
>When you say "fire putty" - - what, specific product are you referring to,
>or do you recommend?
There are a number of products out there. It's a mix
of components with a high specific heat and a
characteristic that forms a poorly conductive
"crust" when exposed to very high temperatures.
Takes quite awhile to breach the face of an
opening covered with the stuff. I think you
can get commercial versions in hardware stores.
A reader told us here on the list that he saw
some in Home Depot about a year ago.
I'll see what we use at RAC . . . we probably
buy the same stuff under a mil-spec number for
3x the cost.
Would you like to sell the kit?
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Double pole switch |
Bob:
I recently purchased a number of double pole switches from you (as well as
other stuff) and am now installing them. While doing same I have found a
problem with diagram 11-11 on page 11-16 in The AeroElectric Connection and
would like to bring it to your attention. I think the numbering is incorrect
and should be reversed with 1-2-3 on the left and 4-5-6 on the right.
Your book is a great help in understanding what I am doing, thanks for a
great product.
Ron Smith RV 8A
N566U Reserved
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Nav antenna in cowl?? |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Has anyone tried a nav antenna in the lower cowl of an RV? No doubt the
performance would be sub-optimal due to proximity to the engine (and
maybe some noise generated by the engine systems too??) but the wingtip
location doesn't appear optimal either, yet it works well according to
the testimonials about Bob Archer's antennas. I'm thinking if you ran
the antenna coax up to the top of where the air scoop attaches to the
cowl, and then bonded two metal strips angling outboard and aft along the
bottom cowl (forming a Vee-shape like most external VOR antennas) it
might work ok. Of course you'd have to disconnect the coax--perhaps at
the firewall or any convenient location--to take the bottom cowl off but
this would only take a second with the top cowl already removed.
I know, I'm crazy, but that's what a 4-day weekend of sanding fiberglass
does to you...the answer to the anticipated question of "why not just use
Bob Archer's wingtip antenna?" is that (1) I was stupid when building the
wings and didn't put in a conduit big enough to run both strobe wires AND
a coax, and (2) in an attempt to keep my old-style wingtips looking nice
and flat on top, I riveted some aluminum stiffeners at 6" intervals along
the top surface, which I expect would hopelessly screw up even the
best-engineered wingtip antenna.....
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A sanding fiberglass and lovin' every
minute...gasp....wheeze....scratch scratch....
________________________________________________________________________________
aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Antenna placement for RV-8 |
| From: | czechsix(at)juno.com |
Can you tell me how much the splitter costs? (Sidenote: does Bob Archer
have a website? I looked in the Yeller pages and only found an e-mail
address and phone number). Is there any disadvantage to using this
device? There must be a downside or I can't see why anyone would use a
second antenna.....I suppose maybe there's a failure mode in the splitter
that could leave you with no antenna for either comm, or possibly toast
one of your radios if it doesn't work right?
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A sanding fiberglass.....
Bob Archer also sells a com antenna splitter that hooks 2 radios up for
receiving, and when you key a mike, a relay hooks the transmitting radio
straight through to the antenna.
Ed Holyoke
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | George Braly <gwbraly(at)gami.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Output |
Bob,
On some 14 volt alternators, at high power output and cruise RPM, and with
an external regulator, the field current on a 14 volt system can be ~15% of
the total alternator output, depending on how the alternator is geared and
how fast it is turning.
While it is not a huge percentage, it is enough to be worth considering in
somebody's calculation of a critical load situation.
Regards, George
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:nuckolls(at)kscable.com]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Alternator Output
>
>
>
> >Do you know what is involved in modifying the Nippon Denso 35 A
> >alternator ----------snip
>
>
>My questions; -
>
>(1) Is the output rating of a alternator (35 amp) the gross or net power
>output?
Net . . . most alternators come with internally mounted regulators
and they've already accounted for the field current.
>In other words, - on my Electrical Load Analsys do I need to show a
>alternator field current as part of the electrical load ? if yes - then how
>much current does the regulator and field field take (I estimate a variable
>load from 2 to 4 amps)?
Nope . . . an this current would be realize ONLY under full load
and low rpms . . . Unless you have an energy hungry electrically
dependent engine or electric toe warmers, I doubt your full-up
IFR load will exceed 25 amps or so.
>(2) Anyone know how much current Vans gauges and senders use? Tach, Oil
>Press/Temp Fuel Pressure and Quantity. And what about a Voltmeter, how much
>current does it use to perform it's duty?
Most modern instruments that use remote transducers will be on the
order of 100 ma. Voltmeters should be 20 ma or less, ammeters
are negligible.
Bob . . .
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Branstrom" <swedan(at)pcmagic.net> |
| Subject: | Fire Putty & Conduit connectors |
Hi Bob,
1) Electricians commonly use fire putty around wires where they
penetrate a fire wall on a building without being in conduit. The wires
are routed into a metal tube, (which, as I remember it, protrudes 1'
into each side) then the fire putty is injected around them so that
there is no air or slow fire movement between areas.
It can be bought at electrical wholesalers in the form of a caulking
tube. I'll look both at Home Depot and my wholesaler for availability,
price, and size. I'll check to see if there are mil-spec numbers on it,
but I always ignored them because all I looked for was the North
American Fire Prevention Association approval, and that's what's
controlling for use in buildings. . BTW, the electrical building code
is written by this organization, because electrical safety, both from
fire and shock is life-critical.
The cost is not cheap. I remember that the tube cost about $18, but I
could be wrong.
2) Use of Conduit connectors. I'm assuming that Greg Young was
referring to what electricians call EMT connectors (that's thin-wall
tubing). Those have a short tube and a threaded portion that goes in to
a conduit box, and secured with a locknut.
I'd like Bob's comment on this. If you're trying to put a wire through
the firewall, you could even use what is called a chase nipple this is
also secured with a locknut. The problem is that it is heavy, but it
provides a sturdy heat sink and a smooth path for wire to go through.
Since I am not knowledgeable about airplane firewall penetration
techniques, I am assuming that RTV is used to prevent the wire from
chafing against the metal.
In house building, a device is used to hold Romex (a brand name for a
plastic covered cable that includes solid hot, neutral, and ground
wires) in place where it goes into a junction box called a Romex clamp.
The purpose of this is to stabilize the Romex as it comes into the j-box
by clamping on to it on two sides. [O.K., all you thrifty guys out
there, don't even think of using Romex in an airplane, let alone a car -
it's fine in a house, but a good way to kill yourself in a vehicle].
I'm assuming that if this clamp (and I am not advocating its use in an
airplane) was used, with the vibration present, it would be a wear point
for the wire insulation unless it's clamped down on rubber or some other
materiel wrapped around the wire.
Dan Branstrom
swedan(at)pcmagic.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Double pole switch |
>
>Bob:
>
>I recently purchased a number of double pole switches from you (as well as
>other stuff) and am now installing them. While doing same I have found a
>problem with diagram 11-11 on page 11-16 in The AeroElectric Connection and
>would like to bring it to your attention. I think the numbering is incorrect
>and should be reversed with 1-2-3 on the left and 4-5-6 on the right.
When we first introduced the progressive transfer switches
in the chapter on switches, the only practical source of
supply featured Microswitch products. Microswitch has
numbers molded into the rear housing. Schematics produced
for publication used the Microswitch convention for pin
numbering. Later, I was able to develop a source for lower
cost switches (our S700-2-10) but if we keep the numbers the
same for proper connection via schematic symbols, then
the columns swap as viewed from the back. Soooooo . . .
You'll find two pictorials in the book . . . one for Microswitch
and one for S700-2-10 and they are reversed with respect to each
other.
This question came up a few weeks ago for another part of the
book. I've attached the exchange below.
>Bob,
> Regarding figures Z-23 and Z-24, is there a typo on the pin numbers
>for the S700-2-10 switch? I looked through the archives and couldn't
>find any mention of errors, so if it's correct, please explain what's
>different that reverses the pin 2 and pin 5 logic between these drawings
Good eye. I thought I'd caught all those. Numbering shown
in figures Z-23 and Z-24 are incorrect. I got wrapped around
a manufacturing differences axle a few years ago when I discovered
that my S700-2-10 switches were assembled opposite the Microswitch
equivalents. Note the view of switch in Figure 11-11 versus
switch view in Z-16. The columns are switched. Figure 11-11 is
Microswitch; figure Z-16 is S700-2-10. I had published some
variations on switch terminal numbering based on switches I
was holding in my hand at the time not realizing there were
two configurations. Sooooo . . . you've found a couple of
artifacts in my wiring symbols that represent confusing
times.
I determined that the schematics could be left constant
with respect to terminal numbers if I simply pointed out
the difference between the two switches. I illustrated
the S700-2-10 right on the drawing. The Microswitch product
has reversed column numbers molded into the plastic
switch housing.
I've marked the switches in Figures Z-23/24 for correction.
Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement for RV-8 |
czechsix(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
> Can you tell me how much the splitter costs? (Sidenote: does Bob Archer
> have a website? I looked in the Yeller pages and only found an e-mail
> address and phone number). Is there any disadvantage to using this
> device? There must be a downside or I can't see why anyone would use a
> second antenna.....I suppose maybe there's a failure mode in the splitter
> that could leave you with no antenna for either comm, or possibly toast
> one of your radios if it doesn't work right?
>
*** The latter. A relay connecting two transmitters can have a failure mode
where one COM radio transmits directly into the other COM radio. zzzZZAP!
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignitions |
>
>I am planning on using a dual electronic ignition in my IO-540 powered
>Bearhawk. I would like any feedback concerning the Lightspeed versus
>Electroair setups. Any problems or in flight failures? Has anyone had
>the opportunity to try both? The Electroair has the price advantage by
>about $1000 but I am more concerned about reliability.
>
>Rod Smith
>Wasilla, AK
How do you gage reliability? If you are concerned about
engine failure, then we're talking about the probability
of failing both systems during any one tank of fuel. Even
if a product has a low MTBF number . . . say 1,000 hours.
The likelihood of dual failures in any given hour is 1
per million hours of service or 1/250,000 flights if you
use up all the fuel every flight.
Call both manufacturers and talk with them. Both will have
a certain amount of canned rhetoric that's useful when
pitching products out of a booth at OSH but what you're
REALLY interested in is failure rates, serviceability,
factory support for installation problems, demonstrable
performance gains, etc. Bore in on the facts and physics of
their products and be skeptical of words used to pit
their product against the competition. Only when you're
informed of such facts can you decide for yourself which
is the better value. By-in-large, value has very little
to do with gross reliability when the device is
(1) not critical to comfortable termination of the flight
or (2) backed up with a second system.
I'm not hearing of problems with either system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement for RV-8 |
>
>czechsix(at)juno.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Can you tell me how much the splitter costs? (Sidenote: does Bob Archer
> > have a website? I looked in the Yeller pages and only found an e-mail
> > address and phone number). Is there any disadvantage to using this
> > device? There must be a downside or I can't see why anyone would use a
> > second antenna.....I suppose maybe there's a failure mode in the splitter
> > that could leave you with no antenna for either comm, or possibly toast
> > one of your radios if it doesn't work right?
> >
>*** The latter. A relay connecting two transmitters can have a failure mode
>where one COM radio transmits directly into the other COM radio. zzzZZAP!
You can use a pair of double-pole, double-throw relays
and a splitter with good port-to-port isolation that has
no such failure modes . . .
You can have a relay failure that reduces one of the
transceivers to a receive-only mode.
Common guys, the holy-grail of no-whiskers-on-my
airplane is fraught with potential for loss of utility
for the system that depends on reasonable antenna
performance.
I had a builder a few years back mount all his whiskers
on inspection plates so that when the ship was sitting
out on the line for a week at OSH, blank plates could
be used to present a aura of technical sophistication.
Whatever a comm antenna represents in the way of esthetics,
its effect on airplane performance is all but unmeasurable.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Coax bulkhead fittings |
Listers,
Does using a bulkhead fitting to terminate coax - say at a wingtip bulkhead
or the last bulkhead forward of the empennage where a disconnect would be
used to facilitate maintenance, cause a ground loop problem akin to shield
grounding?
The alternative that I see would be to place the last inch or so of the coax
in an Adel clamp with a stand-off to allow for the disconnect function.
Has anyone used these successfully with connectors on each side of the
bulkhead?
Although it raises the number of points of failure and the complexity a bit,
I think that the trade-off in maintainability might be worth it...?!
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Lamb" <n254bl(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Putty & Conduit connectors |
I purchased a tube of Fire Stop (Made by DAP) at Home Depot about a year
ago. I was told it would be 10 or 12 dollars. When I looked at the price on
the shelf it said $5.00. When I went to check out the clerk said $10.00. I
asked her to look it up because it was marked $5.00 and she said "you're
right it is $5.00. Who knows what it might be today.
In that store it was in the electrical dept. NOT with all the other puttys
and such in the paint dept.
The container does not tell what temp. it will withstand, only that you can
find the "F" and "T" ratings in the detailed drawings in the Underwriters
Labs fire resistance directory. Wherever that is.
When I reach that point I'll probably call DAP and ask them.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Branstrom" <swedan(at)pcmagic.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fire Putty & Conduit connectors
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> 1) Electricians commonly use fire putty around wires where they
> penetrate a fire wall on a building without being in conduit. The wires
> are routed into a metal tube, (which, as I remember it, protrudes 1'
> into each side) then the fire putty is injected around them so that
> there is no air or slow fire movement between areas.
>
> It can be bought at electrical wholesalers in the form of a caulking
> tube. I'll look both at Home Depot and my wholesaler for availability,
> price, and size. I'll check to see if there are mil-spec numbers on it,
> but I always ignored them because all I looked for was the North
> American Fire Prevention Association approval, and that's what's
> controlling for use in buildings. . BTW, the electrical building code
> is written by this organization, because electrical safety, both from
> fire and shock is life-critical.
>
> The cost is not cheap. I remember that the tube cost about $18, but I
> could be wrong.
>
> 2) Use of Conduit connectors. I'm assuming that Greg Young was
> referring to what electricians call EMT connectors (that's thin-wall
> tubing). Those have a short tube and a threaded portion that goes in to
> a conduit box, and secured with a locknut.
>
> I'd like Bob's comment on this. If you're trying to put a wire through
> the firewall, you could even use what is called a chase nipple this is
> also secured with a locknut. The problem is that it is heavy, but it
> provides a sturdy heat sink and a smooth path for wire to go through.
> Since I am not knowledgeable about airplane firewall penetration
> techniques, I am assuming that RTV is used to prevent the wire from
> chafing against the metal.
>
> In house building, a device is used to hold Romex (a brand name for a
> plastic covered cable that includes solid hot, neutral, and ground
> wires) in place where it goes into a junction box called a Romex clamp.
> The purpose of this is to stabilize the Romex as it comes into the j-box
> by clamping on to it on two sides. [O.K., all you thrifty guys out
> there, don't even think of using Romex in an airplane, let alone a car -
> it's fine in a house, but a good way to kill yourself in a vehicle].
> I'm assuming that if this clamp (and I am not advocating its use in an
> airplane) was used, with the vibration present, it would be a wear point
> for the wire insulation unless it's clamped down on rubber or some other
> materiel wrapped around the wire.
>
> Dan Branstrom
> swedan(at)pcmagic.net
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Lamb" <n254bl(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronic Ignitions |
Beware if you try to contact Klaus at Lightspeed. His server is apparently
in trouble. My E-mails were rejected and no one was available to talk on the
phone. I copied my E-mail and Faxed it to him. He called me the next night
from Hawaii quite concerned about his server problem.
I have received prompt service from Lightspeed and Klaus has always answered
my questions promptly. If you have an opportunity, set in on one of his
seminars at OshKosh or wherever you can catch him. I did at OshKosh a couple
of years ago and was astounded at the research and development he has done
on his own aircraft.
Go to: Lightspeedengineering.com
Bill Lamb
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Electronic Ignitions
>
> >
> >I am planning on using a dual electronic ignition in my IO-540 powered
> >Bearhawk. I would like any feedback concerning the Lightspeed versus
> >Electroair setups. Any problems or in flight failures? Has anyone had
> >the opportunity to try both? The Electroair has the price advantage by
> >about $1000 but I am more concerned about reliability.
> >
> >Rod Smith
> >Wasilla, AK
>
> How do you gage reliability? If you are concerned about
> engine failure, then we're talking about the probability
> of failing both systems during any one tank of fuel. Even
> if a product has a low MTBF number . . . say 1,000 hours.
> The likelihood of dual failures in any given hour is 1
> per million hours of service or 1/250,000 flights if you
> use up all the fuel every flight.
>
> Call both manufacturers and talk with them. Both will have
> a certain amount of canned rhetoric that's useful when
> pitching products out of a booth at OSH but what you're
> REALLY interested in is failure rates, serviceability,
> factory support for installation problems, demonstrable
> performance gains, etc. Bore in on the facts and physics of
> their products and be skeptical of words used to pit
> their product against the competition. Only when you're
> informed of such facts can you decide for yourself which
> is the better value. By-in-large, value has very little
> to do with gross reliability when the device is
> (1) not critical to comfortable termination of the flight
> or (2) backed up with a second system.
>
> I'm not hearing of problems with either system.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Antenna placement for RV-8 |
Here's Bob Archer's price list:
BOB ARCHER
SPORTCRAFT ANTENNAS
21818 Ocean Avenue
Torrance, California - 90503
Tel. 310-316-8796
"E" Mail
The Highest Performance Internal / Flush Aircraft Antennas Available at
Any Price.
PRODUCT LIST
Product Model Numbers with a short description of each.
SA-001 - Wing tip VOR antenna. Fits larger tips such as T-18's and RV's.
Also fit Bonanza and larger Piper types. Wing tip antennas have
traditionally not worked well because of the proximity of the wing
tip lights and wires but these unique designs solve the problem.
SA-001A - Wing tip Com antenna. Looks the same and Fits the same tips as
those above but tuned for the Com band. Offered because of pressure
from RV builders. Does not perform as well as SA-002 Com antenna but
users report good communications at ranges greater than 50 miles.
SA-002- Tail top Com antenna meant to fit inside tail top fairing on
metal aircraft. Gives an omni- directional radiation pattern by
avoiding RF obstacles such as landing gear and vertical tails.
Very good performance
SA-003 & 4- Wing tip VOR antennas are nearly the same for smaller tips
but the 004 has a 10 degree flare to fit the Lancair IV wing tips.
Most if not all LA-IV's use these antennas. Great pilot reports.
SA-005 - Printed circuit board transponder antenna, 6" X 7"X 1/16"
thick. 6" dimension vertical. Mounts out in a wing if deep enough or
back in the tailcone at the aft bulkhead. VSWR usually less than
1.1:1.0. Would work well in a fiber glass ventral fin.
SA-006 - Com antenna designed for installation on the inside surface of
fuselage tail cones or the vertical tails of smaller aircraft. Received
a call from an aircraft calling unicom from 170 miles.
26.5"Vert. X 11.5"Horiz.
SA-007 - Vor antenna designed for installation in horizontal surfaces,
wings, horizontal tails or fuselage tops or bottoms. Elements
variable in sweep +-45 deg. for ease of installation.
SA-008 - Com antenna designed for installation in larger vert. tails.
Larger aperture causes a bit higher performance than #6. Same design
as #7 but tuned for Com band.
SA-009 - Marker Beacon antenna. Consists of 40" copper tape (1/4 wave
length) and enough coax cable for most installations in fuselage
area, plus hardware. Work fine in glass wing tips and fuselages or
wing to fuselage gap seals.
SA-010 - T/R Switch- Allows reception on two transceivers
simultaneously and on transmit the signal goes directly through the
switch to a single good antenna.
Models 001 through 004 are COM and VOR antennas for conductive aircraft
with fiber glass wing tips and tail top fairings. I have recently made
available a modified SA-001 wing tip antenna retuned for the Com band
because of builder request. I only recommend them for aircraft with
large/deep wingtips that can support some vertical polarization. RV
builders report a good solid fifty 50 mile range for communications.
All antennas are $60.00 except Marker which is $30.00. T/R Switch is
$150.00. Balun is $20.00
Can you tell me how much the splitter costs? (Sidenote: does Bob Archer
have a website? I looked in the Yeller pages and only found an e-mail
address and phone number). Is there any disadvantage to using this
device? There must be a downside or I can't see why anyone would use a
second antenna.....I suppose maybe there's a failure mode in the
splitter
that could leave you with no antenna for either comm, or possibly toast
one of your radios if it doesn't work right?
Thanks,
--Mark Navratil
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
RV-8A sanding fiberglass.....
Bob Archer also sells a com antenna splitter that hooks 2 radios up for
receiving, and when you key a mike, a relay hooks the transmitting radio
straight through to the antenna.
Ed Holyoke
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Holyoke <bicyclop(at)pacbell.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Antenna placement for RV-8 |
Bob,
Bob Archer sells his device for $150. Can you draw one up that could be
built for a fraction?
Ed Holyoke
> You can use a pair of double-pole, double-throw relays
and a splitter with good port-to-port isolation that has
no such failure modes . . .
You can have a relay failure that reduces one of the
transceivers to a receive-only mode.
Bob . . .
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Charlie Kuss <chaskuss(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Bulkhead fittings |
>
>
> >
> >By the time the bulkhead fitting is melted, so are all the rivets in the
> >firewall on an RV. You'll have bigger worries than the bulkhead fitting.
> >
>
> The firewall is attached with aluminum rivets? Anyone
> considering monel rivets? Actually, fittings out on
> the surface of the firewall are heated more strongly
> than any fasteners hiding in the corners. One of our
> failure experts could go on at great length about
> flow patterns for the hot gasses, etc.
>
> I'll bet the accident files are full of pictures wherein
> relatively small holes in the firewall propagated
> lots of misery into the cabin and the airplane hit the
> ground with all the firewall attach rivets in excellent shape.
>
> Bob . . .
Russ,
The firewall (and thereby the rivets) are attached to very nice heat sink
(in aluminium aircraft anyway). It's your fuselage! Extreme hot points will
tend to be localized. The rest of the firewall and fuselage will tend to
keep temps below the aprox. 1850 degree melting point of aluminium.
Charlie Kuss
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Coax bulkhead fittings |
>
>
>Listers,
>
>Does using a bulkhead fitting to terminate coax - say at a wingtip bulkhead
>or the last bulkhead forward of the empennage where a disconnect would be
>used to facilitate maintenance, cause a ground loop problem akin to shield
>grounding?
It's possible but rare. I wouldn't worry about it in a small
airplane.
>The alternative that I see would be to place the last inch or so of the coax
>in an Adel clamp with a stand-off to allow for the disconnect function.
>
>Has anyone used these successfully with connectors on each side of the
>bulkhead?
>
>Although it raises the number of points of failure and the complexity a bit,
>I think that the trade-off in maintainability might be worth it...?!
You could punch an oversized hole in the bulkhead and mount
the bulkhead fitting on a sheet of fiberglas (a rough equivalent
of the fiber washers for headset and mic jacks). The antenna
circuits of radios are not particularly vulnerable to ground
loop coupled noises . . . so I wouldn't loose any sleep over
whatever you decide to do.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Antenna placement for RV-8 |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Bob Archer sells his device for $150. Can you draw one up that could be
>built for a fraction?
Depends.
See http://209.134.106.21/temp/ComSplit.gif
IF you can lay out an RF friendly etched circuit
board to mount two dpdt ecb relays and IF you
can install appropriate splitter components on
the board with the relay, the answer is YES.
An off the shelf splitter for receiver service
is 60-75 dollars. Components to fabricate the
splitter are pretty cheap but I'd be a little
wary of plug-n-play for components on a board
without going to the RF lab to prove the
performance of the design. Once proven, a
kit could be produced that would provide
uniform results from one assembly to the next.
I'd want to run the first article over the
test equipment to make sure I was really
doing a good thing.
The front-end cost and effort of developing
a new product can be a significant driver
in the decision making process. I'd probably
offer such a device if I thought I could
compete with Bob Archer and still sell it
for enough money to recover development costs
in less than 4-5 years!!!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Good news and bad news . . . |
First the bad news: Just ordered the last of VHF760 radios
at the special price we've enjoyed for about the last 5 months.
The good news: The T2000 transponder is now flowing into the
US. There are over 200 on backorder with my distributor and
they're getting flow at the rate of 35 units every two weeks.
I got on the list early enough that I will probably get some
of my back order out of the next shipment due in next week.
As soon as I've got my hands on them and get the installation
kit formulated, I'll post availability of hardware to ship
on the website and on this list. I probably have more
firm orders than available product for the foreseeable
future . . . at 35 units every two weeks, my distributor's
pipe won't be filled for 12 weeks or more . . .
The light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming
train.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "PK" <pfergus2(at)tampabay.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Good news and bad news . . . |
Thank you.... That hole in my panel is starting to bug me..... People
drop in and say .." Wow, nice panel! What's that hole for...did you mess
up???
Peter Ferguson
N601PK
601HDS TD Jab 3300
-----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: Good news and bad news . . .
First the bad news: Just ordered the last of VHF760 radios
at the special price we've enjoyed for about the last 5 months.
The good news: The T2000 transponder is now flowing into the
US. There are over 200 on backorder with my distributor and
they're getting flow at the rate of 35 units every two weeks.
I got on the list early enough that I will probably get some
of my back order out of the next shipment due in next week.
As soon as I've got my hands on them and get the installation
kit formulated, I'll post availability of hardware to ship
on the website and on this list. I probably have more
firm orders than available product for the foreseeable
future . . . at 35 units every two weeks, my distributor's
pipe won't be filled for 12 weeks or more . . .
The light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming
train.
Bob . . .
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fire Putty & Conduit connectors |
>
> > The purpose of this is to stabilize the Romex as it comes into the j-box
> > by clamping on to it on two sides. [O.K., all you thrifty guys out
> > there, don't even think of using Romex in an airplane, let alone a car -
*** Of course not! Everybody knows you're supposed to use knob & tube...
:)
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good news and bad news . . . |
Bob,
Would you state the "old special price" for a point of reference and do you
know what the new (higher) price will be? Is it posted yet on the website
yet?
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Good news and bad news . . .
>
>
> First the bad news: Just ordered the last of VHF760 radios
> at the special price we've enjoyed for about the last 5 months.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald A. Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Fire Barrier Caulk |
> >When you say "fire putty" - - what, specific product are you referring
to,
> >or do you recommend?
>
> There are a number of products out there. It's a mix
> of components with a high specific heat and a
> characteristic that forms a poorly conductive
> "crust" when exposed to very high temperatures.
> Takes quite awhile to breach the face of an
> opening covered with the stuff. I think you
> can get commercial versions in hardware stores.
> A reader told us here on the list that he saw
> some in Home Depot about a year ago.
I think that would be me, Bob.
It was indeed Home Depot, and it's 3M Fire Barrier Caulk, I think called
CP-15, about $15 a tube, and would easily do any two of our airplanes. It's
sorta like high-temp silicone, red color, but has a sandy substance mixed
in, and it cures up pretty stiff. Clean it up when you put it on, cause
it's there to stay later.
Don't know what's in it, but that's what the Glasair folks specify for
anything penetrating the firewall on ours.
Ron Cox
Glasair Super II F/T
under construction at C77, near RFD
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Harlow" <jharlow(at)onearrow.net> |
| Subject: | Static Electricity |
The other day while flying in a light rain, I felt a static shock
everytime I touched the radio on my panel. I have a Express composite
airplane with no common bonding. Is there anyway to discharge this to
the air? Would static wicks attached to the composite wing surface do
any good. Need some ideas as I feel this may be the cause of my remote
com failing on my Garmin GNS-430.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Francis, David" <David.Francis(at)defence.gov.au> |
| Subject: | SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - ELECTRIC GYROS |
Folks,
I am building an IFR RV7 and will go all-electric.
I have been interested in the name brand versus "imported" electric gyro
question.
I consulted the technical folks with the local Australian regulator. Their
advice was instructive. If I buy a name brand instrument (RC Allen for
example) the regulator will impose a maintenance test requirement once each
three years. Imported copies will attract a maintenance requirement every
year. This is based on reported reliability figures.
The maintenance requirement does not vary between vacuumm and electric power
sources, just the pedigree of the maker.
It looks like price = quality in this instance. Noting the cost of
insturment test and calibration the more expensive items will be cheaper to
own over a lifetime.
David Francis, VH-ZEE, RV7.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Barrier Caulk |
>
> > >When you say "fire putty" - - what, specific product are you referring
>to,
> > >or do you recommend?
> >
> > There are a number of products out there. It's a mix
> > of components with a high specific heat and a
> > characteristic that forms a poorly conductive
> > "crust" when exposed to very high temperatures.
> > Takes quite awhile to breach the face of an
> > opening covered with the stuff. I think you
> > can get commercial versions in hardware stores.
> > A reader told us here on the list that he saw
> > some in Home Depot about a year ago.
>
>I think that would be me, Bob.
>
>It was indeed Home Depot, and it's 3M Fire Barrier Caulk, I think called
>CP-15, about $15 a tube, and would easily do any two of our airplanes. It's
>sorta like high-temp silicone, red color, but has a sandy substance mixed
>in, and it cures up pretty stiff. Clean it up when you put it on, cause
>it's there to stay later.
>
>Don't know what's in it, but that's what the Glasair folks specify for
>anything penetrating the firewall on ours.
Interesting. The stuff I've seen around the factories
was more reminiscent of plumber's putty. Dark gray,
always malleable, but I see how a silicone compound
would work too . . . RTV like ukumyuckies turn to
"sand" when heated strongly. I suspect this product
incorporates some means to maintain a grip on
a crusty outer surface of sand while holding the
BTUs at bay.
Didn't get over to the right plant today to do
my own research . . . perhaps tomorrow.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing tip antenna plans |
>Hi Bob,
>Going back through the AeroElectric Connection book, I have revision 9,
>there is a drawing for a wing-tip VOR antenna. I'd like to build one for
>my RV-6, but I don't understand what parts on the drawing are insulated
>from each other. Is there a more detailed drawing and/or explanation of
>this antenna and construction somewhere I could get hold of? Thanks,
>Chuck
Chuck,
When I published that drawing, it was lifted from
an issue of RVator. While the principals behind
the antenna's function was pretty basic, the design
details turned out to be copied from one of Bob
Archer's products. I didn't know this until several
years later when I met Bob for the first time at
a weekend seminar I did in SoCAL.
The purpose of the bakelite (or other insulating
strip) is to serve as the insulator of a capacitor
made up of the .8 x 2.5" tab of aluminum and the end
of the .8 x 6.2" piece. There were not enough details
in the article to really build this and have it
produce optimum results. The center conductor
of the coax attaches to the smaller capacitor
plate. The shield goes to "ground". The size
of the capacitor and 5" dimension control the
characteristics of the matching network to achieve
1:1 SWR on the antenna when fed with the 50-ohm
coax.
The ideal antenna has a slot to make the 5" adjustable,
and perhaps a variable capacitor to tune out reactance
of the matching network. It really takes an antenna
analyzer to optimize the finished product and without
exact details on Bob's design, any attempt
to duplicate his performance might well fall short.
Do you know a ham operator? He/she might know
or could ask around for someone local who has
an MFJ-259 antenna analyzer and knows how to use
it.
On the other hand, duplicating what I've shown
there may work just fine . . I've not tried to
duplicate it so I just don't know. I'd probably
build my antenna out of strips of copper clad
used to make etched circuit boards and put a real
variable capacitor in at the coax feedline attach
point. I could use screws to hold the whole thing
together while adjusting it and then solder the
joints for long term integrity after the adjusting
was done.
By the way, you can download and print an update
to your Rev 9 book from our website to bring it
up to the latest revision.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good news and bad news . . . |
>
>
>Bob,
>
>Would you state the "old special price" for a point of reference and do you
>know what the new (higher) price will be? Is it posted yet on the website
>yet?
>
>David Carter
Changed the price on the website today. The special went off
on the JHP520 hand held too . . . fooey.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good news and bad news . . . |
>
>
>Bob,
>What is the special price of the radio and the new higher price and can the
>radio still be purchased at the special price?
I don't know - I didn't ask.
>What will be the price of the xpdrs?
I think we'll offer the transponder bundled with an AK350
encoder and pre-wired harness for $1290.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard D. Fogerson" <rickf(at)velocitus.net> |
| Subject: | SD-8 installation questions on Z13 |
Hi Bob,
I'm warming up to the idea of having the SD-8 as a auxillary power
source. All the following questions have to do with Dwg Z13, All
electric airplane on a budget:
1) In a previous post, you told an RV8 builder that if his battery was
forward, he could use a 16AWG feeder and 20AWG fusible link for the SD8.
If the battery was in back, a 12AWG feeder and 16AWG fusible link. My
RV3 being much shorter will have the battery in back but it will only be
1 to 2 ft longer than the RV8 at the firewall. Okay to use the smaller
feeder and link?
2) Re the 50mv-10amp resisters in both alternators field wire: Is this
for installation of the optional VLM-14 loadmeter or some requirement?
3) Re the 18AWG shielded wire from the E.I. switch to the E.I. ( the
shielding is also grounded to the E.I.): I've not noticed shielded wire
used for E.I.'s before. Is the 18AWG shielded wire grounded as in Z13
for both E.I.'s correct?
4) Re the wire from the bus to the E.I. switches: Z28 (dual E.I.
diagram) uses 20AWG wire and 5A fuses while Z13 uses 18AWG and 3A
fuses. Which one do you recommend?
5) Re Note 20: Does the regulator supplied with SD8 require a
battery? I would think the likelyhood of the main alternator failing
and the battery is fairly remote so maybe this isn't important?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miles McCallum" <milesm(at)avnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Putty & Conduit connectors |
>
> I purchased a tube of Fire Stop (Made by DAP) at Home Depot about a year
> ago> The container does not tell what temp. it will withstand, only that
you can
> find the "F" and "T" ratings in the detailed drawings in the Underwriters
> Labs fire resistance directory.
-Or you can use silicon RTV.... I've used all sorts - gasket RTV, bathtub
sealant, - nowadays industrial stuff (because I can get it in clear to seal
the windows) it sticks like you know what to anything, and is fire proof:
indeed, my primary use for it is on exhaust gaskets - everything from world
championship competing racing motorcycles to (yesterday) an exhaust stub on
the Gypsy engine in my Auster. If you're doubtful, let a wadge cure, and
take a torch to it...
Miles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: SEC: UNCLASSIFIED - ELECTRIC GYROS |
If that's the case and you can afford the initial outlay, you might want to look
into the
BFGoodrich AIM units. Maybe a yellow tagged unit would be the way to go. -Steve
"Francis, David" wrote:
>
> Folks,
> I am building an IFR RV7 and will go all-electric.
> I have been interested in the name brand versus "imported" electric gyro
> question.
>
> I consulted the technical folks with the local Australian regulator. Their
> advice was instructive. If I buy a name brand instrument (RC Allen for
> example) the regulator will impose a maintenance test requirement once each
> three years. Imported copies will attract a maintenance requirement every
> year. This is based on reported reliability figures.
>
> The maintenance requirement does not vary between vacuumm and electric power
> sources, just the pedigree of the maker.
>
> It looks like price = quality in this instance. Noting the cost of
> insturment test and calibration the more expensive items will be cheaper to
> own over a lifetime.
>
> David Francis, VH-ZEE, RV7.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Barrier Caulk |
Is anyone familiar with the heat block paste used for welding. It's a white dry
sandy stuff
not unlike dampened powder hand cleaner. It's used to prevent the adjacent metal
from warping
and discoloring. It wouldn't seal pressure, but would stop heat penetration up
to ~ 5000F I
would guess. -Steve
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
> >
> > > >When you say "fire putty" - - what, specific product are you referring
> >to,
> > > >or do you recommend?
> > >
> > > There are a number of products out there. It's a mix
> > > of components with a high specific heat and a
> > > characteristic that forms a poorly conductive
> > > "crust" when exposed to very high temperatures.
> > > Takes quite awhile to breach the face of an
> > > opening covered with the stuff. I think you
> > > can get commercial versions in hardware stores.
> > > A reader told us here on the list that he saw
> > > some in Home Depot about a year ago.
> >
> >I think that would be me, Bob.
> >
> >It was indeed Home Depot, and it's 3M Fire Barrier Caulk, I think called
> >CP-15, about $15 a tube, and would easily do any two of our airplanes. It's
> >sorta like high-temp silicone, red color, but has a sandy substance mixed
> >in, and it cures up pretty stiff. Clean it up when you put it on, cause
> >it's there to stay later.
> >
> >Don't know what's in it, but that's what the Glasair folks specify for
> >anything penetrating the firewall on ours.
>
> Interesting. The stuff I've seen around the factories
> was more reminiscent of plumber's putty. Dark gray,
> always malleable, but I see how a silicone compound
> would work too . . . RTV like ukumyuckies turn to
> "sand" when heated strongly. I suspect this product
> incorporates some means to maintain a grip on
> a crusty outer surface of sand while holding the
> BTUs at bay.
>
> Didn't get over to the right plant today to do
> my own research . . . perhaps tomorrow.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | wing tip antenna plans |
>
> The ideal antenna has a slot to make the 5" adjustable,
> and perhaps a variable capacitor to tune out reactance
> of the matching network. It really takes an antenna
> analyzer to optimize the finished product and without
> exact details on Bob's design, any attempt
> to duplicate his performance might well fall short.
>
> Do you know a ham operator? He/she might know
> or could ask around for someone local who has
> an MFJ-259 antenna analyzer and knows how to use
> it.
I used to be a ham operator -- 20 some years ago while
I was in high school. We all had something called a SWR
meter. This is a simple instrument that sits inline of your
coax to your antenna and measures the standing wave
ratio when you transmit. It's been a LONG time, but as
I recall, an imperfectly-tuned antenna will bounce-back
some of your signal to you. If the antenna is perfectly
tuned to the frequency, there's no bounce back. Sorry, but
I'd have to go find my old ham books for a better description.
My points -- first, every operating ham probably has one of
these. Next, they weren't all that expensive.
I remember I made an antenna for my 2-meter rig. I
used the rig in my bedroom (hey -- in H.S. living at home,
that's the only place that's *yours*) a lot to chat with my
friends. The antenna consisted of 5 wires that were soldered
to about a 4-inch-square piece of heavy copper plate. One
wire pointed up and the other four became the ground plane --
radiating out. It turns out that a good ground plane isn't
flat, but angles down.
Using the SWR meter -- you could transmit, check the
ratio (you want as close to 1:1 as you can get), then bend
each ground plane wire down a bit and try it again. Entire
process took about 5 minutes, and I had a much better
antenna than what I'd been using previously.
Again, my point -- you could probably do the same process
for these wing tip antennas you're working with. Just make
very minor changes and test the standing wave ratio after
each change.
If your antenna is too short/long, or a bad shape, you'll get a
bad SWR ratio. You'll never get to 1-to-1. Good ham
radios were (back then, anyway) about 1.1 to 1. My 2-meter
antenna was probably 1.3:1 or more at the beginning, and very
close to 1.1:1 when I got done bending parts.
I don't know what a "bad" antenna would be -- I never tried
something that was purposely tuned poorly.
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DWENSING(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fire Barrier Caulk |
In a message dated 4/1/02 8:45:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
racox(at)ix.netcom.com writes:
> and it's 3M Fire Barrier Caulk, I think called
> CP-15, about $15 a tube, and would easily do any two of our airplanes.
> It's
The Fire Stop brand is also based on a silicone polymer but with high temp
resistant properties (the red color = iron octoates) and has some ablative
qualities. It form a crusty like surface that help resist the heat. It should
be noted that silicone sealants that are not red have about 100 degrees less
heat resistance. The next best is the black.
Dale Ensing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
It might be you - literally. I have noticed a similar thing on occasion -
concluded it is possible that your body, not being grounded to anything, is
picking up a charge maybe through the Plexiglas by which it is surrounded.
What you might need is a ground strap, maybe banana plug on the end
to....never mind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James J. Varney" <jvarney(at)vfpi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
Hi all.
Here's a link to 3Ms website for their fire penetration sealants.
When heated, it swells and forms a barrier for smoke and fire.
go here:
http://www.3M.com/us/arch_construct/fire/index.jhtml
We use the WB+25 to seal pipe penetrations thru walls.
James J Varney
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Bob,
Any results from your tests on the Galls unit?
Richard Dudley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 installation questions on Z13 |
>
>
>Hi Bob,
>I'm warming up to the idea of having the SD-8 as a auxillary power
>source. All the following questions have to do with Dwg Z13, All
>electric airplane on a budget:
>
>1) In a previous post, you told an RV8 builder that if his battery was
>forward, he could use a 16AWG feeder and 20AWG fusible link for the SD8.
> If the battery was in back, a 12AWG feeder and 16AWG fusible link. My
>RV3 being much shorter will have the battery in back but it will only be
>1 to 2 ft longer than the RV8 at the firewall. Okay to use the smaller
>feeder and link?
It's a coin toss . . . and the benefits of one over the
other would be difficult to observe without measuring
devices. The 16AWG link on the end of the 12AWG needs
to be changed. 20AWG is the right fusible link for both
cases. 12AWG simply helps the regulator work better when
located remotely from the battery.
>2) Re the 50mv-10amp resisters in both alternators field wire: Is this
>for installation of the optional VLM-14 loadmeter or some requirement?
No requirement. These are ammeter shunts used with any
ammeter movement having a 50 mv full scale sensitivity
(industry standard). One is sized for full scale with the
10 amp alternator, the other is sized for a 60 amp alternator.
If your main alternator is some other size -AND- you plan
to have alternator loadmeter presentation in the cockpit,
then resize the larger shunt accordingly.
>3) Re the 18AWG shielded wire from the E.I. switch to the E.I. ( the
>shielding is also grounded to the E.I.): I've not noticed shielded wire
>used for E.I.'s before. Is the 18AWG shielded wire grounded as in Z13
>for both E.I.'s correct?
Some electronic ignition systems come with a shielded
power feedline. If this is your case, ground the shield
a the engine end only. If your system doesn't come with
shielded wire in the harness, ignore the shielding symbolism.
>4) Re the wire from the bus to the E.I. switches: Z28 (dual E.I.
>diagram) uses 20AWG wire and 5A fuses while Z13 uses 18AWG and 3A
>fuses. Which one do you recommend?
Follow the instructions that come with your ignition system.
Those power distribution diagrams are intended to describe
an architecture and operating philosophy and should in no
way be construed as everything you need to know to wire
up your particular choices of hardware.
>5) Re Note 20: Does the regulator supplied with SD8 require a
>battery? I would think the likelyhood of the main alternator failing
>and the battery is fairly remote so maybe this isn't important?
The SD-8 will not come up without a battery. We thought
about this on several occasions and couldn't come up with
a compelling reason to redesign it. That's a purchased
part and we'd have to whomp up a in-house design to make
this feature any different. It would drive up the cost
and we decided that the return on investment was poor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
>
>Hi all.
>Here's a link to 3Ms website for their fire penetration sealants.
>
>When heated, it swells and forms a barrier for smoke and fire.
>
>go here:
>http://www.3M.com/us/arch_construct/fire/index.jhtml
>
>We use the WB+25 to seal pipe penetrations thru walls.
>
>James J Varney
Good data point. Thanks!
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | AeroElectric-battery tester |
| From: | Joel Harding <dsl10driver(at)ev1.net> |
Bob,
I saw a 125 amp battery load tester in the latest Northern tool catalog,
that sells for 40 dollars. The description indicates it can also be used to
test the starter and alternator.
Is this type of tester worth considering?
Joel Harding
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Garfield Willis <garwillis(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
>When heated, it swells and forms a barrier for smoke and fire.
I hope this isn't getting too far afield, but once upon a time Aircraft Spruce
sold an "intumescent" coating targeted not just for firewall penetrations, but
for the ENTIRE firewall. When exposed to fire, this intumescent material swelled
just as James described above, producing an insulative and ablative barrier to
the fire. The idea being to preserve the structural integrity of the entire
firewall.
In your experience at Beech et al, Bob, did you ever see any of this type of
material used on whole firewalls, and what is your feeling on their use?
Overkill or a plausible tradeoff? Anyone ever seen it applied to an
experimental?
Gar Willis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | GNS 430 Remote Com Failure |
In a message dated 04/02/2002 2:53:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "John Harlow"
writes:
<<.....skip......Need some ideas as I feel this may be the cause of my remote
com failing on my Garmin GNS-430. John >>
4/2/2002
Hello John, Can you please tell us more about this failure?
1) What failed?
2) Did you get it fixed?
3) How?
Thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Harlow" <jharlow(at)onearrow.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GNS 430 Remote Com Failure |
Hello John, Can you please tell us more about this failure?
1) What failed?
2) Did you get it fixed?
3) How?
Thanks.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
OC,
I will attempt to explain.
I have a remote com flip/flop on my stick. This a momentary gnd that that
tells the GNS to change freq the same as using the key pad on the face of
the radio. In June of 2001 as I was flying in poor weather and rain when I
received a msg saying my remote com switch is stuck. Lucky for me the key
pad on the radio would still change frequency. I sent the unit back to
Garmin and they confirmed the failure and said they replaced a transistor.
Everything was ok until last month when I was again flying in marginal rainy
weather and again the msg appeared saying the remote com switch was stuck. I
again checked my wiring for a possible stray current that could have caused
the transistor to fail. Garmin again repaired the unit this March and they
can not tell me why this transistor fails. They stated that if the problem
occures again they will replace the radio. I'm firmly convinced there is no
such thing as an issolated incident and the transistor is failing for some
external reason and that's why I came up with the thought that it could be
the static electricity. I'm searching for an answer and even if this is not
the cause of the radio problem I still want to get rid of the static shock.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How to best post the Apr 98 Kitplanes |
article by Jim Weir (altitude encoders)
>
>
>I'm still in the learning mode.
>
>1) I scanned the first page as a .jpg file. Bad side: Turned out 245KB
>with 3 more pages needed. Also, I don't know if Jim can put a link in his
>web page to a .jpg file - anyone know? Good side: No problem with format -
>looks just like the magazine.
>
>2) Today I OCR'd the document - only 23K size for all 4 pages - but totally
>lose the format of the page, meaning, there is no space left for the
>photos - would have to do a "desk top publishing" operation to get the
>picture back in, which I am totally unfamiliar with.
>
>Jim will post the article on his web page when I get it "converted". I know
>a little bit about web page creation - just learning some, don't know much,
>have never included photos.
>
>Anyone care to e-mail me off-list to work on getting this project completed
>so the Kitplanes article on checking altitude encoders can be made available
>on the web (Jim's website - then simply archive an e-mail to the 2 lists
>giving the URL)?
>
>David Carter
If you have the original magazine that I can scan, I'll
be happy to get it into postable form . . . probably
a .pdf file. Drop it in the mail to 6936 Bainbridge Road,
Wichita, KS 67226-1008 and I'll return it to you when
I've got it immortalized in magnetic bits.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
>
>
>I hope this isn't getting too far afield, but once upon a time Aircraft Spruce
>sold an "intumescent" coating targeted not just for firewall penetrations, but
>for the ENTIRE firewall. When exposed to fire, this intumescent material
>swelled
>just as James described above, producing an insulative and ablative barrier to
>the fire. The idea being to preserve the structural integrity of the entire
>firewall.
>
>In your experience at Beech et al, Bob, did you ever see any of this type of
>material used on whole firewalls, and what is your feeling on their use?
>Overkill or a plausible tradeoff? Anyone ever seen it applied to an
>experimental?
>
>Gar Willis
I don't think anything like that has been used
on products here in Wichita . . . but I'm a sparkie
and don't get to see EVERYTHING that goes on. As
near as I can recall, every firewall I've seen
here was bare metal.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery tester |
>
>Bob,
>I saw a 125 amp battery load tester in the latest Northern tool catalog,
>that sells for 40 dollars. The description indicates it can also be used to
>test the starter and alternator.
>Is this type of tester worth considering?
I've seen those critters and their cousins in various
catalogs and in places like Harbor Freight. Some of
them looked pretty good as LOAD testers . . . but every
time you crank your engine, you load test the battery.
The REAL secret to expose is the battery's CAPACITY
which takes a different measurement for energy contained.
I'm working on a product for a client that shall have to
remain nameless for the moment wherein the core device
is a microprocessor based total energy calculator
and display driver. The processor sells for under
$2 in reasonably small production quantities . . . I
may be able to port this development over into a calibrated
battery energy measurement device to sell on our website.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miles McCallum" <milesm(at)avnet.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
>
> >
> >
> >I hope this isn't getting too far afield, but once upon a time Aircraft
Spruce
> >sold an "intumescent" coating targeted not just for firewall
penetrations, but
> >for the ENTIRE firewall. When exposed to fire, this intumescent material
> >swelled
> >just as James described above, producing an insulative and ablative
barrier to
> >the fire. The idea being to preserve the structural integrity of the
entire
> >firewall.
> >
> >In your experience at Beech et al, Bob, did you ever see any of this type
of
> >material used on whole firewalls, and what is your feeling on their use?
> >Overkill or a plausible tradeoff? Anyone ever seen it applied to an
> >experimental?
> >
I have to say that this is getting a bit "can't see the wood for the
trees" - the fact of the matter is that if you have a FWF fire, you need to
either get it out ASAP - shut down the fuel and the engine, and increase
speed to make too lean a mixture for combustion - even if it means a
vertical dive - OR - get on the ground as fast as possible.
If a fire lasts long enough to get past bulkhead fittings, threaten the
stuctural integrity of the firewall, or whatever, it'll be too late...
Interesting thread, though.
Miles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Casey" <glcasey(at)adelphia.net> |
<>
Very interesting. Now I wonder if the momentary-contact switch is grounded
right to the stick or is there a wire that goes back to the radio for the
return path. I understand that the control rods can act like static wicks
and pick up a charge themselves The typical pivots, being lubricated, don't
guarantee a ground, especially with a plastic airplane. My thought is that
the stick picks up a charge from the ailerons/elevators and with the switch
grounded to the stick, when you push the button, zaps it into the radio.
Because you are hanging onto the stick, you pick up the same voltage,
causing the static discharge when you touch a ground. Possible? I have
been tempted to ground all my control rods and lead the grounds to a common
central point. This would entail putting a ground "jumper" across each
pivot. Would this be a good idea? Speaking of static discharges, I have a
grounded metal tube for a fuel level sensor that extends from the wing root
out most of the way in the fuel tank. There is another metal tube that goes
from the wingtip back to the tank for a vent. The gap between the two is
maybe 20 inches (in other Lancairs the gap is only about 6 inches or so).
I'm worried about a charge building up on the wingtip, seeking a path to
ground and finding it inside the fuel tank. My plan is to ground the fuel
vent line. Should I be worried about this? (I can't remember where I saw
this, but I remember a service bulletin or something that said to remove the
chain from the fuel cap of Cessnas as they can pick up a static charge and
arc inside the tank)
Gary Casey
Lancair ES kit
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: firewall penetrations |
I went to the web site listed below and started reading. I
want to offer some cautions.
Before using these materials, it's probably very important
to read the limitations on each. For instance, many of the
silicone sealants (I didn't read all of them) specify two things
that may reduce their effectiveness for our usage:
-Do not use in contact with materials that extrude oil such as...
(Gee, their's oil all over the inside of a firewall...)
-Do not use in unventalated areas... (as they need normal
room humidity to cure -- wonder what the stuff on the
inside of a pipe would do)
The Fire Barrier CP 25WB+ Caulk has this limitation:
-Continuous Operating Temperature not to exceed 120F.
Anyone know how warm our firewall area is normally going to be?
Note that FireDam Interam 150 Caulk listed no limitations. I
don't know if that's because this particular page is just brief
or if it's really that superior. However, FireDam 150+ Acrylic
Latex Caulk has a very similar name on the front page --
the Acrylic Latex part shows up on the spec sheet -- and has
the same oil limitation listed above plus some distaste for
water.
I emailed 3m technical support to see what they may have to say.
-Joe
>
> Hi all.
> Here's a link to 3Ms website for their fire penetration sealants.
>
> When heated, it swells and forms a barrier for smoke and fire.
>
> go here:
> http://www.3M.com/us/arch_construct/fire/index.jhtml
>
> We use the WB+25 to seal pipe penetrations thru walls.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>Bob,
>
>Any results from your tests on the Galls unit?
>
>Richard Dudley
Yes. I've got your flasher boxed up and
ready to mail back. I'll post a drawing
as another option in the wig-wag section
of the articles page. Got a lot of balls
in the air right now. Should be able to get
to it pretty soon tho. Basically, the best
way I see to use this particular flasher
is wire it like the instructions say and
use the switch built into the front of
the flasher assembly to control the
wig-wag mode.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO(at)rac.ca> |
| Subject: | Aircraft antennas for homebuilts |
" Do you know a ham operator? He/she might know or could ask around for
someone local who has an MFJ-259 antenna analyzer and knows how to use it."
That's the real answer..... Hams are amateurs - that is,
professionals who don't/can't charge for their services. The local AmRad
club should be the first target for an aircraft antenna test. Why? Because
most are infused with 'old boys' who delight in making their avocation
obvious - public service (in NA anyway), because they are 'cousins' in the
homebuilt field and because they probably are curious about your aircraft.
If you approach the rpoblem as a challenge, they'll likely jump at it. Try
them, you'll like them. Try: www.arrl.org/FandES/field/club/clubsearch.phtml
"I used to be a ham operator -- 20 some years ago while I was in high
school. We all had something called a SWRmeter. This is a simple
instrument that sits inline of your coax to your antenna and measures the
standing wave ratio when you transmit."
Many built their own - but like computors, Rutan, and email,
much has changed. An antenna analyzer is several hundred dollars and not
everyone can afford one, so many clubs share it as club equipment - which
comes with a Ham - these are delicate instruments - not for tyros. And when
it's done, no cleanup, no leftover tools, no bottomline stuff.
Cheers, Ferg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lhdodge1(at)mmm.com |
22, 2000) at 04/03/2002 09:17:27 AM
1. I read the connector section of the AEC manual (version 9). Looking for
a low cost alternative for connecting the fuse wiring to the wing wiring, I
came across some spade type connectors that have insulator extensions over
the metal parts, and when connected, completely cover the metal parts with
overlapping insulators. They are very difficult to get apart. Any reason
these won't work for the fuse/wing connections?
2. Some of my wires going to the wing tip will be shielded. What is a good
way to shield the connection above, or is it even necessary?
Regards,
Larry Dodge
lhdodge1(at)mmm.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Carter" <dcarter(at)datarecall.net> |
| Subject: | Re: How to best post the Apr 98 Kitplanes article |
by Jim Weir (altitude encoders)
Thanks for the suggestions. We'll go for .pdf. Hard copy of the article is
going in the mail today to Bob Nuckolls.
Bob, will you send the file via e-mail direct to Jim Weir at
jim@rst-engr.com? He's already said he'd post it to his web site just under
his 1999-current article links. Thanks a lot. (copy of this e-mail sent to
Jim Weir for his "heads up" to expect it.)
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How to best post the Apr 98 Kitplanes
article by Jim Weir (altitude encoders)
> If you have the original magazine that I can scan, I'll
> be happy to get it into postable form . . . probably
> a .pdf file. Drop it in the mail to 6936 Bainbridge Road,
> Wichita, KS 67226-1008 and I'll return it to you when
> I've got it immortalized in magnetic bits.
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: battery tester |
| From: | Joel Harding <dsl10driver(at)ev1.net> |
The processor sells for under
> $2 in reasonably small production quantities . . . I
> may be able to port this development over into a calibrated
> battery energy measurement device to sell on our website.
>
> Bob . . .
Thanks for the insight Bob, and sign me up for one of yours, it sounds like
a great product.
Joel Harding
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald A. Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
"AeroElectric-List Digest List"
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 04/02/02 |
This month's issue of Light Plane Maintenance has a decent article on using
relatively inexpensive Ham radio gear for simple checks in your airplane's
avionics.
It discusses exactly these issues, some of the available equipment, where
you might find it, and a little on how to use it.
Ron
> I used to be a ham operator -- 20 some years ago while
> I was in high school. We all had something called a SWR
> meter. This is a simple instrument that sits inline of your
> coax to your antenna and measures the standing wave
> ratio when you transmit. It's been a LONG time, but as
> I recall, an imperfectly-tuned antenna will bounce-back
> some of your signal to you. If the antenna is perfectly
> tuned to the frequency, there's no bounce back. Sorry, but
> I'd have to go find my old ham books for a better description.
>
> My points -- first, every operating ham probably has one of
> these. Next, they weren't all that expensive.
---------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronald A. Cox" <racox(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 19 Msgs - 04/02/02 |
Hey, youcallin' him a capacitor?
Seriously, though, would this be a place where one of those wrist-ground
straps electronic/computer techs use when working on CMOS devices might
work?
Basically it's a large resistor connected to a wrist strap containing a
little metal contact touching the skin. (I've seen them at CompUSA in the
accessories department for about $3.)
This is supposed to safely (in case of a high-voltage contact) bleed off
static charge so it doesn't fry your expensive electronics. Seems like one
could ground the end of it to the metal parts you're getting zapped by...
Just a thought.
Ron
>
> < everytime I touched the radio on my panel.>>
>
> It might be you - literally. I have noticed a similar thing on occasion -
> concluded it is possible that your body, not being grounded to anything,
is
> picking up a charge maybe through the Plexiglas by which it is surrounded.
> What you might need is a ground strap, maybe banana plug on the end
> to....never mind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing root connectors |
>
>1. I read the connector section of the AEC manual (version 9). Looking for
>a low cost alternative for connecting the fuse wiring to the wing wiring, I
>came across some spade type connectors that have insulator extensions over
>the metal parts, and when connected, completely cover the metal parts with
>overlapping insulators. They are very difficult to get apart. Any reason
>these won't work for the fuse/wing connections?
Why not knife splices? These are readily available in
PIDG style insulation grips and offered from our website
catalog. I DID find that Waldom/Molex now offers an Avicrimp
version of the male fast-on tab. I believe this is the
product offered on terminaltown.com
But then why splice at all? I'm flying airplanes that are
over 30 years old and never have had the wings off. Connectors
are a good thing for wires that need frequent opening . . .
but once every 30 years may not qualify.
If it were my airplane, I'd not run wires into the fuselage
until the wings had been bolted on for the last time.
Then, I would put a service loop of about 8" slack wire
so that when and if the wings were pulled, there would
be plenty of slack to insert butt splices - MUCH more
reliable than any connector. 8" slack would accommodate
a dozen pull-replace cycles on the wings.
>2. Some of my wires going to the wing tip will be shielded. What is a good
>way to shield the connection above, or is it even necessary?
If coax cable, then use cable male/female
connectors to close the gap in the 8" slack AFTER
you've pulled the wings for the first time.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#s605cf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/antenna/antenna.html#s605cm
For strobe cables, split out the strands with
enough exposed conductor to put them back together
with splices . . . treat the shield ground as
a 4th conductor. It's unlikely that this short
section of exposed wire will become any kind of
noise issue. A somewhat "tighter" joint could
be made with nylon connectors.
See p/n 274-229 and 274-239 connectors from
Radio Shack. This 9-pin product would probably
take care of all the wires going to the wing
except antenna coax. You need a tool like our
BCT-1 to install the nylon connectors. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/tools/tools.html#bct-1
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Apr 98 Kitplanes article by Weir |
>
>
>Thanks for the suggestions. We'll go for .pdf. Hard copy of the article is
>going in the mail today to Bob Nuckolls.
>
>Bob, will you send the file via e-mail direct to Jim Weir at
>jim@rst-engr.com? He's already said he'd post it to his web site just under
>his 1999-current article links. Thanks a lot. (copy of this e-mail sent to
>Jim Weir for his "heads up" to expect it.)
Sure . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
>
>Bob,
> The other day (on one of these lists) someone was writing about a
>"Nova 90 watt, 6 outlet multiflash strobe power supply". It's specs are
>Input voltage--------------10 to 30 vdc
>Input current----------------8.5 A @ 12.8v, 4.2 A @ 25.6 v
>Input power--------------110 watts
>Output power-------------90 watts
>Output energy------------80 joules
>double flash-------------170 flashes/min.
>quad flash----------------140 f/m
>quintiple flash----------140 f/m
>mega flash---------------140 f/m
> Do you know anything about these units ?
Not specifically. I can tell you that there are
tons of strobe products that put out as much or
more light per flash than any those sprinkled with
holy water. Being an experimental airplane, I
think there is justification for substituting
an alternative product if you're prepared to
show equal-to-or-better-than performance.
Get a photographers light meter that will
measure flash output. Do a spherical survey
of an installed certified product and then
use the same instrument to show that your
installed alternative is at least as good.
Using the same instrument gets past calibration
issues since all you're trying to demonstrate is
that what you've done didn't compromise performace
compared to the blessed system.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary battery too |
?
Bob,
Last week end I e-mailed my building buddy a copy of figure 17.6 on dual
battery installation from your book.
We are trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for our electrically
dependant engine kit.
He came up with questions I couldn't answer :
Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
battery contactors are open ?
What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
battery).
Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via the
diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
recommendations)
Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
Thanks
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
Thanks, Bob.
RHDudley
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >Any results from your tests on the Galls unit?
> >
> >Richard Dudley
>
> Yes. I've got your flasher boxed up and
> ready to mail back. I'll post a drawing
> as another option in the wig-wag section
> of the articles page. Got a lot of balls
> in the air right now. Should be able to get
> to it pretty soon tho. Basically, the best
> way I see to use this particular flasher
> is wire it like the instructions say and
> use the switch built into the front of
> the flasher assembly to control the
> wig-wag mode.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gabe and Marisol Ferrer" <ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Lights Dimmer |
Bob:
* I presently have the following connected to a single lights dimmer:
Compass, panel light, map light, autopilot, audio panel, GPS moving map,
transponder, EIS, radio, CDI
* All the lights in the instruments dim in unison as the dimmer is
adjusted. But some instrument lights are much brighter than others.
* Can a resistor be inserted in series in some of the instrument to
reduce their brightness?
* Is there a better way to customize the brightness level of each
instrument without using a dimmer for each instrument?
Thanks
Gabe A Ferrer
ferrergm(at)bellsouth.net
Cell: 561 758 8894
Night or FAX: 561 622 0960
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton(at)cyberus.ca> |
| Subject: | Switch guard P/N? |
I'm looking for the correct MS part number for a generic red switch
guard for toggle switches. I've got a MS25224-1 guard in my hand,
but it doesn't quite do what I want. I've found vendors with other
dash-numbers, but I can't find a picture so I can sort out which one
will work.
Summary - I need one like the MS25224-1, but with the switch key way
on the other end.
More detail - I need a switch guard for the common toggle switches
that mount in a 15/32 hole. The key in the switch will be next to
the hinge in the guard. The guard will force the switch handle away
from the key when it is snapped down. Make sense?
Thanks,
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BAKEROCB(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 04/03/2002 2:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest(at)matronics.com "Gary Casey"
writes:
<< ....skip....What you might need is a ground strap, maybe banana plug on
the end
to....never mind.>>
Hello Gary, I've made up the personal grounding strap like you suggested and
now I can't figure out where to stick the banana plug.
'OC' Baker, Builder of KIS TR-1 #116 4/14/97 - ?/?/?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: static shock |
BAKEROCB(at)aol.com wrote:
> << ....skip....What you might need is a ground strap, maybe banana plug on
> the end
> to....never mind.>>
>
> Hello Gary, I've made up the personal grounding strap like you suggested and
> now I can't figure out where to stick the banana plug.
>
*** Did you make the cord long enough? Remember, it depends on the service
ceiling and cruise range of your airplane.
- Jerry Kaidor ( jerry(at)tr2.com )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Switch guard P/N? |
>
>I'm looking for the correct MS part number for a generic red switch
>guard for toggle switches. I've got a MS25224-1 guard in my hand,
>but it doesn't quite do what I want. I've found vendors with other
>dash-numbers, but I can't find a picture so I can sort out which one
>will work.
>
>Summary - I need one like the MS25224-1, but with the switch key way
>on the other end.
>
>More detail - I need a switch guard for the common toggle switches
>that mount in a 15/32 hole. The key in the switch will be next to
>the hinge in the guard. The guard will force the switch handle away
>from the key when it is snapped down. Make sense?
Yup . . . but it may not exist. There wasn't any industry-wide
convention for where the keyway was located with respect to
un-symmetrical switch functions when the cover was designed.
Sooooo . . . when switches with spring loaded operations to
one side came along you could find situations where the guard
base keyway was on the wrong side.
I have done two things. (1) Use a keyway washer on the back side
of the panel to maintain anti-rotation for the switch -and-
file the keyway tab off the cover base. Then either bond the
cover base to the panel or drill a hole through the cover
base to accept it's own anti rotation device . . . say a
4-40 or 2-56 screw. If clearance between the back of the
panel and the switch housing is tight, use a flat-head
2-56 countersunk from the back side and put the nut on the
front. It doesn't take much. (2) If your
keyway washer has a long enough panel tab, then you may be
able to file the keyway tab off the switch guard, drill
a hole through the base to accommodate the panel tab
on the keyway washer, and mount the keyway washer on the
FRONT under the switch nut. The panel tab extends through
the guard base and into a matching hole in the panel.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary battery |
too ?
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob,
>
>Last week end I e-mailed my building buddy a copy of figure 17.6 on dual
>battery installation from your book.
>We are trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for our electrically
>dependant engine kit.
>
>He came up with questions I couldn't answer :
>
>Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
>battery contactors are open ?
The only time you need two batteries is if you have an electrically
dependent engine (EFI, dual electronic ignition, etc) and one
alternator. Then, the reason for the second battery is to support
the redundancy of accessories needed to keep the engine running.
>What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
>AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
Why would you force your main battery to give up?
>(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
>when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
>battery).
In a certified airplane . . or a clone of a certified
airplane - no doubt.
Further, his battery had probably languished in some dark, hot,
hard to get at place in the airplane for years - never got checked
for capacity and perhaps had been run flat a few times because
the master switch was left on.
Batteries don't "fail" because they're capricious or
obtuse, they fail because we've expected them to perform
under conditions far beyond their capabilities to support
and then blamed the battery for our misfortune and lack of
understanding.
>Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via the
>diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
>(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
>and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
>recommendations)
Then you are worrying about something that need not be worried
about. The second battery is there only if your engine support
is all-electric and you don't have a second engine driven
power source. With the yearly swap-out, your battery(s)
can be expected to be there when needed.
>Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
Just insurance against a pink elephant invasion. . .
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch guard P/N? |
Hey Kevin , the correct MS # for the switch gaurd w/ the tab on the
hinge side is "MS25224-3" . I have several - was'nt planning on selling but
let me know if you can't find elsewhere . Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat |
tery too ?
Gilles, All,
I am building a dual battery system with dual EI. I am using 2-10 switches to
create an "off-BattA-BattB" switch. I use three of these switches to control
Essential bus, Left and Right Ignition. This forms the heart of my electrical
safety net. The battery connections are made at the 2 battery busses. I have
arranged 5 switches in a tight row: BattAMaster,BattBMaster,EssenBus,LeftIgn,RightIgn.
Normal flight is with them all up. When they are all down the airplane
is completely powered down. There are guard tabs on either end of this row of
switches as well as a tab seperating the 2 ignition switches. A rod can be passed
through the guard tabs to "safety lock" all of the switches down. It has
a neat and functional appearance and for me is very easy to understand. You can
easily work the row of switches with one hand without looking. I have the
left and right ignition switches set up so that when they are in the up positions
one is connected to battery A and the other to B!
. The battery masters also connect the alternator ala aeroelectric.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: gilles.thesee [mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary
battery too ?
Bob,
Last week end I e-mailed my building buddy a copy of figure 17.6 on dual
battery installation from your book.
We are trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for our electrically
dependant engine kit.
He came up with questions I couldn't answer :
Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
battery contactors are open ?
What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
battery).
Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via the
diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
recommendations)
Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
Thanks
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch guard P/N? |
In a message dated 4/3/2002 9:32:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
khorton(at)cyberus.ca writes:
> Summary - I need one like the MS25224-1, but with the switch key way
> on the other end.
>
Hey Kevin , 2 other points on that elusive switch guard : (1) That same
Mil Spec # I gave you is available from Cutler Hammer as P/N 8497K3 & (2)
Dexter Wilson makes the same thing that takes up a little less panel space ,
the P/N (in black) is 406-122 . So a check w/ them should be able to come up
w/ a P/N in red . They're at "www.sales@dexter-wilson.com . Good Luck , Chris
Fleshren .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fletcher Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat |
tery too
John,
Wow, this is exactly how I wired my airplane. One question, though. I,
too, have everything oriented so that with the 5 switches all "up" everything is
in the powered mode. However, when I shut down, I must leave the Ess Bus switch
up (unpowered). If I move this switch down, the Ess Bus
is powered by the alternate feed. My logic, and it may be flawed, is that if the
alternator fails, all I have to do is flip the first 3 switches
down, i.e., Batt A Master off, Batt B Master off, Ess Bus to alternate feed. Actually,
I probably would do it in the reverse order so as to avoid
momentarily unpowering the Ess Bus.
By the way, this arrangement also allows you to start with, say, the A Batt and
have both E.I.'s on the B Batt, in the event you have a PM starter and low battery.
Here, you would simply select both E.I.'s to the B Batt, turn the B Master
off, leave the A Master on, and hit the start button.
Thank God for Bob Nuckolls!
Pat Hatch
RV-4 Flying
RV-6 Firewall Foreward
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat tery
too ?
John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Gilles, All,
I am building a dual battery system with dual EI. I am using 2-10 switches to
create an "off-BattA-BattB" switch. I use three of these switches to control
Essential bus, Left and Right Ignition. This forms the heart
of my electrical safety net. The battery connections are made at the 2 battery
busses. I have arranged 5 switches in a tight row: BattAMaster,BattBMaster,EssenBus,LeftIgn,RightIgn.
Normal flight is with them all up. When they are all down
the airplane is completely powered down. There are guard tabs on either end
of this row of switches as well as a tab seperating the 2 ignition switches.
A rod can be passed through the guard tabs to
"safety lock" all of the switches down. It has a neat and functional appearance
and for me is very easy to understand. You can easily work the row of switches
with one hand without looking. I have the left and right ignition switches
set up so that when they are in the up positions one is connected to battery A
and the other to B!
. The battery masters also connect the alternator ala aeroelectric.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: gilles.thesee [mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary
battery too ?
c-grenoble.fr>
Bob,
Last week end I e-mailed my building buddy a copy of figure 17.6 on dual
battery installation from your book.
We are trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for our electrically
dependant engine kit.
He came up with questions I couldn't answer :
Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
battery contactors are open ?
What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
battery).
Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via the
diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
recommendations)
Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
Thanks
Gilles
=
=
=
c-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Switch guard P/N? |
Chris: Where did you get the MS22524-3 switch guards? Spruce and Wicks
don't list them in their catalogs.
Harry Crosby
Pleasanton, California
RV-6, electrical
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | CBFLESHREN(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Switch guard P/N? |
Hey Harry , if you have time to read evrything you ever wanted to know
about switch gaurds etc . cut & paste :
http://aerospace.eaton.com/powerload/sarcatalog/switches/accessories.pdf
If you want to dive into every other type of Mil Spec " Thing " that Cutler
Hammer (Eaton) makes go to : www.aerospace.eaton.com . And let your
searches begin !!!
Enjoy , Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD <John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil> |
| Subject: | Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat |
tery too
My plan, and it too may be flawed, is to normally fly with the essential buss
switched "up" to battery A. I can't think of any reason to fly with it switched
off. So if things start smoking I simply turn off BattA and BattB masters.
My voltage gage is on my essential buss. By switching the essential buss from
A to B I can read either battery voltage. I can check the function of the 2 isolator
diodes by turning the the E buss off and turning one or the other master
switches on or off. The biggest reason is human factors. All switches up =
normal. All down = off.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Fletcher Hatch [mailto:pat_hatch(at)msn.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary
bat tery too
John,
Wow, this is exactly how I wired my airplane. One question, though. I,
too, have everything oriented so that with the 5 switches all "up" everything is
in the powered mode. However, when I shut down, I must leave the Ess Bus switch
up (unpowered). If I move this switch down, the Ess Bus
is powered by the alternate feed. My logic, and it may be flawed, is that if the
alternator fails, all I have to do is flip the first 3 switches
down, i.e., Batt A Master off, Batt B Master off, Ess Bus to alternate feed. Actually,
I probably would do it in the reverse order so as to avoid
momentarily unpowering the Ess Bus.
By the way, this arrangement also allows you to start with, say, the A Batt and
have both E.I.'s on the B Batt, in the event you have a PM starter and low battery.
Here, you would simply select both E.I.'s to the B Batt, turn the B Master
off, leave the A Master on, and hit the start button.
Thank God for Bob Nuckolls!
Pat Hatch
RV-4 Flying
RV-6 Firewall Foreward
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat tery
too ?
John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Gilles, All,
I am building a dual battery system with dual EI. I am using 2-10 switches to
create an "off-BattA-BattB" switch. I use three of these switches to control
Essential bus, Left and Right Ignition. This forms the heart
of my electrical safety net. The battery connections are made at the 2 battery
busses. I have arranged 5 switches in a tight row: BattAMaster,BattBMaster,EssenBus,LeftIgn,RightIgn.
Normal flight is with them all up. When they are all down
the airplane is completely powered down. There are guard tabs on either end
of this row of switches as well as a tab seperating the 2 ignition switches.
A rod can be passed through the guard tabs to
"safety lock" all of the switches down. It has a neat and functional appearance
and for me is very easy to understand. You can easily work the row of switches
with one hand without looking. I have the left and right ignition switches
set up so that when they are in the up positions one is connected to battery A
and the other to B!
. The battery masters also connect the alternator ala aeroelectric.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: gilles.thesee [mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary
battery too ?
c-grenoble.fr>
Bob,
Last week end I e-mailed my building buddy a copy of figure 17.6 on dual
battery installation from your book.
We are trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for our electrically
dependant engine kit.
He came up with questions I couldn't answer :
Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
battery contactors are open ?
What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
battery).
Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via the
diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
recommendations)
Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
Thanks
Gilles
=
=
=
c-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary battery |
too ?
Bob, thanks for responding.
> >
> >Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
> >battery contactors are open ?
>
> The only time you need two batteries is if you have an electrically
> dependent engine (EFI, dual electronic ignition, etc) and one
> alternator. Then, the reason for the second battery is to support
> the redundancy of accessories needed to keep the engine running.
>
We do have an all electric fuel system and a single alternator
Rotax.
>
> >What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
> >AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
>
> Why would you force your main battery to give up?
My friend has a recent story of a battery failing within months
from new on his last car.
>
> >(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
> >when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
> >battery).
>
> In a certified airplane . . or a clone of a certified
> airplane - no doubt.
Why, er no. T'was on a recent 4 seater kit the same model we are
builing ! But we consider the wiring is not up to the rest of the
airframe. Hence my questions.
(The flaps didn't even have limit switches.)
>
> Further, his battery had probably languished in some dark, hot,
> hard to get at place in the airplane for years - never got checked
> for capacity and perhaps had been run flat a few times because
> the master switch was left on.
The aiplane was only 2 years old. But it is sure the battery did not
get the treatment it deserved.
>
> Batteries don't "fail" because they're capricious or
> obtuse, they fail because we've expected them to perform
> under conditions far beyond their capabilities to support
> and then blamed the battery for our misfortune and lack of
> understanding.
Old tales die hard. My friend has fears about "shorted batteries"
etc.
>
> >Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via
the
> >diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
> >(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
> >and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
> >recommendations)
>
> Then you are worrying about something that need not be worried
> about. The second battery is there only if your engine support
> is all-electric and you don't have a second engine driven
> power source. With the yearly swap-out, your battery(s)
> can be expected to be there when needed.
Understand
>
>
> >Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
>
> Just insurance against a pink elephant invasion. . .
Thanks once again, Bob. I'm forwarding your answer to my buddy.
Cheers
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat |
tery too ?
John
Thank you for your message.
>
> I am building a dual battery system with dual EI. I am using 2-10
switches to create an "off-BattA-BattB" switch. I use three of these
switches to control Essential bus, Left and Right Ignition. This forms the
heart of my electrical safety net. The battery connections are made at the 2
battery busses. I have arranged 5 switches in a tight row:
BattAMaster,BattBMaster,EssenBus,LeftIgn,RightIgn. Normal flight is with
them all up.
My fellow has already bought an ignition key contactor !
Sorry, nothing I could do ;-)
When they are all down the airplane is completely powered down. There are
guard tabs on either end of this row of switches as well as a tab seperating
the 2 ignition switches. A rod can be passed through the guard tabs to
"safety lock" all of the switches down. It has a neat and functional
appearance and for me is very easy to understand. You can easily work the
row of switches with one hand without looking. I have the left and right
ignition switches set up so that when they are in the up positions one is
connected to battery A and the other to B!
Neat arrangement, but isn't there some definite switch sequence to follow in
case something electrical goes wrong ?
We'll try to avoid special manipulations in case of malfunction, except
opening the master switch, and closing the E-bus alt feed.
But of course, our choices are not definitive.
Cheers,
Gilles
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fletcher Hatch" <pat_hatch(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat |
t
OK, I understand. Just seems to me that I remember Bob talking about not feeding
the E Buss from both directions like that. I could be wrong and I can't put
my finger on the reason why either. Bob can you weigh in on this?
If you are right, I see that it would be better to do as you did and I will re-orient
my switch so that "up" is E Buss alternate power on.
Pat Hatch
----- Original Message -----
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary bat tery
too
John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
My plan, and it too may be flawed, is to normally fly with the essential buss
switched "up" to battery A. I can't think of any reason to fly with it switched
off. So if things start smoking I simply turn off BattA and BattB masters.
My voltage gage is on my essential buss. By switching the essential buss from
A to B I can read either battery voltage. I can check the function of the 2 isolator
diodes by turning the the E buss off and turning one or the other master
switches on or off. The biggest reason is human factors. All switches up
normal. All down off.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Fletcher Hatch [mailto:pat_hatch(at)msn.com]
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary
bat tery too
com>
John,
Wow, this is exactly how I wired my airplane. One question, though. I,
too, have everything oriented so that with the 5 switches all "up" everyt
hing is in the powered mode. However, when I shut down, I must leave the
Ess Bus switch up (unpowered). If I move this switch down, the Ess Bus
is powered by the alternate feed. My logic, and it may be flawed, is tha
t if the alternator fails, all I have to do is flip the first 3 switches
down, i.e., Batt A Master off, Batt B Master off, Ess Bus to alternate fe
ed. Actually, I probably would do it in the reverse order so as to avoid
momentarily unpowering the Ess Bus.
By the way, this arrangement also allows you to start with, say, the A Ba
tt and have both E.I.'s on the B Batt, in the event you have a PM starter
and low battery. Here, you would simply select both E.I.'s to the B Bat
t, turn the B Master off, leave the A Master on, and hit the start button
.
Thank God for Bob Nuckolls!
Pat Hatch
RV-4 Flying
RV-6 Firewall Foreward
Vero Beach, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: Livingston John W Civ ASC/ENFD
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary ba
t tery too ?
John.Livingston(at)wpafb.af.mil>
Gilles, All,
I am building a dual battery system with dual EI. I am using 2-10 switc
hes to create an "off-BattA-BattB" switch. I use three of these switches
to control Essential bus, Left and Right Ignition. This forms the heart
of my electrical safety net. The battery connections are made at the 2 ba
ttery busses. I have arranged 5 switches in a tight row: BattAMaster,Batt
BMaster,EssenBus,LeftIgn,RightIgn. Normal flight is with them all up. Whe
n they are all down the airplane is completely powered down. There are gu
ard tabs on either end of this row of switches as well as a tab seperatin
g the 2 ignition switches. A rod can be passed through the guard tabs to
"safety lock" all of the switches down. It has a neat and functional appe
arance and for me is very easy to understand. You can easily work the row
of switches with one hand without looking. I have the left and right ig
nition switches set up so that when they are in the up positions one is c
onnected to battery A and the other to B!
. The battery masters also connect the alternator ala aeroelectric.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: gilles.thesee [mailto:Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary
battery too ?
c-grenoble.fr>
Bob,
Last week end I e-mailed my building buddy a copy of figure 17.6 on dual
battery installation from your book.
We are trying to achieve the best possible arrangement for our electrical
ly
dependant engine kit.
He came up with questions I couldn't answer :
Why is it the e-bus is only fed from the main battery in case the two
battery contactors are open ?
What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
battery).
Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via th
e
diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
recommendations)
Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
Thanks
Gilles
c-list
=
=
=
c-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | deltab(at)erols.com |
| Subject: | Re: battery tester |
Bob,
On this subject I have a West Marine circular advertising a Heart Interface Link
10
Single Battery Bank Monitor. "Tracks DC battery voltage, state of charge in amp-hours,
time discharge, amps removed (*should be amp-hours) and amp-hours remaining."
Something like this? I noticed it a couple days ago because of the similarity
to the
device that monitors battery energy on the ships at work.
<<http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/commerce/command/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=201&prrfnbr=7516&outlet=>>
Bernie C.
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" wrote:
>
>
> The REAL secret to expose is the battery's CAPACITY
> which takes a different measurement for energy contained.
>
> I'm working on a product for a client that shall have to
> remain nameless for the moment wherein the core device
> is a microprocessor based total energy calculator
> and display driver. The processor sells for under
> $2 in reasonably small production quantities . . . I
> may be able to port this development over into a calibrated
> battery energy measurement device to sell on our website.
>
> Bob . . .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Strobes- |
Bob, in the 10th AeroElectric connection you mention a do-it-yourself strobe
article that appeared in Sport Aviation. Do you remember which issue it
was?
Thanks
Tom Glover
RV-7A
I don't recall the issue. I do recall that it had a very
meager light output. There are quite a number of strobe
lighting manufacturers (even Whelen) who produce products
for emergency vehicles that are quite adequate to the
task of marking an airplane and at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost
of a "certified" system. If you're of a mind to hammer
one together from pieces, you might find a commercial
product a better deal.
Goto http://www.galls.com/index.jsp
and fill out a catalog request. You'll get a paper
catalog in the mail with lots more stuff in it than
what you'll find on their website.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
| People are far more willing to pay |
| for being amused than for anything else. |
| -Thomas Edison- |
--------------------------------------------
Bob . . .
--------------------------
TEMPORARY WEBSITE ADDRESS:
http://209.134.106.21
--------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from auxilliary batt |
>
>OK, I understand. Just seems to me that I remember Bob talking about not> feeding
the E Buss from both directions like that. I could be wrong and> I can't
put my finger on the reason why either. Bob can you weigh in on> this?
It doesn't hurt to fly with the e-bus alternate feed switch
ON.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: battery tester |
>
>Bob,
>On this subject I have a West Marine circular advertising a Heart
>Interface Link 10
>Single Battery Bank Monitor. "Tracks DC battery voltage, state of charge
>in amp-hours,
>time discharge, amps removed (*should be amp-hours) and amp-hours remaining."
>
>Something like this? I noticed it a couple days ago because of the
>similarity to the
>device that monitors battery energy on the ships at work.
><<http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/commerce/command/ProductDisplay?prmenbr=201&prrfnbr=7516&outlet=>>
These are popular products for boats and RVs where the user
wants to store LARGE amounts of energy in batteries for
sustained engine-off operation. The battery tester I
was talking about does a similar function but for
discharging only. You clip it onto what you believe to be
a fully charged battery. Come back in a few hours and find
that the device has shut off at 10.5 volts and displays
ampere-hours of output before the shutoff event. I.e.
a true capacity measurement.
There are some very sophisticated battery controls for boats.
I saw one in Baltimore harbor about 10 years ago that discharged
only one battery at a time and automatically switched to a
fresher battery when the first battery voltage fell to a
preset level. This was used an a boat fitted with 3- 200 a.h.
battery arrays. The rational was that most of the wear and tear
was put onto the top battery while the bottom battery may never
get called upon to deliver a deep discharge. When the top battery
capacity fell below some undesirable value, the batteries were
all moved up in hierarchy, the top battery sent to recycle
and a new battery was put in at the bottom.
When the system showed that the bottom battery has been loaded,
the owner knew this was the "best" battery and could begin to
schedule his activities to recharge batteries. The guy I talked
to said he could set at anchor for almost a week if he didn't
run the air-conditioner.
This system was what got me to thinking about swapping
identical batteries between two separate tasks in
the airplane.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why not E-bus alt feed from |
auxilliary battery too ?
>
>
> We do have an all electric fuel system and a single alternator
>Rotax.
With just the fuel pump electrically dependent (Rotax has
independent ignition already) the two fuel pumps running from
a battery bus ought to cut it.
> >
> > >What if after a "smoke-behind-the-panel" episode the master switch is off
> > >AND the main battery gives up the ghost ?
> >
> > Why would you force your main battery to give up?
>
> My friend has a recent story of a battery failing within months
>from new on his last car.
> >
> > >(Happened to a friend last week. Fortunately he was already on the ground
> > >when a mispositioned flap control resulted in some smoke and a dead
> > >battery).
> >
> > In a certified airplane . . or a clone of a certified
> > airplane - no doubt.
>
> Why, er no. T'was on a recent 4 seater kit the same model we are
>builing ! But we consider the wiring is not up to the rest of the
>airframe. Hence my questions.
> (The flaps didn't even have limit switches.)
Opps . . . all bets are off if the system suffers a failure
mode that arises from a system design error. If he jammed a
flap system and didn't open a fuse/breaker and end up killing
the battery, there were far more thing wrong with that airplane
than not having a second battery.
> >
> > Further, his battery had probably languished in some dark, hot,
> > hard to get at place in the airplane for years - never got checked
> > for capacity and perhaps had been run flat a few times because
> > the master switch was left on.
>
> The aiplane was only 2 years old. But it is sure the battery did not
>get the treatment it deserved.
Flooded battery or RG?
> >
> > Batteries don't "fail" because they're capricious or
> > obtuse, they fail because we've expected them to perform
> > under conditions far beyond their capabilities to support
> > and then blamed the battery for our misfortune and lack of
> > understanding.
> Old tales die hard. My friend has fears about "shorted batteries"
>etc.
>
Understand. RG's don't flake off the plates and fill up the
bilge with garbage like an OLD flooded cell will do.
> > >Why not wire the auxilliary battery so that it too feeds the e-bus via
>the
> > >diode, without resorting to a complicated switch combination ?
> > >(We are seriously thinking of installing two batteries of the same model,
> > >and performing the yearly swap, according to the 'Connection
> > >recommendations)
What's a "complicated switch combination"? You've got a DC power master
and an aux battery master . . . but I'm not sure you need a second battery
just to power the fuel pump for a Rotax. Dual pumps but a maintained
RG battery should be plenty of stored snort.
> > Then you are worrying about something that need not be worried
> > about. The second battery is there only if your engine support
> > is all-electric and you don't have a second engine driven
> > power source. With the yearly swap-out, your battery(s)
> > can be expected to be there when needed.
>
> Understand
> >
> >
> > >Is there any drawback we are not aware of ?
> >
> > Just insurance against a pink elephant invasion. . .
>
> Thanks once again, Bob. I'm forwarding your answer to my buddy.
Are you using Facet pumps? These critters draw only about 3A
peak and less than 1A average. Its got to be a very tired battery
that can't pick up either the primary or stand-by pumps in addition
to other duties. Since you'd already signed up to the notion
of buying a new battery every year, why not increase your payload
by 15# and leave the "old" battery on the ground?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard RIley <Richard(at)riley.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Strobes- |
If you want to go the industrial strobe route, search for "whelen" on
Ebay. Some terrific bargains, especially on new but discontinued strobe
power supplies.
>
>
>
>To: "'nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com'"
>
>Bob, in the 10th AeroElectric connection you mention a do-it-yourself strobe
>article that appeared in Sport Aviation. Do you remember which issue it
>was?
>
>Thanks
>
>Tom Glover
>RV-7A
>
> I don't recall the issue. I do recall that it had a very
> meager light output. There are quite a number of strobe
> lighting manufacturers (even Whelen) who produce products
> for emergency vehicles that are quite adequate to the
> task of marking an airplane and at 1/3 to 1/2 the cost
> of a "certified" system. If you're of a mind to hammer
> one together from pieces, you might find a commercial
> product a better deal.
>
> Goto http://www.galls.com/index.jsp
> and fill out a catalog request. You'll get a paper
> catalog in the mail with lots more stuff in it than
> what you'll find on their website.
>
>
> Bob . . .
> --------------------------------------------
> | People are far more willing to pay |
> | for being amused than for anything else. |
> | -Thomas Edison- |
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> --------------------------
> TEMPORARY WEBSITE ADDRESS:
> http://209.134.106.21
> --------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Frank and Dorothy <frankv(at)infogen.net.nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: Strobes- |
At 15:09 5/04/2002, you wrote:
>Bob, in the 10th AeroElectric connection you mention a do-it-yourself strobe
>article that appeared in Sport Aviation. Do you remember which issue it
>was?
I don't know what issue it was in, but I'm pretty sure that it was designed
by Jim Weir. You might want to look at the RST Engineering web site?
I did get one of these built... the flash rate and current draw meant that
it couldn't possibly be as bright as the FAA wants. (Not that that's a
problem for a homebuilt). Also, this is not a project for someone new to
electronics... there's enough energy in the system to kill you.
Frank.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/04/02 |
>
> I did get one of these built... the flash rate and current draw meant that
> it couldn't possibly be as bright as the FAA wants. (Not that that's a
> problem for a homebuilt). Also, this is not a project for someone new to
> electronics... there's enough energy in the system to kill you.
Does anyone know how much power the FAA does want? How many
watts should be going to each strobe? Is there a good place to look this
up?
-Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Lights Dimmer |
>
>
>Bob:
>
>* I presently have the following connected to a single lights dimmer:
>Compass, panel light, map light, autopilot, audio panel, GPS moving map,
>transponder, EIS, radio, CDI
>* All the lights in the instruments dim in unison as the dimmer is
>adjusted. But some instrument lights are much brighter than others.
>* Can a resistor be inserted in series in some of the instrument to
>reduce their brightness?
>* Is there a better way to customize the brightness level of each
>instrument without using a dimmer for each instrument?
>Thanks
Yup . . . you can do about anything with enough money. I designed
a multi-output, independently scheduled lighting controller for
Piper about 20 years ago. It was a 4-output power supply that
provided three 0-24 and one 0-5 volt output capable channels
with min-max potentiometers for each channel. One panel control
knob would run all outputs over their min-max range together.
At that time, we didn't have LED lighting to deal with but we did
have EL, incandescent, plasma and florescent displays on the
same panel. The product came out so expensive that as I recall,
Piper didn't buy any from us (Electro-Mech). I don't know if
they found a less expensive supplier for a similar product or
just stayed with independent dimmers. I do know that there
are multi-output, user scheduled dimming power supplies on
the market today.
I only had to tackle panel dimming synchronization on one
major project (Gates Piaggio GP-180) and it's probably the
hallmark of my career for least favorite tasks. There's
no simple way to do this.
Some builders have taken the twilight/night approach and
wired a multi-pole toggle switch with resistors in each
leg to individually set the minimum intensity for the
"DIM" position and put full bus voltage on the lights
for "BRIGHT" . . . this gives you independent control
of the various lighting technologies with relatively
low cost and effort.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls(at)kscable.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft antennas for homebuilts |
>
> " Do you know a ham operator? He/she might know or could ask around for
>someone local who has an MFJ-259 antenna analyzer and knows how to use it."
> That's the real answer..... Hams are amateurs - that is,
>professionals who don't/can't charge for their services.
. . not necessarily so. They are prohibited from charging for their
message services offered by virtue of their "experimental and educational
use of the airwaves" but they're not prohibited from charging for
technical services. Used to do troubleshooting and repairs for a number
of other hams in my neighborhood when I was a teenager. They were old
enough and smart enough to know that crawling up that tower to tweak
and antenna was much more hazardous than staying on the ground and
watching me do it.
> The local AmRad
>club should be the first target for an aircraft antenna test. Why? Because
>most are infused with 'old boys' who delight in making their avocation
>obvious - public service (in NA anyway), because they are 'cousins' in the
>homebuilt field and because they probably are curious about your aircraft.
>If you approach the rpoblem as a challenge, they'll likely jump at it. Try
>them, you'll like them. Try: www.arrl.org/FandES/field/club/clubsearch.phtml
True . . . over the years I've encountered a number of individual
who automatically scoff at the notion of "amateur radio operators"
having much to offer over a "professional" . . . I had to point out
that every time something is accomplished for the first time, the
individual doing the work is indeed an "amateur" . . . guys like
Chas Kettering and Thomas Edison were professional amateurs.
>"I used to be a ham operator -- 20 some years ago while I was in high
>school. We all had something called a SWRmeter. This is a simple
>instrument that sits inline of your coax to your antenna and measures the
>standing wave ratio when you transmit."
> Many built their own - but like computors, Rutan, and email,
>much has changed. An antenna analyzer is several hundred dollars and not
>everyone can afford one, so many clubs share it as club equipment - which
>comes with a Ham - these are delicate instruments - not for tyros. And when
>it's done, no cleanup, no leftover tools, no bottomline stuff.
>Cheers, Ferg
You need to be a little cautious about some off the shelf SWR
meters used at CB and lower amateur band frequencies. I recall
a project I launched into to build a high gain antenna for
our new repeater installation on KTVH (1500' tower in Hutchinson,
KS). One of the guys working for me at the time was a ham too
and we set out to build what was then about a $400 antenna.
We just assumed that the SWR bridge we used with good results
at 30 Mhz would be good at 146 Mhz. After a weekend of bending
lots of aluminum tubing and cutting coax matching sections, our
SWR bridge said we'd done a good thing . . . after dragging that
thing up to the 1200' platform of the tower, we found out otherwise!
I became a "professional" antenna builder that day.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/04/02 |
FAR 23.1401 lists the regs
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: "Joe Larson" <jpl(at)showpage.org>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/04/02
>
> I did get one of these built... the flash rate and current draw meant that
> it couldn't possibly be as bright as the FAA wants. (Not that that's a
> problem for a homebuilt). Also, this is not a project for someone new to
> electronics... there's enough energy in the system to kill you.
Does anyone know how much power the FAA does want? How many
watts should be going to each strobe? Is there a good place to look this
up?
-Joe
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steven Kay <skay(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 20 Msgs - 04/04/02 |
This is from Whelen's site
3. Aircraft for which type certificate was applied for after July 18, 1977:
These anti-collision systems must produce a minimum of 400 effective candela in
aviation
March 26, 2002 - April 05, 2002
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-as